That the US is an imperial hegemon.

That's fine. I just started back at uni so my time to come on PF has been strained as well, so I think if we can get a few posts out every couple weeks we can keep this going. After Easter I should be more organized and able to contribute. But as I said, take your time. I'd prefer an in depth discussion that is drawn out than one where we are rushed and the talk is pointless.

 

interesting you suggest that, when they would seem to be interested in supporting the ME moving into democracy. This as you sited for an example to your premise actually now opposes your citation.

You are contenting that the US intent shows Imperialism of the US. To say now that “intent” does not mean imperialism, simply undermines your own premise. However, you attempt to state the Roman empire was brutally imposed and the British empire did not is wrong. The British empire was built upon butal wars and rule of other nations, so how do you suggest they are different? Is it because now it is seen to show they no longer brutally enforce the empire?

This is incorrect from your previous comment of ‘intent’. Most nations hold their own interests at heart and pursue them as much as the US. To say, it is irrelevant to the debate, stands to conclude, your premise is based on false understanding of the imperialistic intent of nations. The fact is, that ALL nations are imperialistic, to some extent, is not to be ignored. You focus on the US, simply because they have hegemony over the world. Few nations(Britain being one of them) now understand, that it is actually counter productive, to assert imperialistic intentions on other nations, to better your national interests. This has been clearly shown many times, in the last fifty years. The only thing the US has, to force any nation to instil closer economic patterns or structure to the US, is hegemony. It is far to expensive, to pursue imperialistic intentions, far better to be the biggest and most capable, for everybody to wish to pursue better contacts with the nation. China is a good example, of the ideal of moving away from imperialism, in their economic structure and the growth that this has caused. If the US remains numb, to their financial situation, then China will be able to surpass the US economically, gaining the economic hegemony of the world. This will then begin to show many nations lining up to accommodate the Chinese economy over the US. All things being equal, this will occur without any force on the Chinese part. This then situates the Chinese nation, to take the last step, of hegemony over the world. Do you see the difference?

What tariffs? You are well aware of the economic situation before the Iraq war?

No, Haiti and the Dominican Republic do not demonstrate this at all. I have addressed this and you have responded further along and I will point out why. The fact that you clearly show, lack of understanding of the situation of these nations and US contribution to their economy before they intercede politically or even militarily.

You got it.

However, you totally miss the point, that by sponsoring the best regime of the intended parties, only shows the wish for a better outcome from elections and coups. It actually shows, how little control the US has in the ME. As they can not just instil any government they wish. They have to go with the only alternatives present.

Yes, very true. Again showing the actual ability of the US to control the ME.
However, you miss the harm that has been bought about, even to your own nation, from actions of the ME, that harm the US economy. This sort of action harms all nations.

Yes, no argument. However, what makes it possible? I would assume, that it is the price of the wholesale product. Possible the best way to understand is when you look to the pump next time check out the prices of all the fuels at that station. To make unleaded fuel it is necessary to manufacture diesel. Diesel is a by product of making petrol but you will notice in Australia diesel is I believe about ten cents dearer than petrol. Why? Because quantities of diesel consumed far outstrip petrol in usage. Diesel is the product used to move other products around the world far increasing the cost of the products on the shelf. Go figure. You stated that the US gets most of it’s fuel from other countries. This actually shows a lack of understanding about the economics of the global trade.


Let me put it simply. Reduce supply from ME. Somebody can not buy the oil they wish to and pursue it on the world market. Canada see the alternative customer will pay more so rather than sell to the US they sell it to other nations forcing the US to either pay more OR source from elsewhere. No alternative source, they either pay more and get the oil needed or they go without. What do you think the US will do?

I do not have dates. However, it is simple to say when the barrel hit $110 each the US made formal representation to the OPEC committee, stating such. This influence was used to increase production by a further 500,000 barrels to alleviate increasing prices. This action was made directly after OPEC committee announced that no increase of production would occur. After this informal meeting, requested by many of the OPEC nations, the OPEC committee was blaming three things increasing the price of crude and not at the same time.

