Dumbass Hippies

[BrandNewRock05]

Read this
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89174,00.html
Now, does this make any sense to you?

[bossydacow]

"Last year, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, two African nations experiencing ongoing famine, turned down thousands of tons of desperately needed foods, in part because of Europe's ban, in part because of an international propaganda campaign."

Christ.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
"Last year, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, two African nations experiencing ongoing famine, turned down thousands of tons of desperately needed foods, in part because of Europe's ban, in part because of an international propaganda campaign."

Christ.
I think its horrible. The US is trying to help out with perfectly fine food, and these damn ultra-liberal French pussies wont take it. Its fucking retarded.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I think its horrible. The US is trying to help out with perfectly fine food, and these damn ultra-liberal French pussies wont take it. Its fucking retarded.

where did you get the French from?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
where did you get the French from?
European Union. Meaning French. Sure its not just france, but I guarentee you that the French are not saying how wrong it is to block al of that food

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
European Union. Meaning French. Sure its not just france, but I guarentee you that the French are not saying how wrong it is to block al of that food

You're certainly big on the big assumptions.


They've had food scares, so their caution is understandable, but, yeah, the EU is being stupid about it. If there are no proven dangers then there shouldn't be a problem. However, I'm not very knowledgable on GM foods and how many safety tests have been done.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
You're certainly big on the big assumptions.


They've had food scares, so their caution is understandable, but, yeah, the EU is being stupid about it. If there are no proven dangers then there shouldn't be a problem. However, I'm not very knowledgable on GM foods and how many safety tests have been done.
First off, who do leftists blame on western expansion. America. And yes America is at fault, but forget not that Europe plays a part too. My point is, is that people get labels for certain things. If America gets blamed for western expansion, i am going to blame this on france. I am sure France is not innocent in this whole matter, as well as other countries arent either, but I choose to single out France. Am I lying? No.
As for the foods, I have been eating genetically modified foods along with the entire nation for a long time. Not a thing has gone wrong, so its cool with me. Its tough, becuase GM foods make it so they grow better and healthier and keep away bugs and shit. green peace doesnt like that. so in order to keep bugs and shit away you need pesticides, green peace doenst like that either. doesnt really make sense to me

[evil zach]

I tend to try and stay away from GM foods...I don't know if any studys have been done on the long term effects, and I don't want to take any chances

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by evil zach
I tend to try and stay away from GM foods...I don't know if any studys have been done on the long term effects, and I don't want to take any chances

theres been lots of them preformed by both the EU, the USA, and Japan.........and in every case there has been how harm found..........this is just a game being played by the EU and the French (who basically control the EU) to keep competition out of Europe.........i think its time that we return the favor...........

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
..this is just a game being played by the EU and the French (who basically control the EU) to keep competition out of Europe THANK YOU! See, the French are evil

[evil zach]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
theres been lots of them preformed by both the EU, the USA, and Japan.........and in every case there has been how harm found..........this is just a game being played by the EU and the French (who basically control the EU) to keep competition out of Europe.........i think its time that we return the favor...........
I still wonder, how can they really test the long term effects? the technology hasn't been around that long

[NOFXdesendents5]

Originally posted by evil zach
I still wonder, how can they really test the long term effects? the technology hasn't been around that long

its very similar to botox injections and laser eye surgery. it has been around long enough to test, but short enough to still think about long term affects.

[trogdor]

Although I dont think temporary food aid will solve any problems with underdeveloped countries, its the least we can do to help.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
THANK YOU! See, the French are evil

i didn't really say they (france) were evil..........but i would probably go so far as to say that about the EU..............

[billcom6]

the real problem is "organic" foods
organic fields can only produce 1/3 the amount of food of fields that use pesticides
if every farmer turned "organic" everybody would be fucked

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i didn't really say they (france) were evil..........but i would probably go so far as to say that about the EU..............
France is evil. Its that simple. And GM foods are harmless, you probably eat them without even knowing, I am sure some extremely strange people can completely avoid them, and I'm sure it doesnt hurt to avoid them, but I have a feeling it doesnt hurt to eat them either. We're all gonna die some day anyway, right? Might as well enjoy the food you eat while you're here instead of sticking to organic spinach.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
France is evil. Its that simple. And GM foods are harmless, you probably eat them without even knowing, I am sure some extremely strange people can completely avoid them, and I'm sure it doesnt hurt to avoid them, but I have a feeling it doesnt hurt to eat them either. We're all gonna die some day anyway, right? Might as well enjoy the food you eat while you're here instead of sticking to organic spinach.

