Dem Congressman used Natl Guard to check his own property...

[valvano]

looking out for himself first instead of his constituents...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1

[infidel]

They're all crooks.
Wonder how many millions of taxpayer money GW has spent flying AF-1 back and forth from his 300 days of vacation in the last five years?

[valvano]

i agree, they are all crooks, no matter the party, but i believe clinton has taken more vacation at this point in his presidency than bush...


and of course bush never held up an airport runway to get a haircut..
:)

[synch]

i agree, they are all crooks, no matter the party, but i believe clinton has taken more vacation at this point in his presidency than bush...
I'd like to see the numbers on that.

edit:

And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years.
From a 2001 article (http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html).

What did you base that statement on? Why did you "believe" that? Do you realise that it's those kinds of assumptions that make people stop taking anything you say seriously?

[DroppinScience]

i agree, they are all crooks, no matter the party, but i believe clinton has taken more vacation at this point in his presidency than bush...


and of course bush never held up an airport runway to get a haircut..
:)

Dude, Bush has taken more vacations in these 4 years than Reagan did in his entire 8 years. Same deal goes with Clinton, wherein synch just schooled you above on that point.

[valvano]

as i stated, i believed it to be true, but when using the word "believe" i left myself open to correction...

but do you seriously think any president takes a real vacation? a vacation to any president is probably sitting on a toilet for 10 minutes reading the paper with no interuptions...

[synch]

Apparently it also involves playing massive amounts of golf.

[Echewta]

Reading the paper? He said he doesn't do that.

This congressperson should take some serious heat for what he did. I'm surpised the national guard let him get away with it. Send him the bill and vote him out.

[baltogrl71]

it's easy to talk all this shit, but what would you do in his shoes, if your house may have been destroyed and you had the ability to have them ckeck your place out you would and if you disagree your probably full of crap.

not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

[synch]

as i stated, i believed it to be true, but when using the word "believe" i left myself open to correction...
You still didn't answer my question though. Why did you believe that to be true? Was something implied on fox? Did Clinton give you a well rested impression during his time in office?

It must have been based on something besides right wing bias.

Oh... nevermind.

It's ok though, we all do it on some level. I for example consider Bush to be an ignorant fool. Unfortunatly you can't google up anything that proves me wrong.

[synch]

How many vacations did other presidents take?
You are a little off with the 300 day crap. You would have to be like M. Moore to day that. (You would have to count weekends)So you wouldn't count weekends? Are you implying that all presidents lay back every weekend and take a two day vacation?

[Qdrop]

but do you seriously think any president takes a real vacation? a vacation to any president is probably sitting on a toilet for 10 minutes reading the paper with no interuptions...

oh valvano...
you so funny...

[King PSYZ]

Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation.
What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms

[synch]

So you wouldn't count weekends? Are you implying that all presidents lay back every weekend and take a two day vacation?
Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.Woops! My bad! Apparently Bush does.


Oh and for good measure:
Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days at his Santa Barbara ranch over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term.

[baltogrl71]

What I think is that thier vacations are probably not that relaxing, I am sure they work half their vacation or more, my job isn't even a tiny tiny tiny bit as important and I can't just vacation without dealilng with work about 60% or more of the time. His vacations aren't the issue with his presidency.

[synch]

In my opinion they are a symptom of the issue of his presidency though.

[Echewta]

Relax people. Trent Lotts house will be built again in no time and Bush will be vacationing on the porch there soon.

[baltogrl71]

In my opinion they are a symptom of the issue of his presidency though.


how

[infidel]

How many vacations did other presidents take?
You are a little off with the 300 day crap. You would have to be like M. Moore to day that. (You would have to count weekends)

Is the president really ever on vacation? Does he have to get breifings every day? Digging, digging, deeper proving your ignorance to us all.
You out to set the stupid record?

Bush took 500 days off as of April 2004. That's 32% of his presidency spent on vacation as of over a year ago.

Ronald Reagan took off 335 days during his eight years in office.

Bill Clinton spent 152 days on holiday during his two terms

George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days in his one term.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

[synch]

how
He has looked like his biggest concern was his golf handicap and the inexistant weapons of mass destruction to line his buddy's pockets. Not once in his term-and-a-bit has he looked concerned for anything that doesn't hurt him directly. He hasn't looked like doing anything for people like you and me (unless you are filthy rich, in which case you can pat him on the back on the golf course).

Taking the entire summer off as some of the poorest of the country are drowning just fits that picture.

But hey, that's just my impression.

[baltogrl71]

He has looked like his biggest concern was his golf handicap and the inexistant weapons of mass destruction to line his buddy's pockets. Not once in his term-and-a-bit has he looked concerned for anything that doesn't hurt him directly. He hasn't looked like doing anything for people like you and me (unless you are filthy rich, in which case you can pat him on the back on the golf course).

Taking the entire summer off as some of the poorest of the country are drowning just fits that picture.

But hey, that's just my impression.

OK, the only thing I know about golf is I suck. The weapons do exist but I think they are here, and I am pretty sure he planed his vacation before he planed the hurricane. My point was his vacation and your vacation are probably very different.

And just so you all know I am not a fan of gwb, but focus on what counts.

Oh, also I think this was the fault of the states involved no one else.

[synch]

OK, the only thing I know about golf is I suck. The weapons do exist but I think they are here, and I am pretty sure he planed his vacation before he planed the hurricane. My point was his vacation and your vacation are probably very different.

And just so you all know I am not a fan of gwb, but focus on what counts.

Oh, also I think this was the fault of the states involved no one else.
The weapons are in the US, in US Army bunkers to be exact.

The hurricane was predicted days before it actually hit and Bush didn't cut his vacation short until after it hit.

But he will make time for fun, or at least his idea of it. Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing. His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.Indeed, my vacations look nothing like that.

In my opinion the fault doesn't lie directly with dubya, but the ultimate responsability does. Apart from the fact that he is at the head of the government he is also directly or indirectly responsible for every appointed agency boss.

[baltogrl71]

[QUOTE=synch]The weapons are in the US, in US Army bunkers to be exact.

The hurricane was predicted days before it actually hit and Bush didn't cut his vacation short until after it hit.

Indeed, my vacations look nothing like that.

In my opinion the fault doesn't lie directly with dubya, but the ultimate responsability does. Apart from the fact that he is at the head of the government he is also directly or indirectly responsible for every appointed agency boss.

Do you take calls from your work when you vacation? Do you deal with it? Where he vacations and what he enjoys to do on them doesn't matter.

why do we have state governments? That is rediculous to expect him to micro manage every state. And the governors and mayors are not appointed, they are at fault.

[synch]

Do you take calls from your work when you vacation? Do you deal with it? Where he vacations and what he enjoys to do on them doesn't matter.If I had even a fraction of his responsability I'd take the calls, yes.

The fact that he has different taste in recreational activities is in fact not the point. The point is that he should be giving a better example. He could be working 12 hours a day at the ranch but that's not how it looks. He should give the appearance of taking care of the country. For the outside world it looks better if he's playing halo in the oval office than he looks having security briefings in his ranch.

