It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's Imperialism

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Fine by me - take it however you want to, let me just READ some FACTS:

46 Countries without US Presence (only)

156 Countries with US Troops

63 Countries With US Presence and Troops

7 Countries with 13 New US Bases since 9-11/2001 and before the Iraqi Invason

Thats pretty nice Staistics don't you think?

Oh yes, and let's not forget that US has around 250.000 Troops ABROAD!


Ok out of all those countries with US Presence and/or Troops, how many have requested the Presence or Troops?

What would be your criteria for sending Troops abroad?
Do you support sending Troops to deter aggression or is our deployment of troops the aggression?




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by evanfitz
Many of those bases were actually their to stop an imperialism or to prevent one.

To Stop WHO's Imperialistic Tendencies?



Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Iraq etc.



Who really can do anything against the united States Today?


How about kill three thousand civilians in one day? You may not fully understand the reach of terrorism.

Al Qaeda has more soldiers on foriegn land than the US has in its entire military. So in todays world, the terrorist are imperialist.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   


Ok out of all those countries with US Presence and/or Troops, how many have requested the Presence or Troops?

What would be your criteria for sending Troops abroad?
Do you support sending Troops to deter aggression or is our deployment of troops the aggression?


Good point, many countries with US presence are making money off us. We dont need most of those bases, its just theirs a public outcry when we try and leave.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
One doesn't have to excersize direct control to control. For instance, the government makes sure you pay your taxes rightly, as more likely than not they are deducted at source. They control the businesses you work for, therefore exert control over you.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   


Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.


So that definition appiles to US bases who many countries invited??
Or to help contain the spread of Nazis, Communism, Imperialism and just out right insanity??



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Iraq etc.

Russia is Not an Empire, Anymore.

Germany is not really close to that definition, Anymore.

Japan? Please...

Iraq? An Empire? Seriously...

The only one you have to fear here is China and her Allies, like Russia, India and probably Iran.



How about kill three thousand civilians in one day? You may not fully understand the reach of terrorism.

Al Qaeda has more soldiers on foriegn land than the US has in its entire military. So in todays world, the terrorist are imperialist.

Yes, Yes, Ofcourse - Heard it all before.

What about 30.000 young Children that Die everyday of Poverty and Malnutrition?

I guess they don't count anyway....


Anyway let's check Al-Qaeda's map too and let's bear in Mind that they are an EX-CIA Black Ops...



Super Nice!



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
One doesn't have to excersize direct control to control. For instance, the government makes sure you pay your taxes rightly, as more likely than not they are deducted at source. They control the businesses you work for, therefore exert control over you.


That same reason could be applied to sanctions, but we don't need troops to control any countries for that.
Infact, if imperialism runs behind the term sanction then that highlights every nation as an empire.

But im still not seeing German or French troops rolling in to aid coalition
forces in Iraq. (BTW, this wasn't a hate sentence.)

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
What would be your criteria for sending Troops abroad?

Simple:

To Extend control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   


Russia is Not an Empire, Anymore.

Germany is not really close to that definition, Anymore.

Japan? Please...

Iraq? An Empire? Seriously...

The only one you have to fear here is China and her Allies, like Russia, India and probably Iran.


please revert to my past replies, and actually give it time to pass through your head. We control former imperial like governments such as japan and germany. The cold war is over, that means no use for the bases. Or does it?
Two words, Money Maker.



Yes, Yes, Ofcourse - Heard it all before.

What about 30.000 young Children that Die everyday of Poverty and Malnutrition?

I guess they don't count anyway....


I was simply correcting an error in your judgment. Exactly how does Poverty and Malnutrition relate to terrorism? Or this thread??

So please dont use the deaths of those children to hide behind, again.





Super Nice!


More proof of Terrorism as imperialism, very nice

I would also question the map, we truely dont know how many terrorist their are in the World.
Notice Mexico wasnt highlighted, now thats something I could question.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
That Al Quaeda list is missing Spain and Canada along with other countries. Now when you look a the list of counties Al Quaeda has operated in, the term Global war on Terror makes some sense doesn't it?

By the way I still don't think having a base in another country is the same as controlling or owning it. When the British owned the US colonies they dictated our laws, government and economy. I really don't see how we are doing that to Germany or Japan.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz

Originally posted by Passer By
One doesn't have to excersize direct control to control. For instance, the government makes sure you pay your taxes rightly, as more likely than not they are deducted at source. They control the businesses you work for, therefore exert control over you.


That same reason could be applied to sanctions, but we don't need troops to control any countries for that.
Infact, if imperialism runs behind the term sanction then that highlights every nation as an empire.