If you said Nazi Germany was evil, I might let it slide, but you can't generalize like that and say that the entire country of France is evil. It's not that simple, it's actually fairly complex.

And yes, "we're all gonna die some day anyway", but I'd prefer to die at an old age, free of disease and pain. I stay away from genetically modified food, the research in this field is new and tentative. Tobacco was only revealed to have carcinogenic properties in the late 60's, though we had the resources to identify it as such for years before that.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
If you said Nazi Germany was evil, I might let it slide, but you can't generalize like that and say that the entire country of France is evil. It's not that simple, it's actually fairly complex.

And yes, "we're all gonna die some day anyway", but I'd prefer to die at an old age, free of disease and pain. I stay away from genetically modified food, the research in this field is new and tentative. Tobacco was only revealed to have carcinogenic properties in the late 60's, though we had the resources to identify it as such for years before that.
France is evil. Thats that.
And I really dont want to live past 75, so I am going to eat what i want. my philosophy

[evil zach]

so its OK for you to say france is evil, but its not OK for the french to say that america is imperalist?
Holy double standard batman

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
so its OK for you to say france is evil, but its not OK for the french to say that america is imperalist?
Holy double standard batman
its fine for them to say it, but its also fine for me to want them dead. they are evil for calling the us an imperialist nation, when in fact we are far from imperialistic

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
its fine for them to say it, but its also fine for me to want them dead. they are evil for calling the us an imperialist nation, when in fact we are far from imperialistic

So the US occupation is different than the British occupation...how?

American isn't old school imperialistic like Spain and England, but there are some parallels.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
So the US occupation is different than the British occupation...how?

American isn't old school imperialistic like Spain and England, but there are some parallels.
imperialism is fighting wars to expand your territory, your borders. we fight wars to free people from oppression and secure global welfare, thats not imperialism

[evil zach]

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

the US fits that definition perfectly

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
imperialism is fighting wars to expand your territory, your borders. we fight wars to free people from oppression and secure global welfare, thats not imperialism
This war was over WMDs. The bit about freeing the Iraqi's was thrown in when it was clear that the WMD's didn;t exist

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

the US fits that definition perfectly
how

[Ronin]

Originally posted by evil zach
This war was over WMDs. The bit about freeing the Iraqi's was thrown in when it was clear that the WMD's didn;t exist

They had the whole "freeing Iraqis" going from the beginning to help justify the war.

Hence "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

i.e. they knew they had to put some more meat on their case

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
how

"economic and political hegemony over other nations."

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
This war was over WMDs. The bit about freeing the Iraqi's was thrown in when it was clear that the WMD's didn;t exist
the war was about both wmd's, which have not been proven to not exist, and about freeing iraq from saddam's reign. why do you suppose it was called opeperation iraqi freedom by all of the LIBERAL press?

[evil zach]

he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
"economic and political hegemony over other nations."
again, explain how the us fits into there

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
the war was about both wmd's, which have not been proven to not exist, and about freeing iraq from saddam's reign. why do you suppose it was called opeperation iraqi freedom by all of the LIBERAL press?
because thats the name the operation was given. And I'm sure even you have noticed how much the focus has changed from the WMDs to "liberation" of the iraqis

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
because thats the name the operation was given. And I'm sure even you have noticed how much the focus has changed from the WMDs to "liberation" of the iraqis
there is no proof that there is not wmd's. and it was "iraqi freedom" from the get-go.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
again, explain how the us fits into there

How many puppet regimes/dictatorships has the US helped to set up (Noriega)? How many revolutions have they helped finance in order to gain political stability in a region (Iran, which blew up in their face just like Iraq will)? There are more examples, but those are the two that most readily come to mind. Oh yes, and Pinochet.

