RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


kdsub -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 7:53:36 AM)

quote:

Butch, empire does not require physical occupation. It is built of alliances with weaker nations who seek protection or other favors


A agree but this merging of common needs is not empire building. They are free to go their own ways when their needs change and many have.

Butch




vincentML -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:00:22 AM)

quote:

In other words the only thing that would exist is the courts, and the law would be enforced by the forming of posses as they were needed rather than a standing corporate police force style army and the insanely growing police state.

Right. Like the James gang or the Pinkertons.

Where have we seen that concept before? Oh Yeh, Gunsmoke! [8|]




vincentML -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:06:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Butch, empire does not require physical occupation. It is built of alliances with weaker nations who seek protection or other favors


A agree but this merging of common needs is not empire building. They are free to go their own ways when their needs change and many have.

Butch

I get it. You are uncomfortable with the word "empire." Call it what you will but the "merging of common needs" was/is dependent upon American economic and military power. Only the Europeans have been able to go their own way, sort of, because of the fall of the Soviet Empire and the formation of the Euro block. Times they are achanging. As the article said: Empires come and go, and when they go it can be messy.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:09:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:


We may not have an "Empire" per se, but we certainly have quite a footprint across the globe via our military.

But only at the behest of the home country. We are there at their invitation and lease. Not by force of arms...Very different than empire building.
Butch


Japan:
    quote:

    After the Japanese surrender in World War II, the United States Armed Forces assumed administrative authority in Japan. The Japanese Imperial Army and Navy were decommissioned, and the US Armed Forces took control of their military bases. The allied countries planned to demilitarize Japan, and the U.S. imposed the Constitution of Japan with a no-armed-force clause in 1947.


I'm going to guess that our bases in Germany weren't by invitation originally, either. Afghanistan? Iraq?

At what point do we sit back and determine if we really need 662 bases and thousands upon thousands of soldiers stationed around the globe?




kdsub -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:11:39 AM)

Just look at all the South American countries that have gone their own way...I am not uncomfortable with Empire... It just does not describe the US in my view. Not compared to the so called Empires of the past. We just have no ambition to rule the world... We just want to hold our standard of living... Different world views completely.

Butch




kdsub -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:16:03 AM)

quote:

I'm going to guess that our bases in Germany weren't by invitation originally, either. Afghanistan? Iraq?


Yes but was the defense of our freedom in WWII, that we tried to stay out of, Empire building... I think not... Are we not willingly giving up our bases in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not the actions of an Empire.

Butch




Powergamz1 -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:18:41 AM)

So attacking a country and losing the war isn't an invitation to have their troops move in?

You aren't seriously shilling for the notion that America caused WWI so that we could expand our military empire to Japan and Germany are you?
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:


We may not have an "Empire" per se, but we certainly have quite a footprint across the globe via our military.

But only at the behest of the home country. We are there at their invitation and lease. Not by force of arms...Very different than empire building.
Butch


Japan:
    quote:

    After the Japanese surrender in World War II, the United States Armed Forces assumed administrative authority in Japan. The Japanese Imperial Army and Navy were decommissioned, and the US Armed Forces took control of their military bases. The allied countries planned to demilitarize Japan, and the U.S. imposed the Constitution of Japan with a no-armed-force clause in 1947.


I'm going to guess that our bases in Germany weren't by invitation originally, either. Afghanistan? Iraq?

At what point do we sit back and determine if we really need 662 bases and thousands upon thousands of soldiers stationed around the globe?





DesideriScuri -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:41:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
So attacking a country and losing the war isn't an invitation to have their troops move in?
You aren't seriously shilling for the notion that America caused WWI so that we could expand our military empire to Japan and Germany are you?


First of all, it would have been WWII, and secondly, I have no idea where you got that idea.

Do we want to be everywhere? Do we or do we not want to be the de facto hegemon? We talk like we don't, but act like we do. Which is it?

662 bases outside of the US or US territories. Do we really need that? Hell, do we really want that?




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:43:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Butch, empire does not require physical occupation. It is built of alliances with weaker nations who seek protection or other favors


A agree but this merging of common needs is not empire building. They are free to go their own ways when their needs change and many have.

Butch



It is when you have a central power or organization.

you can check out anytime you wish but you can never _________.









kdsub -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:51:59 AM)

quote:

662 bases outside of the US or US territories. Do we really need that? Hell, do we really want that?


I agree completely...the US has always felt an obligation to be the worlds policeman. This is different however than Empire building. Time for us to mind our own business, especially now that we are energy independent. Let the world sort its self out but they had better leave us alone. I am all for keeping the strongest military in the world but keep it at home unless attacked.

The isolationist in me... the true me....lol


Butch




DesideriScuri -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 8:56:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

662 bases outside of the US or US territories. Do we really need that? Hell, do we really want that?

I agree completely...the US has always felt an obligation to be the worlds policeman. This is different however than Empire building. Time for us to mind our own business, especially now that we are energy independent. Let the world sort its self out but they had better leave us alone. I am all for keeping the strongest military in the world but keep it at home unless attacked.
The isolationist in me... the true me....lol
Butch


We agree on that.

I'm all for maintaining the strongest military and even helping others in their time of need (primarily disaster recovery). But, if we have to come in to make countries play nice, then heads are going to roll.




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 9:13:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

First of all, it would have been WWII, and secondly, I have no idea where you got that idea.

Do we want to be everywhere? Do we or do we not want to be the de facto hegemon? We talk like we don't, but act like we do. Which is it?

662 bases outside of the US or US territories. Do we really need that? Hell, do we really want that?




I dont mean to be rude here, however its not a question of what "we the people" need. Never was never will be:


quote:

In order to control millions of people totalitarian governments find it necessary to somehow prod their subjects into accepting that which is not true. Intelligent people will naturally see the truth and thereby comprehend when government lies to them - and so that's the rub - how does totalitarian government deal with intelligent people when they must be lied to?

