avsrule

Link

What are we to do? Leave?

redstar2000

Yes.

Remove your imperialist buttocks from Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti and Kuwait and (long list on request) NOW!

Ok?

__________________
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

Confed999

I bet you say "neo-con" alot.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

redstar2000

It's not a term that comes up that often...unless you hang out a lot with bourgeois liberals (which I don't).

But unless I'm completely mistaken, neo-conservatives also use it...with pride.

But perhaps there's a more "acceptable" term and you will instruct me accordingly.

From a communist standpoint, nearly all Democrats are conservatives and nearly all Republicans are semi-fascist or just plain fascist.

We live in "hard times".

Confed999

It's just that when you read a liberal saying that, it's allmost allways followed by some wonderful conspiracy theory. In this case you started with the theory.

redstar2000

There are certainly people for whom "grand conspiracy theories" exert an irresistible appeal...I refer to them as the "tinfoil hat brigade".

But in my opinion, conspiracies are usually of marginal interest. There are lots of "small" ones...almost all of which never come to fruition.

Imperialism is not a conscious "conspiracy" in the usual meaning of the word; what you have instead is a class for whom imperialism "instinctively" makes sense.

The Bush regime did not have to "hold a meeting" of oil company executives to discuss the "question" of "should we conquer that oil-rich and defenseless country and plunder its resources for our own benefit?".

The desirability of imperial conquest is as "natural" a feeling on the part of major capitalists as the desire to continue breathing. The only thing that might be disputable is "can we get away with it?".

In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. could not "get away with it". In Iraq, "the jury is still out".

My "take" on conspiracy theories...

The "Tinfoil Hat" Brigade

Confed999

There is something to be gained, and lost, with every decision. Without proof that "imperialism", something I do not see, is the primary reason for doing something, then it's just another conspiracy theory. I'm not going to a site that has "fightcapitalism" in the address, sorry, too much for me.

redstar2000

I take it then that you adhere to the "shit happens" school of bourgeois historians; events are the outcome of an enormous number of "micro-causes" and no order is to be found in them, no "big causes" exist.

Fair enough...it's a perfectly "respectable" view, though watery soup for my tastes.

Is that the secular version of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"?

Confed999

No, I need actual physical proof, not "just 'cuz you said so".
Seems proof has more substance than theory.
Nope, but you don't actually want to know what that means.

redstar2000

What would constitute "physical proof" of the existence of U.S. imperialism in your eyes?

What's your "standard of evidence"?

ChrisF202

we dont have an empire ....

redstar2000

Do I understand you correctly?

If the American Empire is not called that, if it's not "officially" an empire..."then" it's "not really" an empire and U.S. imperialism "doesn't exist".

Things are "only" what they are "called", is that what you're saying?

Do you extend this dubious privilege to others? Do you take the claims of politicians "at face value"? How about the media? Advertising??

I truly did not expect such innocence on this board...which may be a critical comment on my own.

Praxus

You called the United States an Empire. Now you prove it. Confed should neither have to define it or prove you wrong.

The Iraqi's no more own the oil in Iraq then I own the oil in Texas. The people who found the wells, drilled the wells, etc own the wells. That is to say Western Oil companies own the wells.

By capitalists do you mean thoose who hold capital or thoose who support the system of Capitalism?

Just because you have capital does not mean you support the system of Capitalism. And in fact if you engage in cronyism you are going against the system of Capitalism. Because capitalism is the complete seperation of economics.

How about you step off my rights before you find yourself at the muzzle of a gun.

Confed999

Nice one Praxus.

redstar2000

You mean he can just assert that "America doesn't have an empire"...and that's good enough for you?

The fact that Native Americans were first expelled from their homelands east of the Mississippi and then confined to reservations throughout North America was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1812 with the expressed intent to conquer what is now Canada was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1847 to rob Mexico of its northwest territories (now the southwestern U.S.) was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war with Spain in 1898 to rob Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines was "not imperialistic"? And when the Philippinos resisted their new masters, they were massacred in substantial numbers...that too was "not imperialistic"?

And the military interventions to impose puppet regimes in Central America in the 1920s...that wasn't "imperialistic"?

And...and...and...

Well, the list is not infinite, but it's a very long one...certainly longer than that of imperial Rome.

What is an empire? Is it not the control of territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there?

Certainly you can't reasonably limit it to "formal annexation", can you? If you effectively control a particular country's government and resources, then it's a province of your empire.

The proof of that is your willingness to militarily defend your authority against either aggression from another imperial power or against the people who live in that country.

The presence, for example, of U.S. troops in Colombia to defend American-owned oil pipelines against local insurgents means that Colombia is considered by Washington to be "part of our empire"...even if they don't use "the dirty word".

Make a list in your own mind of countries where the United States will not permit an "unfriendly" government to come to power and will use military force to stop that from happening...and you have outlined the boundaries of the American Empire.

The sun never sets, etc.

So if I show up where you live (with a few dozen armed thugs), take over your back yard, dig a well and strike oil, then "I own it", right?

And if you don't like that, then I can kill you, right?

Those who hold capital...especially those who hold big chunks of capital.

Perhaps that's true in a "technical" sense. However, "cronyism" seems to be endemic in all capitalist countries...when it comes to making serious money, few capitalists seem to think much about the "technical definitions".

Oooooo! Another keyboard kommando!

They are always so "brave" when their mouths can write checks that their asses don't have to cash.

Yes, in places it approached literacy.

Not much there of substantive argument though.