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.

 

Ahmadinejad: 'American empire' nearing its end

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


Globalism and Free trade is one of the main reasons of our economic collapse, lack of regulations, as we can see the leaders of our nation and their shadow government the fed with their bankers and investors got too greedy and as usual they didn't gave a darn about our nation and its citizens at all.

All those global banks that infuse money to keep the America Markets afloat so they will not lose so much money actually end up losing too much.

That is why the pushing of the bail out to included foreign banks is part of the bill been passed by congress.

With unlimited powers to the shadow government the Fed.

And if you think they care about America the Nation you be for a big surprise, when this people get their money back they can move to greener pastures to exploit another emerging country.

It looks like China is next.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Money and banking is A way, not THE way. America's strength is production, processing, transporation and communications and associated services, not banking and finance.

If the global financial system collapses, it won't be America that is hurting the most. Perhaps, there will a modest slowdown, unless I am to believe that if there is no money then our machines no longer work, but the Nations that will hurt the most are the financial centers. We'll be just fine.

Some of you really need to get out of the large cities on the coasts and realize that a totally different reality exists in the mid section of the states. None of this catastrophe will affect us much. Nevertheless, America's currency is backed by something many of you refuse to accept the existence of, The King.

It's funny, you'll believe in a mythological empire, but not a mythological Kingdom. I suppose the latter doesn't fit well in your America will be destroyed script.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I couldn't agree more there, this is something that has been brewing for a long time now and it is the making of bad financial policy on a bipartisan basis which includes lack of regulation in our financial markets, it's no surprise where we end up. Of course with the falling dollar one would expect that it would attract more foreign investors, but because there isn't confidence, we're not seeing that much either.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


We are not bankrupt in the sense that there aren't other countries willing to pay our debt. That's just how it goes, I know it sounds silly. And it is...However, I can't think of many countries that are not billions or trillions in debt.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
Money and banking is A way, not THE way. America's strength is production, processing, transporation and communications and associated services, not banking and finance.


America greatest access was production that one you have it right, but our production base the bread and butter of the nation and the middle class that supported this nation has been outsourced, the middle class now lies jobless and destitute.

Transportation well if you go back to the old railroad system that is not longer a base, if you go back to air lines that is facing the same fate as the financial system, the services well if you call that a growth as in minimum wage salaries there you will find most of the production workers now so much for a down grade of the middle class, technology faced the same as production and manufacturing is been outsourced.

What is left for the American worker, I guess a new tax burden and a national debt.

While the financial sector was booming the rest of the nations was wittering.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


So, now that the financial system is destroyed and the bankers will soon be enslaved by the government and noone wants our worthless currency, if we want to survive, we'll have to begin to produce once more.

Because our money is worthless we won't be able to spend as much oversees and will rely on domestic production. Farms and processing facilities and mills will turn the lights back on.

When the harvest occurs in October/November, we'll remember what Thanksgiving is all about and after a few years of working 12 hours a day out in the fields we'll have cleansed ourselves of the filth that was introduced into our world.

Instead of our colleges and universities pumping out lawyers and bankers and great scholars they'll produce something of value for our country.

Anyway you spin it America comes out the winner. That's the bottom line despite what others may want to believe.

Soon noone will care about some abstract label called hyperpower and we'll just be a bunch of sh1t kicking farmers as we once were. But thanks for all the memories.


FYI. Of the 30 companies that make up the Dow Industrials only 4 are banking and finance related. The other 26, or the vast majority of the Dow, are production related. And 85 of 500 S&P companies are financials, less than 18%. So I am not sure in what way any part of what you wrote is even close to being accurate.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by bruxfain]

[edit on 25-9-2008 by bruxfain]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
By 'American Empire' Ahmadinejad clearly means 'the influence of america throughout the world', I am sure everybody that can read more than two words can comprehend it. He isn't saying that the country of United States is falling apart, which neverhteless might be the case. I really hope it makes the 'soviets'.

I really agree with Ahmadinejad's speech; at least he can speak, unlike his american colleague, that seem to be unable to give a single civilized comment.

