Collateral Murder vid

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how does that conclude that theyre superior to the empire?

and the vong had knowledge of the jedi because they had sent scouts into the galaxy during the clone wars, and had been gathering intel on them for years. its not a case of just one person giving them information like you believe.

As for the first part, are you serious? I already explained that.

well let me start off by saying that this is grossly off-topic and we should stop soon lest the mods come down on us 😛

to your first question, its because they underestimated them, simple as. you dont need to not be aware of someones abilities to underestimate them, you just need to be arrogant (and the vong higher ups were definitely arrogant).

as to the latter, i must have missed it.

Right....Is it just me, or did they drag out the Vong novels a bit too long?

Originally posted by Liberator
Its not a modern war on terror, when did Iraq commit a terrorist atrocity on America? If you're referring to the horrible regime of Saddam, USA sold the gas to him in the 80's to kill the Kurds didn't he? and I can remember Rumsfeld giving him a pair of gold spurs and giving him a high five.

Thanks America, because you invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed out entire cities, created immense poverty in already povery stricken nations, killed, maimed, and shot anyone who resisted you, rigged elections and shoved "democracy" down everyones throats, you've really decreased world terrorism!

ok, whatever you want to call it, you think it is best understood in terms of colonialism? Like, the same Imperial colonialism of the 17-1900s?

Originally posted by Liberator

Its not a modern war on terror, when did Iraq commit a terrorist atrocity on America? If you're referring to the horrible regime of Saddam, USA sold the gas to him in the 80's to kill the Kurds didn't he? and I can remember Rumsfeld giving him a pair of gold spurs and giving him a high five.

Thanks America, because you invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed out entire cities, created immense poverty in already povery stricken nations, killed, maimed, and shot anyone who resisted you, rigged elections and shoved "democracy" down everyones throats, you've really decreased world terrorism!

The war on terror encompasses more than just those directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks though. It was started as a direct challenge to Islamic extremism in general. Iraq was part of that in that it funded terrorism and rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (10 families received $25,000 each).

Also, apparently the USAWC conducted a study into the weapons that killed the Kurds and concluded that it was Iranian weapons that did it. Supposedly they thought they were targeting Iraqi troops and that the civilians had fled the area but they were behind on their intelligence and the Iraqi troops had left and the people moved back in. I haven't actually read the report so I can't say if it's true though.

Yeah but isn't Iran on the USA hitlist? It would make sense for them to blame Iran.

inimalist, while it might not be as blatant as the older styles of Imperialism it sure as hell still is. Military occupations, corrupted elections, siezing of natural resources, theres a lot of parallels to be drawn. It's not like they went into Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam, that was just a side project in order to win the hearts of the American people over.

Same thing in Afghanistan, Osama was used as a scapegoat to allow a US military presence in the area, there were plenty of chances to capture Saddam but strangely the most 'professional' military in the world had "slip-ups", they had no such slip-ups with Saddam.

Anyways, you look at companies like Exxon (US oil company) who has had some good profit come reeling in the last few years, doesn't that make you think something is going on?

Originally posted by Liberator
Same thing in Afghanistan, Osama was used as a scapegoat to allow a US military presence in the area, there were plenty of chances to capture Saddam but strangely the most 'professional' military in the world had "slip-ups", they had no such slip-ups with Saddam.

Obviously, it's very easy to catch Osama Bin Laden, for sure. Stupid incompetent US government is to blame. That's why you're going to lead a task force to capture Bin Laden to show the world how incredibly easy it is to hunt down and capture/kill him. You certainly have my vote.

Since it's so incredibly easy to find him, what will be your first step in this process?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, it's very easy to catch Osama Bin Laden, for sure. Stupid incompetent US government is to blame. That's why you're going to lead a task force to capture Bin Laden to show the world how incredibly easy it is to hunt down and capture/kill him. You certainly have my vote.

Since it's so incredibly easy to find him, what will be your first step in this process?

Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah but isn't Iran on the USA hitlist? It would make sense for them to blame Iran.

inimalist, while it might not be as blatant as the older styles of Imperialism it sure as hell still is. Military occupations, corrupted elections, siezing of natural resources, theres a lot of parallels to be drawn. It's not like they went into Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam, that was just a side project in order to win the hearts of the American people over.

Same thing in Afghanistan, Osama was used as a scapegoat to allow a US military presence in the area, there were plenty of chances to capture Saddam but strangely the most 'professional' military in the world had "slip-ups", they had no such slip-ups with Saddam.

Anyways, you look at companies like Exxon (US oil company) who has had some good profit come reeling in the last few years, doesn't that make you think something is going on?

The media do far more to hype up the tension between the US and Iran than either country does. Iran is a problem that will sort itself out in the near future. It has one of the most liberal and secular young populations of any muslim country. They've demonstrated heavily in the recent past and will do so again in the near future. If a war threatens because of their stupid government decisions then they will overthrow their own government anyway.

You're other points are far too simplistic and naive to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Liberator
inimalist, while it might not be as blatant as the older styles of Imperialism it sure as hell still is. Military occupations, corrupted elections, siezing of natural resources, theres a lot of parallels to be drawn. It's not like they went into Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam, that was just a side project in order to win the hearts of the American people over.

so, I'll do a better response, but like, you would consider Alexander's Macedonia as a colonial power then? Communist USSR? The Zaptistas?

All three of those satisfy your "corrupt leaders, siezing resources, military occupation" qualifications for colonialism...

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I'll do a better response, but like, you would consider Alexander's Macedonia as a colonial power then? Communist USSR? The Zaptistas?

All three of those satisfy your "corrupt leaders, siezing resources, military occupation" qualifications for colonialism...

in that sense they are indeed. It's not just the USA, and I've never claimed it to be. They are just a major player in this day and age.

don't you see how useless the term colonialism is in that sense?

You've taken something that was the ideological principal behind the foreign policy of Imperial European powers and abstracted it to the point where it adds nothing of use to a conversation. In your mind then, the current battle for Iraq is a battle between 2 colonial powers... Though neither comparable to real colonial powers in the traditional sense...

So, if colonialism is how you talk about all forms of military conquest, what term do you use to describe the imperial practiecs of England and France?

EDIT: I'll just point out, you didn't mention anywhere that colonialism involved foreign powers, a very important consideration, so it is entirely possible that the English government could be considered a colonial power of England in that view...

Originally posted by Liberator
inimalist, while it might not be as blatant as the older styles of Imperialism it sure as hell still is. Military occupations, corrupted elections, siezing of natural resources, theres a lot of parallels to be drawn.

ok, but you can draw parallels between Taoism and Star Wars, they aren't the same thing though

Originally posted by Liberator
It's not like they went into Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam, that was just a side project in order to win the hearts of the American people over.

well, that isn't specifically correct, removing saddam was a necessary objective of invading iraq, they couldn't have done one without the other, regardless of the purpose of the war.

otherwise, no, they didn't go to iraq to win the American people over, they tried to win the American people over for the war (which they did successfully).

But this brings up one of the most important reasons why America isn't a colonial power. Ideologically, America isn't an emprire. Its people don't see it as such, its military doesn't see it as such, its politicians dont. Sure, they act like they should own the world, but they obviously have no desire to set local policy for nations or to attempt to convert them to an American way of life. The global forces of corporate capitalism do work in these ways somewhat (though no exactly), and there are connections between American corporate interests, politics and military policy, but the American military is not subservient to corporate interests in the way they are in Colonialism. This is due to the privatization of the economy. Imperial powers also have strict market regulation, whereby they control maunfacturing and export. Frankly, the American corporate/military ties are too explotitave of the conquored nations to be colonial. They ARENT interested in building a thriving colony where they can forcibly sell American goods, they are destroying a nation to pillage it of its national resources.