First they blamed china for increased demand for the construction and an extremely cold winter for increases in heating oils. When this did not fly, they blamed speculation on the open market for increases. Finally they admitted, to a reduction in production was main reason behind this increase. The fact of the matter is they all contributed, however, the reduction in production was the main initiation of the events surrounding the explosion of crude oil prices.

 

However, it is rhetoric, so you do understand that it was called for. Regardless of how hollow, it did occur and has through many governments of the US, usually echoed by the allies of the US.

That is factually incorrect, isn't it? They left him in power.

So, the world is a peaceful place now? Nobody wishes to pursue better interests for their nation anymore. Fact is, new threats in that part of the world exist to the US now, and you ignore them?

Great assumption there, but who actually threatens the US and Australia now? Ignoring these threats, only stand, to diminish nations wish, to secure better outcomes for themselves.

Perhaps you should read the comment again, before making such absurd comments as that. It diminishes the debate, when you deliberately misinterpreted comments.

Don't lie to yourself. You base your morals entirely on your own morals standards. The morals of the US statesmen, you agree with and disagree with, are directly based upon your own understanding of your own morals.

 

[

OH, I see now. when the US is involved and it does not go to your premise it is a GLOBAL EFFORT. Sorry to say, but if that is the way you intend to debate, such examples then I would assume, you are well aware that all three wars, two in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also a global effort. In the case, neither of these countries support your premise. You can not pick and choose actions, across the globe and ignore efforts, you do not think agree with you. You have to encapsulate them all, if you are going to use examples of nations.

No, that is not correct. This would be the third time we have come to this point, and now it has changed. I SAY, control is measured, by the direct manipulation, of the regimes involved, and influence is persuasion. Your now attempting to say, that they have choice. Just because the choice, is to stay in power or relinquish power, to a more popular party, has nothing to do with control. If the US controlled the party, it would be simply telling them what to do. Not saying, we will stop supporting you if you do not do this or that. This does not necessarily mean the down fall of the regime. totally different to controlling the regime.

That is actually, incorrect. So far, you have shown only a few, that have been toppled. But, many have continued to flourish, even after the US pulls support from them. the ME being prime examples.

...simple economics coarse at uni will give you the answer to this... the thing you have to remember, before you tout the interests of the private sector, is that it is better for them to have firmer prices, but not blowouts in prices. This produces GLOBAL FINACIAL CRISiS.

Really, HAITI, Aristide was deposed by the US was he? Could you supply evidence? After all, you are now saying, he was not a government in exile, where? In the US. He did not negotiate his return with the military who was running the country, and he was not the leader the US helped to bring him back to power? So in other words, this is a lie?

http://www.travelinghaiti.com/history.asp
Why, would the US depose him and then, provide him with a home, resources to regain power and then return him to power. That is just nutty

So, what is your objection of their wishes? Is it that you do not like the US's wish for better relations?

WHAT? your going to ignore everything Iran has done, prior to the Iraq war? Are you really that naive?

You quoted wikileaks before, so I assume you have read many cables. Perhaps you should examine the cables regarding Iran before making such rash statements. It shows how naive you are in the ME.

Tell me, did the US pull all aide to Haiti when a government it did no like was in power?

This shows your lack of understanding of the geopolitical scene. You are well aware of the OPEC nations and who controls it? The ME monopolises the OPEC committee and that committee regulates supply world wide. This regulates price, world wide.

Look, unfortunately you have shown some control and intent to control but not the ongoing control needed. IF you premise was that the US WHERE IMPERIALISTIC, I could be swayed to agree. The problem is that you say they ARE, which is actually far against US current foreign policy.

 

Yes, and had been so for generations. Your point?

What, you are going to continue to misinterpreted my comments, or are you just trying to mislead people with these type of comments?

So tell me, if you where in charge, would you turn around and ignore the agreement between the military and a previously elected government to instil, what, someone you pick out of the crowd? Come on now, no matter what they did here, you would not agree with, just admit it and move on.

After the previous post, I think maybe you need to provide more support for your stance.

Let me see, nothing you have said, disputes me, does it?