You've said yourself that having American troops in the middle east adds stability to the region. That stability is good for the US, yes? Do you think they would have gone in if it wouldnt have some benefit inherent for themselves?

[evil zach]

yes, but even recently, the focus has shifted drasitcly

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
yes, but even recently, the focus has shifted drasitcly
i beg to differ, it has always been operation iraqi freedom, and one could argue that with the so far no-show on the WMD's that the liberals and the liberal press have pressured the US to find it, so if anything i think the focus has shitfted towards wmds

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
i beg to differ, it has always been operation iraqi freedom, and one could argue that with the so far no-show on the WMD's that the liberals and the liberal press have pressured the US to find it, so if anything i think the focus has shitfted towards wmds
The shift from conservative policans has gone more towards the liberation of iraq

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
The shift from conservative policans has gone more towards the liberation of iraq
thats semi-fair, but i believe the focus has always been on liberating iraq along with wmds for the conservative side

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
How is the U.S affected economically by this war. What will we be getting from this war to improve us economically?

Whatever leader/dictator gets into power, is definitely going to have some good feelings towards the US, no? Besides the fact that I personally believe the US will essentially install someone(but we'll forego that for argument's sake)

So the new leader,he likes the US. He gives the US a lot more access to his country than Saddam did (i.e. he gives them access in the first place). The US will probably maintain a military base in the region (to ensure stability of couse) and you cannot deny that they will have newfound access to Iraqi oil. It give the US another foothold in the region (besides Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel) and gives them more leverage when dealing with any middle easter powers.

Those are some reasons that pop off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many many more.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
So the US occupation is different than the British occupation...how?

American isn't old school imperialistic like Spain and England, but there are some parallels.

France is the last nation that should call anyone imperialistic, they still have "colonies" in south amercia, the carribean, and africa, and if not for their colonly in Indo-China there would not have been a Veitnam war...they need to look in the mirror

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Whatever leader/dictator gets into power, is definitely going to have some good feelings towards the US, no? Besides the fact that I personally believe the US will essentially install someone(but we'll forego that for argument's sake)

So the new leader,he likes the US. He gives the US a lot more access to his country than Saddam did (i.e. he gives them access in the first place). The US will probably maintain a military base in the region (to ensure stability of couse) and you cannot deny that they will have newfound access to Iraqi oil. It give the US another foothold in the region (besides Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel) and gives them more leverage when dealing with any middle easter powers.

Those are some reasons that pop off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many many more.


would you not favor a country that sacrificed the lives of their soldiers for your freedom, over counties that were attmepting to support a brutal dictator? i would agree that putting someone in power that will do our bidding isn't the right thing to do, but if the person in charge favors america i have no problem with that.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
France is the last nation that should call anyone imperialistic, they still have "colonies" in south amercia, the carribean, and africa, and if not for their colonly in Indo-China there would not have been a Veitnam war...they need to look in the mirror
And one could argue that imperealism is also avoiding a war to sustain economic benifits. So, in my mind France is a much more of an imperialistc nation than the US.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
And one could argue that imperealism is also avoiding a war to sustain economic benifits. So, in my mind France is a much more of an imperialistc nation than the US.

When was the last time the French Army invaded another nation?

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
When was the last time the French Army invaded another nation? http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18819

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18819

(exceprts)

PARIS, Jun 17 (IPS) - France is looking to spread its influence in Africa through peacekeeping operations, analysts say

In the latest mission, about a thousand French soldiers arrived in Bunia, in the north-east of Congo earlier this month as a part of a UN (United Nations) force that aims to halt the ethnic war in the region.

The French military intervened in Liberia last week to evacuate about 600 Western citizens after violence threatened capital Monrovia.


Not really the same thing as the US invasion of Iraq. But I was really interested in the info about the French army in Rwanda, not good stuff.

[evil zach]

Nobody said frances hands are clean. Yes they are hypocrites for calling the US impiralist. Personally I think they should lead by example and give up their over seas territory. But that dosn't change the fact that the US is imperialist as well.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
Nobody said frances hands are clean. Yes they are hypocrites for calling the US impiralist. Personally I think they should lead by example and give up their over seas territory. But that dosn't change the fact that the US is imperialist as well.
Yes, becase of all of those south american colonies we have, wait no. Ah, the African colonies we have, wait no. You must be talking about the eastern asia colonies we have, wait no. Explain impealism again.

[evil zach]

Ugh! fine, I'll post it again
Originally posted by evil zach
im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
Ugh! fine, I'll post it again and explain to me how the US fits in that?

[evil zach]

go back and read the definition of hegemony

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Yes, becase of all of those south american colonies we have, wait no. Ah, the African colonies we have, wait no. You must be talking about the eastern asia colonies we have, wait no. Explain impealism again.

Nobody actively tries to create colonies anymore. The French colonies are leftovers of days gone by. The US wasn't so much in existence when France, Spain, Portugal, and England were claiming these territories. Most of the colonies have been ruled from afar for decades/centuries, and most of them are fairly content.

Read the definitoin. It says imperialism is essentially the spread of influence (political and economic hegemony). Can you argue that the US is extending its influence throughout the middle east?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
go back and read the definition of hegemony
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

How does the US fit into that? If you could twist it the certain way I think you are, I could argue that people fighting AIDS in Africa are imperialistic. If anybody wants to help out another country, thats imperialistic.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

How does the US fit into that? If you could twist it the certain way I think you are, I could argue that people fighting AIDS in Africa are imperialistic. If anybody wants to help out another country, thats imperialistic.

The US is the most powerful country on earth, right?

The increasing US presence in the middle east is bolstering their influence in the region, right?

Before the war, the US had no influence over Iraqis, now I would say they have quite a bit.

And how are people fighting AIDS creating a hegemony? They're from many different nations, working towards slowing the spread of a disease. What influence do they have to gain from that? What organization do they represent that needs influence in the region? Religious missionaries could be considered imperialistic in a sense, but I would say the majority of those fighting AIDS in sub-saharan Africa aren't missionaries, and that Doctors Without Borders is the main contributor of professoinals to the region.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
The US is the most powerful country on earth, right?

The increasing US presence in the middle east is bolstering their influence in the region, right?

Before the war, the US had no influence over Iraqis, now I would say they have quite a bit.

And how are people fighting AIDS creating a hegemony? They're from many different nations, working towards slowing the spread of a disease. What influence do they have to gain from that? What organization do they represent that needs influence in the region? Religious missionaries could be considered imperialistic in a sense, but I would say the majority of those fighting AIDS in sub-saharan Africa aren't missionaries, and that Doctors Without Borders is the main contributor of professoinals to the region.
Handing out condoms is spreading influence. By your definition that is imperialism.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Handing out condoms is spreading influence. By your definition that is imperialism.

Condoms aren't a state, region, or group. They're a god-send that prevents me from being a daddy

If a condom company starts passing out condoms, then I suppose you could refer to it as imperialism

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
Condoms aren't a state, region, or group. They're a god-send that prevents me from being a daddy

If a condom company starts passing out condoms, then I suppose you could refer to it as imperialism
If WHO(World Health Organization) goes out and hands out medicine and whatnot to deprived nations (which they do) that is then considered imperialism? So nowadays a good deed is considered to be imperialistic?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
If WHO(World Health Organization) goes out and hands out medicine and whatnot to deprived nations (which they do) that is then considered imperialism? So nowadays a good deed is considered to be imperialistic?

The WHO's motive is curing/preventing disease

I don't think the US has such pure motives

but that's opinion.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
The WHO's motive is curing/preventing disease

I don't think the US has such pure motives

but that's opinion.
I could argue that the WHO is out to just get political and moral support from these nations that they help and guilt funding from stronger richer nations. I could also argue that the US was only in it for the sake of the Iraqis. So either take it or leave it. All inclusive or stick with borders. If you categorize the US as an imperialistic nation, then the WHO goes down as and imperialistic orgainization. Along with the UN, Red Cross and the people who run Operation Shoe Box.

