woody60707
Deity
I support NZ in this
Wait, what are you supporting? ... or are they supporting. Or is anyone supporting?
I support NZ in this
Pat, you do not get it do you, we will not be bullied into changing one of our policies made law by our parliament.
You have tried that approach and it does not and will not work with us, the reason we have kept the law even with a right wing government in power is because of the US Navies approach.
Is the US navy under civilian control ? because from here they seem to be acting like a Sovereign state.
Oh, and do try to be accurate, nuclear armed or propelled vessels from ALL countries are banned, ALL conventional powered Naval vessels are welcome.
This bloke sums it up well.
Petty, petulant and pathetic
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10817154
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.
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.
Imperialism at the heart of U.S. foreign policy
Historian Donald W. Meinig says that imperial behavior for the United States dates at least to the Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as an "imperial acquisition – imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule." The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans he said were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[12]
Writers and academics of the early twentieth century, like Charles A. Beard and Andrew Bacevich, in support of non-interventionism (sometimes referred to in a derogatory manner as "isolationism"), discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today do not agree. Pat Buchanan claims that the modern United States' drive to empire is "far re
Bacevich argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[14] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs" according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.[15]
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activist Noam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to "manufacture opinion" as the process has long been described in other countries.[16]
At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military "sites" abroad.
Somalian piracy is hardly a justification for 13 carrier strike groups.That is akin to where we are now, post-Iraq: calmer, more pragmatic and with a military -- especially a Navy -- that, while in relative decline, is still far superior to any other on Earth. Near the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy had almost 600 ships; it is down to 280. But in aggregate tonnage that is still more than the next 17 navies combined. Our military secures the global commons to the benefit of all nations. Without the U.S. Navy, the seas would be unsafe for merchant shipping, which, in an era of globalization, accounts for 90 percent of world trade. We may not be able to control events on land in the Middle East, but our Navy and Air Force control all entry and exit points to the region. The multinational anti-piracy patrols that have taken shape in the Strait of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden have done so under the aegis of the U.S. Navy. Sure the economic crisis will affect shipbuilding, meaning the decline in the number of our ships will continue, and there will come a point where quantity affects quality. But this will be an exceedingly gradual transition, which we will assuage by leveraging naval allies such as India and Japan.
Pat, you do not get it do you, we will not be bullied into changing one of our policies made law by our parliament.
You have tried that approach and it does not and will not work with us, the reason we have kept the law even with a right wing government in power is because of the US Navies approach.
Is the US navy under civilian control ? because from here they seem to be acting like a Sovereign state.
Oh, and do try to be accurate, nuclear armed or propelled vessels from ALL countries are banned, ALL conventional powered Naval vessels are welcome.
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
Warmongering is just a highly descriptive word that has never changed its meaning. And neither has imperialism.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;.
There you go. Like many people, Max Boot is defending imperialism instead of trying to argue absurd semantics.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."
Yet another excellent example by a renowned warmongering authoritarian.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.
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.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.
Some scholars, however, defend the historical role of the U.S. Other prominent political figures, such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld