woody60707
Deity
Wait, what are you supporting? ... or are they supporting. Or is anyone supporting?
NZ ships banned from Pearl Harbour
- Thread starter otago
- Start date
Wait, what are you supporting? ... or are they supporting. Or is anyone supporting?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I like how he thinks they are being bullied. Hey, if your nation wants to be paranoid about nuclear powered (or armed) ships thats your right, but lets face it, its not exactly a problem worldwide is it?
Anyways, plenty of ports dont have such silly restrictions, so its not much of a problem.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Hopefully, it will eventually grow so that incessant warmongers will find it far more expensive to continue with their absurd imperialism and hegemony under the pretense of peace.
All nuclear weapons have already been removed from Japan due to the "paranoia" of the only victims of their use, and the people of Okinawa don't wish them on their soil as well.
All nuclear weapons have already been removed from Japan due to the "paranoia" of the only victims of their use, and the people of Okinawa don't wish them on their soil as well.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Imperialism and hegemony?
Seriously?
Give it a break, its just about docking rights. And fwiw, Japan still allows our nuclear powered ships to dock at their ports, so bleh.
Anyway, one wonders if NZ needs our aide against an agressive Pacific power some time in the future, and say are invaded, will they still keep our ships from docking at their ports once they need our help? Hmmm.
Seriously?
Give it a break, its just about docking rights. And fwiw, Japan still allows our nuclear powered ships to dock at their ports, so bleh.
Anyway, one wonders if NZ needs our aide against an agressive Pacific power some time in the future, and say are invaded, will they still keep our ships from docking at their ports once they need our help? Hmmm.
Clear thinking. And until they do, the United States Navy will be there to protect the free world.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The only problem is that there is just one government left which is still a practitioner of warmongering, imperialism, and hegemony in the world today. And they are the only ones with the excessively large military "to protect the free world" from no real threats.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It seems that you are the one who actually needs a refresher course in these matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
U.S. Hegemony May Be in Decline, but Only to a Degree
What other countries continue to engage in widespread warmongering, imperialism, and hegemony today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
U.S. Hegemony May Be in Decline, but Only to a Degree
Somalian piracy is hardly a justification for 13 carrier strike groups.
What other countries continue to engage in widespread warmongering, imperialism, and hegemony today?
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
How are you being bullied? You put restrictions on our ships operating in your waters, we put restrictions on ships operating in our waters. Your action actually has geopolitical and strategic consequences, ours simply political.
The reason you have kept the law on the books is because you continue to be an anti-nuclear state. It has nothing to do with the US GOVERNMENT (how you morphed this into a USN policy is beyond reason) response.
Being anti nuclear is stupid and illogical, but it is your right to be stupid and illogical. However, if NZ is hell bent on being stupid and illogical they have to own that, the US didn't force them into anything whether it be taking that stance initially or maintaining it now.
Why exactly do you believe this is simply a USN policy as opposed to a State Department one? Does the irrationality of NZ's whining become more palatable to you if you can pretend it involves an imaginary military boogeyman?
Who said otherwise?
While we all appreciate your habit of posting articles completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and that miserably fail to support any position you put forward, I am forced to point out that those articles are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and miserably fail to suppor any position you put forward.
Look, Form, we need to keep the military big and distracted. Can you imagine how our economy would absorb the impact of downsizing the military and putting all those people out to compete for private sector jobs? It is just much easier to pay the price through deficit spending and give them something to do.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
While I appreciate the notion of a civilian conservation corps to provide jobs for those who would typically be unemployed in difficult times, I hardly think arming and stationing them overseas to scare and occasionally even rape the locals in 761 different locations is doing our international reputation much good. That is, unless we want to provoke even more 9/11s to provide even more similar make-work jobs overseas.
Why don't we have them build more national parks and maintain our national forests instead? We could even possibly arm theofficers supervisors so they can shoot rattlesnakes and the more recalcitrant bears when necessary. Of course, nuclear-powered tractors would be completely out of the question.
Why don't we have them build more national parks and maintain our national forests instead? We could even possibly arm the
Look, we just ban birth control and abortions and we will have enough children to pay off the deficit this is contributing to. Trust me, we are much better off letting them cause problems over there so we don't have to deal with them as much over here.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Well, the first thing we could have them do is to build a barbed-wire enclosure around their job sites. This would also help keep the gay agenda out.
