imperialism is a good thing.

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

well in modern history if white english speakers havent acted on a problem no one has. we may as well take the spoils for our efforts as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

well in modern history if white english speakers havent acted on a problem no one has. we may as well take the spoils for our efforts as well.

That's a load of BS.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
No I think hes right! An empire would return america to it's former glory. Think about it! Like Iraq, we can spread peace democracy and american values everywhere through warfare. It's worked for the Romans and the Brits... why not us?

spread "peace" Good one.

spread "American values" even better.

Britteny Spear's crappy music and Janet's boobs for everyone !

Can I have Janet's crappy music and Britney Spear's boobs instead?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
exactly, as the man who coined the term fascism once said:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

and that is exactly where our republic has been heading.

ahh, back from my trip so it's time for a quick post and then some relaxation. here are some definitions i previously posted but obviously were missed.


fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


as i mentioned earlier, in application socialism/communism and fascism are virtually identical.

here is part of the manifesto of the german national socialist workers party(aka Nazi party) it was written by hitler himself, and much of it reads like the crap the socialist's spew today.

All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
exactly, as the man who coined the term fascism once said:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

and that is exactly where our republic has been heading.

ahh, back from my trip so it's time for a quick post and then some relaxation. here are some definitions i previously posted but obviously were missed.


fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


as i mentioned earlier, in application socialism/communism and fascism are virtually identical.

here is part of the manifesto of the german national socialist workers party(aka Nazi party) it was written by hitler himself, and much of it reads like the crap the socialist's spew today.

All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

They are not, just accept the fact that there is such a thing as Extreme Right Wing philosophy in theory and practice. It'll save yourself from falling for the vain deceipt of "we can do no wrong!".

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
exactly, as the man who coined the term fascism once said:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

and that is exactly where our republic has been heading.

ahh, back from my trip so it's time for a quick post and then some relaxation. here are some definitions i previously posted but obviously were missed.


fascism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


as i mentioned earlier, in application socialism/communism and fascism are virtually identical.

here is part of the manifesto of the german national socialist workers party(aka Nazi party) it was written by hitler himself, and much of it reads like the crap the socialist's spew today.

All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

You need some SERIOUS couch time, dude!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

that just doesn't work; better to allow others to govern themselves then 'free trade' with them.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

that just doesn't work; better to allow others to govern themselves then 'free trade' with them.

Exactly right, with one caveat. The US shouldn't be so freaked about the fact that other countries do things differently. There are aspects of American culture that bother the hell out of people in other countries, but WE refuse to even consider that we might be wrong. It only makes sense that others should feel the same way about the way they live.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

that just doesn't work; better to allow others to govern themselves then 'free trade' with them.

Exactly right, with one caveat. The US shouldn't be so freaked about the fact that other countries do things differently. There are aspects of American culture that bother the hell out of people in other countries, but WE refuse to even consider that we might be wrong. It only makes sense that others should feel the same way about the way they live.

i agree, as long as what they are doing doesn't directly support anti-American terrorism or slavery.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

that just doesn't work; better to allow others to govern themselves then 'free trade' with them.

Exactly right, with one caveat. The US shouldn't be so freaked about the fact that other countries do things differently. There are aspects of American culture that bother the hell out of people in other countries, but WE refuse to even consider that we might be wrong. It only makes sense that others should feel the same way about the way they live.

i agree, as long as what they are doing doesn't directly support anti-American terrorism or slavery.

"Terrorism" has it's roots in injustice, both real and perceived. If we want to be viewed as being on the side of the angels we have to make sure that we aren't doing anything to deserve this most desparate type of warfare, Kain. I just don't see many folks in DC, or general population for that matter, who're willing to accept the fact that we're doing some fairly rotten things to other countries. Slavery? Well, does that mean you think we should attack another nation if it traffics in human beings? If so, this is just the sort of "Do as we say because we SAY it!" attitude that is at the root of lots of our problems as a nation.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

that just doesn't work; better to allow others to govern themselves then 'free trade' with them.

