How do Americans Rationalize Such Blatant Hypocrisy?

[Steve R]

In the preface to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report in 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said the document is driven by the principle that "respect for human rights is not a western construct or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability everywhere." The report then went on to condemn the following countries for indefinite detention: Libya, Uzbekistan, Syria and Iran.

"There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." - Barack Obama, in reference to Israel's right to "defend" itself, 11/18/2012

Are Americans so dumb they don't realize the U.S. has an ongoing policy of indefinite detention and routinely rains missiles down on citizens of other countries from outside its borders? It appears they are.

[thaskalos]

The United States operate under a different set of laws than the laws that they demand the rest of the world comply with.

Does any other country have the right to go on the attack...just on the SUSPICION that someone would attack her at a later date?

[Moniker]

In the preface to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report in 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said the document is driven by the principle that "respect for human rights is not a western construct or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability everywhere." The report then went on to condemn the following countries for indefinite detention: Libya, Uzbekistan, Syria and Iran.

"There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." - Barack Obama, in reference to Israel's right to "defend" itself, 11/18/2012

Are Americans so dumb they don't realize the U.S. has an ongoing policy of indefinite detention and routinely rains missiles down on citizens of other countries from outside its borders? It appears they are.

We actually take special care to aim for homes we know contain children, monsters that we are. :rolleyes: Haha, please. Take your baseless anti us sentiment elsewhere.

[thaskalos]

We actually take special care to aim for homes we know contain children, monsters that we are. :rolleyes: Haha, please. Take your baseless anti us sentiment elsewhere.
So much for "freedom of speech"... :rolleyes:

[Moniker]

Seeing as how I have no actual power to take his away I fail to see how free speech is threatened. I prefer to dismiss fools rather than suffer them is all. Hah if you want to talk principles how about "thou shall not lie"?

[TJDave]

Are Americans so dumb they don't realize the U.S. has an ongoing policy of indefinite detention and routinely rains missiles down on citizens of other countries from outside its borders? It appears they are.

It's been awhile since we've f**ked with Central America.

Too long, I'd say. ;)

[redshift1]

We actually take special care to aim for homes we know contain children, monsters that we are. :rolleyes: Haha, please. Take your baseless anti us sentiment elsewhere.

Benevolent Empire is an oxymoron.

.

[Ocala Mike]

It's been awhile since we've f**ked with Central America.



Gotta watch out there; the Latino vote, you know.

[Ocala Mike]

The United States operate under a different set of laws than the laws that they demand the rest of the world comply with.

Does any other country have the right to go on the attack...just on the SUSPICION that someone would attack her at a later date?

It's called American Exceptionalism; one of the favorite talking points of the right.

[JustRalph]

It's called American Exceptionalism; one of the favorite talking points of the right.

No it's not. It's called doing what's best for us, right now. It's how we have acted since the sixties. No long form planning, no adherence to principal.

The only other option would be to pull back from our interests all over the world and "stay and play" at home only. Btw, I think there would be some merit to that thinking in the short run, at least.

Damn, starting to sound like Ron Paul.

[Tom]

I have a major beef with Luxemburg.......let's drop a few.....oh, wait a sec!!!

Where does Steve R. live now? :cool:

[Tom]

Does any other country have the right to go on the attack...just on the SUSPICION that someone would attack her at a later date?

Defend that statement, if you can.
Who?
When?

(Clue - I know the answer, you re dead wrong)

[ArlJim78]

the election result of Nov 6th tells you all you need to know about how dumb Americans have become, but it takes real weapons grade idiocy, or more likely in this case ordinary bigotry, to single out Americans for accepting hypocrisy. all national leaders say what people want to hear, speak from both sides of their mouths, use propaganda, lie and deceive on the world stage. no country misses an opportunity to act in self interest.

[badcompany]

It's called American Exceptionalism; one of the favorite talking points of the right.

The Left's answer is "Moral Relativism" which holds the United States and its allies to impossible standards, while holding it enemies to no standards, at all.

[Steve R]

We actually take special care to aim for homes we know contain children, monsters that we are. :rolleyes: Haha, please. Take your baseless anti us sentiment elsewhere.
Drop dead.

[PaceAdvantage]

Drop dead.Wow man...touchy...

Maybe you should go back to regaling us with your anti-Semitic prose...that's always good for some lightheartedness

[PaceAdvantage]

So much for "freedom of speech"... :rolleyes:First off, freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the US Gov't. Not by private enterprise.

If you send a letter to the editor of any major newspaper or online organization, you are not guaranteed that it will be printed publicly.

Privately owned establishments (like this one) have no obligation to provide you with free speech. We have no obligation legally or otherwise to allow you to say whatever it is that you please.

The US Gov't is the only organization that legally can not infringe on your right to free speech.

