It's Imperialism

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
So you are, sorry about that! My mistake. Will think next time...

Tis ok, BTW, about my last post...please dont take it as "snidey" or with attitude mate. Its all fun and games.

Originally posted by Souljah


Because the ENTIRE Military is BASED on Oil and without Oil no Aircraft Carrer can sail, no Airplane can lift off and no Tank can storm across the desert. Without Oil the Military is GROUNDED and they simply don't have the time nor the Money to start to "Upgrade" their weapon systems to another energy source. Today they have to secure whats left of the oil reserves in order to keep them "Rolling". It's a matter of Life and Death. And not to mention everything that goes hand in hand with wars:

- Military Industry
- Oil Industry
- Construction Corporations

The Wheels keep turning this Way....

[edit on 23/8/05 by Souljah]

I agree oil is important but it doesnt fuel our aircraft carriers, they are nuclear powered and dont run on diesel. The bases left all over the world are just outposts and remnants of the cold war. I dont remember western europe complaining about the bases when they thought the soviets might just come and take over. Well, i guess there was concern over the intermediate based missiles in europe, but more often than not our presence was welcomed to offset the threat of soviet expansionism.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree oil is important but it doesnt fuel our aircraft carriers, they are nuclear powered and dont run on diesel.

My Mistake - I forgot that the Aircraft Carriers are Nuclear powered, and probably so si the Bulk of US Navy, alongside with Ballistic Missile Submarines.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Thaei the Empire did spread democracy, look at India today, would a democratic nation have emerged if it had not been subjected to two centuries of Brititsh rule and esposure to British ideas?

Before WW2 one of Ghandi's main points was that India shouldbe a dominion in the same vein as Canada or S. Africa. When we failed to deliver he campaigned for a home grown democracy in India. Why? Because he was educated in England and saw that the system worked.

During the 2 centuries of rule, india was ruled by the british not by indians, just as you wrote. Only after the british left did india became a democracy (indians vote for indians to become their leader). Previously it is the british govt who choose a british person to become the governor of india. Indians had no say who will become their governor.

Ghandi was influenced by british govt system and he liked to implement that democratic form of govt in india. It is him that implemented the democratic govt in india not the british themselves. There is a big difference between "being influenced by the british form of govt" and "democracy implemented by the british in india".

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
If the US was to show the Iraqi's by good example that democracy works, making them want it for themselves, rather than just watching as a small group tries to impose the begginings of a Taliban style state.

A spell of Empire would work wonders in Iraq.

True, in order to spread democracy, the majority of the people must want it themselves. Right now in iraq, the prevailing attittude towards their form of govt is one that has islam as its basis. Some may not like that approach at all but almost all participating political parties has some plan for islam in the govt themselves.

Since the people voted despite this, then if a taliban style govt emerges, it is not because of the will of the few but the will of the majority(they voted remember).

The emerging govt in iraq might not be a secular "human-rights loving" govt but they are there because they were voted in. Democracy at work.

The US no longer needs to incorporate iraq into an empire for them to have democracy. they already are practicing democracy despite the fact that it may evolve into a taliban style govt if left unchecked.

Noam Chomsky is a linguist...in academia. He is not a person in the state department , Executive branch of Government etc etc etc.

Noam Chomsky is ,however, the "expert" to whom people with very left, socialist , communist leanings quote and source as a expert on all kinds of policy. It has been this way for years.
Whenever I see Noam Chomsky's name posted as a source for expertise in any such matters warning flags go up immediately.
People with such left communist socialist leanings can only survive on college campuses as it is a closed shop enviornment. This is unknown to most of the public and as a result of this they get a free pass to play through in debates and blogs such as this. No matter what campus they are employed on...it is the only place they can make it..with such a belief system and use this to influence another generation of youth with high ideals and empty minds. Closed shop enviornments is the only place they can get away with this as the general public cannot observe and respond to what is going on . Same today with public schools.