Exactly right, with one caveat. The US shouldn't be so freaked about the fact that other countries do things differently. There are aspects of American culture that bother the hell out of people in other countries, but WE refuse to even consider that we might be wrong. It only makes sense that others should feel the same way about the way they live.

i agree, as long as what they are doing doesn't directly support anti-American terrorism or slavery.

"Terrorism" has it's roots in injustice, both real and perceived.

The roots of terrorism are questionable at times, but the fact that Saudi Arabia pays for wahbist schooling in places filled with ignorance and oppression is quite overt.

If we want to be viewed as being on the side of the angels we have to make sure that we aren't doing anything to deserve this most desparate type of warfare, Kain. I just don't see many folks in DC, or general population for that matter, who're willing to accept the fact that we're doing some fairly rotten things to other countries.

that we are, such is the cost of a cheap banana and an open panama canal; It's more about people being made to feel inferior that drives the mid-east terrorist; and indoctrination centers that drive the far-east terrorists. On a personal note i think if we didn't have so many boots on the ground in countries that don't want us, we'd have more righteous favor.

Slavery? Well, does that mean you think we should attack another nation if it traffics in human beings? If so, this is just the sort of "Do as we say because we SAY it!" attitude that is at the root of lots of our problems as a nation.

I intended that we shouldn't free-triad with them;

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

"The roots of terrorism are questionable at times, but the fact that Saudi Arabia pays for wahbist schooling in places filled with ignorance and oppression is quite overt."

All motivations are questionable at times and under certain conditions. I'm not sure which one, but there was a huge Atlantic monthly article recently on the Saudi royal family. It covered in great detail how they do things and why. It's much more complicated than "they're teaching their kids to hate us." Moreover, the US IS doing things to garner that hatred. This may be hard to believe, but after WW2 the US was widely loved in the Arab world. Which begs the question, what happened to make them detest us so much?

"that we are, such is the cost of a cheap banana and an open panama canal; It's more about people being made to feel inferior that drives the mid-east terrorist; and indoctrination centers that drive the far-east terrorists. On a personal note i think if we didn't have so many boots on the ground in countries that don't want us, we'd have more righteous favor."

We can have cheap bananas and access to things like the Canal without the wanton manipulation of other countries and lack of respect for life that has characterised US foreign policy for so long. Take Vietnam for example. We killed 3-million Vietnamese citizens in a supposed effort to combat a POLITICAL\ECONOMIC system. That type of hubris can ONLY be associated with a rich, powerful nation that has its collective head in the wrong place. Inferior? No, that's too easy a way to dismiss another persons motives. The peoples' of the Mideast don't hate us because we have things they don't. They hate us for things like the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the ELECTED leader of Iran, and the installation and protection of the monstrous Shah. I agree. Imagine if foreign governments were allowed to station THEIR troops here? I don't think the American puplic would tolerate it for an INSTANT. I also don't think it should even matter whether a foreign government wants us there or not. It's too easy for us to get caught up in internal mechanics that way. We shouldn't station men and material in other nations at all.

For an interesting take on terrorism, take a look at some of Pat Buchanan's contemporay writings.

"I intended that we shouldn't free-triad with them"

Is this same principle applicable to other nations? Can OPEC get together and say that they won't sell us oil because they don't like our military posturing? Frankly Kain, I don't think so. The American people would be furious at the idea of ANYONE trying to interfere with the way WE do things. Yet we do it to others, all the time.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
It's not a bad idea at all, I'd say...

First France, then Germany, than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan! Actually, whatever order is fine. I say we nuke 'em then sort them out later. We should put the commies, socialists, liberals, the French, homosexuals, muslims and maybe... the mexicans, all in one place. We can keep them away from the rest of us normal god-fearing folks.
The world would be a much better place under an united America flag.

Maybe, we could do that to Bigots first. THEN we may be on to something....

 

[LordMagnusKain]

We killed 3-million Vietnamese citizens in a supposed effort to combat a POLITICAL\ECONOMIC system. That type of hubris can ONLY be associated with a rich, powerful nation that has its collective head in the wrong place.

our actions in laous kept millions of Cambodians from being the 'communist' revolution that killed almost every educated citizen in an attempt to install true Maoist communism.