Now, with that said, where is this massive lack of free speech you keep alluding to around here? Who is being muzzled? Who is being stopped from imparting their profound wisdom upon us at this very moment?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Now, with that said, where is this massive lack of free speech you keep alluding to around here? Who is being muzzled? Who is being stopped from imparting their profound wisdom upon us at this very moment?

I think it was more along the lines of subtle critique of the old "hey, if you don't have nothin' nice to say about the USA, then don't offend those of us that believe strongly in what America stands for!" routine.

[thaskalos]

First off, freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the US Gov't. Not by private enterprise.

If you send a letter to the editor of any major newspaper or online organization, you are not guaranteed that it will be printed publicly.

Privately owned establishments (like this one) have no obligation to provide you with free speech. We have no obligation legally or otherwise to allow you to say whatever it is that you please.

The US Gov't is the only organization that legally can not infringe on your right to free speech.

Now, with that said, where is this massive lack of free speech you keep alluding to around here? Who is being muzzled? Who is being stopped from imparting their profound wisdom upon us at this very moment?
Where did you see me "keep on alluding" that free speech is being muzzled "around here"? This is a ridiculous comment for you to make...IMO.

About as absurd as your comment that Steve R is engaging in anti-Semitism...just because of a few critical remarks against Israel.

Am I wrong...or has Steve R already stated that he is Jewish?

Can't a Jewish person criticize Israel for legitimate reasons...without him being labeled an anti-Semite?

Noam Chomsky says the same things as Steve R...and he is also Jewish.

Does that make him an anti-Semite too?

And you accuse others of being "too touchy"... :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh, I get it.

Let me put on my thaskalos mask.

Hey, thaskalos (this is now me acting as you), I guess it's now OK to go and tell other members on here to DROP DEAD when I don't agree with what they say.

Good to know! :ThmbUp:

Don't act as if my "touchy" comment had to do with something other than his DROP DEAD comment...it did not. It was solely based on that.

[PaceAdvantage]

About as absurd as your comment that Steve R is engaging in anti-Semitism...just because of a few critical remarks against Israel.

Am I wrong...or has Steve R already stated that he is Jewish?I don't care what Steve R has revealed about his ancestry. His comments speak otherwise. ABSURD comments I might add.

A FEW critical remarks? HAH...that's a laugh riot.

And they weren't critical remarks. They were rather grotesque accusations and distortions, if indeed you know anything about the truth.

[lsbets]

Where did you see me "keep on alluding" that free speech is being muzzled "around here"? This is a ridiculous comment for you to make...IMO.

About as absurd as your comment that Steve R is engaging in anti-Semitism...just because of a few critical remarks against Israel.

Am I wrong...or has Steve R already stated that he is Jewish?

Can't a Jewish person criticize Israel for legitimate reasons...without him being labeled an anti-Semite?

Noam Chomsky says the same things as Steve R...and he is also Jewish.

Does that make him an anti-Semite too?

And you accuse others of being "too touchy"... :rolleyes:

Steve r might be of Jewish descent, but there is not a damned thing about him that is Jewish. He repeats all the same crap in the same words that you find on the worst anti semetic sites out there.

Steve is the lowest of the low, and if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him I would gladly help him do what he suggested another poster here do. History has shown there is no place in the world for people like him.

[thaskalos]

Don't act as if my "touchy" comment had to do with something other than his DROP DEAD comment...it did not. It was solely based on that.

And what did your reply to me have to do with?

Do I really "keep on" accusing you of muzzling free speech around here?

[Greyfox]

Steve is the lowest of the low, and if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him I would gladly help him do what he suggested another poster here do. History has shown there is no place in the world for people like him.

Yikes! :eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

And what did your reply to me have to do with?

Do I really "keep on" accusing you of muzzling free speech around here?This is not the first time you have brought up the subject of free speech around here.

I give everyone ample opportunity to prove what an idiot they are...even myself...that's about as free as it gets, don't you think? :lol:

[Moniker]

Drop dead.

You prove yourself as ignorant as your statements.

[thaskalos]

This is not the first time you have brought up the subject of free speech around here.

I give everyone ample opportunity to prove what an idiot they are...even myself...that's about as free as it gets, don't you think? :lol:
I've never accused you of preventing free speech from being expressed here.

I have, however, often criticized you for taking the wrong side in arguments... :)

[lsbets]

Yikes! :eek:

When the Jews fought back in the Warsaw ghetto, they executed those Jews who were nazi collaborators. What Steve has posted has not been "criticism" of Israel, it has been verifiable falsehoods designed to spread hate and found on any number of neo nazi sites. He is no different than the collaborators who were killed in the ghetto. He carries on the legacy of the worst of humanity.

[Moniker]

I've never accused you of preventing free speech from being expressed here.

I have, however, often criticized you for taking the wrong side in arguments... :)

Presently he is arguing against a foolish hate monger. I see he along with just about everyone else on this forum did the same in the discussion about Israel when Steve R began regaling us with comparisons to nazi germany. So tell me, by defending his country against out landish lies about supporting fascism, is he on the wrong side of these arguments?

[FantasticDan]

Steve is the lowest of the low, and if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him I would gladly help him do what he suggested another poster here do. History has shown there is no place in the world for people like him.So what you're saying is, if you ever met Steve, you would try and kill him. Right? Is this kind of threat in within the PA rules? :ThmbDown:

[lsbets]

So what you're saying is, if you ever met Steve, you would try and kill him. Right? Is this kind of threat in within the PA rules? :ThmbDown:

I have 4 children who some would kill for no reason other than they are Jewish. Steve spreads the propaganda of those groups. Is there another way I should feel about him? My family paid a pretty heavy price in the 40s at the hands of similar folk. I think the world would be a much better place without those who carry on that tradition. If that offends you, too ****ing bad.

[thaskalos]

Presently he is arguing against a foolish hate monger. I see he along with just about everyone else on this forum did the same in the discussion about Israel when Steve R began regaling us with comparisons to nazi germany. So tell me, by defending his country against out landish lies about supporting fascism, is he on the wrong side of these arguments?
I respect PA, and applaud his efforts which have made this site the best of its kind on the 'net...but yes, he is wrong in this particular case, IMO. This thread has nothing to do with Steve R's "anti-Semitic" remarks of prior conversations...and yet, PA chose to make reference of these remarks here...which is a practice that he himself discourages others from engaging in.

I know who Steve R is in real life...and am interested in what he has to say. I don't always agree with his opinions...but I defend his right to state them.

[TJDave]

Wow man...touchy...

Maybe you should go back to regaling us with your anti-Semitic prose...that's always good for some lightheartedness

That's nothing compared to the language Steve reserves for PM's.

Right, bubbie? ;)

[badcompany]

So what you're saying is, if you ever met Steve, you would try and kill him. Right? Is this kind of threat in within the PA rules? :ThmbDown:


:mad:

http://tnvmomsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tattle.png

[Moniker]

I respect PA, and applaud his efforts which have made this site the best of its kind on the 'net...but yes, he is wrong in this particular case, IMO. This thread has nothing to do with Steve R's "anti-Semitic" remarks of prior conversations...and yet, PA chose to make reference of these remarks here...which is a practice that he himself discourages others from engaging in.

I know who Steve R is in real life...and am interested in what he has to say. I don't always agree with his opinions...but I defend his right to state them.

Fair enough. But in regards to the content of this specific thread, there is one making absurd lies to make our country and our military out to be some despicable force, and arguing against it are we US citizens. I'd say PA is on the right side here.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know who Steve R is in real life...Who in racing circles doesn't? Well, I take that back. If you've been paying attention to his posts through the years, you should know who he is.

[Tom]

I know who he is, but more importantly, I know what he is.
I couldn't care less what he has to say. On any subject.

[barn32]

Anybody here remember RGP? Politics destroyed that wonderful forum.

Everyone is always right. No one is ever wrong. The worst kind of vile hatred and abusive personal spewage is non-ending.

No ones mind is ever changed.

And the beat goes on.

[PaceAdvantage]

Anybody here remember RGP? Politics destroyed that wonderful forum.In case you haven't noticed, we separate the politics from the horses here...it's a formula that has worked for over 13 years now...

[Greyfox]

In case you haven't noticed, we separate the politics from the horses here...it's a formula that has worked for over 13 years now...

And a formula that will continue to work. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Steve r might be of Jewish descent, but there is not a damned thing about him that is Jewish. He repeats all the same crap in the same words that you find on the worst anti semetic sites out there.

Steve is the lowest of the low, and if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him I would gladly help him do what he suggested another poster here do. History has shown there is no place in the world for people like him.

Ignorance must be blissful in this thread to be paraded around as though it's something of great value. History has also shown that a Jew can be religious or irreligious or anything in between. Jews have a very long, checkered history of killing other Jews -- Jews with whom they disagree, such as the OT prophets, their Messiah, Jewish Christians, etc. Jews even used to sacrifice their own children in the fire to their gods. One thing about Evil: It's an equal opportunity opportunist, never discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

At least as far as we know, Stevie R hasn't killed anyone yet. If not, then this might make him a better Jew than the ones I just described.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Ignorance must be blissful in this thread to be paraded around as though it's something of great value. History has also shown that a Jew can be religious or irreligious or anything in between. Jews have a very long, checkered history of killing other Jews -- Jews with whom they disagree, such as the OT prophets, their Messiah, Jewish Christians, etc. Jews even used to sacrifice their own children in the fire to their gods. One thing about Evil: It's an equal opportunity opportunist, never discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

At least as far as we know, Stevie R hasn't killed anyone yet. If not, then this might make him a better Jew than the ones I just described.

BoxcarWhat the **** are you babbling about?