No, we must be compassionate - these people suffer through everything from being given government run health care to government run legal services. Just because that is more socialism than the average true blooded American joe six pack the plumber is willing to tolerate, we must celebrate, not punish the diversity.
Formaldehyde - Lower down in that wiki article are the obvious counter arguments that you apparently disregarded;
Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.
Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial.
Some scholars, however, defend the historical role of the U.S. Other prominent political figures, such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, have argued that "[The U.S. does not] seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."
I think the problem here is that in modern times we need new descriptions for new realities. Old words like imperialism and warmongering are pejoratives. Indeed, some sources in the wiki article suggest we should rethink these;
Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism by claiming: "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer says, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including British historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Michael Ignatieff.
These are using the terms in a modern sense. To go in and warmonger against fascists, communists and terrorists is a positive thing. To employ force to defend against aggression is praiseworthy. To then liberate a Germany, a Japan, or a Kuwait just doesn't jive with old-fashioned notions of Imperialism or Manifest Destiny.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.
Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial.
Some scholars, however, defend the historical role of the U.S. Other prominent political figures, such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, have argued that "[The U.S. does not] seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."
I think the problem here is that in modern times we need new descriptions for new realities. Old words like imperialism and warmongering are pejoratives. Indeed, some sources in the wiki article suggest we should rethink these;
Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism by claiming: "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer says, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including British historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Michael Ignatieff.
These are using the terms in a modern sense. To go in and warmonger against fascists, communists and terrorists is a positive thing. To employ force to defend against aggression is praiseworthy. To then liberate a Germany, a Japan, or a Kuwait just doesn't jive with old-fashioned notions of Imperialism or Manifest Destiny.
There has been a lot of warmangering since we took on Japan or Germany, or even liberated Kuwait.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Warmongering is just a highly descriptive word that has never changed its meaning. And neither has imperialism.
There you go. Like many people, Max Boot is defending imperialism instead of trying to argue absurd semantics.
But imperialism obviously didn't "defeat communism" any more than Ronald Reagan did. The Soviet Union failed due to its own inadequacies. And Nazism was just yet another form of imperialism from the same school of authoritarianism.
Yet another excellent example by a renowned warmongering authoritarian.
No, they are using it in exactly the same sense that it has always been used. Calling other "fascists, communists and terrorists" is just even more fearmongering and hyperbole by like-minded authoritarians who use any excuse they can to rationalize their warmongering under the guise of democracy, freedom, and liberty.
Link to video.
It is as simple as that. The US more than any country on the planet needs to learn to stop incessantly meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Besides, whatever you think about Rumsfeld's policy decisions, I wouldn't take a word he says at face value.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Forma uses the word "imperialism" because it makes him feel big to be against something that describes something big. It has nothing to do with any notion of his based in reality.
What he failed to understand is that not all imperialism or conditions that have tangential similarities (like current US international circumstances) are automatically bad. He thinks he has a slam dunk when he breaks out the word. When he quotes barely related things as "proof", and then scratches his head when people don't fall in line pretend the US is the newest rebuilding of Mordor, he just doubles down.
No matter what you do, Forma will pretend the US is 17th century Spain or France or England. If its not, he isn't special for standing against it. In Forma's mind a joint training base in North Australia, proposed and approved by the Australians, owned by the Australians, and primarily staffed and used by Australians is the exact same thing as the subjugation and material rape of the Indian subcontinent by European powers hundreds of years ago. Its a mind set brotha, you just have to sit back and enjoy the show.
What he failed to understand is that not all imperialism or conditions that have tangential similarities (like current US international circumstances) are automatically bad. He thinks he has a slam dunk when he breaks out the word. When he quotes barely related things as "proof", and then scratches his head when people don't fall in line pretend the US is the newest rebuilding of Mordor, he just doubles down.
No matter what you do, Forma will pretend the US is 17th century Spain or France or England. If its not, he isn't special for standing against it. In Forma's mind a joint training base in North Australia, proposed and approved by the Australians, owned by the Australians, and primarily staffed and used by Australians is the exact same thing as the subjugation and material rape of the Indian subcontinent by European powers hundreds of years ago. Its a mind set brotha, you just have to sit back and enjoy the show.