Yes, United States is not perhaps disintegrating yet, but I am very pleased to see that the grip of the devil is loosing it's strenght. But I am not too cheerful. There will always be little wannabe superpowers ready to step forward if one collapses. Times has to change people - and now that they are changing, let's make the new times better! Let's say 'no!' to all attempts to suppress individual thinking and freedom of spirit; All the empires need to fall down, including China and Russia, and eventually every government (including Iran and United States and even my own pesky Finland). It is time for soveirgn of man!

Hail the superman (that is you, me and everybody else)



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
I remember a line from the first Star Wars where Darth Vader says something to the effect of, "if this is a diplomatic mission, then where is the Ambassador?" Then he throws down the strangled body of the man who told him the lie. Had Vader believed the lie, then I suppose he'd have gathered his storm-troopers and went elsewhere is search of the stolen death star plans.


I suppose everyone knows something about something even if it's pop culture.


But a person who is strong of mind and focused in purpose is not easily swayed with regards to Reality. Conspiracy Theorists seem to be the most easily swayed with regards to Reality.


When it comes to reality there are very few that aren't 'conspiracy theorist' in that their beliefs are somewhat different than is the norm elsewhere in the world. What may set 'conspiracy theorists' apart may then be how some attempt to inform themselves better than what is the norm in their local area.


I would like to ask Ahmadinejad, "if this is an Empire, then where is the Emperor?"


It is a empire as it's colonies makes abundantly obvious to anyone who knows how to read or look at a map. Why does a empire need a emperor in this modern times? Who would argue that you need a dictatorship to have a empire?


Then do the Vader thing on him because the man is a liar. He's trying to get people to believe that this is an Empire. Last I heard, the United States of America is a Democratic Republic!!


Well you heard wrong and i suggest that you consult your constitution to figure out what they called the US and what is it's still officially considered to be to this day.


Anyone who believes otherwise will find that a padded cell awaits you. And if the USofA is anything other than what I can easily prove to you, then it is the Capitol of the Heavenly Kingdom and the place from which God conquers and rules the Earth. I'd be more than happy to illustrate this to anyone who seems to be confused about the matter.


illustrate away.


Ahmadinejad is one of those people who thinks he's smarter than he is and is really headed for a historic downfall. No such Empire exists and if it does, according to some abstract definition of exists, then he is a citizen of it.


He seems like a reasonable, intelligent well read guy when his not saying what he is expected to and i really haven't managed to find that Iranian empire.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada
While there may be some truth to what you say, the "right wingers" have momentum because of the social issues. And that is why the Bush administration got elected twice. The lesser of the evils.


The GOP lost both elections in terms of both the popular vote and electoral system so your wrong. Frankly i don't know who the lesser of the two evil's are but i wouldn't be voting for either in terms of trying to prevent the other from reaching power.


If the left would stop trying to destroy our society with perversity, then we wouldn't be in the position we are now.


What perversity? The GOP loved abortion ( population control) until they figured out that they could use the issue to divide the 'democratic' party and generally obscure the rest of the GOP's reactionary program.


The current administration is the lesser of the evils. Liberals point the finger and have 3 others pointing right back at them.


Are you ten?


And they prop up people like Ahmadinejad in the media to give themselves some kind of boost. It is pathetic, and only widens the gulf in this Nation.


Prop up Ahmadinejad? Aren't both the 'democratic/republican' parties calling for a war against Iran? How did you come to that 'conclusion' beside for watching fox and other useless drivel?


The left bears the bulk of the blame for creating a situation where conservatives mostly cannot vote for liberal candidates because of the awful agenda they push.


Seriously? How can the left that is nominally the most representative of the progressive nature of American voters be to blame for the bulk of the problems? If so why did they win ( when you count the actual votes) all four of the last national elections? Sure the 'democratic' ( their certainly not liberals ) candidates are not that much different in that they are paid by the same people but they have mostly represented a slower implementation of the plan sponsored by TPTB.


At least Ahmadinejad recognizes the value of the family. Many of our own leaders can't even get that right.


Oh they know it very well but they may not understand how the programs that they are implementing is destroying those very families. You don't have to be 'evil' to implement it's aims and goals.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
What perversity? The GOP loved abortion ( population control) until they figured out that they could use the issue to divide the 'democratic' party and generally obscure the rest of the GOP's reactionary program.

There is a whole lot more to perversity than abortion. And I never said the GOP was conservative. Bush is a "moderate" as is McCain. I only said that he won the election because of social issues.