[JustRalph]

One more episode and I'm going after that half ass Jewish Astronaut on Big Bang Theory for yelling at his mom........

[Greyfox]

What the **** are you babbling about?

What's boxcar babbling about?

History?

[kingfin66]

First off, freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the US Gov't. Not by private enterprise.

If you send a letter to the editor of any major newspaper or online organization, you are not guaranteed that it will be printed publicly.

Privately owned establishments (like this one) have no obligation to provide you with free speech. We have no obligation legally or otherwise to allow you to say whatever it is that you please.

The US Gov't is the only organization that legally can not infringe on your right to free speech.

Now, with that said, where is this massive lack of free speech you keep alluding to around here? Who is being muzzled? Who is being stopped from imparting their profound wisdom upon us at this very moment?

Great rant. You really showed him :rolleyes:

So, what did you do with dahoss?

[PaceAdvantage]

Great rant. You really showed him :rolleyes:

So, what did you do with dahoss?Why, do you miss him?

[Robert Fischer]

Anybody here remember RGP? Politics destroyed that wonderful forum.

Everyone is always right. No one is ever wrong. The worst kind of vile hatred and abusive personal spewage is non-ending.

No ones mind is ever changed.

And the beat goes on.

vitriol is addictive

it tends to escalate when simply agreeing to disagree no longer provides the fix.

Then you see people become disgusted in another's viewpoint

then other pathways are brought in(race, religion, violence)

very exciting. Learning and sharing is not as rewarding and reinforcing.

[TJDave]

What's boxcar babbling about?

History?

Are you being facetious...

Or a fellow traveler?

[cj's dad]

I wish the Israelis would take the gloves off. Ground invasion with air support. Clean out these rat ba--ards in one fell swoop. Hamas started this b--ls--t, may the Israelis end it.

[elysiantraveller]

It's called American Exceptionalism; one of the favorite talking points of the right.

Yep.

It always amazes me why people believe that argument. Do people actually believe that stuff? What makes America so exceptional other than hitting the lotto in terms of its geographical location?

[boxcar]

What the **** are you babbling about?

It was my response to LS's ill-conceived post that claimed Stevie R can't possibly be a Jew, simply on the basis that he talks trash about his own kind. Big deal! Jews have often killed their own kind! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

It was my response to LS's ill-conceived post that claimed Stevie R can't possibly be a Jew, simply on the basis that he talks trash about his own kind.I'm pretty sure, without even going back to read it, that lsbets didn't state what you're claiming...

This has become a rather unpleasant discussion all around, don't you think?

[Tom]

American exceptionalism.
That is what built this country.
It is what took us from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Cape Canaveral to the moon and back.
It is what brought us back together after a civil war.
It is what is what drove the Japanese back home and eventually to their knees.
It is what fueled the allies on both fronts in WWII and what landed the troops of many nations on the shores of Normandy.

It is what the left has rallied agsint for decades and finally traded in for personal dependency instead of personal pride.

I don't expect libs to understand the term.
It is foreign to them.

[kingfin66]

Why, do you miss him?

Yes, and I miss Bigmack as well with his pictures and outdated hep daddio schtick that his septeganarian honeys love. I answered your question so please answer mine, how does banning dahoss fit with your diatribe to thaskalos? Why the selective enforcement?

[elysiantraveller]

American exceptionalism.
That is what built this country.
It is what took us from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Cape Canaveral to the moon and back.
It is what brought us back together after a civil war.
It is what is what drove the Japanese back home and eventually to their knees.
It is what fueled the allies on both fronts in WWII and what landed the troops of many nations on the shores of Normandy.

It is what the left has rallied agsint for decades and finally traded in for personal dependency instead of personal pride.

I don't expect libs to understand the term.
It is foreign to them.

Okay... So it's just nationalism?... Got it! :jump:

[thaskalos]

I am referring to you because you have proven to be a little more open-minded than most of your brethren on the right.

We are all proud of our countries...but should we act as if our shit doesn't stink?

Should our patriotism blind us to the atrocities that countries -- including ours -- have committed...and continue to commit...against innocent people, who are just trying to raise their kids -- just as we are?

Should we be staying home waving our flag...even as corrupt politicians commit unspeakable acts in our name?

I am proud of my country's accomplishments too, and my chest swells when I think of her glorious past...but then I think of what she has become -- and my pride turns to embarrassment and anger. And I wish that King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans could somehow come back to life...to have a sit-down with some of our recent leaders.

All of us are proud of our countries, but we are citizens of the world FIRST...and, IMO, we should place world peace above national pride on our list of priorities.

And we should be able to criticize our own leaders when they screw up...both on native soil and abroad.

[Tom]

Okay... So it's just nationalism?... Got it! :jump:

Nope.
Nationalism is a feeling of pride - exceptionalism is action with demonstrable results. Why did two America grow into a super-power while Mexico, as close geographically as you can get to us, turn into a toilet bowl?