Originally posted by Liberator
Same thing in Afghanistan, Osama was used as a scapegoat to allow a US military presence in the area, there were plenty of chances to capture Saddam but strangely the most 'professional' military in the world had "slip-ups", they had no such slip-ups with Saddam.

yes, but botching the job of getting Osama is not proof that they were on a mission of colonization. The mission in Afghanistan had no real objective until it became apparent that the Taliban were going to fight a military insurgency, which took months. NATO troops sat around while the nation deteriorated, until they were targeted and "nation building" became a major part of the operation, largely to justify the continued occupation to NATO allies, America never needed to justify Afghanistan at home (until recently, which was nearly just a tautological reminder of 9/11).

Look, when Napoleon colonized Africa, he brought as many engineers as he did soldiers. When England colonized India, they moved in and built India as an English colony. America went in and destroyed. They had no engineers, no civic builders, nothing. That is, imho, the heart of colonialism, the COLONY. Hell, it is arguable that American militarism might have been more successful if they thought in this way.

And hey, again, this is based on myths of colonial ideologies. Colonialism was justified largely through ideas of racial and cultural supremecy, the idea that the colonized couldn't take care of themselves. Thus, in comes daddy Imperial power. American individualism holds that people are free to live as they please and are responsible for themselves. Thus, America goes in, doesn't try to change people's society, and expects them to act freely.

Clearly they are both delusional, but its apples to pears imho.

Originally posted by Liberator
Anyways, you look at companies like Exxon (US oil company) who has had some good profit come reeling in the last few years, doesn't that make you think something is going on?

sure, not colonialism...

So if it isn't Imperialism what do you call it? Just the invasion and ransacking of Iraq's resources?

I try not to ascribe -isms, as I don't like to generalize between things [sic: maybe I do, I don't know, it sounds good], but ya, rape and pilage. Afghanistan has turned into this weird thing (weird in that it didn't work the way we thought it would, not weird if you consider Afghanistan's thousands of years of histroy) where we almost need to try colonial ideas if we want a military victory.

I tend to think it all suffered from these wars not being well planned from the top-down. No immediate plan for Afghanistan and no long term plan in Iraq. I'm not in favor of either conflict, obviously, but I think it is worth differentiating between America in Iraq and the Dutch in the Congo.

EDIT: though, if you are asking me "why" America went into Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the reasons are easy.

Afghanistan: Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and thus, they wanted to get him. They understood so little about the nation that they thought they could get the Northern Alliance to capture Al Qaeda for them, and everything turned into the cluster**** it is today.

Iraq: I tend to believe that the people who decided Iraq was a target (Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rove) actually believed it was involved in 9/11. The project for the new american century, in the 90s, was talking about Saddam as the organizer of all Mid East terror. This was untrue, but it did fit with the "us/them" mythology that American conservatives love. This is coupled with the fact that there were no intelligence officers who spoke arabic, much less trying to decipher the world of Islamic Jihad, prior to 9-11. They also named oil as a motivation in the first weeks of trying to sell the war, but it became an unpopular meme, so was dropped.

Originally posted by inimalist
don't you see how useless the term colonialism is in that sense?

You've taken something that was the ideological principal behind the foreign policy of Imperial European powers and abstracted it to the point where it adds nothing of use to a conversation. In your mind then, the current battle for Iraq is a battle between 2 colonial powers... Though neither comparable to real colonial powers in the traditional sense...

So, if colonialism is how you talk about all forms of military conquest, what term do you use to describe the imperial practiecs of England and France?

EDIT: I'll just point out, you didn't mention anywhere that colonialism involved foreign powers, a very important consideration, so it is entirely possible that the English government could be considered a colonial power of England in that view...

I'm so very confused a to where you are coming from. I could have sworn the Liberator was correct. Iraq is under the control of the US, for all intents and purposes. Are we occupying and have large amounts of control over territories and countries, other than Iraq? Yes. Are we actively colonizing new terrotories/countires? No. But, the latter is not necessary to dub a state as Colonialists: it's just the occupation of territories or countries and having government control over those. ...at least that's what I THINK it is.

So, the US can nicely be defined as a Colonial state...it's just that we are not actively seeking out new territories.

There are many other nations that could be considered "Colonialist". Also, where is the line drawn? if the UK only comprised of the island of Great Britain, wouldn't Northern Ireland technically, alone, qualify the UK as Colonialists? What about the thousands of smaller islands? etc. Bla bla bla. So, maybe I understand you, cause it would be hard to qualify someone as Colonialist.

It's possible that my defintion is too ambiguous and there are actually more specific definitions like: "And it has to be at least 5 degrees Lat/Long away from the borders of their mainland in order to e considered a colony." Talking to my coworker, he said that we have to be obtaining goods or resources from the territory that we have control over, in order to call us Colonialists.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm so very confused a to where you are coming from. I could have sworn the Liberator was correct. Iraq is under the control of the US, for all intents and purposes. Are we occupying and have large amounts of control over territories and countries, other than Iraq? Yes. Are we actively colonizing new terrotories/countires? No. But, the latter is not necessary to dub a state as Colonialists: it's just the occupation of territories or countries and having government control over those. ...at least that's what I THINK it is.

a priori, it is important to note that Liberator and I are talking about "colonialism" as it pertains to the policy of Imperial powers, not as to what, in a strict definition, defines a colony. Technically, Canada is still colonized by the British (... get me started on that).

The biggest consideration here is that the land was never claimed as the property of another nation state. America never owned Iraq. They controlled the soverign nation. Its not that there is a huge difference in practice (one person dominating another in all -isms is pretty much the same), it is just the way the world conceptualizes the existance of "nation states" as these independant enetities allows for such a weird situation. America didn't need to become colonizers to control Iraq.

Further, America gave control back to the Iraqis and has been steadily ignoring the government since then. This is not what colonial powers did, they ruled by vassalage. Elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been continually bad for the Americans, even in nations where their occupation is supported by more of the populace than by the Americans themselves.

America doesn't control the day-to-day policy of these nations as would, imho, be necessary to dub them colonies.

EDIT: there is also the culture issue. Colonialism, the practice, always was accompanied with enforced cultural norms. There are probably a few key ones (education of girls) that are equivalent, but compared to the changes that Dutch, French and English colonizers made, they are leaving the people with a great deal of independance. The only Western power doing anything equivalent to this that I am aware of is Israel with regard to the settlement of the West bank. China's cultural practices in Tibet and the Muslim areas is similar.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, the US can nicely be defined as a Colonial state...it's just that we are not actively seeking out new territories.

indeed: see Peurto Rico

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are many other nations that could be considered "Colonialist". Also, where is the line drawn? if the UK only comprised of the island of Great Britain, wouldn't Northern Ireland technically, alone, qualify the UK as Colonialists? What about the thousands of smaller islands? etc. Bla bla bla. So, maybe I understand you, cause it would be hard to qualify someone as Colonialist.

See Falkland Islands. also, Canada

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's possible that my defintion is too ambiguous and there are actually more specific definitions like: "And it has to be at least 5 degrees Lat/Long away from the borders of their mainland in order to e considered a colony." Talking to my coworker, he said that we have to be obtaining goods or resources from the territory that we have control over, in order to call us Colonialists.

I tend to think Colonialism refers to the practice of policy by nations for a few hundred years prior to the world wars and just after. Changes to the way nations worked sort of made traditional colonial practices impossible, and I think there is little good done by trying to expand the term to cover any form of exploitation of a weaker power by a stronger one. I would say every such example needs to be studied on a case by case basis, but even if we are to draw such generalizations and -isms about the mechanisms of power, doing so from the context of 1700s Imperialism seems limited, to say the least. It has become more of a meme than anything these days...

Originally posted by inimalist
a priori, it is important to note that Liberator and I are talking about "colonialism" as it pertains to the policy of Imperial powers, not as to what, in a strict definition, defines a colony. Technically, Canada is still colonized by the British (... get me started on that).

The biggest consideration here is that the land was never claimed as the property of another nation state. America never owned Iraq. They controlled the soverign nation. Its not that there is a huge difference in practice (one person dominating another in all -isms is pretty much the same), it is just the way the world conceptualizes the existance of "nation states" as these independant enetities allows for such a weird situation. America didn't need to become colonizers to control Iraq.

