Walking Like A Duck
Imperialism:
Today's Chicago Tribune:
im·pe·ri·al·ism (m-pîr
-
-l
n.1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
Today's Chicago Tribune:
It was completed as the Bush administration sought to draw attention to improved security in parts of Iraq. The text calls for the United States to help protect Iraq's natural resources, including oil, and commits America to assisting Iraq on the path to a free-market economy. Lute said the message of the agreement was that "Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own, but it won't have to stand alone."
But Lute refused to close the door on the possibility of permanent military bases, saying it would be a subject for future negotiations.
He also said that as part of a long-term pact, the two countries would work toward achieving reconciliation among Iraq's warring sects, assuring all parties that the United States was an active partner and they should not "hedge their bets."
The declaration of principles also calls on the United States to promote private investment in Iraq, particularly from America, and steer further American financial and technical assistance to Iraqi institutions.
posted by Logic101 at 11/27/2007 07:55:00 AM
5 Comments:
eek! Why do I hate this imperialism word? Is the US the number one imperialist on the "imperialist list"? Should we check under the hood and look at the Russian and Chinese engines and compare? Do ya think? I think Logic101 is having trouble with her split personality again. The whiny child nations complaining because their Parents won't allow them to have adult priveledges until they start acting like responsible democratic adults.
1. I was merely pointing out that our actions are falling under the definition of imperialism.
2. I can't influence what Russia and China do, nor do I have the same high expectations of countries of which I am not a citizen.
3. I have said, repeatedly, that we have to be pragmatic enough to do what's in our best national interest. True, I am not always comfortable with the reality of what that means. Also, I don't know if Bush and I have the same idea of what's in our best national interest.
If the ME hit peak oil tomorrow and our best shot at survival was invading Venezuela to take their oil, would I support it? Maybe. Would I like it? No. Would I pretend we're invading because Chavez poses an eminent threat to the US? No. Call it a split personality if you want.
4. I think e.e.milton should remove the stick from his own eye. You can't pretend that heavy handed foreign policies born of self-interest don't carry any consequences. The same people who see no problem with imperialism are the ones who like to say, "They hate us for our freedom." No... they hate us for our policies.
If you support those policies out of a sense of pragmatism, or because it's the least bad of many bad options, then ok... fine. But at least have the balls to say so. And for the love of God, admit that there are consequences.
Since you hate conservapedia so much ( I think it is stupid also), the wikipedia def of imperialism covers a lot of areas in which apply to all nations (thus the "plank in the eye" applies to many...not just the USA. "domains of knowledge, beliefs, values and expertise, such as the empires of Science,[6][7] Christianity[8] or Islam.[9]".
Logic, your intent was a shallow attempt to belittle the Bush administration. Either that, or you are a sympathizer of Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et. al.
USA forays into other areas is partly survival, partly staying at the top of the heap, partly greed.
Jimmy Carter was a great non-imperialist and I see the fruits of his labor being gas shortages and islamo-fascism. Great job.
e.e.m.,
You're reading imperialism a bit more broadly than my definition, which is kind of why I put a definition in there.
Yes, I'm belittling Bush. So?
As for the rest, please go back and read my previous comment. I thought I was pretty clear about the necessary evil of pragmatism. Where I draw the line is painting it as something else and then getting all pissy when people have the nerve to call you on it ("you" in the general sense).
Right, I've reread it.
My take...
You play the "imperialism" card from your liberal bias hand because the world wants it to be a bad word when attached to the USA...but then you endorse imperialism for anyone other than Bush as long as it is done correctly (a Democratic candidate)?
I guess Jimmy Carter didn't read your version when he decided that imperialism was naughty.
Post a Comment
<< Home