I have linked four and all related since the seventies. You have disagreed with my links and comments on them, so I would assume you have evidence, to refute. I SEE NOTHING YET.

Well, that is subjective, as pointed out prior

So, Chomsky discusses Haiti, during the early part of the twentieth century? Does he also claim the later part of the Haiti history, is as you claim? That the US, held a military coup against Astride, and then returned him, after negotiating with him?

Regardless of what you wish to write is up to you, but I am really beginning to wonder about Chomsky’s credibility now. You state my LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH is totally wrong but provide no evidence. You state that you will refer to Chomsky, as your main source, however, it is calling my linked sources as lies, with no support. The later history, also does not support your premise, as showing no ongoing control. In fact, it actually shows the US only forcing the Haiti military to honour it's word, rather than attempting to kill the dually elected government, to retain power. A government, that once returned, held elections, to have a new leader elected. I showed four sources, you claim one. I know who I believe.

 

This is just a quick message to let you know I will reply to all your comments but I may have to do so in a week because I'm pretty snowed under with work at the moment.

 

That is fine, I can wait. I hope things get more relaxed soon for you, however, I know it may take some time, as the work load at the beginning of you studies and so on can be very hectic.

 

I'll try and reply to your comments in the next couple of days. I've been bombarded with essays these past two weeks so sorry for the delay. Such is uni.

 

But the US has been opposed to democracy in the region. Obama, as wikileaks showed, gave millions to Tunisia leading up to the protests and didnt condemn Mubarak right up until it was clearly not going to end favorably (ie the protests).

When did I say they do not intend for imperialism?

When did I say that?

My pint is, we are discussing the US, not other nations.

No they aren't. But this is irrelevant to this debate. Just because everyone may or may not do it has nothing to do with the validity of said actions, and even less to do with the US.

But the US is imperialistic and indeed your point here is validated by the fact of the present arrangement. The US spends more money on its army more than anyone and almost as much as every other nation combined. It spends over 1 trillion on military projects which is crippling it economically.

As soon as China starts toppling other regimes, it will have become much like the US. Tibet is, maybe an example but rather distant in correlative context so I wouldn't consider it.

I can discuss this at length if you wish.

...?....Totally wrong. I have already clarified this point. But if you wish me to go through the Middle East I can also do this at length.

Thank you for finally conceding the point.

As of 1998 53% of US oil consumption was imported.
My understanding is fine, obviously better than others.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld002.htm

The whole purpose of US foreign policy in the ME since WW2 has been for such a situation, and it is to have control of the ME through pro-US political relationships in which private interests are supported and hence the US is protected in its requirements to maintain its world strength.

How does this show a lack of US control? Hurting the average consumer is not evidence of dwindled US power.

 

Exactly. The US doesn't want democracy in the real sense of the term. Gestures for reform such as those under Bush confirm this fact as they meant nothing.

Well no, the international community left him in power. The US subsequently tried to kill him, but had their hey day in 2003.

Yes. Has been for 20 years.

Of course tye do. But since when do national interests mean 'war'? Why is it you assert all nations are imperialistically minded? This is seriously ignorant, and again no justification for US imperialistic hegemony.

So, where do the threats exist so as to require bases in Japan, Germany and along the regional vantage point of Eastern Latin America?

I don't know, who? The whole point is, no one does.

WHICH THREATS? They are none!

Let me say right now, as a staple of my sincerity and as the highest point of possible integrity that I can entwine within one comment as physically possible, that I have never and shall never deliberately interpret comments so as to stifle debate. I also hate this practice. My question was a serious one. If it implies I have interpreted your point incorrectly, then please point it out and clarify it.

The US doesn't publicly state its apparent ideological support for democracy and liberty? That's not what the historical record shows.

Not at all. In this debate I have taken entirely the basis of US' own moral staples and standards.

Yes, but what I said was that I describe the ACTIONS of the US statesman as either wrong or right based on THEIR publicly declared notions of morality. My criticism of Woodrow Wilson would be a good example although I don't think I voiced that here yet.