As to the war on terrorism. For those who have very short term memorys...my memory goes back at least as far as the ocean liner Achille Lauro and a man named Leon Klinghoffer..who was a invalid ..wheelchair bound. Mr Klinghoffer was killed and thrown overboard. This happened when Ronald Reagan was president. If you folks believe this rhetoric about the Iraq war and the war on terrorism...using the reference points offered by some in this blog..you are way out of date. The war on terrorism has been going on over 25 years. Most of you Americans have been asleep at the wheel and continue to be so. Most important to keep up with those Redskins, Dallas,Titans, Or Fear Factor, Despirate Housewives and other important drivel in our lives.
It is quite obvious to me that when the Soviet Union fell the more radical and fathful of the Muslims understood that this was a opportunity to carry on Jihad to spread the faith by the Sword as it has always been carried on .
This has been done in Islam since the late 600ad and was stopped the first time by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours in France. You can look this up on the web.it is public information ..taught anywhere but in college and public schools. This is some 300 years before any crusade. Get a clue about those who like to leave out facts of history.
The people who follow socialist, communist belief system are so ignorant as to encourage the demise of the west and replace it with Islam..really dumb.... The irony of this whole senerio is that the Muslim nations are heavily dependent on the west for most of thier technology. With what will they replace this standard of living.? Nothing ..they will take everything and leave nothing. Just as was done to Kuwait in the 1990s when Iraq invaded..they took everything and left nothing. Even when they were leaving the Iraqi's took everything that was not tied down.
You people ought to know better than this.
This war on terrorism has been going on much longer than most ..especially Americans ...have a clue. France itself has been fighting this war within its borders often with automatic weapons and hand grenades being used by the muslims. France has very strict firearms and weapons laws. This information too can be looked up on the web.

While I have my doubts about this war..I can see clearly through the rhetoric spouted off on the first article on this blog. The war on terrorism has been spreading since the early 1970s and only gotten worse..because so few are willing to do anything about it. It has grown into a world wide movement today as a result of nothing being done about it . Do not be decieved by such fright tactics as used in the first postings on this board. This has been coming for some time now. These people are playing on your fears and doubts while only giving you one side of the picture. This is standard political rhetoric of fear.
Above all...watch for names like Noam Chomsky...it is awarning flag of the source of the information given.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Thaei you didnt answer my question.

Would India have become a democracy were it not for the Empire?
I agree that while the Empire was in charge the English were in control, though it was only possible thanks to the assistance of the Indian aristocracy. However i still feel that the Empire was good for India, it provided the railways and industrial facilities neded to make a democracy work, there were newspaers and other essentials to freedom of speech in place. All of which was accomplished by England. Ghandi may have finished the job, but we certainly started it, whether intentionally or not.

And is it right to allow an Islamic government to form? They repress women, often horribly, freedom of speach is curtailed. Executions are mandatory. In short the Iraqi's would be giving themselves the same system they had under Saddam, but with Islam at its head.

Half the population of Iraq are women (surprisingly) and to allow a theocracy to be established is to ruin their prospects. That is unnacceptable. This is just one reason why the consitiutional talks underway should be stopped and the US should assume direct authority over the region.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Thaei you didnt answer my question.

Would India have become a democracy were it not for the Empire?
I agree that while the Empire was in charge the English were in control, though it was only possible thanks to the assistance of the Indian aristocracy. However i still feel that the Empire was good for India, it provided the railways and industrial facilities neded to make a democracy work, there were newspaers and other essentials to freedom of speech in place. All of which was accomplished by England. Ghandi may have finished the job, but we certainly started it, whether intentionally or not.

Excsue me?
England?
Could you look up your geography.

Sorry wasp what would you prefer?

Britian? An artificial construct of the 17th century to explain the jurisdiction of the various parts of the United Kingdom.

Scotland? Not really applicable, just helped us along the way.

Ireland? Only if potatoes count as an Empire.

Wales? May not actually exist.

England is a perfectly acceptable term for the owners of the Empire based around this small island.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Sorry wasp what would you prefer?

Britian? An artificial construct of the 17th century to explain the jurisdiction of the various parts of the United Kingdom.

Artificial?
Since when?

Scotland? Not really applicable, just helped us along the way.

Ireland? Only if potatoes count as an Empire.

Wales? May not actually exist.

England is a perfectly acceptable term for the owners of the Empire based around this small island.

Uh yeah mabye if your heads wrapped up pro english ideas, but the empire wouldnt exist if the treaty of union didnt exist..

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN

Yeah real artificial...

Sorry Wasp im just being silly with you.

I call it England because i tend to spell Britain wrong. To write it then i had to check it. It just makes my life easier, dont worry about it so much!