[NJ Stinks]

Take your baseless anti us sentiment elsewhere.

Wrong answer. While I'm trying to decide if you are a breath of fresh air or not, allow me to give you a hint. IMO most posters down here prefer to discuss the subject at hand. That is less likely if a poster has to take his "sentiment" elsewhere.

Or to put it in handicapping terms, your righteous indignation is "no factor" down here.

[Tom]

All of us are proud of our countries, but we are citizens of the world FIRST...and, IMO, we should place world peace above national pride on our list of priorities.

And who has done more for world peace than the USA?
Saddam Hussein?
Imadinnerjacket?
Puten?
Any Mexican leader, ever?
The PLO?
Humas?

Look, world peace requires civilized people.
Now, tell me about Hamas.
Tell me about Afghanistan.
Tell me about any of the Stinkistans.

Citizens of the world my arse.

[elysiantraveller]

Nope.
Nationalism is a feeling of pride - exceptionalism is action with demonstrable results. Why did two America grow into a super-power while Mexico, as close geographically as you can get to us, turn into a toilet bowl?

Because you grossly oversimplify the question to fit your bias.

1) Spanish colonialism was vastly different from British colonialism. Britain established trade while the Spanish crown sucked wealth.

2) Natural resource comparisons aren't even close.

3) The United States had no geopolitical rival Mexico did.

4) Mexico had no exports (gold and silver aside) the US did.

5) Mexico's economy wasn't driven by slave labor, the United States' was.

Those are 5 concrete reasons that don't rely on ambiguous terms like "exceptional." :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

And who has done more for world peace than the USA?
Saddam Hussein?
Imadinnerjacket?
Puten?
Any Mexican leader, ever?
The PLO?
Humas?

Look, world peace requires civilized people.
Now, tell me about Hamas.
Tell me about Afghanistan.
Tell me about any of the Stinkistans.

Citizens of the world my arse.
Do you know who Noam Chomsky is?

Do you know anything about his accomplishments? You and I could not accomplish as much in 50 lifetimes.

I sat in the audience as Chomsky was asked which country stood as the greatest obstacle to world peace.

He named three countries...of which I'll bet you can't even guess one.

[rastajenk]

I'd be surprised he mentioned more than one.

[Greyfox]

Do you know who Noam Chomsky is?

.

Yes. His contributions to Linguistics were ground breaking.

When he ventured out of that field, his opinions were thought-provoking, at best.

Chomsky's opinion of the most dangerous country in the world is no more valid than yours or mine.

[Tom]

Do you know who Noam Chomsky is?

Do you know anything about his accomplishments? You and I could not accomplish as much in 50 lifetimes.

I sat in the audience as Chomsky was asked which country stood as the greatest obstacle to world peace.

He named three countries...of which I'll bet you can't even guess one.

Find a rat.
Look at its backside.
Lift the tail.

This is what I could give about Chomsky's opinion.
Anyone who thing WE are a road block is ......if the shoe fits - a blithering idiot.

[badcompany]

Yes. His contributions to Linguistics were ground breaking.

When he ventured out of that field, his opinions were thought-provoking, at best.

Chomsky's opinion of the most dangerous country in the world is no more valid than yours or mine.

Good post.

Chomsky is a standard Socialist who knows nothing about Economics. His is the standard Anti-Capitalist claptrap you hear from Academics who don't realize, or don't have the emotional maturity to admit, that big business is the reason they have a place to teach.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, and I miss Bigmack as well with his pictures and outdated hep daddio schtick that his septeganarian honeys love. I answered your question so please answer mine, how does banning dahoss fit with your diatribe to thaskalos? Why the selective enforcement?I really don't understand your question. Anything else you want to discuss, PM me.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am referring to you because you have proven to be a little more open-minded than most of your brethren on the right.Not sure if I should take this as a compliment or as an insult...lol

We are all proud of our countries...but should we act as if our shit doesn't stink?Yes, compared to most of the rest of the world, we should. We've earned that level of arrogance with our past contributions to the world and as being anointed the world's "policeman," a job we did not originally seek or want.

There has been plenty of criticism levied at the United States here in this forum. And plenty of criticism levied at the leaders of the US. Over the 13 years this website has existed, Clinton, Bush and Obama have all been criticized half to death.

Nobody has ever claimed that each and every action by the United States over its existence has been just and pure.

[elysiantraveller]

Yes, compared to most of the rest of the world, we should. We've earned that level of arrogance with our past contributions to the world and as being anointed the world's "policeman," a job we did not originally seek or want.

There has been plenty of criticism levied at the United States here in this forum. And plenty of criticism levied at the leaders of the US. Over the 13 years this website has existed, Clinton, Bush and Obama have all been criticized half to death.

I get what you are saying but we haven't done nearly as much good as we take credit for... For instance, Nazi Germany's defeat was preordained on June 22, 1941 regardless of what we did and the Marshall Plan was much more about Soviet containment than actually helping people.