But im still not seeing German or French troops rolling in to aid coalition
forces in Iraq. (BTW, this wasn't a hate sentence.)

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]


It could be applied, but we are discussion something else here. Sanctions do not have the same meaning as a standing army. AGreed?

But I think you see the point, control is only in the most superficial ways direct. Indirect, is much more insidious IMO.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
What exactly does 'operated in' constitute? Of those countries, how large is the Al-Queda prescence, and how dangerous is thier prescence; and, of those countries, how many have had substantiated terrorist attacks by Al-Queda? Exactly what is the modus operandi of Al-Qeuda?

Chomksey is a very provacative writer who casualy endears a verbose language upon his readers, so be aware of this work and do read it over thoroughly. It's very informative and highly thought provoking.

Luxifero



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
The cold war is over, that means no use for the bases. Or does it?
Two words, Money Maker.

So why exactly are there so many US Bases sread all over the Globe?



So please dont use the deaths of those children to hide behind, again.

And what had 9-11 to do with Iraq?

What had Saddam to do with Al-Qaeda?



More proof of Terrorism as imperialism, very nice

I would also question the map, we truely dont know how many terrorist their are in the World.

Lets not forget Who Created Al-Qaeda and who is is Financing it.

People quickly forget that stuff....

As long as there are Terrorists and people who are willing to "hunt them down and kill them" the Business will never Stop. And that's what this is all about = profit and money.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That Al Quaeda list is missing Spain and Canada along with other countries. Now when you look a the list of counties Al Quaeda has operated in, the term Global war on Terror makes some sense doesn't it?

By the way I still don't think having a base in another country is the same as controlling or owning it. When the British owned the US colonies they dictated our laws, government and economy. I really don't see how we are doing that to Germany or Japan.


WP, could it be that you are not seeing it because you are comparing two different sides of the fence? On one side you are as the "opressed", and you were using today's lingo "insurgents", and now you are comparing it to when you are the powers.

Agree'd, American soldiers are not beating the civilians - but then neither did the British(Unless you were Irish
) . The point is that people want to make their own decisions, and if there is a party that is, even only symbolically, interfering then those people will try to remove them - agree'd?

Now, I doubt there is generally and strong arm tatic's being used today, and no one sends in the military if diplomatic means will do it - but controling someone either through military or diplomacy is still controling and people will always resist that.

Wouldn't you if you found out that America was owned and had decisions made for it by Saudi Arabia, or Israel, wouldn't you stand up and want America to be run by American's?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
Good point, many countries with US presence are making money off us.


- That absolutely depends upon the accountancy one uses and what one is prepared to count in the credit/debit ledger.


We dont need most of those bases, its just theirs a public outcry when we try and leave.


- Most amusing. Do you really believe that?!

There is occassional brief local pessimism when local businesses realise the trade might decline - as has happened in the UK with the closure of certain bases - but if you can point out any significant, sustained and general national "public outcry" and relevant campaign to reverse the decision beyond that (anywhere) I'd love to hear of it.

Don't be silly.

For example this is what has happened within the UK concerning UK troops and bases.
The British army are closing down some long standing local regiments as Northern Ireland normalises, there are local politicians whining that the public subsidy this represents to NI will cease but beyond 10 minutes of that no-one is taking the slightest bit of notice (excepting the poor sods whos' jobs are ending).
To represent this as a significant "public outcry" is as misleading and disengenuous as your own comment.

There is no "public outcry" over the idea of the Americans going home from Europe especially, there is no good reason for those bases to be there and every reason for them to close and US weapons, especially your nuclear weapons, to go back home along with the personel who man them.

Thanks and all but, let's be honest, it's long past time to go.
It's a situation which if reversed most Americans wouldn't tolerate this long either so why should we?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   


So why exactly are there so many US Bases sread all over the Globe?


Numerous reasons, mainly money making, and protection. Every countries different.


And what had 9-11 to do with Iraq?

What had Saddam to do with Al-Qaeda?


Could you show me were I said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Bush may have at one time, but not me. I don't blame the Food/Aid commercials for hiding behind anything when they show up on T.V.



Lets not forget Who Created Al-Qaeda and who is is Financing it.

People quickly forget that stuff....

As long as there are Terrorists and people who are willing to "hunt them down and kill them" the Business will never Stop. And that's what this is all about = profit and money.


Created?


One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda, which was formed by Osama bin Laden in 1988. Bin Laden wished to extend the conflict to nonmilitary operations in other parts of the world

en.wikipedia.org...-Qaeda

financed (past tense please). The Sauds, and the United STates. Reasons, to stop the imperialism/flow of communism of Russia (the type of imperialism that you hate so much.).