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Sorry Wasp im just being silly with you.

I call it England because i tend to spell Britain wrong. To write it then i had to check it. It just makes my life easier, dont worry about it so much!

Sorry, I just get annoyed at these "allies" of us who call us england.
Ah well, typical english man

Just curiosity but what would prefer us to be called?

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Just curiosity but what would prefer us to be called?

Britons...british.....brits....citzens of the united kingdom..?

Oh yes DW is very touchy when it comes to how we refer to the brits, I think it’s because he’s from Scotland and doesn't like to be left out. (You are from Scotland aren’t you?)

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh yes DW is very touchy when it comes to how we refer to the brits, I think it’s because he’s from Scotland and doesn't like to be left out. (You are from Scotland aren’t you?)

Well not spefically me, just the other 5 million people...

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Thaei you didnt answer my question.

There is no question to be answered...

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Would India have become a democracy were it not for the Empire?

Probably, probably not. Thailand was never colonized by any colonial powers, yet they have democracy now. It is arrogant to assume that democracy can only emerge if western powers were the past rulers.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
I agree that while the Empire was in charge the English were in control, though it was only possible thanks to the assistance of the Indian aristocracy.

See, there is no democracy while the british were there. All those indian aristocracy who have power, do you think they wield more power than the true rulers, the british?

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
However i still feel that the Empire was good for India,

Wow, tell that to the indians and see if they agree with you...

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
it provided the railways and industrial facilities neded to make a democracy work, there were newspaers and other essentials to freedom of speech in place.

The united states was established without railways and industrial facilities yet they managed to form a democracy. Those things are not needed to form a democracy. the british might have "modernize" india but certainly not "democratize" it. Dont confuse the two.

Freedom of speech? why was ghandi imprisoned for encouraging indian independence if there was freedom of speech? There is no freedom of speech in india during british rule especially if it was anti-colonial govt speech.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
All of which was accomplished by England. Ghandi may have finished the job, but we certainly started it, whether intentionally or not.

Once again, your taking credit for india's democracy and giving it to the empire. India is modernized by the british but the indians are responsible for their democracy. It was never the intention of the british to democratize india. If it was not due to the weakening of the empire after ww2, india would never be granted independence hence REAL democracy.

You are suggesting that the british encourages india to be a democracy by giving them modern communication and freedom of speech? Those facilities are there primarily to facilitate commerce and the brit's ability to rule not to give indians ideas of democracy.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
And is it right to allow an Islamic government to form? They repress women, often horribly, freedom of speach is curtailed. Executions are mandatory. In short the Iraqi's would be giving themselves the same system they had under Saddam, but with Islam at its head.

Half the population of Iraq are women (surprisingly) and to allow a theocracy to be established is to ruin their prospects. That is unnacceptable. This is just one reason why the consitiutional talks underway should be stopped and the US should assume direct authority over the region.

If the iraqis voted for an islamic party for the govt, why would you call it wrong? You do know that even women voted during the election. An islamic govt was formed because the iraqis (men and women) voted. If all those "barbaric" acts you mentioned above is implemented by an islamic govt, then it is in place because the people wanted a society where islam is the law.

The people of iraq have spoken, its either you respect their right for own form of govt or you impose your own secular form of govt on them. "Real democracy or imperial democracy".

BTW, saddam is repressive but i dont recall him repressing women. It seems like saddam is being accused of all types of crimes, whether he commited them or not.

A new merge between Tony Blair and The Carlyle Group links Bush and Blair together in political finance. Multiple billion foreign capitolitic trusts are direct acts of democratic imperialism, and this type of financing is not new. This Bush family has deep connections with The Carlyles.

"President George W. Bush's father works for Carlyle; so does former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci, whose close friend Donald H. Rumsfeld now runs the Pentagon; and so does a stellar cast of retired generals and Cabinet secretaries, including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III." Carlyles are the worlds largest equity firm and hold position in weapons and defence administrations.

The Article: Blair Joining The Carlyle Group

Are you trying to say our PM is being bought or just saying that tony has a job prospect?

The fact the no single empire has effectively taken the whole world, done away with national identities and governments and just made us all terrans. One world, one government, one people.

-Location of Mongolia

www.cnn.com...



[edit on 7-12-2005 by muncher]