[devin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I could argue that the WHO is out to just get political and moral support from these nations that they help and guilt funding from stronger richer nations. I could also argue that the US was only in it for the sake of the Iraqis. So either take it or leave it. All inclusive or stick with borders. If you categorize the US as an imperialistic nation, then the WHO goes down as and imperialistic orgainization. Along with the UN, Red Cross and the people who run Operation Shoe Box.

No, you couldn't. People got a bit off track, but imperialism refers to nations. Sure, companies can have monopolies or hegemonies, but that's not really the same thing. The WHO is not a nation. Far from it, the WHO is a cooperative effort between many nations. Spain, France, England, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the US, are all nations. At various points, each of them extended influence over foriegn territories. For the first three, you need look no further than your own country. Portugal had an influence in Africa and South America; the Dutch in the Caribean and the South Pacific.

In case you've forgotten, the US was not handed this plot of land. It was wars with France, England, Spain, and Mexico that expanded the boundaries. We also controlled the Phillipines and still have Puerto Rico. So yes, we have been quite imperialistic. Hell, your history book probably calls a good chunk of the US's history the Imperial Age. Maybe we've given up assimilating the other countries, but we are still pursuing a Pax Americana.

We gained our power by force and fortune and now other countries have to pay their respect to Caesar. I am tired of people with the "you're with us or against us" mentality. Global politics are not that simple. Binary thinking like that engenders further hatred for us abroad. Someone else suggested that it was good that we could remove a leader and replace him with one who would make his people like us. I hate to be cynical, but it would require a horrible fascist to make the people of many nations like us. Especially people in countries we've been bombing.

Finally, someone said that there is no proof that wmd's are not in Iraq. Take an elementary logic course. No, disregard that. Use common sense. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. The burden lies on the accuser, not the accused.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by devin
No, you couldn't. People got a bit off track, but imperialism refers to nations. Sure, companies can have monopolies or hegemonies, but that's not really the same thing. The WHO is not a nation. Far from it, the WHO is a cooperative effort between many nations. Spain, France, England, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the US, are all nations. At various points, each of them extended influence over foriegn territories. For the first three, you need look no further than your own country. Portugal had an influence in Africa and South America; the Dutch in the Caribean and the South Pacific.

In case you've forgotten, the US was not handed this plot of land. It was wars with France, England, Spain, and Mexico that expanded the boundaries. We also controlled the Phillipines and still have Puerto Rico. So yes, we have been quite imperialistic. Hell, your history book probably calls a good chunk of the US's history the Imperial Age. Maybe we've given up assimilating the other countries, but we are still pursuing a Pax Americana.

We gained our power by force and fortune and now other countries have to pay their respect to Caesar. I am tired of people with the "you're with us or against us" mentality. Global politics are not that simple. Binary thinking like that engenders further hatred for us abroad. Someone else suggested that it was good that we could remove a leader and replace him with one who would make his people like us. I hate to be cynical, but it would require a horrible fascist to make the people of many nations like us. Especially people in countries we've been bombing.

Finally, someone said that there is no proof that wmd's are not in Iraq. Take an elementary logic course. No, disregard that. Use common sense. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. The burden lies on the accuser, not the accused.
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

WHO, Red Cross, and the UN all fit perfectly into this. Now do I believe they are imperialistic. No. But by the same merit, do I believe that the US is currently an imperialistic nation? No. They fall under that same "hegomony" category as the Red Cross. We are not out to extend our borders. Hegomonists? Sure. Imperialists? No.

And I do realize that at one time the US was an imperialistic nation, but wasnt everyone? How do you get land in the first place if you think about it. Its kind of the "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". The US did expand its borders, through purchase as well as wars, however I do not recall a war with France as you mentioned. The Louisiana PURCHASE was from France, but we bought that.

And I have no clue what you are talking abou in the paragraph about leaders and Caesar and stuff. And I dont know who made that comment, but it is important for people to get along. Media elsewhere in the world slander the US to the point where they think we are Nazi Germany.