 

I don't understand this conclusion. Could you elaborate?

Well no they weren't "global" efforts. Granted Afghanistan I would say was, but certainly not Iraq. It was globally CONDEMNED.

I thought we were discussing the US? The global community is only relevant here as it effects the discussion of the US. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

It has everything to do with control as it shows the US supports regimes that are brutal and repressive instead of democratic and free. It not only shows they seek control, it also shows they are hypocrites.

True, the thing is, the US supports these regimes with aid and military support in exchange for them doing as the US requires economically. This would be fine, I agree, if these were democratic regimes, but they are quite often not. And it is in these examples we find US imperialism, wherein the US indeed props up and directly aids many to ensure they maintain their power and hence US control.

What is this sentence referring to? What are these "examples" and what are they showing?

Yes.

You have supplied it yourself

No it isn't a lie at all, unless you add what you think I was implying to the end. But since I never said any of that, I am completely correct. Aristide was toppled, and then later returned to power once he agreed to institute neo-liberal economic legislation that would effectively mean a return to foreign economic control, namely US control.

Its not nutty at all. He was very popular, but not in line with US interests, so he had to go. But because he was popular it would mean Haiti would have a had time getting used to a new leader. Hence the US opted for the option of returning Aristide once he agreed to implement the new, pro-US, reforms.

The US has no right to force its wishes upon others.

Yes, I do not like the US' wish to have better relations with countries by installing despots in them. Yes I am totally opposed to this.

What has Iran done to Israel? It has supported Hezbollah, sure, but that isn't Israel. In fact Hezbollah only emerged and really only exists because of Israeli hostility - hence my point. I don't see what is so evil about Iran in terms of foreign relations. Israel is by far the most dangerous state outside of its own borders in the region.

LOL And what do they show that proves me wrong or naive?

Yes and no. Theoretically yes, in reality no.

And....?

I believe I have. If you want to analyze Haiti, ME or Vietnam further, since these have all been raised I am happy to do so. Of course an in-depth discussion will require time that I wont have until Easter when I'm on holidays.

I disagree. Recent events in Honduras are also a very good example of this.

 

So now you are changing your position? So the US now supports regimes that aren't already there eh?

WTF?! They elected him ONCE and then he changed the constitution and became dictator? Do you not read history? If he had have retained his constitutional duties and he was elected to do and did not become a despot, then I would have supported him wholeheartedly - like Aristide. But he didn't, and yet the US supported him.

I have not covered the Duvaliers extensively, but I will do so in more depth.

Perhaps not yet - it was background history that I thought you might like, you know to put things in perspective.

I know, like I said I haven't addressed your points directly yet, but I shall. As I said I wanted to make the history of the relationship clear as US imperialism in Haiti is a long tradition.

Yes.

Yes and he has well documented independent analysis backing up his points which I will present.

Why? Regardless, his points are not so much based on his views, as the various opinions of other independent expert analysts.

Like I said, I haven't addressed it yet. I shall, please believe me when I say that.

I didn't call them lies.

It shows extensive control even with your link, but as I say I will address the later history right up to the recent elections a few days ago in detail shortly.

Yes, well soon enough you will see things differently.

I have not presented any sources yet. Chomsky isn't a source, it is Chomsky's sources you should be noting and this case they will muster a good number. As I say I have not addressed the modern history - but I SHALL. My post before was on the background history, which is particularly interesting as Wilson is revered as the 'idealist' of US foreign policy, yet was particularly brutal. As I say I will post multiple points to back up my claim, much of which from Chomsky's work. He sites mostly studies and independent analysis, so don't be worried you just be hearing random claims from some mysterious person.
I will post this in a few days and if not then when Easter comes around.

 

Just to your wish to show Obama as being supportive until the end, I think you read more into the rhetoric than is there. Even to the end Obama did not condemn Mubarak. He condemned his actions. As with Gaddafi. He still does not condemn Gaddafi he condemns his actions. If you pay attention to who the us pays you will see they give millions to governments they do not support as well. This is not actually a good way to discover US intent.

This is what I responded to.