After 9/11, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no longer in control over Afghansitan.
The Coalition stopped imperlism, and thus created a new government.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
Numerous reasons, mainly money making, and protection. Every countries different.

Numerous reasons, such as: Money making, Making Profit, Creating Business.



Could you show me were I said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Bush may have at one time, but not me. I don't blame the Food/Aid commercials for hiding behind anything when they show up on T.V.

How about kill three thousand civilians in one day?

And thats your Reason for "Converting Iraq to Democracy"?



The Sauds, and the United STates. Reasons, to stop the imperialism/flow of communism of Russia (the type of imperialism that you hate so much.).

Ah Yes - The Big Soviet Empire and how to Crush it in one big Strike, so that the only Empire left standing is the American = Russian-Afganistan War.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The denial of the existence of an american empire is similar to the denial of the philippines becoming an american colony during the 1st half of the 20th century.

those in denial of the philippines as a colony has the following reasons:
1. it is a war reparation from spain
2. initially, they resisted (filipinos) but later wanted to become a us state
3. to civilize the natives (this is the rarest excuse)

The american empire is not only about foreign bases. there are also the installation of "friendly" (puppet govts) that will serve as local governor friendly to the US.

example: ukraine, georgia, iraq, afghanistan etc..

the "diplomatic" pressure on foreign leaders so that they behave as wanted.

example: Japan, SK, taiwan, philippines, pakistan, saudi arabia etc...

There is an american empire today (there is nothing inherently evil with empire but it depends on the person). Compared to previous ones, it is a lot more subtle and discreet.

It is cloaked in the guise of "promoting democracy", american multinationals domination of economy and foreign bases that serves as "protector of peace and stability".



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   


Numerous reasons, such as: Money making, Making Profit, Creating Business.


Yep, those third world countries need some work, or else that 30,000 children per year may raise.



How about kill three thousand civilians in one day?

And thats your Reason for "Converting Iraq to Democracy"?

I can't decide whats going on through your mind.

Heres the previous conversation.

Originally posted by Souljah
quote: Originally posted by evanfitz
ME-------Many of those bases were actually their to stop an imperialism or to prevent one.
YOU-------To Stop WHO's Imperialistic Tendencies?



ME-------Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Iraq etc.

quote:
YOU----------Who really can do anything against the united States Today?


ME------------How about kill three thousand civilians in one day? You may not fully understand the reach of terrorism.

ME-----------Al Qaeda has more soldiers on foriegn land than the US has in its entire military. So in todays world, the terrorist are imperialist. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let me clear this up.

You said,


Who really can do anything against the united States Today?


I said,


How about kill three thousand civilians in one day? You may not fully understand the reach of terrorism.


Now, where did Iraq come into all of this???
I was talking about Al Qaeda.




Ah Yes - The Big Soviet Empire and how to Crush it in one big Strike, so that the only Empire left standing is the American = Russian-Afganistan War.


Would you rather it be vise-versa? The Afghan war played a good a portion of the downfall of the murderous Soviet dictatorship (imperial government as you would call it)

Now theirs no Al Qaeda nor Taliban in Afghanistan.
IT seems your a bit upset because of that.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thaei
The denial of the existence of an american empire is similar to the denial of the philippines becoming an american colony during the 1st half of the 20th century.

those in denial of the philippines as a colony has the following reasons:
1. it is a war reparation from spain
2. initially, they resisted (filipinos) but later wanted to become a us state
3. to civilize the natives (this is the rarest excuse)

The american empire is not only about foreign bases. there are also the installation of "friendly" (puppet govts) that will serve as local governor friendly to the US.

example: ukraine, georgia, iraq, afghanistan etc..

the "diplomatic" pressure on foreign leaders so that they behave as wanted.

example: Japan, SK, taiwan, philippines, pakistan, saudi arabia etc...

There is an american empire today (there is nothing inherently evil with empire but it depends on the person). Compared to previous ones, it is a lot more subtle and discreet.

It is cloaked in the guise of "promoting democracy", american multinationals domination of economy and foreign bases that serves as "protector of peace and stability".


Well the phillipines never became a US STate.


There is an american empire today (there is nothing inherently evil with empire but it depends on the person). Compared to previous ones, it is a lot more subtle and discreet.


Your thinking of a dictatorship, similar to Stalin and Hitler. Bush maybe a little jumpy and has a great love for the word "freedom", but he doesn't compare to former dictators.

Its a very confusing political process, democracy is far far away from a dicatatorship.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]







 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join