Appearance is everything, especially in politics and diplomacy.

why do we have state governments? That is rediculous to expect him to micro manage every state. And the governors and mayors are not appointed, they are at fault.The head of FEMA and the other governmental agencies are appointed, and the first head to roll was the incompetent one of a college roommate buddy of a pal of his. You know, the one who got fired from his work at the horse show.

And I never said he should micro manage, I said he's the one that is ultimately responsible.

[baltogrl71]

I think the mayor and governors hold the majority of blame they know there states if they had levy problems they should have done something about it. If they had problems evacuating they should have called the national gaurd before.and fema well along with most government agencies is just a big cluster f-ck.

[valvano]

bill clinton didnt need to take a vacation....

he just had the ladies brought to the oval office so he could keep on working!!!

(y)

[baltogrl71]

oh, and as far as other countries their leaders vacation too probably as much or more, their whole society does, it is a core problem in our country that is why we have such a high rate of divorce,deppression, drug abuse and f-ckd up kids.

[STANKY808]

and of course bush never held up an airport runway to get a haircut..
:)

You didn't say you "believe" this part, so where's it come from?

Cause I found this...

"...While there were erroneous reports in the Post about delays, FAA records, according to Newsday, proved categorically that no commercial flights were ever delayed at LAX by the Clinton haircut."

[sam i am]

The weapons are in the US, in US Army bunkers to be exact.


Where is your EVIDENCE for this, synch?

A pretty serious charge to level without any backup.....first time I've heard it...

[synch]

Are you saying the US doesn't own weapons of mass destruction?

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons (http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM)

[Bob]

it's probably more of a silo...

[synch]

I particularly like these three:

20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000

22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000

23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)

26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

I just skimmed it so there are bound to be more examples but this means that they have tested nuclear devices with fallout reaching the population but there are over 75 facilities to accomodate the president in case of nuclear fallout.

I'm also quite sure that none of the testing was done near washington.

The US kills it's own citizens with weapons of mass destruction just like saddam did, it just takes longer for them to die and they are financially compensated.

Land of the free... home of the brave...


edit: Oooooh, this one is fun!

44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

[sam i am]

Are you saying the US doesn't own weapons of mass destruction?

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons (http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM)


OK, I get it.

I took your implication to mean that the Iraqi WMD's were in the USA.

Sorry for the confusion.

BTW, would you rather the US had no WMD's?

Just curious....

[synch]

I figured you meant that, no worries, I can understand the confusion.

I'd rather have the world nuclear stockpile reduce to zero, but that is an unrealistic thought.

They are here and here to stay.

I do find the whole search for wmd's in iraq astoundingly arrogant. The country with the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile (or is that russia? oh well, top two anyway) is telling near-third world countries that they can't have any WMD's.

That's not even taking into account that I don't believe there ever were any in Iraq.

Ah well.

[sam i am]

I figured you meant that, no worries, I can understand the confusion.

I'd rather have the world nuclear stockpile reduce to zero, but that is an unrealistic thought.

They are here and here to stay.

I do find the whole search for wmd's in iraq astoundingly arrogant. The country with the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile (or is that russia? oh well, top two anyway) is telling near-third world countries that they can't have any WMD's.

That's not even taking into account that I don't believe there ever were any in Iraq.

Ah well.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree they're here to stay....so, why SHOULD we allow other 3rd World nations to have 'em?

Those nations that DO have them have been responsible, thus far, with them, but would you really trust Iran or North Korea (Kim Il Jong) with nukes?

Again, just curious....

[STANKY808]

....so, why SHOULD we allow other 3rd World nations to have 'em?



I'm not trying to start anything with you, but who is the "we" you refer to above?

[sam i am]

I'm not trying to start anything with you, but who is the "we" you refer to above?

The nations that currently have nuclear weapons.

Remember, most other nations around the world have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[synch]

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree they're here to stay....so, why SHOULD we allow other 3rd World nations to have 'em?

Those nations that DO have them have been responsible, thus far, with them, but would you really trust Iran or North Korea (Kim Il Jong) with nukes?

Again, just curious....
Does hiroshima ring any bells?

[STANKY808]

Please don't condescend to me. I "remember" about the non-proliferation treaty. I wanted to know what you were talking about.

And as far as non-nuclear countries wanting them, do you not think after the US in Iraq, some nations may want them to discourage the same sort of adventure in their land? I mean the neo-cons are taking credit for all kinds of things in the mid-east after Iraq, isn't it possible part of the result of the whole thing is that other countries want them for protection from the US? I mean I don't think the US would chance striking a nuclear nation.

[synch]

India and Pakistan are a good example of how stupid nukes are. They have chased nuke's for ages because they want one before the other one does. Now they both have them (or are close to having them) and the thing is... THEY ARE FUCKING NEIGHBOURS!

[sam i am]

Please don't condescend to me. I "remember" about the non-proliferation treaty. I wanted to know what you were talking about.

And as far as non-nuclear countries wanting them, do you not think after the US in Iraq, some nations may want them to discourage the same sort of adventure in their land? I mean the neo-cons are taking credit for all kinds of things in the mid-east after Iraq, isn't it possible part of the result of the whole thing is that other countries want them for protection from the US? I mean I don't think the US would chance striking a nuclear nation.

I truly apologize if I sounded condescending. It was not my intent.

It's surely possible that other countries want nukes to protect themselves from the US. It's a path to bankruptcy (ask the USSR), but other countries around the world sure seem intent on pursuing it anyways.

Truth of the matter is, however, that if the US was willing to face down the USSR with it's tens of thousands of nuclear missles, do you really think we'd be intimidated by a tinpot dictator with even a few nuclear weapons?

So, they prove they have the ability to fire ICBM's that can reach the US : what would the logical response of the US be now that we are in a pre-emptive pose as far as feeling threatened? Why, we'd simply drop a few of ours on them first and be done with it.

It's a faustian bargain for any nation without an arsenal in the hundreds, at least, with the capability to fire ICBMs that can hit the mainland of the USA, to feel secure with a small arsenal that will be safe from the US.

[STANKY808]

Thanks for the civility.

I agree with your points, however, the lesson of Iraq to the rest of the world could be;

AXIS OF EVIL

South Korea - Nukes = negotiate

Iran - possible nukes = negotiate

Iraq - no nukes = invasion/occupation


And as for mutually assured destruction, I don't think that would apply here as no country is ever going to have the massive numbers of nukes the US or Russia has so it's a non-issue. It's seems more like hoped for deterrence.

And an aside to your "path to bankruptcy comment", it seems that's the mantra of a lot of americans however there was that movement in Poland called Solidarity which is seen as a major reason for the collapse of European Communisim by many observers outside of North America.

[sam i am]

Thanks for the civility.

I agree with your points, however, the lesson of Iraq to the rest of the world could be;

AXIS OF EVIL

South Korea - Nukes = negotiate

Iran - possible nukes = negotiate

Iraq - no nukes = invasion/occupation


And as for mutually assured destruction, I don't think that would apply here as no country is ever going to have the massive numbers of nukes the US or Russia has so it's a non-issue. It's seems more like hoped for deterrence.

And an aside to your "path to bankruptcy comment", it seems that's the mantra of a lot of americans however there was that movement in Poland called Solidarity which is seen as a major reason for the collapse of European Communisim by many observers outside of North America.

Your welcome for the civility. Thank you for the same.

The lesson you stated COULD be true, but with Republicans likely to be running the country for the next 20-40 years (again, based on demographics and electoral shifts mostly), most countries around the world are not going to think we are weak-kneed as we were previously thought to be. We threatened Afghanistan, we went into Afghanistan. We threatened Iraq, we went into Iraq. If we start threatening North Korea, watch out Kim Il Jong. Same with Iran.

Of course, negotiation is always preferable, but IF a country demonstrates nuclear capacity that is weaponized and can reach the USA, watch out. Why do you think the Chinese have preferred to trade with us over military confrontation over the past 60 years? Even with as easy as it would be for them to retake Taiwan, they still haven't, KNOWING the US is capable of kicking their ass.

So, lesson that should be learned by the rest of the world is : Don't Tread On Me!

As for your "path to bankruptcy" analysis : I didn't say that endeavoring towards nuclear arms was the ONLY reason the USSR went under (totalitarianism rarely outlives a strong dictator), but rather was a large piece of the puzzle, causing the diversion of funds within the framework of the USSR that could have been utrilized towards consumer or social good use to instead be abnormally allocated to military purposes. As a Polish-American, believe you me when I say that I am PROUD of the contributions of Solidarity and the Pope, and millions of Eastern Europeans towards the demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.

[Ali]

Surely having Bush Out of Office and on vacation, where he can't do or say anything stupid is a GOOD thing?

Maybe he should take more vacation ;)

[DroppinScience]

South Korea - Nukes = negotiate


Pssst. It's NORTH Korea, not South Korea. SK are allies. ;)

[STANKY808]

Doh, sorry bout that.

[sam i am]

You'll note I didn't correct you because I knew what you meant ;)

Enjoying our back and forth on these ideas....

[DroppinScience]

You'll note I didn't correct you because I knew what you meant ;)

True. But I thought it was TOO glaring an error to leave alone. I'm a big proponent of geography. :p

[sam i am]

True. But I thought it was TOO glaring an error to leave alone. I'm a big proponent of geography. :p

DS, I'm with ya, man.

That one was pretty obvious, though.

I'll admit to one I screwed up on that no one called me out on : Iran doesn't border Kazakhstan, it borders Turkmenistan in the north. Correction noted. ;)

[DroppinScience]

I'll admit to one I screwed up on that no one called me out on : Iran doesn't border Kazakhstan, it borders Turkmenistan in the north. Correction noted. ;)

I didn't see that post, but I praise you for being the better man and correcting yourself. :D

[Ace42X]

but would you really trust Iran or North Korea (Kim Il Jong) with nukes?

They said that about the Russians. And while you can argue they were right (RE: Cuban missile crisis) - it doesn't change the fact that nukes have been available to hostile powers for generations.

Infact, the US's nuclear policy has been, for the last fifty years, to come across as a "madman" that is totally willing to use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation as the psychological aspect of the "nuclear deterrant".

It is idiotic to assume that other nations haven't seen a copy of this widely available playbook.

[sam i am]

They said that about the Russians. And while you can argue they were right (RE: Cuban missile crisis) - it doesn't change the fact that nukes have been available to hostile powers for generations.

Infact, the US's nuclear policy has been, for the last fifty years, to come across as a "madman" that is totally willing to use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation as the psychological aspect of the "nuclear deterrant".

It is idiotic to assume that other nations haven't seen a copy of this widely available playbook.

True story. The real argument then comes down to allocation of resources. As one of the first countries to successfully develop nukes, the US invested a large amount of resources back in the 30's and 40's to make it happen. Since then, nuclear spending has peaked (I think in the 70's, but I could be a bit off) and valleyed (probably during the 2000's).

MOST other countries cannot afford to take care of their basic welfare needs for their citizenry, plus any conventional military spending, let alone to then embark on a nuclear program that can pay the kind of dividends where they are an effective deterrent.

The Russians could not sustain a nuclear program, take care of their citizenry, maintain a large standing army, and run a space program without serious chinks in the armor eventually developing. Thus far, the US has. And, we are the ONLY country in the world succesffully pulling it off without completely bankrupting ourselves (although the Chinese are getting close in many areas).

The bottom line is that until a country has in the hundreds of nuclear warheads, they are not a true challenger to the US. We still maintain the largest active stockpile and we still, technically, have the same policy in place of the "madman" option.

So, while your argument holds water, Ace, it doesn't change the fact that other countries do not have the means to make their way to where the US is today.

[Ace42X]

MOST other countries cannot afford to take care of their basic welfare needs for their citizenry,

The US can't, that is why it is so heavily in debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Thus far, the US has. And, we are the ONLY country in the world succesffully pulling it off without completely bankrupting ourselves (although the Chinese are getting close in many areas).

That is solely because of the goodwill of the rest of the world: RE: Massive loans.

Had Stalin and his ilk not been totally insular, and thus had the potential to borrow enough money to make up the massive shortfall in production, then they would quite possibly been a lot closer to the US's current position.

So, while your argument holds water, Ace, it doesn't change the fact that other countries do not have the means to make their way to where the US is today.

Which means there is no reason to object to them trying. QED.

[sam i am]

Which means there is no reason to object to them trying. QED.

Why not object? We have the POWER to object, which is all that really matters when it comes to this particular subject. If the US wanted to, it COULD obliterate all those who oppose it. Why doesn't it? Well, the truth of the matter is that the US is a BETTER country than that.

Despite any arguments to the contrary, the US is not like the Roman or British Empires of old. There is not any energy or desire in this country for an "Empire." The US has ALWAYS withdrawn from countries it has had military forces present in.

Nuclear weapons, especially coupled with missile technology, has NOT been available for generations, but is rather a tightly controlled, highly sophisticated, prohibitively expensive weapons system technology. MOST countries around the world have refrained from pursuing said technology for fear not only of reprisals from the world community, but also due to the high price in dollars it takes to acheive the desired result. Nuclear non-proliferation is the lifeblood of current strategy for the First World in dealing with emergent Third World countries without a history of stable democracy or socialism or some other form of government with checks and balances on power.