However maybe I should have said that you consider the US controlling in self interest as imperialistic ( which I will also quote where you said this) bit now say it is not the same.

so I have to continually quote your own words?

Tell that to the Scottish and The Irish and other nations over the centuries.

Exactly correct. My point is, you would make different analysis of the US, than other nations. As I asked before, do you consider Australia to be imperialistic to which you said no. However, as I pointed out many nations act in the same manner as the US, just on a smaller scale. You deny, that other nations are imperialistic, but then would use the same actions and motives to label the US for something, that is known to the US, not to be productive. So it only stands to reason that other nations actions are directly relevant to the discussion.

Only because you would judge the US differently, with different standards, for your outcome.

Yes, that is true, it can also be seen to show how it will implode the US economy. But what they spend their money on does not show imperialism. It only shows they have nothing better to spend it on.

Who has china toppled lately? They do remain as being one nation that has brutally (possible, more so than any other) grew their empire. However, they have not brutally expanded it’s dominance over other nations of late. Yes they have brutally controlled the nations they have now but now expansion.

No, I did not concede your point. I conceded that the actions are occurring, however, the way the ME are responding, actually shows the little control, that is displayed.

Really, so you do understand the forces of OPEC and other factors that determine the price and supply? Or are you simply going go keep posting the same types of graphs. Your understanding is DEEPLY flawed, if you think, US oil prices are not reflected on world market, not just where the supply is.

Well, it has not worked then, has it? As the US is just as reliant on oil supply, which is controlled by the OPEC committee that is controlled not by the US but a majority standing of ME representatives.

The problem with what you are looking at is, you think too small. Just on hurting the average Joe, this, in turn, Hurts the corporations and governments, not just of the US, but all nations. Be it more slowly. How do you think the GFC happened? Do you think it did not happen, because the average Joe, was not hurting? Please, widen your horizon with all your thoughts not just the ones that would support your premise and attempt to be ignorant of others.

 

No, it is not that they do not want democracy, it is they do not care, if it is democracy. IF you are considering that this shows there wish to control or the fact they do not instil democracy means they do not wish it. You would be grasping at straws. The US may or may not wish for democratic world, however it is not always the best coarse of action to oppose the wishes of the people.

Again splitting hairs. Was not the US the driving force in the first action? Was not the US in charge of the first action? As I said before, if you are going to say one is an international effort then they all are. After all it was the US that lead the way on all three counts.

Care to provide evidence of such claims? Before you say they said they wish to, I agree. Did they try? Not that I am aware of.

Maybe you consider it as their hey day, but really it is an embarrassment highlighted by this action.

Funny, you would say that, when you condemn three wars, in the last twenty years. The unrest in the ME.

not necessarily war, but most often. For example, Australia is threatened by several nations, China being one of them. If china could gain complete control over resources, they need to continue to advance their nation. Would you simply stand by and ignore them, entering your country and ruling over you, most likely pushing you into slavery, to help them accumulate the very resources, that interest them now? Many in Australia will fight any attempt to besiege them. That would mean WAR.

I don’t, however based on your standard of measuring the US. Since they all act, in the very same manner, to better their own interests, then they all must fall in the same category.

I should point out, this comment shows little understanding, of how the world has worked for many centuries. This was meant to be a question. Typo on my part. However, I am not trying to justify hegemony over the world, it is a simple fact. I am not attempting to justify Imperialistic intentions over the world, you are.

surely you are not that naive to believe, Nobody has designs on Australia, Japan and the US? If you are not aware China, Indonesia and Taiwan is the most open with their designs on Australia alone

It does appear you are that naïve.

Let me see. To this comment

You said

Now, either it was a deliberate intent to misrepresent or comprehension is greatly suffering. I stated, that at current, it could become a problem that would help the US solve it’s financial woes. So you ask, if I think it was the original reason for the Vietnam war.

Clarity enough?

WHAT???? Is that not what you object to? They say democracy for all then support dictators and despots?

I think you know were I am coming from. I do not consider morals as relevant to the debate, so it would be better left out.

 

I think I already have. However, with all three wars the US lead the way. ALL the foreign nations required it and would not participate without the US leading the way. Just because the US stopped in the first Iraq war before changing any government or regime could show you more than you consider. But this would then counter the second war on Iraq ( I’ll let you think about that one). However, for some reason, because many nations where involved and actually does not show your premise, you label it as a GLOBAL EFFORT or an INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY EFFORT. Then condemn the US for subsequent wars the have also many nations involved with. You know the ones you condemn your own government for supporting?

splitting hairs.

It’s only relevance is, the fact, that you would attempt to measure the US, not by encapsulating all US action, but by cherry picking the actions that suit you.

You miss the point, that the US does not care about the regimes that they deal with. You seem to think, unless they force democracy then they are controlling them. However, it is simple, they just do not care. Do you consider any other nation does?

MMMMMMM……that does not show your premise. But just to set you straight on that, I agree.

As I continue to point out, the US does not REQUIRE anything, they WISH to have more favourable outcomes, but often than not it is not met.

Look again this is actually insulting to those observing, If anybody actually are. Read what I quoted.

Where is the evidence you claim. Perhaps you could bring along something that states the US funded or supported. I do not think so. Perhaps you should leave Haiti out as it simply has not happened the way you consider.

He was toppled by his own military for moving to a more democratic system. You have not provided the evidence of anything you have claimed. You ignore the fact he was returned WITH US help, which you accuse them of toppling him, Only after the military would not step down after agreeing to. You have also made claim that they instilled a governance in their favour regardless of what the people wanted. Even though, the people voted him in with a 67% majority. When I questioned this, you said the wishes of the people may have changed. when I stated that they where condemned if they do and condemned if they don’t, you said no. Problem is, you have the facts and actions of this matter arse up backwards.

If you consider my research as small amount, maybe you did not even read any research on this very issue.

AH…this is correct.

OK

Your statement that they where bice peaceful people before the IRAQ war is in dispute. Hezbollah and Israel is actually irrelevant to your statement. My question is are you aware of many things IRAN has done before the IRAQ war? Your statement is factually incorrect. It only goes to show lack of knowledge on this issue.

I did not say they where EVIL. Their moral standards are not in question. Your understanding of actions of the past are. But for the record I do agree Israeli actions and rhetoric have shown them to be far more dangerous in that region, and I have not stated anything different. Putting this in perspective, though. Iran sabre rattles all the time and the so called nuclear threat they impose now, shows this greatly. The fact that this sabre rattling is far more dangerous now than previous seem to have slipped your ideology somewhat with your lack of understanding of the threats other nations are in.

So, you have not read many at all then. Can I assume you only read the ones people pointed out to you? IF you had read the cables referring to liaisons with IRAN, you would become well aware, that the US has a far better relationship with the IRAN, than you think. But unfortunately you will have to read them for yourself to make your own mind up.

Theoretically and in practice, no they did not. They simply reduced it, because the doc was acting against the constitution of the nation(something I beleive you also dispute). However they restored it to levels of previous when little doc stepped in.

I’ll wait for you, to show some clear understanding of how the global oil economy works.

look you started with something from somebody else then told me that all my sources are either wrong or supporting your comments, I really am wondering if you can analyse these conflicts. But I would like to point out that YOU have raised all these points yourself and so far not shown what you claim they show.

I did not go into the Honduras thing, since apparently what I have sourced is so wrong. So best leave that one alone, until you provide the evidence of your claims of actual events that are contradictory and very frankly, absurd.

 

Actually that is another misrepresentative comment, is it not? I have continually stated they support any regime or leader for the best outcome for there nation. Nothing that any other government does not do. I have continued to state that they, support the best alternatives of the ones provided. So once again you either misinterpreted or misrepresent my position. That has not changed one Iota. Yours would seem to be grasping at straws with comments that simply are not backed with evidence. So perhaps I should start debating you with a far better position of pointing to your blatant misrepresentative understanding of positions.


If you are going to continue to misrepresent and misinterpret my comments please let me know and we can end this now. I am not going to get in a B I T C H fight over this type of thing.