The 2000 election was a tie. And regardless of how one feels about the electoral college, it is constitutional. Unlike abortion, which is only legal by a supreme court fiat in direct opposition to state laws.

Ahmadinejad was covered by the liberal media because it fits their agenda.

I am not interested in bickering with you.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bruxfain
 


You really don't get do you, If American consumer can not support the economy, who is gong to support it, The banking system and corporate America?

Deny ignorance please.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by bruxfain

I suppose everyone knows something about something even if it's pop culture.

When it comes to reality there are very few that aren't 'conspiracy theorist' in that their beliefs are somewhat different than is the norm elsewhere in the world. What may set 'conspiracy theorists' apart may then be how some attempt to inform themselves better than what is the norm in their local area.

It is a empire as it's colonies makes abundantly obvious to anyone who knows how to read or look at a map. Why does a empire need a emperor in this modern times? Who would argue that you need a dictatorship to have a empire?

Well you heard wrong and i suggest that you consult your constitution to figure out what they called the US and what is it's still officially considered to be to this day.

illustrate away.

He seems like a reasonable, intelligent well read guy when his not saying what he is expected to and i really haven't managed to find that Iranian empire.


Stellar


Analysis of pop culture can be very useful when trying to expand ones understanding of the culture from which it comes. You should try reading some middle eastern literature it will provide great insight into the minds of middle eastern peoples Star Wars and many other movies happen to be more than load noises, cool costumes and special effects.

I repeat, the United States of America is not an empire! If you can show me evidence of this mythological Empire I will humbly submit. Empire is a concrete concept despite what "scholars" say. For about 5 years in the early 70s, refering to the United States as secretly being an Empire could be proven to have been true. If the United States is anything other than a democratic republic it secretly became a Kingdom on March 9, 2007 and the Kingdom was confirmed on 8-21-2008 at 6.47 pm. The US is not an Empire and there really isn't much chance that it will ever be an Empire, as a matter of fact.

They called it a Republic, it likes to call itself representative democracy but it contains elements of both. I call it a Democratic Republic. But it is not an Empire.

The man is a liar, he proved that when he kept refering to America as an empire. Which it is not.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I get it. No such thing as the American Empire exists. So Ahmadinejads speech is nothing more than the rant of a man on his way to the insane asylum.


When the wars end in 17 days, perhaps then you will get it.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
USA is no doubt an empire:



American Empire is a term referring to the political, economic, military and cultural influence of the United States. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. The sources and proponents of this concept range from classical Marxist theorists of imperialism as a product of capitalism, to modern liberal theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive U.S. policy, to neo-conservatives who believe the U.S. must embrace an imperial role.
en.wikipedia.org...


Though writers of diverse politics share a conception of the US as an empire, and describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of empire, even within the ranks of anti-imperialists explanations for US imperialism vary widely. Journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. as an empire into 5 broad categories: "liberal" theories, "social-democratic" theories, "Leninist" theories, theories of "super-imperialism", and "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories.[25] According to Smith,

* A "liberal" theory asserts that U.S. policies are the products of particular elected politicians (e.g. James K. Polk) or political movements (e.g. neo-conservatism). It holds that imperial policies are not the essential result of U.S. political or economic structures, and are clearly hostile and inimical to true US interests and values. This is the original position of Mark Twain and the Anti-Imperialist League and is held today by a good number of Democratic critics of US imperialism, whose proposed solution is typically electing better officials.
* A "social-democratic" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government - the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military-industrial complex". The complex is said to benefit from war profiteering and the looting of natural resources, often at the expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. The left-leaning Johnson holds a version of this view; other versions are typically held by conservative anti-interventionists, such as Beard, Bacevich, Buchanan, Raimondo, and, most notably, journalist John T. Flynn and Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler - simultaneously highest ranking and most decorated U.S. Marine, including two Medals of Honor and a 1935 Republican primary candidate for the Senate.
* A "Leninist" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the unified interest of the predominant sectors of U.S. business, which need to ensure and manipulate export markets for both goods and capital. Business, on this Marxist view, essentially controls government, and international military competition is simply an extension of international economic competition, both driven by the inherently expansionist nature of capitalism. The proposed solution is typically revolutionary economic change. The theory was first systematized during the World War I by Russian Bolsheviks Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin, although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists, socialists, and anarchists. Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Marxist anthropologist David Harvey, and, most notably, Indian writer Arundhati Roy each hold some version of this view, as does Smith himself.
* A theory of "super-imperialism" asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies driven not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries. Capitalism in Europe, the U.S., and Japan has become too entangled, in this view, to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists Leo Panitch and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view.
* A "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theory is closely related to the theory of "super-imperialism", but has a different conception of power. According to political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the world has passed the era of imperialism and entered a new era.[26]) This new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networked biopower based on an informational and affective economy. On this view, the U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of international power and sovereignty, termed "Empire", but the "Empire" is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; "the United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."[27] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists. Many in the traditions of postcolonialism, postmodernism and globalization theory hold related views.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada
There is a whole lot more to perversity than abortion. And I never said the GOP was conservative. Bush is a "moderate" as is McCain. I only said that he won the election because of social issues.


