Side note, it's Pearl Harbor not Pearl Harbour. You don't change proper nouns.
NZ ships banned from Pearl Harbour
- Thread starter otago
- Start date
Criticizing Boot and Krauthammer as warmonger authoritarians while yourself employing a left-wing ideologue like Noam Chomsky as a source is simply hypocritical, as I recall MobBoss pointing out to you on another thread.
I do think, however, that our differences reside in soft versus hard definitions of the terms were using.
Hegemony was often used to describe the Soviet Union's (hard) "influence" over the other Warsaw Pact members during the Cold War. This influence included brutal armored invasions of Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) when they balked or rebelled. The term was also used to describe American (soft) "influence" over it's NATO partners. When these partners disagreed - or in the case of France, withdrew from the alliance - there was a distinct lack of US coercion.
Imperialism likewise has soft and hard connotations. My American Heritage Dictionary defines it as; The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. You obviously mean the later, soft interpretation. People like me, however, look around and wonder who we've conquered and incorporated into our "Empire" lately. Heck, we can't even prompt Puerto Rico to stay or leave.
Warmonger. One who advocates or attempts to stir up war (AHD). It seems to me that the collective security agreements the world has today, such as in the UN Security Council, NATO or other agencies, require us to "...meddle in the affairs of other countries," when victims are in danger. We've had several threads about war justifications. Is war ever good?, and so on. It seems to me that those who start a war with the intention of conquest are the true (hard) warmongers. While those who enter upon war to defend the weak or rectify an injustice are a different kind entity - defenders? Not peacemongers, which usually refers to pacifists or appeasers.
In reading your entries, I sense you hold an extreme ideological position which prevents you from nonpartisan thought. It's unlikely we'll agree on anything.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Yeah, and you're a patriot.
Riiiiiight.
Well it was a statement about the government mind you (not a statement that I agree with) as opposed to slandering the nation, it's culture, people etc. Big difference
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
As the People of the United States elect their government officials every two to four years, I dont see a whole lot of difference in the two. If our government is what he says, then arent the people directly responsible for putting them there in the first place?
For that reason, I never really got that excuse. Its a government 'by the people, for the people', right? Ergo, his comments are just as damning of the populace as they are anything else.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
As the People of the United States elect their government officials every two to four years, I dont see a whole lot of difference in the two. If our government is what he says, then arent the people directly responsible for putting them there in the first place?
For that reason, I never really got that excuse. Its a government 'by the people, for the people', right? Ergo, his comments are just as damning of the populace as they are anything else.
One cannot damn the American populace without damning the nation? Seems to me like I can (and do) love America, but hate Americans.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I see you still don't understand the meaning of that word, even after it has been patiently explained to you by countless forum members.Yeah, and you're a patriot.
Riiiiiight.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
You shouldn't have bombed us back in '41
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
America is more than just its geography.
After 26 years of military service, I am positive I have a far more acute understanding of that word than you ever will in your entire life.
Military employment.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
And yet you still continue to frequently misunderstand what it actually means. I guess they don't actually teach that topic in the military despite you apparently thinking they do.
Oh, c'mon. Those who are clerks still have to be ready if our shores are ever invaded by communists or under attack by a surfeit of irate undocumented immigrangs. That is apparently even true with those who claim to be disabled to a great extent.
It is much like GWB defending the skies of Texas during the Vietnam War. I doubt they really needed many pilots in Vietnam, just like they don't really need many clerks in combat zones. After all, how many troops were ever stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to the state of Washington?
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Yup. America is also more than just its populace.
Oi! Don't talk bad about Washington!
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Tell you want, for anyone thinking that military clerks are somehow less a soldier, i'll gladly offer to meet anyone making such an allegation here in the combatives ring. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate what kind of combatives training even military clerks get.
Would you be up for that? I can certainly arrange it. 'Course you'd have to sign a hold-harmless agreement, 'cause sometimes things happen, but I mean really, how much of a danger can a clerk be, right?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I'm not "talking bad about Washington". I am merely pointing out that there was obviously a need for clerks in war zones just as there were pilots. And it is quite easy to volunteer to actually "serve" your country during times of "war" instead of merely being "employed" protecting the US from inevitable invasion that never seems to occur.
I would't want you to strain yourself with that "disability" of yours.Would you be up for that? I can certainly arrange it. 'Course you'd have to sign a hold-harmless agreement, 'cause sometimes things happen, but I mean really, how much of a danger can a clerk be, right?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Rofl, consider it a handicap in your favor then. By all means dont worry about me; I'll be the one that actually knows what he's doing. I'll even use my notary to make your hold-harmless agreement official.
But this does highlight the case in point. Even as a clerk, i've served in infantry units, and done the same exact training those guys have had, right beside them. And military 'clerks' deploy all over the world and into hostile areas, and hundreds have certainly paid for it with their lives, both in combat and in training environments. For you to raise your nose at me for me merely being a clerk shows your ignorance of what really goes on in the military today; and i'd really, REALLY love the chance and opportunity to convice you firsthand just how wrong you are about me, and military clerks in general.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Are you really physically threatening me, even with your 70+% disability?
And what would that prove? That you were the "patriot" instead of me? That you are actually "serving" in the military instead of being employed as a clerk far outside of any "war" zones, even during times of drastic shortages?
And what would that prove? That you were the "patriot" instead of me? That you are actually "serving" in the military instead of being employed as a clerk far outside of any "war" zones, even during times of drastic shortages?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
How can an offer to help inform you of a military clerks (even a disabled ones) ability to, as you said, to defend our shores, be seen as a threat? You obviously hold them in such disdain how on earth could that be a physical threat to you?
I'm simply offering you a chance to confirm your allegations. I thought you'd jump at the chance.