Thus, the US has been willing to accept the fait accompli of India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons for a few reasons : #1 - inability of those countries to fire ICBMs, and #2 - the low number of actual missiles and nuclear warheads deployed (estimated to be in the tens combined for both countries) - see below links for more info. (fascinating reading) :

http://www.nunnturnerinitiative.org/e_research/official_docs/dos/999PL.DOS.pdf

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html

[synch]

The US has ALWAYS withdrawn from countries it has had military forces present in.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html
http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_Alphabet.jsp

[sam i am]

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html
http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Browse_Alphabet.jsp

Bases and occupation (ala an "Empire") are different. I was referring to occupation, like when we were in Panama, or Cuba, or the Phillipines, or all of Western Europe, or Japan or.....etc, etc., etc.....

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my statement, though, synch. It's good to have you keep tabs on me or my rhetoric does tend to get a bit overblown on occasion :o

[synch]

Glad to be of service ;)

[sam i am]

Glad to be of service ;)

you the man, synch. ;) :cool:

[Ace42X]

Despite any arguments to the contrary, the US is not like the Roman or British Empires of old. There is not any energy or desire in this country for an "Empire." The US has ALWAYS withdrawn from countries it has had military forces present in.

Like Japan?

[Schmeltz]

It's a faustian bargain for any nation without an arsenal in the hundreds, at least, with the capability to fire ICBMs that can hit the mainland of the USA, to feel secure with a small arsenal that will be safe from the US.


Don't be ridiculous. As though intercontinental ballistics were the only conceivable way to deliver a nuclear warhead! The tactical defensive use of nuclear arms against an invading American force would probably be quite effective at securing a country like Iran or North Korea. American troops massed on the borders? Let them a mile in and drop the nuke. Use your imagination, man.


most countries around the world are not going to think we are weak-kneed as we were previously thought to be. We threatened Afghanistan, we went into Afghanistan. We threatened Iraq, we went into Iraq.


Afghanistan and especially Iraq are hardly success stories, as was exposed last week when the vaunted American campaign in the Tal Afar area was answered with a horrific spate of enormous bombings throughout Baghdad that killed something in the order of six hundred people. Your beleagured military machine can bomb the shit out of people, but it can't make peace and it most certainly couldn't handle Iran or North Korea at this point - at least not without implementing massive domestic changes that would make your society a distinctly unpleasant one in which to live. Truth be told, your enemies probably think you more weak-kneed than ever, bumbling your way from catastrophe to catastrophe.


If the US wanted to, it COULD obliterate all those who oppose it.


We've been over this before. The United States could not simply obliterate all those who oppose it, whether by nuclear or conventional military means, without facing enormous reprisals that would destroy itself as well. You're making sweeping, self-aggrandizing statements that betray you as an insubstantial ideologue.


The US has ALWAYS withdrawn from countries it has had military forces present in.


A quick Google search on "US military bases" yields a list of dozens of sovereign nations in which your country maintains military forces. Many of these, it is interesting to note, are relics of the Cold War with little relevance to the current realities of the American military situation. So why go to the expense of maintaining them (an expense that has yielded the closure of bases within the United States' own borders, to the dismay of many whose livelihoods depended on them) unless your government is willing to reap the benefits of an empire - informal though that empire may be?

You need to think these issues through a little more before making the kind of posts you do.

[Ace42X]

Don't be ridiculous. As though intercontinental ballistics were the only conceivable way to deliver a nuclear warhead!
Like all those Russian suitcase nukes that went awol.

[sam i am]

Like Japan?

Yes. You're right. We're "occupying" and controlling Japan. Their wealth and resources are being tapped solely for the benefit of the common American. We are establishing colonies and reeducating the children to speak English and forget their "Japanese" past.

[QueenAdrock]

We should really stop doing that.

[Ace42X]

Yes. You're right.

You have not "withdrawn" from Japan, and it's been half a century now. Infact, as of 1996 they were expanding the Okinawa base.

As Schmeltz points out, there are plenty of nations with standing US military bases in them.

Feel free to rationalise it and explain how all these examples "don't count." Because when the US does these things, they never do.

[sam i am]

Don't be ridiculous. As though intercontinental ballistics were the only conceivable way to deliver a nuclear warhead! The tactical defensive use of nuclear arms against an invading American force would probably be quite effective at securing a country like Iran or North Korea. American troops massed on the borders? Let them a mile in and drop the nuke. Use your imagination, man.

Schmeltz - I'm trying hard not to take your post personally, as you begin with an insult - "Don't be ridiculous." I would hope for more civility from you before I will counterargue you after this post. Now - I was speaking in terms of large scale. Tactical nuclear weapons are much harder to develop and employ for most countries because of the difficulties of managing low-yield uranium or plutonium. Plus, tactical nukes damage your own backyard much more than ICBM's. Tactical nukes are strictly defensive, and we have been talking about the capabilities for OFFENSIVE weapons.

Afghanistan and especially Iraq are hardly success stories, as was exposed last week when the vaunted American campaign in the Tal Afar area was answered with a horrific spate of enormous bombings throughout Baghdad that killed something in the order of six hundred people. Your beleagured military machine can bomb the shit out of people, but it can't make peace and it most certainly couldn't handle Iran or North Korea at this point - at least not without implementing massive domestic changes that would make your society a distinctly unpleasant one in which to live. Truth be told, your enemies probably think you more weak-kneed than ever, bumbling your way from catastrophe to catastrophe.

I would argue that Afghanistan and Iraq ARE success stories. Both have held recent elections. Despite the best efforts of the extremists to topple the current administrations in both countries, they have failed to do so to date. Of course there are ongoing problems, but none that are unmanageable, thus far. Iran or North Korea don't need to be "handled" militarily, anyways. News from North Korea, as of yesterday, shows them signing on to dismantle their nukes, if they have them. Iran's generation of leaders that are more hard-line are dying off and the younger generation is more akin to the Eastern Europeans who threw off Communism.

We've been over this before. The United States could not simply obliterate all those who oppose it, whether by nuclear or conventional military means, without facing enormous reprisals that would destroy itself as well. You're making sweeping, self-aggrandizing statements that betray you as an insubstantial ideologue.

What "enormous reprisals?" I am not an "insubstantial ideologue." I have backed each and every point I have made with historical referneces and links, where necessary.

A quick Google search on "US military bases" yields a list of dozens of sovereign nations in which your country maintains military forces. Many of these, it is interesting to note, are relics of the Cold War with little relevance to the current realities of the American military situation. So why go to the expense of maintaining them (an expense that has yielded the closure of bases within the United States' own borders, to the dismay of many whose livelihoods depended on them) unless your government is willing to reap the benefits of an empire - informal though that empire may be?

Again, bases are NOT equal to occupation or empire-building. Your google search would be more complete if you looked at the foreign deployments of US troops throughout history and where we currently are deployed now. Also, there have been a TON of base closures throughout Europe and the Pacific (Subic Bay, Phillipines, countless Army and Air Force bases in Western and Central Europe). Military forces of the US in those, as you STATED, "sovereign" countries is at the behest of the governments of those countries.

You need to think these issues through a little more before making the kind of posts you do.

Right back at ya. Civility breeds civility. Please try not to be contemptuous with me in the future. Your civility would be greatly appreciated.

[sam i am]

Like all those Russian suitcase nukes that went awol.