They are in fact reactionary types and they will do as damage to law, order and decency in general as they can.


The 2000 election was a tie. And regardless of how one feels about the electoral college, it is constitutional. Unlike abortion, which is only legal by a supreme court fiat in direct opposition to state laws.


Both the 2000 and 2004 elections were clear victories for the 'democratic' party. I mean it's not that i think this would have changed all that much in US politics but we should at least stick to the facts as they are. As for the abortion issue i merely mentioned that in a attempt to dispel the myth that the GOP represents some kind of moral authority in the US political aegis.


Ahmadinejad was covered by the liberal media because it fits their agenda.


How?


I am not interested in bickering with you.


Right... That's good, i suppose?

Stellar



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Of course Ahmadinejad appeals to liberal media, their agenda is to weaken the administration, thus giving a tannoy to staunch critics such as Ahmadinejad. Lets look at the irony of this though. The very media Ahmadinejad courts and exploits in the US is precisely the type of outlets that have been shut down in Iran for voicing anti-government protest. I think it's about time Western media saw these clampdowns and infringements of free press in Iran and instead started questioning Ahmadinejad on that!

I wonder if Bush would be offered the same privelage in Iran, a free platform with reformist media movements in Iran or a live interview on primetime Iranian tv? I think not. Saying that though very little is "live" on Iranian tv, even "live" football matches are aired with 5 minute delays! Not to mention the fact all tv is state owned.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Whatever,

what he jumps for joy for today... is GOOD for us and bad for him...

The power vaccum we leave behind will ripple across Europe the Mideast and Asia

and, we will be crippled and out of the fight this time... "he who fights and falls apart, lives to fight another day"

Iran is inbetween India, China, Russia, Isreal, Europe

How long do you suppose peace will reign in the mid east once we vacate... 3 seconds? 4 maybe?

Iran certainly will not be a big winner or have more freedom given the nature of the landlocked giant continent of many ultra powerful nations, Iran will not be coming out on top by our decline...

doomed to either a vassal state... IF it picks the right friends! and the choices are very unpredictable


no, this is great for the USA... glad to bow out be it under economic colapse or not...

Asia the mideast and Europe need to be very concerned about how it plays out in thier homes

Glad to return to being the new world and e unable to afford to fight wars in the old

Good luck Iran lol... you will need it



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfain
Analysis of pop culture can be very useful when trying to expand ones understanding of the culture from which it comes. You should try reading some middle eastern literature it will provide great insight into the minds of middle eastern peoples Star Wars and many other movies happen to be more than load noises, cool costumes and special effects.


Yes, and that's why some middle eastern ( emirates) are investing in the studios that make those types of movies. They provide entertainment without touching on many issues of consequence.


I repeat, the United States of America is not an empire! If you can show me evidence of this mythological Empire I will humbly submit.


Such as all the US territories and the many hundreds of armed encampments all over the world? Is that really a argument against empire or is the lack of US soldiers patrolling the streets of most of those countries just a argument in favor of more refined and profitable means of empire management?

americanhistory.about.com...

Obviously the Philippines/Cuba and other similarly populated territories had to be, or were taken, back some time ago so if you want we can agree that the empire wasn't too successful with respect to outright physical control.


Empire is a concrete concept despite what "scholars" say. For about 5 years in the early 70s, refering to the United States as secretly being an Empire could be proven to have been true.


It has been a empire since at least the time of the Spanish American war but even before that one can argue that most modern nations are in fact empires by virtue of their formation process.