As far as being the world's policeman that is the job of the world's hegemon and our ascent to that role was eminent at the beginning of the 20th century. We can complain about it all we want but its simply a by-product of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world so... you take the good, you take the bad...

When we as American's look at the world we look through our American Exceptionalism lens. I don't buy AE and think its simply veiled nationalism. The only thing exceptional about the USA is the geopolitical conditions that were awarded to it during its first 120 years.

[PaceAdvantage]

When we as American's look at the world we look through our American Exceptionalism lens. I don't buy AE and think its simply veiled nationalism. The only thing exceptional about the USA is the geopolitical conditions that were awarded to it during its first 120 years.It doesn't really matter how this "exceptionalism" came to be, does it?

What matters is what the US chose to do with it once it became ours.

Did we choose to go and conquer the rest of the world like other nations have done in the annals of history? Britain. The Soviet Union. Nazi Germany. The Roman Empire. Etc.

No, I believe the answer to that question would be a resounding no. Although we COULD have. Starting with Mexico and Canada if you want to claim two oceans made conquering the entire world a bit difficult.

[elysiantraveller]

Did we choose to go and conquer the rest of the world like other nations have done in the annals of history? Britain. The Soviet Union. Nazi Germany. The Roman Empire. Etc.

No, I believe the answer to that question would be a resounding no. Although we COULD have. Starting with Mexico and Canada if you want to claim two oceans made conquering the entire world a bit difficult.

Are you so sure about that?...

[TJDave]

I get what you are saying but we haven't done nearly as much good as we take credit for... For instance, Nazi Germany's defeat was preordained on June 22, 1941 regardless of what we did and the Marshall Plan was much more about Soviet containment than actually helping people.

As far as being the world's policeman that is the job of the world's hegemon and our ascent to that role was eminent at the beginning of the 20th century. We can complain about it all we want but its simply a by-product of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world so... you take the good, you take the bad...

When we as American's look at the world we look through our American Exceptionalism lens. I don't buy AE and think its simply veiled nationalism. The only thing exceptional about the USA is the geopolitical conditions that were awarded to it during its first 120 years.

Bravo. Can't find fault with any of the above.

Except...What's wrong with nationalism?

Signed,
A proud jingoist. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you so sure about that?...What lands have we conquered and colonized through military force since the late 1800s?

Since becoming a world super-power?

[elysiantraveller]

Bravo. Can't find fault with any of the above.

Except...What's wrong with nationalism?

Signed,
A proud jingoist. ;)

It tends to be very short-sighted.

[elysiantraveller]

What lands have we conquered and colonized through military force since the late 1800s?

Since becoming a world super-power?

You don't have to annex territory to be imperialist. Look at our rivals over the last 50 years...

Vietnam: Puppet Government.

Iran: Puppet Government.

Iraq: Puppet Government.

Afghanistan: Puppet Movement.

[Steve R]

snip]...Did we choose to go and conquer the rest of the world like other nations have done in the annals of history? Britain. The Soviet Union. Nazi Germany. The Roman Empire. Etc.

No, I believe the answer to that question would be a resounding no. Although we COULD have. Starting with Mexico and Canada if you want to claim two oceans made conquering the entire world a bit difficult.
Not like other countries, no. But uniquely. The U.S. had 737 overseas military bases in 2005 and 865 in 2009 not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011 it was over 900 in 148 countries. The U.S. is the largest military-based empire in world history. It controls governments by threats of military force and by economic leverage. In the 21st century you don't have to have legions of soldiers patrolling the streets of foreign lands to make them obey. Not to mention that the U.S. has been involved in more military adventures around the world since WWII than any dozen countries combined. I'd love to hear how you define an empire. As I understand it there are two recognized types - territorial and coercive (or hegemonic), the latter referring to the perception of physical enforcement. That fits the U.S. empire pretty well although it seems to be losing its influence in recent years.

[Greyfox]

It controls governments by threats of military force and by economic leverage. In the 21st century you don't have to have legions of soldiers patrolling the streets of foreign lands to make them obey. .

What countrys has the U.S. threatened by military force in the last decade?
(And please don't cite North Korea, who have issued threats of their own.)

[Steve R]

What countrys has the U.S. threatened by military force in the last decade?
(And please don't cite North Korea, who have issued threats of their own.)
As I understand it, the Bush Doctrine threatens preemptive attack against any nation that the U.S. unilaterally decides may be harboring whomever it unilaterally decides are terrorists. So I guess that is an implicit military threat to virtually every country in the world. Obama has broadened the scope of the doctrine to rationalize American participation in the Libyan fiasco and his message to Iran in 2011 that "all options are on the table" is a not so subtle threat of military attack.

[elysiantraveller]

That fits the U.S. empire pretty well although it seems to be losing its influence in recent years.

I agree with everything you wrote except this last part. I would argue American power is higher now, both in terms of ability and projected, than any time in our history.