Prove they existed.

[Ace42X]

Again, bases are NOT equal to occupation or empire-building.

So when you said "have always withdrawn" you *actually* meant "haven't withdrawn that often, but it's ok because it doesn't count."

Right, much clearer.

Prove they existed.

You are the only person to deny they do. The russian "suitcase nukes" were inventoried and listed in their nuclear arsenal, the documents are clearly available after peristroika / glasnost. Those nukes are not accounted for, and with a half-life of several thousand years, they didn't just decompose. Google for it.

[sam i am]

You have not "withdrawn" from Japan, and it's been half a century now. Infact, as of 1996 they were expanding the Okinawa base.

As Schmeltz points out, there are plenty of nations with standing US military bases in them.

Feel free to rationalise it and explain how all these examples "don't count." Because when the US does these things, they never do.

Are the Japanese and their government demanding our withdrawal? WHY have we had bases in Japan (Okinawa)?

Because the Japanese, until the recent past, had the military OUTLAWED under their Constitution that THEY wrote after WWII to prevent themselves from going to war again.

It would prove beneficial to put this in context so that your assertions had some ground to stand on. This one that you made is without merit, unfortunately.

[sam i am]

So when you said "have always withdrawn" you *actually* meant "haven't withdrawn that often, but it's ok because it doesn't count."

Right, much clearer.

No. There's a clear difference between being asked by the "sovereign" governments to stay and staying there against the will of those governments. Why wouldn't you agree with that?

[DroppinScience]

Because the Japanese, until the recent past, had the military OUTLAWED under their Constitution that THEY wrote after WWII to prevent themselves from going to war again.


I was under the impression that the Japanese military was still around, but they were expressly forbidden to be deployed to other nations (with the exception of Iraq, now). :confused:

[Ace42X]

Are the Japanese and their government demanding our withdrawal? WHY have we had bases in Japan (Okinawa)?

Ahh, I see. "We have always withdrawn" doesn't mean *always*...

Next you'll be telling me about how the US so generously let the southern states succeed from the union.

[DroppinScience]

No. There's a clear difference between being asked by the "sovereign" governments to stay and staying there against the will of those governments. Why wouldn't you agree with that?

Why the sovereign in quotation marks? You saying those nations aren't self-governing?

[Schmeltz]

We're "occupying" and controlling Japan. Their wealth and resources are being tapped solely for the benefit of the common American. We are establishing colonies


Formal colonial mercantilism is only one incarnation of imperialism, as anybody familiar with history is aware.

[sam i am]

You are the only person to deny they do. The russian "suitcase nukes" were inventoried and listed in their nuclear arsenal, the documents are clearly available after peristroika / glasnost. Those nukes are not accounted for, and with a half-life of several thousand years, they didn't just decompose. Google for it.

Let's see : "possibility," "maybe," "chance" - these are just a few of the words that immediately come up on a search. NO cold, hard evidence that the "devices" actually exist, let alone that, IF they do, they have been "lost" to terrorists.

Sure. Real scary.

[sam i am]

I was under the impression that the Japanese military was still around, but they were expressly forbidden to be deployed to other nations (with the exception of Iraq, now). :confused:

Domestic versus foreign use. Domestic military was equivalent to our National Guard - not truly deployable, front line troops. Until recently, as I stated above.

[sam i am]

Ahh, I see. "We have always withdrawn" doesn't mean *always*...

Next you'll be telling me about how the US so generously let the southern states succeed from the union.

Always withdrawn would, contextually, be at our own or the request of others' behest. I'm sure you are not deliberately taking my words out of context.

Nice try with the attempt to draw me out on the southern states' argument. I'm a proponent of nullification in many respects, so you probably don't want to get me started ;)

[Ace42X]

Let's see : "possibility," "maybe," "chance" - these are just a few of the words that immediately come up on a search.

Yeah, now actually search rather than pretending to. Or are you implying that the russian security council secretary and the CIA were both erroneous in their certainty.

The only "maybes" and "possibilities" I find is the "maybes" and "possibilities" that they will find their way into terrorist hands, and a lot of debate about precisely when they went missing.

[sam i am]

Why the sovereign in quotation marks? You saying those nations aren't self-governing?

Nope. I was quoting from above (Schmeltz).

[sam i am]

Formal colonial mercantilism is only one incarnation of imperialism, as anybody familiar with history is aware.

Dictionary definition of Imperialism :

The policy of extending a nation's AUTHORITY by TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION or by the establishment of ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL hegemony over other nations.

Explain how this is happening in nations the US has bases in : Canada? Sure, they go along with everything we say. The UK? Sure, we'll follow you, US old chap, just show us what to do. Germany or France? HaHA.

Etc., etc.

[Ace42X]

Always withdrawn would, contextually, be at our own or the request of others' behest.

News to me. I usually take "always" to mean

adv.

1. At all times; invariably: always late.
2. For all time; forever: They will always be friends.
3. At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you're unhappy.

irrespective of the context.

Nice try with the attempt to draw me out on the southern states' argument. I'm a proponent of nullification in many respects, so you probably don't want to get me started ;)

I have no idea what "nullification" means in this context. Is this some sort of US political ideology involving devolution of the government to a federal level?

[Ace42X]

Explain how this is happening in nations the US has bases in : Canada? Sure, they go along with everything we say. The UK? Sure, we'll follow you, US old chap, just show us what to do. Germany or France? HaHA.

Etc., etc.

Those are all examples of political hedgemony... And examples of economic hedgemony? How about the US using foreign aid to buy votes in the UN?

[sam i am]

Yeah, now actually search rather than pretending to. Or are you implying that the russian security council secretary and the CIA were both erroneous in their certainty.

The only "maybes" and "possibilities" I find is the "maybes" and "possibilities" that they will find their way into terrorist hands, and a lot of debate about precisely when they went missing.

OK. I did the search the first time, and here's the first hits :

"Disarmament Diplomacy: - Ongoing Speculation about missing Russian ...
Ongoing Speculation about missing Russian 'Suitcase Nukes'. In late September,
Alexander Lebed, Russia's former chief of national security, repeated his ...
www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd19/19nukes.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

frontline: russian roulette: atomic suitcase bombs
atomic suitcase bombs. In 1997, the public became aware of a Russian nuclear
device they had not known even ... What are these Russian suitcase bombs like? ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/ - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

CNS - "Suitcase Nukes": A Reassessment - September 23, 2002 ...
Russian official sources reported that, in accordance with the 1991 ... Loss of
Suitcase Nukes Inside Russia. Like all nuclear weapons that are not ...
cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

CNS - Are Suitcase Nukes on the Loose? (Summary)
Are Suitcase Nukes on the Loose? The Story Behind the Controversy ... During his
short tenure as Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Lebed started an ...
cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedst.htm - 10k - Sep 18, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from cns.miis.edu ]

Alexander Lebed and Suitcase Nukes
We have been assured by the Russian authorities that there is no cause for concern.
... For Yablokov's comments on suitcase nukes and Lebed given on ...
nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages "

Look at the articles and read the "maybes," "speculations," and "possibilities."

