Imperislistic pigs???

Started by wuTa4 pages

Re: Re: Imperislistic pigs???

Originally posted by botankus
Is Ecuador a sh*thole? If it isn't, why the hell not? ๐Ÿ˜‰

๐Ÿ˜†

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If capitalism is what is making USA imperialistic, then by your logic most Europe is Imperialistsi - and thats wrong.

Invading other countries without regard to what international law says and policing the world is whats making USA imperialistic.

So, hypothetically speaking, if the US actually succeeds in transferring power back to the Iraqi people.

Then what does that make them?

WuTa> You're right, that's some funny sh!t. ๐Ÿ˜†

USA has invaded Iraq for its own needs, purposes and gains - not for Iraqi people's. I think to say that the very same people US is fighting is the people US wants to liberate is far fetched and untrue.

So, USA is still Imperialistic - would you call Rome an empire? Yes, and every single country Rome invaded, they have said to the natives - 'its for your own good - we're trying to protect and educate you''

Thats just an example - different times in history - but it works the same way.

that doesn't answer my question.

If the US gives control of Iraq to the Iraqi people.....then the US isn't imperialistic.

Rome's goal was to conquer...that's not the US goal. And I don't see how you're going to support any belief that the United States wishes to conquer Iraq.

Well the romans their original goal (if I remember last year of uni a tad correctly) was to defend their own lands, altho that's a spiral that just keeps going cause the more land they conquered the more they had to defend.

as I said I think a hegemony is a better way to describe the USA these days

I would think that a hegemony would be a much better way to describe it...

Thx Link

I do see where Lil gets what she's saying, but as an American...I just want to cover my ears and keep repeating "it's not true, it's not true" while shaking my head back and forth...

It does appear the US is sliding toward the path of Imperialism, but for the time being, I think a hegemony would be the best way to describe the US at the current time.

Of course, 4 more years of Bush Jr. and there's no telling where the US will end up.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
that doesn't answer my question.

If the US gives control of Iraq to the Iraqi people.....then the US isn't imperialistic.

Rome's goal was to conquer...that's not the US goal. And I don't see how you're going to support any belief that the United States wishes to conquer Iraq.

Yes, I just answered your question. USA is not trying to liberate Iraq - its rediculous, so therefore USA is not going to liberate anything.

USA's gain is to conquer - but unlike Romans, USA is looking for oil.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, I just answered your question. USA is not trying to liberate Iraq - its rediculous, so therefore USA is not going to liberate anything.

USA's gain is to conquer - but unlike Romans, USA is looking for oil.

The US is not in Iraq to conquer the nation and it's people. The United States is in there trying to remove terrorists threats to the government that they are attempting to put in place in Iraq.

They ARE trying to liberate the country, and their actions back that up.

AFTER liberation, of course the United States will feel they deserve some sort of compensation, in the form of low priced oil agreements no doubt...but they are most certainly not there to conquer. Otherwise they could easily destroy any and all Iraqi's in their path.

I know civilians are dying in Iraq, many of those casualties the US is directly responsible for...but US military personel are dying trying to protect those citizens as well.

That isn't the act of a conqueror. Or were the Romans infamous for dying in their efforts to protect the country they are invading?

well to put it this way if Iraq didnt have had any oil, the US wouldnt have been so eager to "liberate" it

I think it's more personal than that as well...

I think Bush Jr. is really trying to finish up what daddy started by labeling the country as a threat to the national security of the US.

The US probably plans to relinquish control of Iraq to the Iraqi government more so as an international front in order to appease it's critics.

Undoubtably they will create a much larger oil industry in Iraq in order to do two things.
1.) boost the Iraqi economy as a whole.
2.) procure large oil contracts at low prices.

Ideally it would work out for the best.....ideally. Of course, nothing ever goes as planned.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
USA has invaded Iraq for its own needs, purposes and gains - not for Iraqi people's. I think to say that the very same people US is fighting is the people US wants to liberate is far fetched and untrue.

Proof?

We are an empire, but we aren't pigs. Well, aside from the obesity "EPIDEMIC"...

It is interesting to read all the varied opinions about the topic. Good to know that there is people who actually see beyond their comfortable world, and incredible to realice that there is other people that confuse capitalism with imperialism, and that can only based their beliefs on stupid dogmatism. What a diversity!!!
Ps. Ecuador is a shithole, thanx to the so unfair leaders that have controlled it, and to the great difference between rich and poor. Please some of you could use a bit of info, and investigate about a country with a lot of history. Learn about the world...

Imperialism would suggest America is trying to directly rule other countries. Hmmm...tough one.

nah, not really

Maybe. Especially after Iraq. I can't see America invading any other countries anytime soon.

Originally posted by Raz
Maybe. Especially after Iraq. I can't see America invading any other countries anytime soon.

Iran... Libya ... Palestine...

if he buys a deathstar.... fear