Challenges to our hegemony from the EU have shown they won't materialize and China's ascendency simply can't occur with the current world economy the way it is...

America still enjoys far too many advantages to have a real geopolitical challenger.

[Greyfox]

As I understand it, the Bush Doctrine threatens preemptive attack against any nation that the U.S. unilaterally decides may be harboring whomever it unilaterally decides are terrorists. So I guess that is an implicit military threat to virtually every country in the world. Obama has broadened the scope of the doctrine to rationalize American participation in the Libyan fiasco and his message to Iran in 2011 that "all options are on the table" is a not so subtle threat of military attack.

No specific names eh? Just an implicit threat to virtually every country in the world.

[Steve R]

No specific names eh? Just an implicit threat to virtually every country in the world.
Reread the last sentence.

[Tom]

Pre-emptive is far better than reactionary.

[Greyfox]

Obama has broadened the scope of the doctrine to rationalize American participation in the Libyan fiasco and his message to Iran in 2011 that "all options are on the table" is a not so subtle threat of military attack.

1. Libya - Obama led from the rear. France was a major instigator.

2. Iran - Obama has allowed Iran as much time as it needs to complete a bomb.

[elysiantraveller]

No specific names eh? Just an implicit threat to virtually every country in the world.

What point are you trying to make? That we aren't imperialist?

[Tom]

Yeah, right.
We rank right up there with the worst history has to offer.

We bad.

[Greyfox]

What point are you trying to make? That we aren't imperialist?

Did you read the earlier threads or did you just jump in with your 2 cents worth?
The point is that a poster said that the U.S. controls other Governments with threats of military force. I asked for specific names of those countries.

[boxcar]

Did you read the earlier threads or did you just jump in with your 2 cents worth?
The point is that a poster said that the U.S. controls other Governments with threats of military force. I asked for specific names of those countries.

I venture to say we "control" far more nations with threats with one kind of threat or another involving their financial stability. We pull this off with all the tax treaties we have with most nations in the world.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

I venture to say we "control" far more nations with threats with one kind of threat or another involving their financial stability. We pull this off with all the tax treaties we have with most nations in the world.

Boxcar

Yes. That has been the case with foreign aid handouts to various nations.

[Steve R]

Pre-emptive is far better than reactionary.
Sure. Who cares if it's illegal under the U.N. Charter which the U.S. signed as an original member? BTW, the charter is legally a treaty and all members are bound by it. It's exactly this attitude which contributes to the hatred for the U.S. around the world. The alternative, of course, is to manage your foreign affairs through diplomacy and non-military means so that potentially explosive conflicts are defused before they get out of hand. But I guess that rubs against the tradition of American macho posturing and it sure stands in the way of American hegemony. Then again, there is always Galatians 6:7, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".

[Tom]

You really are clueless.
The UN is for losers.
There is no benefit to real nations - I mean nations that can protect themselves, feed themselves. Many nations are smaller than US cities - hardly worth bothering with.

As for our national security, up to and including preemptive strikes,
as a wise man here posted, if your won't stand behind our military, feel free to stand in front of it. That's not arrogance, it is reality. We also do far more than most to HELP others on this planet as well. We even were packed and ready to help Iran after an earthquake, but were refused. Guess the "Iatoldya" thought less of his people that we did.

[boxcar]

Yes. That has been the case with foreign aid handouts to various nations.

Yup, that, too. Money is a silent but very powerful weapon.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Did you read the earlier threads or did you just jump in with your 2 cents worth?
The point is that a poster said that the U.S. controls other Governments with threats of military force. I asked for specific names of those countries.

To what end? He answered your question.

Here is some proof:

1) "You're either with us or against us." (Everyone)
2) "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, North Korea)
3) "All options are on the table." (Iran)

Plus:

1) We have disposed of 3 regimes, and installed new ones, in the past 10 years.
2) Our military is operating in at least 6 countries. (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, UAE, and Libya)
3) We have adopted the policy of Pre-emptive War.

Finally the all-important sanction list! :)
1) Columbia
2) Ivory Coast
3) Cuba
4) Congo
5) Iran
6) Libya
7) Somalia
8) Myanmar
9) Sudan
10) Syria

[boxcar]

To what end? He answered your question.

Here is some proof:

1) "You're either with us or against us." (Everyone)
2) "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, North Korea)
3) "All options are on the table." (Iran)

Plus:

1) We have disposed of 3 regimes, and installed new ones, in the past 10 years.
2) Our military is operating in at least 6 countries. (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, UAE, and Libya)
3) We have adopted the policy of Pre-emptive War.

Finally the all-important sanction list! :)
1) Columbia
2) Ivory Coast
3) Cuba
4) Congo
5) Iran
6) Libya
7) Somalia
8) Myanmar
9) Sudan
10) Syria

Look at it this way: The U.S. is still the lesser of evils (by far) compared to the nations you mentioned above.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Look at it this way: The U.S. is still the lesser of evils (by far) compared to the nations you mentioned above.