Ah, the sweet smell of success. ;)

[sam i am]

I have no idea what "nullification" means in this context. Is this some sort of US political ideology involving devolution of the government to a federal level?

Nope. Nullification was a policy espoused by John Calhoun, a Southern statesman, which proposed that States had the right to "nullify" Federal laws. It was the basis for the withdrawal of the Confederate states from the Union in the 1860's.

[sam i am]

Those are all examples of political hedgemony... And examples of economic hedgemony? How about the US using foreign aid to buy votes in the UN?

What? Examples? Explain? :confused:

[Schmeltz]

I didn't say you were ridiculous, I said your comments were ridiculous. Don't take things so personally.


Tactical nukes are strictly defensive, and we have been talking about the capabilities for OFFENSIVE weapons.


Well, in so doing you've ignored a crucial dimension of the issue at hand: the possibility of the military use of nuclear arms as a strictly defensive measure. You seem to equate nuclear arms solely with offensive capability, as in they would be used in a purely retaliatory capacity against the American mainland should a nation possessing them be attacked by America. I think that's a superficial assumption.


I would argue that Afghanistan and Iraq ARE success stories.


Jesus Murphy! If a car bomb tore through Washington and killed two hundred people tomorrow it would turn your country upside down. And how many go off in Iraq on a weekly basis? A couple of elections do not a stable society make, and I doubt you would enjoy spending even a moment in the anarchic terrorist playgrounds you flippantly call "success stories."


Again, bases are NOT equal to occupation or empire-building.


Given your rigid, antiquarian definition of what an empire is, I'm not surprised to see this statement.


Because the Japanese, until the recent past, had the military OUTLAWED under their Constitution that THEY wrote after WWII to prevent themselves from going to war again.


No, Article IX of the Japanese Constitution has been interpreted for decades as permitting the existence of the Japanese Armed Forces so long as they are not used offensively. Japan has maintained some level of military capability throughout the years since WWII but, until the (hotly debated) deployment of its tiny contingent to Iraq, its forces were never used on foreign soil. The Japanese military was never outlawed, and in fact is one of the most technologically sophisticated armed forces in the world.


by the establishment of ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL hegemony over other nations.


Yes, exactly - to that we could add CULTURAL hegemony. A formal empire might take the shape of territorial annexation, but the American Empire is mostly informal, in the sense that it often involves the extension of American influence in much less direct ways. Don't you maintain a trade embargo on Cuba to this day? Don't you impose illegal tariffs on your allegedly free trade practices? Aren't American culture and media pre-eminent across the globe? Isn't it American weaponry that fuels most of the world's wars? How many interventions has the CIA staged to overthrow democratically elected governments, in support of barbaric dictators, in the last half-century? All of these things amount to imperialism to one degree or another.

[Ace42X]

OK. I did the search the first time, and here's the first hits

www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd19/19nukes.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

^^^ Again, despite the website inserting caveats, it is clear that the fellow is adamant these devices exist. It is poor editorialising.

[quote]www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/ - 13k -

Doesn't question the existance of the nukes at all.

CNS - "Suitcase Nukes": A Reassessment - September 23, 2002 ...
Russian official sources reported that, in accordance with the 1991 ... Loss of
Suitcase Nukes Inside Russia. Like all nuclear weapons that are not ...
cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

From that site: when General (Ret.) Alexander Lebed made several statements to the effect that during his short tenure as the Secretary of the Security Council in 1996, he received information that the separatist government in Chechnya possessed small nuclear devices.[8] In an attempt to clarify the situation, he created a special commission under the chairmanship of his assistant, Vladimir Denisov. According to Lebed, the commission was only able to locate 48 such munitions of a total of 132, an indication that 84 were lost

Furthermore it points out that non-suitcase, but equally small nuclear mines are known to exist as well. - Further demonstrating that ICBMs are not the only vehicle.

cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedst.htm

"May be missing" not "may exist".


nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

had this to say: Featured at the hearing was a mock-up of a notional briefcase bomb. In his opening comments Weldon described this exhibit:

"The model is based on unclassified data on the components in an atomic artillery shell, to see if such a system could be reassembled in a suitcase. Indeed, as it turns out, the physics package, neutron generators, batteries, arming mechanism and other essentials of a small atomic weapon can fit, just barely, in an attache case. The result is a plutonium-fueled gun-type atomic weapon having a yield of one-to-ten kilotons, the same yield range attributed by General Lebed to the Russian "nuclear suitcase" weapon."

Look at the articles and read the "maybes," "speculations," and "possibilities."

I see very little to support your assertion apart from the usual "reporters covering their ass" clauses.

[Ace42X]

What? Examples? Explain? :confused:

Canada and the UK both support the US because of economic and political hedgemony.

[Schmeltz]

Interestingly, Canada hasn't been very cooperative lately in that regard - our previous head of state refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq (thank God) and our current Prime Minister nixed the comprehensive Missile Defence plan touted by the Bushies (again, serving the best interests of our country). Now, since we haven't yet been invaded or bombed, sam i am will doubtless argue that we're perfectly free to choose our own destiny and not subject to any hegemonic American retaliation - but then one does have to wonder at the persistent American defiance of WTO rulings declaring its stance on softwood lumber illegal, and the reluctance with which America's borders were finally reopened to Canadian beef after a devastating couple of years for that industry.

Of course we could always retaliate in kind by shutting off the flow of oil south of the border - but as a tributary state to America we'd be risking far more than we'd gain. The push-pull dynamic of informal imperialism only ekes out the most minimal gains for the disadvantaged party, as we up in the Great White North are only too well aware.

[sam i am]

No, Article IX of the Japanese Constitution has been interpreted for decades as permitting the existence of the Japanese Armed Forces so long as they are not used offensively. Japan has maintained some level of military capability throughout the years since WWII but, until the (hotly debated) deployment of its tiny contingent to Iraq, its forces were never used on foreign soil. The Japanese military was never outlawed, and in fact is one of the most technologically sophisticated armed forces in the world.

See the attached link and read the article : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

[sam i am]

Given your rigid, antiquarian definition of what an empire is, I'm not surprised to see this statement.

All I did was quote the dictionary. Sorry it's so "rigid" and "antiquarian."

[sam i am]

Yes, exactly - to that we could add CULTURAL hegemony. A formal empire might take the shape of territorial annexation, but the American Empire is mostly informal, in the sense that it often involves the extension of American influence in much less direct ways. Don't you maintain a trade embargo on Cuba to this day? Don't you impose illegal tariffs on your allegedly free trade practices? Aren't American culture and media pre-eminent across the globe? Isn't it American weaponry that fuels most of the world's wars? How many interventions has the CIA staged to overthrow democratically elected governments, in support of barbaric dictators, in the last half-century? All of these things amount to imperialism to one degree or another.

CULTURAL hegemony is not part of the DICTIONARY DEFINITION.