George Orwell provides the answer - intelligent people must be conditioned to reject self-evident truth - to reject the sanity of common sense - to accept the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink - to accept the lie and the truth in their minds simultaneously - "with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

How do Dictatorships lie to intelligent people and get away with it? In the early stages of totalitarianism the use of Orwellian Newspeak is preferred to blatant in-your-face lies because Newspeak is the clever manipulation of words which mean one thing to the speaker and it’s opposite to the listener <---[all law created by dumb acting very smart psychopaths that slices or removes your individual rights comes under this heading] - Newspeak lies thereby tend to confuse or escape the notice of unsuspecting people. For example, government which confiscates middle class property through excessive taxation, while lining their own pockets and redistributing the stolen property to a lazy so-called proletariat class in return for votes, is government deemed to be a provider of "Equity" and "Social Justice." Never mind that equal property outcome destroys the work ethic of both the middle class and the proletariat class leading to economic collapse, and never mind that equal property outcome is a big Orwellian lie because, like the Pigs of Animal Farm, the elite government class empowered to take property ends up with the lion's share of property. [through their never dying agencies and trusts and through violence to insure it remains under the control of the handlers]

Greed and theft by the people who administer totalitarian government cannot be publically identified as greed and theft, so the injustice is called “Social Justice” - Orwellian Newspeak for government greed and theft.

Another example are the Newspeak words "Affirmative Action" - words used to describe the destruction of a student's right to gain graduate school admission based on an out-of-favor ethnic group or skin color - rather than admission based purely on academic achievement and studious preparation.

We also have the phrase "Living Constitution" - Orwellian Newspeak for Dead Constitution.

The "Living Constitution" is law which is not derived from We the People, law not derived from the majority, but law arbitrarily derived from a small minority. The "Living Constitution" does not take its breath of life from the amendment process (the real life and breath of our Constitution) but from the minds of an effete class of "Philosopher Kings."

Newspeak government lies are cleverly disguised in rhetoric - lies which can be received and accepted by otherwise intelligent people via the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink - simultaneous mental acceptance of both the lie and the truth. Taken together, Newspeak lies of totalitarian government and Doublethink insanity on the part of their subjects, rejection of truth within human minds can occur on a colossal scale. Insanity (or psychosis) is the mental state where reality (the truth) cannot be separated from falsehood (the lie). Since totalitarian governments

George Orwell (1903 - 1950)



an interesting study of course is just how this plays out in the big picture.

In other words the subterfuge of 911, waco, murrah, wtc 93, tonkin, and a host of other events play a much more important (subversive) role exercised by those at the helm than meets the lay persons eye.

Everything government has done orinates with a minimum of 2 purposes.

On that will be phased out and die, and another that will survive.

The one that is to our benefit will be phased out to their benefit will live forever.

Its, well, just the way its done, always has been always will be.







mnottertail -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 9:21:16 AM)

What was the alternate bizzaro world to the 0smagna carta?  or the 0scrown having control of america, or 0s91 or 0sworld?




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 9:27:35 AM)

the orwellian concepts work very well on people who are easily fooled or incapable of separating reality from illusion.

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/fed%20reserve/UNITEDKINGDOMDEBTMAP1.jpg[/image]

Some people are able at a glance to add certain fact up, others, well, even a sledge hammer isnt enough.




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 9:31:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

So attacking a country and losing the war isn't an invitation to have their troops move in?

You aren't seriously shilling for the notion that America caused WWI so that we could expand our military empire to Japan and Germany are you?





england and the aristocracies (plural) is at the heart of it but you got that straight up, america did in fact start both world wars.

the common law countries are sworn to allegiance and are banded together. the nut never falls too far from the tree.






WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 10:10:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
you got that straight up, america did in fact start both world wars.

yup & its a straight up 100% proven fact america started world wars three & four too. [8|]




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 10:14:17 AM)

theyre working on it.


on the other hand it is a proven fact the government is a house of cards built purely on fraud and sleight of hand








Zonie63 -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 10:19:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

So attacking a country and losing the war isn't an invitation to have their troops move in?

You aren't seriously shilling for the notion that America caused WWI so that we could expand our military empire to Japan and Germany are you?





england and the aristocracies (plural) is at the heart of it but you got that straight up, america did in fact start both world wars.

the common law countries are sworn to allegiance and are banded together. the nut never falls too far from the tree.


So, you're saying the nut started the world wars and not the tree?




Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 10:32:34 AM)

I am saying the british and america (and a few others) worked hand in hand to start both world wars (and several others) to take over, occupy, or otherwise install their psuedo government.


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/DemocracyWeDeliver_640px_xlarge.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/statist-or-anarchist.jpg[/image]




Zonie63 -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 10:48:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I am saying the british and america (and a few others) worked hand in hand to start both world wars (and several others) to take over, occupy, or otherwise install their psuedo government.



Strictly speaking, though, after World War I, there was no compelling reason or any real need for Britain or America to start a second war. They already won the First World War and had hegemony throughout the world (along with France). Germany was bankrupt and Russia was still reeling from World War, 2 Revolutions, and a Civil War. China was in similar dire straits.

If their goal was to take over the world, they already accomplished that, and, if true, the only reason for the Second World War would be a testament to the incompetence of the Western Allied governments in their inability to maintain their advantage and their hegemony over world affairs.

To me, that fact would indicate that they really weren't trying to build up any world wide empire, because if they wanted that, they could have just taken it - openly and without all the extracurricular falderal of a League of Nations, Kellogg-Briand Pact, Locarno Pact, or any of that stuff. If they were trying to build up an empire, then they botched it pretty badly.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875