Further, America gave control back to the Iraqis and has been steadily ignoring the government since then. This is not what colonial powers did, they ruled by vassalage. Elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been continually bad for the Americans, even in nations where their occupation is supported by more of the populace than by the Americans themselves.

America doesn't control the day-to-day policy of these nations as would, imho, be necessary to dub them colonies.

EDIT: there is also the culture issue. Colonialism, the practice, always was accompanied with enforced cultural norms. There are probably a few key ones (education of girls) that are equivalent, but compared to the changes that Dutch, French and English colonizers made, they are leaving the people with a great deal of independance. The only Western power doing anything equivalent to this that I am aware of is Israel with regard to the settlement of the West bank. China's cultural practices in Tibet and the Muslim areas is similar.

indeed: see Peurto Rico

See Falkland Islands. also, Canada

I tend to think Colonialism refers to the practice of policy by nations for a few hundred years prior to the world wars and just after. Changes to the way nations worked sort of made traditional colonial practices impossible, and I think there is little good done by trying to expand the term to cover any form of exploitation of a weaker power by a stronger one. I would say every such example needs to be studied on a case by case basis, but even if we are to draw such generalizations and -isms about the mechanisms of power, doing so from the context of 1700s Imperialism seems limited, to say the least. It has become more of a meme than anything these days...

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's much clearer. Ditto on the "-isms". Seems more philosophical than an actual "official" designation. That discussion can quickly lead to other "-isms".

And, that last paragraph: calling it a meme probably hit it right on the head.

Modern Colonialism really doesn't exist. There were lots of agreements, settling of schtuff, etc. back in the early 20th century up through WWII. It does seem odd to call a state Colonialist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, okay. Yeah, that's much clearer. Ditto on the "-isms". Seems more philosophical than an actual "official" designation. That discussion can quickly lead to other "-isms".

don't get me wrong, I totally see the use of having the term "colonialism". I think it does encapsulate colonial and anti-colonial views of the world. Hell, without it as a concept, modern Indian politics would make no sense.

In that sense, ya, it is a total political/philosophical issue, but one that is useful in understanding a lot of modern geo-politics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, that last paragraph: calling it a meme probably hit it right on the head.

I always grimace when I use meme in a way that can be taken as perjorative... But ya, I think it is totally appropriate here (excusing that all things that are imitated are memes blah blah blah...). Colonialism has had such a cultural impact. From the little I know of Mugabe (hence how ignorant I am of Africa), his only real claim to legitimacy is a anti-colonial past. Colonialism as a tool for Western power was attrocious, but the way it is used domenstically in the former colonial world is sometimes just as bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Modern Colonialism really doesn't exist. There were lots of agreements, settling of schtuff, etc. back in the early 20th century up through WWII. It does seem odd to call a state Colonialist.

Yes and no. I think some practices of the IMF and World Bank, and maybe some UN actions do qualify as being at least the equivalent of colonialism orchestrated by a non-state actor (making it not colonialism or even worth being named as colonialism by my own argument, so there me).

Originally posted by inimalist
don't get me wrong, I totally see the use of having the term "colonialism". I think it does encapsulate colonial and anti-colonial views of the world. Hell, without it as a concept, modern Indian politics would make no sense.

Tangent: I, sadly, don't have as much knowledge about India's history as I would like. My knowledge of India is greatly lacking.

Originally posted by inimalist
I always grimace when I use meme in a way that can be taken as perjorative... But ya, I think it is totally appropriate here (excusing that all things that are imitated are memes blah blah blah...).

But it fits so well, at times. The information age is great and spreading memes.

Originally posted by inimalist
Yes and no. I think some practices of the IMF and World Bank, and maybe some UN actions do qualify as being at least the equivalent of colonialism orchestrated by a non-state actor (making it not colonialism or even worth being named as colonialism by my own argument, so there me).

You can create your own version of colonialism and call it Corporate Colonialism. In fact, it's real.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-04-22/news/corporate-colonialism/