Boxcar

No argument here.

[Greyfox]

To what end? He answered your question.

Here is some proof:

1) "You're either with us or against us." (Everyone)
2) "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, North Korea)
3) "All options are on the table." (Iran)

Plus:

1) We have disposed of 3 regimes, and installed new ones, in the past 10 years.
2) Our military is operating in at least 6 countries. (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, UAE, and Libya)
3) We have adopted the policy of Pre-emptive War.

Finally the all-important sanction list! :)
1) Columbia
2) Ivory Coast
3) Cuba
4) Congo
5) Iran
6) Libya
7) Somalia
8) Myanmar
9) Sudan
10) Syria


You haven't offered proof of anything.
Which Governments on your list are being controlled by U.S. military threats?

[elysiantraveller]

You haven't offered proof of anything.
Which Governments on your list are being controlled by U.S. military threats?

Iraq, Iran, Libya (Pre-Ghadafy), and North Korea.

Plus as I said our Military is operating in at least six countries around the world.

Does invading a country and forcibly removing their leadership and replacing it count? Here then is your 30 year list... Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

I don't know what you mean by "controlled" but we employ every measure of coercion available to us... my post proved that.

[Greyfox]

Iraq, Iran, Libya (Pre-Ghadafy), and North Korea.

Plus as I said our Military is operating in at least six countries around the world.

Does invading a country and forcibly removing their leadership and replacing it count? Here then is your 30 year list... Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

I don't know what you mean by "controlled" but we employ every measure of coercion available to us... my post proved that.

"Controlled" is the operative verb used by the poster that I was writing to before you checked in. I asked for countries in the last 10 years.
You apparently didn't read that either.

With 800+ bases around the world I think your idea that the U.S. is only in 6 is laughable.
Libya pre Ghadafi? That is a long time ago. (France led the way in disposing of Ghadafi, Obama led from the rear.)
You mentioned Iran and North Korea. Of course they are aware of U.S. millitary might. But that has not stopped them from working on bombs or exploding them. If they were being "controlled" they wouldn't be doing that would they?

[elysiantraveller]

"Controlled" is the operative verb used by the poster that I was writing to before you checked in. I asked for countries in the last 10 years.
You apparently didn't read that either.

With 800+ bases around the world I think your idea that the U.S. is only in 6 is laughable.
Libya pre Ghadafi? That is a long time ago. (France led the way in disposing of Ghadafi, Obama led from the rear.)
You mentioned Iran and North Korea. Of course they are aware of U.S. millitary might. But that has not stopped them from working on bombs or exploding them. If they were being "controlled" they wouldn't be doing that would they?

Whatever... I think you are being contrarian for its own sake...

I don't even know what point you are trying to make...

Libya disarmed their WMD stockpile from the "you are either or with us or against us" threat. There is your example pointblankperiod.

You don't like what SteveR has to say so you will ignore all facts to try and prove some point... what that is I'm not sure. Are you actually saying we don't use threats to try and control other nations?... :confused:

Drop the other shoe because your position thus far makes no sense.

[Greyfox]

Whatever... I think you are being contrarian for its own sake...
.

Yeah. Sure. If you say so.

(By the way, I was simply asking Steve R if he could document who was being controlled. It had nothing to do with whether or not I liked what he said. I'm moving on.)

[Tom]

Here is some proof:

1) "You're either with us or against us." (Everyone)
2) "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, North Korea)
3) "All options are on the table." (Iran)

Solid foreign policy foundation for those of us who live in the real world.
Those are not undoubtedly with us cannot be trusted until they prove they are. It's a jungle out there. Even those who are with us need to be constantly evaluated.

Axis of Evil - why is the truth so bad?
They ARE evil, you know! :rolleyes:
What good is "some" options on the table? Makes about as much sense as having a publicized timetable for withdrawal from a war! :D

Btw...where does this fit in with the above?

Ahmadinejad repeatedly demonizes the state of Israel and openly calls for its destruction at every opportunity. Most notoriously, he described Israel as a "fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map." (You want to hold back options with this maniac?)

[Moniker]

Wrong answer. While I'm trying to decide if you are a breath of fresh air or not, allow me to give you a hint. IMO most posters down here prefer to discuss the subject at hand. That is less likely if a poster has to take his "sentiment" elsewhere.

Or to put it in handicapping terms, your righteous indignation is "no factor" down here.

I'm happy and willing to discuss subject at hand when the duscussioon has any merit. The reason I responded the way I did us because the insinuation in Steve R's original post was presented in an absolutely absurd manner. Claiming that we "routinely rain missiles down on citizens of other countries". I'll admit that it may have been unfair of me to tell him to "go elsewhere", but thats rather docile in comparison to his response, requesting that I "drop dead".