Your "informal empire" argument would only hold water if the US could FORCE others to do what it wants. This happens very rarely, especially with the rise of the UN after WWII. The de facto turn over of international power to an unrepresentative world body has effectively muffled any American aspirations towards an "Empire."

BTW, "to one degree or another?" Could you be any more nebulous? This could encompass ANY thing you wanted.

[Ace42X]

Your "informal empire" argument would only hold water if the US could FORCE others to do what it wants. This happens very rarely, especially with the rise of the UN after WWII. The de facto turn over of international power to an unrepresentative world body has effectively muffled any American aspirations towards an "Empire."

What history books have you been reading? The US has subverted the UN at every (recent) turn. Bribing and sanctioning nations in order to secure its interests. An obvious example would be the Suez crisis, where the US called out the French / UK / Israeli governments because it feared them securing too great a degree of control on the region.

[Schmeltz]

Why thank you, sam i am! It's always nice to see others do some research to prove my points:


A military proscription is included as Article 9 of the 1947 constitution stating, "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." That article, along with the rest of the "Peace Constitution," retains strong government and citizen support and is interpreted as permitting the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), but prohibiting those forces from possessing nuclear weapons or other offensive arms or being deployed outside of Japan.


Now, isn't that exactly what I said?


Following World War II Japan’s Imperial Army and Navy were dissolved, and the old regime was replaced with a democratic government. Article 9 of the new Constitution of Japan renounced war or even possessing combat potential. However, the Cold War and the Korean War forced Japan to reestablish defensive capabilities. A constitutional interpretation of Article 9 grants Japan the inherent right of self-defense and the possession of the minimum armed strength needed to exercise that right.


Why, I believe I took account of those very facts. Strangely, that article doesn't state anywhere that the Japanese forces were "outlawed until the recent past," as you claimed. But thank you for a well-informed piece of research - globalsecurity always makes for an interesting read.


All I did was quote the dictionary.


Yeah, that's kind of the problem, if you ask me. A dictionary won't inform us of any of the debatable subtleties and connotations attached to such a volatile, elastic term as "imperialism." You gots to read a little between the lines.


Your "informal empire" argument would only hold water if the US could FORCE others to do what it wants.


Well, the thing about an informal empire is that it doesn't constitute the absolutist hegemony afforded by a formal colonial empire. The US might not be able to force others to do exactly as it pleases, but it can wield its influence to punish those who refuse to obey, in one realm or another - especially so far as economics are concerned. Canada is a pretty good example of this, Cuba would be another. Venezuela affords more food for thought.

[sam i am]

Interestingly, Canada hasn't been very cooperative lately in that regard - our previous head of state refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq (thank God) and our current Prime Minister nixed the comprehensive Missile Defence plan touted by the Bushies (again, serving the best interests of our country). Now, since we haven't yet been invaded or bombed, sam i am will doubtless argue that we're perfectly free to choose our own destiny and not subject to any hegemonic American retaliation - but then one does have to wonder at the persistent American defiance of WTO rulings declaring its stance on softwood lumber illegal, and the reluctance with which America's borders were finally reopened to Canadian beef after a devastating couple of years for that industry.

Of course we could always retaliate in kind by shutting off the flow of oil south of the border - but as a tributary state to America we'd be risking far more than we'd gain. The push-pull dynamic of informal imperialism only ekes out the most minimal gains for the disadvantaged party, as we up in the Great White North are only too well aware.

Then assert your sovereigneity and withdraw from America's "sphere of influence," which is much more apropos of what you are describing.

A sphere of influence, however, is NOT the same as an Empire, no matter how much you try to backtrack and change the meaning of the words, again as defined by scholars at a DICTIONARY.

[sam i am]

Yeah, that's kind of the problem, if you ask me. A dictionary won't inform us of any of the debatable subtleties and connotations attached to such a volatile, elastic term as "imperialism." You gots to read a little between the lines.

I believe I elaborated above.

As for the Japanese military, I'll call it a draw between us. I stated, originally, for use outside of Japan. You stated that the military does exist. Contextually, we were both correct. Agreed?

I do appreciate that you read my researched point. Thank you.

[sam i am]

What history books have you been reading? The US has subverted the UN at every (recent) turn. Bribing and sanctioning nations in order to secure its interests. An obvious example would be the Suez crisis, where the US called out the French / UK / Israeli governments because it feared them security too great a degree of control on the region.


Are you talking about the Suez crisis of 1956? 1956? That's the best example you have?

Let's look at recent history : the UN Security Council failed to agree to the use of force on Iraq - the US didn't get it's way. That's a more apropos example, IMO.

[Schmeltz]

Canada couldn't possibly withdraw from America's sphere of influence without ramifications so severe as to make it not worth our while. The idea of absolute sovereignty is nice in theory, but of course your leaders don't even pay it much lip service anymore, so it's ironic to see you touting it as some kind of free back door out from under the elephant's shadow.

A sphere of influence is quite conceivably akin to an empire, depending on the degree of influence. Scholars far more acquainted with these phenomena than those who wrote the dictionary think so, anyhow. I'm not changing the meaning of any words (you may note that I don't contest the dictionary's definition at all), I'm simply trying to get you to think outside the box.


the UN Security Council failed to agree to the use of force on Iraq - the US didn't get it's way.


Oh, that's right - the invasion of Iraq never went ahead after that. Thanks for that example.

[Ace42X]

Let's look at recent history : the UN Security Council failed to agree to the use of force on Iraq - the US didn't get it's way.

And the US ignored it, and then proceeded to stigmatise and sanction the french. Take a look at the "coalition of the willing" and see how many aid dollars fly their way.

[sam i am]

Canada couldn't possibly withdraw from America's sphere of influence without ramifications so severe as to make it not worth our while. The idea of absolute sovereignty is nice in theory, but of course your leaders don't even pay it much lip service anymore, so it's ironic to see you touting it as some kind of free back door out from under the elephant's shadow.

A sphere of influence is quite conceivably akin to an empire, depending on the degree of influence. Scholars far more acquainted with these phenomena than those who wrote the dictionary think so, anyhow. I'm not changing the meaning of any words (you may note that I don't contest the dictionary's definition at all), I'm simply trying to get you to think outside the box.



Oh, that's right - the invasion of Iraq never went ahead after that. Thanks for that example.

So, the English language has little meaning if you want to "think outside the box," eh? OK.

I'm sorry that Canada signed up for trade with the US. I'm sorry that Canada receives little or no benefit from it's relationship with the US. I'm sorry Canada can't be a First World power and have it's "absolute sovereignity." You signed up for it - it wasn't imposed from without via "empire" or "sphere of influence." The US tried to invade and annex Canada in 1812 and failed, miserably. Instead, the English kept it and gave it eventual independence. And what did Canadians do with their newfound freedom? They turned immediately to the expertise and goods of the US to grow it's economy and country. Sounds like a good bargain to me.