And as for your WMD comment. If they are not found, that doenst mean they dont exist. They had them in the 90's, we know that. They are now gone. Where did they go? Iraq is a large country, its like finding a needle in a fucking huge haystack. And my reoccuring question is, if they didnt have any WMD's, why not let the UN search the place in the first place. Yes the burden is on us to find them, I agree, but that doesnt say "Well shits sake, we've been looking now for a couple months, they might be here they might not, well lets pack up." No. They could still be there, and probably are still there. Is there any proof that they are there, yes. The fact that they existed before. The fact that they lied to us in several reports on weapons and the fact that they didnt let us in. Is there any proof that there arent weapons of mass destruction. Solely the fact that we havent found them yet.

[devin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05

if they didnt have any WMD's, why not let the UN search the place in the first place. Yes the burden is on us to find them, I agree, but that doesnt say "Well shits sake, we've been looking now for a couple months, they might be here they might not, well lets pack up." No. They could still be there, and probably are still there. Is there any proof that they are there, yes. The fact that they existed before. The fact that they lied to us in several reports on weapons and the fact that they didnt let us in. Is there any proof that there arent weapons of mass destruction. Solely the fact that we havent found them yet.


As I explained, a hegemony is not the same thing as imperialism.

The French and Indian War, in which many future revolutionaries and founding fathers were British officers pushed France out of the Hudson Valley and they lost their foothold in America. After Napoleon suffered failures, he wanted to pull out of America. The Louisiana Purchase was very vague and did not promise us the land all the way to the coast as your source, School House Rocks, tells you. Lewis and Clark and others were sent through area that was controlled by Spain or Indians to scout out further settlement. I'm sure you aware of the treaties we broke with Indians every time we wanted to expand. The Allotment Act anyone?

Saying that it's important for people to get along is a little inane. Sure it would be nice for everyone to love each other. But it isn't anyone's right to condition the people of the world to love them. And are you suggesting that we should get rid of media that doesn't whitewash our actions? Should Foxnews be sent around the world so that people will be taught to love America? Our media is a tool that is used by the government as well. Look at the control the Pentagon had over reporters in Iraq.

I agree with the paragraph you quoted, but that's why I felt we shouldn't have gone to war. We should have given the inspectors time. We opted not to, which casts aspersions over the entire campaign.

[BrandNewRock05]

QUOTE]Originally posted by devin
As I explained, a hegemony is not the same thing as imperialism.

The French and Indian War, in which many future revolutionaries and founding fathers were British officers pushed France out of the Hudson Valley and they lost their foothold in America. After Napoleon suffered failures, he wanted to pull out of America. The Louisiana Purchase was very vague and did not promise us the land all the way to the coast as your source, School House Rocks, tells you. Lewis and Clark and others were sent through area that was controlled by Spain or Indians to scout out further settlement. I'm sure you aware of the treaties we broke with Indians every time we wanted to expand. The Allotment Act anyone?

Saying that it's important for people to get along is a little inane. Sure it would be nice for everyone to love each other. But it isn't anyone's right to condition the people of the world to love them. And are you suggesting that we should get rid of media that doesn't whitewash our actions? Should Foxnews be sent around the world so that people will be taught to love America? Our media is a tool that is used by the government as well. Look at the control the Pentagon had over reporters in Iraq.

I agree with the paragraph you quoted, but that's why I felt we shouldn't have gone to war. We should have given the inspectors time. We opted not to, which casts aspersions over the entire campaign. [/QUOTE]
The French-Indian war involved British officers, you even said yourself, not Americans. And my point is, yes America WAS an imperialistic nation. We bought and fought for land, not anymore. Every country was at one point imperialistic, how could you not be? It is neccesary to be imperialistic to be a country, think about it. And our media in America is definentaly left biased. That the truth. As for WMD's, I wish that we could have searched Iraq truthfully. But we couldn’t. Iraq lied to us. The hid from us. And they broke the treaty we had. All reasons to go to war. So it is justified. Do I wish that we could have just searched Iraq and have them come off scotch clean? Yes, because then we wouldn’t have triple digit deaths in US soldiers. But all in all, the outcome of the war has been favorable. Saddam is out of power.