Those American lives kept millions alive, if for just a few more years.

and i wasn't trying to justify blood for bananas.

Can OPEC get together and say that they won't sell us oil because they don't like our military posturing?

that's their choice, but it's economical detrimental to try to have free triad with a people that use slavery; not to mention the immorality of benefiting from slave labor.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

We killed 3-million Vietnamese citizens in a supposed effort to combat a POLITICAL\ECONOMIC system. That type of hubris can ONLY be associated with a rich, powerful nation that has its collective head in the wrong place.

our actions in louse kept millions of Cambodians from being the 'communist' revolution that killed almost every educated citizen in an attempt to install true Maoist communism.

Those American lives kept millions alive, if for just a few more years.

and i wasn't trying to justify blood for bananas.

Can OPEC get together and say that they won't sell us oil because they don't like our military posturing?

that's their choice, but it's economical detrimental to try to have free triad with a people that use slavery; not to mention the immorality of benefiting from slave labor.

LOL Louse??

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain[/].

Laos you mean? They weren't part of the Vietnam war in any meaningful way. Those 3-million I mentioned were Vietnamese, are you saying that them being slaughter by the US somehow saved some Canbodians? If so you're wrong. Notice how you fall right into that tired US BS about how "communism" or Maoist "communism" are worth the slaughter of people who simply aren't a threat to us? The 58,000 soldiers we lost and the 250,000 who came back fried just didn't have to be screwed for such a PETTY reason. Why shouldn't the Vietnamese be able to pick whatever system suits them?

My point was that if OPEC TRIED to cut off the tap they'd find themselves in the same position Iraq did. "We, The USA, NEED that stuff and you have NO right to keep it from us! Either hand it over or we'll kill a bunch of your citizens!!!"

I think you were trying to justify blood for trading rights Kain. This is what I said:

"If we want to be viewed as being on the side of the angels we have to make sure that we aren't doing anything to deserve this most desparate type of warfare, Kain. I just don't see many folks in DC, or general population for that matter, who're willing to accept the fact that we're doing some fairly rotten things to other countries."

Your response:

"that we are, such is the cost of a cheap banana and an open panama canal;[snip]"

People every where like money, or at least what it can buy them. We don't need to have our foot in people's asses to get them to sell us what we want. As for whether or not we can enjoy free trade with nations that traffic in slaves, I addressed that in my last reply to you. Again, their are MANY things that we do in this country that other nations view as downright barbaric, and the simple act of free trading should NOT take these things into account. If they did, across the board, there would be no international commerce at all.

Please, if you decide to reply, do so under fair debating rules. I've addressed what you've said, do the same for me.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

you're saying being atacked by terrorist is something we can stop by ending what you think are our evils, yes?; But what you think are our evils isn't the problem; some won't like america t'll it's a comunism, some won't like america t'll it's an islamic nation: nither will happen, and both is what's requierd to get those that hate us for how we are now to not want to kill us.

Notice how you fall right into that tired US BS about how "communism" or Maoist "communism" are worth the slaughter of people who simply aren't a threat to us?

The Maoist communist view is that the perfect society is agrarian without the 'tyranny' of the educated or industrialization; this was pulled off by pol pot who killed off millions of educated. How is being against this 'tired US BS', or was your intent simply to say that it's not our place to interfere with the genocide of others?

in which case, i humbly disagree.

"We, The USA, NEED that stuff and you have NO right to keep it from us! Either hand it over or we'll kill a bunch of your citizens!!!"

that's not why we attacked Iraq, we where getting their oil on the cheep anyway; the only reason any country was opposed deposing Sadam is because they where on the take or the 'peace at any price' crowd.

I think you were trying to justify blood for trading rights Kain.

nope.

Again, their are MANY things that we do in this country that other nations view as downright barbaric, and the simple act of free trading should NOT take these things into account. If they did, across the board, there would be no international commerce at all.

my argument against trading w/ slave states is about inability to compete, which is postivly bad for anayone that doesn't hold slaves.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
someone is going to run the show, it may as well be us.

well in modern history if white english speakers havent acted on a problem no one has. we may as well take the spoils for our efforts as well.

That's a load of BS.

examples?