If the United States is anything other than a democratic republic it secretly became a Kingdom on March 9, 2007 and the Kingdom was confirmed on 8-21-2008 at 6.47 pm. The US is not an Empire and there really isn't much chance that it will ever be an Empire, as a matter of fact.


You don't live in a representative democracy and that was never the goal. What democracy there is ( not the rich white old men variety) Americans fought for over the last two centuries and achieved against the wishes of those who hold the economic reigns. As for the rest of that i wont comment until i know what the hell your referring to.


They called it a Republic, it likes to call itself representative democracy but it contains elements of both. I call it a Democratic Republic. But it is not an Empire.


What something claims to be at home or what it's people attempt to make it does not have to tell much of a story as to it's actions on the global stage. Many ancient and more modern empires were in theory democratic or representative at home while they imposed brutal dictatorships abroad.


The man is a liar, he proved that when he kept refering to America as an empire. Which it is not.


Where else would one country derive the power from to force others to accept it's currency in payment for physical goods? I mean what type of power must you have to force those you oppress to accept your promises that the paper promises are worth something? Does that thousands of nuclear warheads and until recently thousands of most other things go some way towards explaining what empire is about? Does the post second world war interventions not seem like the doings of empire to you?

In conclusion the founding fathers were for the most part imperialist hence their expansion to take over much of North America and their ambition possess all of it. Truly a fortress Americana from which to dominate the world. The fact that there were so many rival empires with more experience at it largely prevented them from achieving much but consolidation and expansion against mostly unarmed natives.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Of course Ahmadinejad appeals to liberal media, their agenda is to weaken the administration, thus giving a tannoy to staunch critics such as Ahmadinejad. Lets look at the irony of this though.


The US MSM reflects the reactionary ( or to be generous, conservative) nature of their corporate owners; to suggest that there is a liberation media to appeal to is to admit to ignorance of the bias of the owners of all these media conglomerates.


The very media Ahmadinejad courts and exploits in the US is precisely the type of outlets that have been shut down in Iran for voicing anti-government protest.


I am not sure what 'liberal' media Iran had left for the the Mullahs to shut down after the reign of the shah. If you can name any that would at least give me something to investigate.


I think it's about time Western media saw these clampdowns and infringements of free press in Iran and instead started questioning Ahmadinejad on that!


What free press in Iran? Which press service was remotely 'free' during the Shah's time and who paid him to commit the outrages he did? Don't you understand any of this? Since when is the western media ( especially the MSM) committed to presenting the truth about the rest of the world?


I wonder if Bush would be offered the same privelage in Iran, a free platform with reformist media movements in Iran or a live interview on primetime Iranian tv?


So your declaring democracy because the US MSM allows a few more candidates to present their views than is the norm in Iran? Should we not rather consider the range of issues their various candidates represents instead of dealing in pure numbers; basically what is so different between Obama and Mccain other than their skin color and age? Can you name five major issues ( not abortion, religion or some such nonsense) where their views are very different?

As for reformist media movements in Iran why don't we just hope that sort of thing starts happening in the US first?


I think not. Saying that though very little is "live" on Iranian tv, even "live" football matches are aired with 5 minute delays! Not to mention the fact all tv is state owned.


Right, Iran is a mess and i am very glad i don't live there. If only i could get you to consider how such things can happen to people who didn't want it in the first place you might begin to understand why i am more worried about American than Iranian press freedom. When Iran starts building twelve aircraft carriers a few tends of a thousands of nuclear weapons and aircraft and missiles to deliver them i will have ample reason to start worrying about their media freedom. Until such happens i will focus my attention on the country that is , and has been, invading other sovereign countries based on fabrications and propaganda spread by their non state owned major media companies.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
we may be at our end, maybe alimi-jad, but, oh, im sorry, the death star will be fully operational. alimi-jad you are surrounded , we are not pulling out. iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, saudi. mccain will be the next president, tho america votes for him or not. i will not vote mccain.
alimi-jad and his drug opiate nations needs to be cut off and set free the wimen of opression and the rag. only people strung out on drugs can believe that bs he tells his peoples.. whats worse, now they have a bomb. a country strung out on drugs has a bomb. start worrying people. yes, iran, afghanistan strung out and crazy. my oppinion.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join