Same example goes for the rest of the world. Very little has been IMPOSED, until recently, by the US. The rest of the world has wanted what the US has : i.e., goods and services that are in demand. Trade, free trade, has created the prosperity that MOST of the world enjoys. Even the quarter of the population of the world that lives "below the poverty line" still has running water and food and shelter and clothing. The quarter that doesn't is mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Endemic problems there are a subject for another thread, but IF they wanted to trade with the US, I'd wager their standards of living would come up dramatically.

[sam i am]

And the US ignored it, and then proceeded to stigmatise and sanction the french. Take a look at the "coalition of the willing" and see how many aid dollars fly their way.

Where are the French sanctions you speak of?

So the US ignored it - so what? My point, not to be diverted, was that the UN has not allowed for an American Empire that you speak of because the individual members of the Security Council retain veto power over sanctioning UN backing for any one member. Rarely have they agreed.

[Ace42X]

Even the quarter of the population of the world that lives "below the poverty line"

The quarter that is in *servere* poverty. That means no running water, food, shelter and clothing. The ones that are merely "below the poverty line" are in addition to that.

but IF they wanted to trade with the US, I'd wager their standards of living would come up dramatically.

Not really. If you check the statistics, you'll find that most third-world countries that trade with the US enter into a "race to the bottom" (quoted from a website, search this forum for my previous posts on this, complete with citations) which results in dreadful exploitation.

IE sweatshops, child labour, etc.

Where are the French sanctions you speak of?

You are quite right, sanctions was the wrong word. I meant boycott more literally. I am currently working on getting drunk after a wild night last night, as my numerous typographical errors will testify.

So the US ignored it - so what?

The US is like an international drug-dealer. It might not break into the junkies' homes, but be under no illusions, it still controls countries remotely via economic and political means. These countries can no more turn their back on the US than a junkie can walk away from their dealer. This dependance has been cultivated by the US for precisely this reason, and any attempts of a nation to "quit the habit" is met with the sternest action. IE curtailment of humanitarian aid.

My point, not to be diverted, was that the UN has not allowed for an American Empire that you speak of because the individual members of the Security Council retain veto power over sanctioning UN backing for any one member. Rarely have they agreed.

Being able to veto action does not equate to being able to take action against. By that very argument the US could quite easily veto any attempt for the UN to take action against the US's imperialism.

[Schmeltz]

I'm sorry that Canada signed up for trade with the US etc...


I never said there were no advantages to the Canadian situation. In point of fact, there are plenty of historical instances of benefit being derived through the extension of both formal and informal imperialism - this is part of what makes imperialism such a contestable and widely debated phenomenon (although I anticipate you will stubbornly cling to your simplistic be-all end-all dictionary definition instead of trying to think for yourself). I spoke of the "push-pull" involved in informal imperialism (or formal imperialism, for that matter), and this sort of thing is exactly what I meant.

By the by, Canada didn't really "sign up" for free trade with the US until just over a decade ago, and was demonstrably subject to powerful American influences for generations before that. If you think that America has never imposed its will on Canada through a contest of influences, you just plain don't know your history.

As for your point about sub-Saharan Africa - National Geographic ran a fantastic article last month detailing exactly what you're talking about (the presence of American and other foreign-owned corporations seeking to "trade" with locals for resources like oil). Give it a read, you'll find it very enlightening.


the UN has not allowed for an American Empire that you speak of because the individual members of the Security Council retain veto power over sanctioning UN backing


I'm going to guess that Ace is sharp enough to realize that UN backing is irrelevant to an imperialist power like America, so your point is moot.

[EN[i]GMA]

Not really. If you check the statistics, you'll find that most third-world countries that trade with the US enter into a "race to the bottom" (quoted from a website, search this forum for my previous posts on this, complete with citations) which results in dreadful exploitation.

IE sweatshops, child labour, etc.

Rather interestingly, In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati portends that rather than a race to the bottom, trade results in a race to the top, with a decrease in exploitatation and sweatshop labor.

It's also impeccabally cited and replete with statistics.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Rather interestingly, In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati portends that rather than a race to the bottom, trade results in a race to the top, with a decrease in exploitatation and sweatshop labor.

It's also impeccabally cited and replete with statistics.

And yet exploitation and sweatshot labour are on the increase. At a guess, mr Bhagwati was commentating on the situation in India, which is currently clawing its way out of exploitation and poverty. This is ignores the fact that the problem has been moved elsewhere, as is always the case.

[EN[i]GMA]

And yet exploitation and sweatshot labour are on the increase. At a guess, mr Bhagwati was commentating on the situation in India, which is currently clawing its way out of exploitation and poverty. This is ignores the fact that the problem has been moved elsewhere, as is always the case.

India as well as the rest of the globalized world.

To paraphrase Mr. Bhagwati: Child labor leads to increase in wealth, which in turn leads to greater prosperity, which leads to more children attending school, which leads to more and more growth.

It is because of poverty that these children work, and it is only through reduction of poverty that they can get to school and get an education.

It's been shown through a study (That might be hard to find unless you have the particular journal) that when families have to access to credit (SOmething often brought about through globalization), they are willing and able to send their children to school, as they know they can make it through hard times with credit and not with their children's labor.

Simply, once people have other recourses, they send their children to school rather than to work. Without globalization, these children would have no hope of an education, as they would doubtlessly be either begging in the streets or engaging in back-breaking dirt farming.

Here's a study he references (That I have admittedly not yet read, but will soon, likely tommorow): http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC10311.htm

TO quote: Greater market integration, at least in this case, appears to be associated with less child labor. The results suggest that the use of trade sanctions on exports from developing countries to eradicate child labour is unlikely to yield the desired outcome [adapted from author].



But I'd like to see some of your sources.

In the short term, or on individual or local scales, yes, globalization could very well incrase child labor, but further integration and wealth creation will be the phenomena that ends it.

In a completely emergant market, it is likely that there would be an increase in child labor (As opposed to begging, thievery, prostitution of farm labor), but the overall effect is to reduce child labor.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
But I'd like to see some of your sources.

Search the forum for my posts and "race to the bottom." or poverty.

I am not inclined to bash it out aain. Especially when it will result in you amassing examples of conservatives defending globalisation with statistics, and me amassing examples from left-wing sites such as makepovertyhistory.com and the UN development fund saying the exact opposite.

You'll reject the credibility of my sources, and me yours, and it will waste time and consume even more bandwidth reiterating the same tired arguments back and forth.

[EN[i]GMA]

Search the forum for my posts and "race to the bottom." or poverty.

I am not inclined to bash it out aain. Especially when it will result in you amassing examples of conservatives defending globalisation with statistics, and me amassing examples from left-wing sites such as makepovertyhistory.com and the UN development fund saying the exact opposite.

You'll reject the credibility of my sources, and me yours, and it will waste time and consume even more bandwidth reiterating the same tired arguments back and forth.

More than likely.

Such is the domain of the internet debate.

[Ali]

Don't forget the "Liberal Circle Jerk"

Lemming.