WTF

prove it wrong. You continue to say how Wrong my sources are, prove it. Evidence please.

WTF, you just made some claim above and now you say this? Please provide evidence to support all you claims of my incorrect sources. I would have thought recent history would be far clearer. But take your time.

Waiting.

I thought they where your points. I thought it was your analysis.

So he is more unreliable because he actually only analyses others analysis. Interesting that you place so much faith in his vision of history.

You have made some very major claims of contradictory evidence and produced none.

No, and I did not say you did. You have not quoted anything from them, but you state that he is directly contradictory to my four sources. One or the other is true, and therefore the one, is false. if they are false, because of a lack of facts, then they can be considered as misinterpreting, the actions of the past. However, if they are based on the same facts, then one is a bare faced lie. In other words, the sources are stand, to be calling each other, liars.

Waiting for the insights of Chomsky.

Waiting, can not see how, after the continued statements, about the actions, of all concerned

Chomsky is your source. You have said, you will rely on Chomsky and now, you claim it as, not being a source?

So, why is it, you quote Chomsky? He is not your source, he references many. I Think, you may need to jump a step and quote the sources, with YOUR analysis of the sources. That is what I ask for.

 

You're right. Using Chomsky's work as a directory to documentation is fine, but posting the documentation itself is what needs to be done. I'll provide Megadeth with the ammo. He'll be back.

 

That might be nice, for a read. However, you miss my point. I am not debating a book or a historian, whom can not retort, to my rebuttal of his articles. It is fine to use others, to source your debate but simply posting articles as being evidence of your analysis, and to then say that the articles are somebody else's analysis of others work, not their own.

I think you get the picture.

 

So far I have not posted ANY arguments made by anyone else and claimed them as my own or to be used by me. All my arguments ARE MINE. So far all I have taken from Chomsky (and others mind - you it isn't all Chomsky) has been information. Many of the books he cites, I own, so I can give you more direct references if you want them. Quoting Chomsky is just for convenience sake. On another note, I am sorry I haven't replied sooner. I was planning on replying to everything during Easter but I caught a stomach virus from my dad which was pretty bad. Now I'm drowning in uni work, but by mid June it will all be over and I will be able to further discuss this topic at length. In fact, one of my essays is the CIA backed coup in Guatemala. I may post it here or give or send it to you by pm. Also, in this particular essay I will not by using anything from Chomsky since there exists HEAPS of prejudice about him in my uni. Anyway, again I apologize for my slow replying, but I will be back to finish what I started.

 

No problem, I too have been extremely busy myself and have been unable participate in many debates. I too will be continue to be time poor for a while so do not stress about it.

I do think we have broached the subject of Chomsky between ourselves and have come to an understanding. my retort was to the interjections of another whom wishes to defend Chomsky as a source. I do not wish to bring Chomsky’s credibility to the debate again as it will purely be a repeat of previous.

But take your time with response, there is plenty to have at the moment.

 

I think that's just lazyness. I do it too sometimes hahaha. It's much quicker.

 

Granny says you is a empirical hedgehog.

 

IMO the USA is more of a Poki Mon than a hegemon

 

I finished my last research essay today. Hooray freedom! Anyway, I'll make my reply in the next few days.

 

Actually he didnt until the guy was clearly getting kicked out. Hillary Clinton, when the policy brutality ensued, said nothing specifically about Mubarak rather than 'both sides should show restraint'. It is interesting that she would equate peaceful protesters seeking democracy to brutal policy working for an authoritarian regime. How does a state like America which apparently loved democracy and human rights equate them?

Actually he flat out condemned the whole regime, much like when Chavez was nearly displaced from the power the US didnt say it was terrible they said it should be a 'wake up call' to Chavez. The hegemonic mentality remains.

Like?

I have. Nice to see you concede my point. Self interest doesn't justify anything let alone US hegemony.

1. I do apply the same standard to all nations if that is what you are disputing.
2. Yes I said Australia was not imperialistic, but that doesn't mean it isn't complicit in the crimes of other states. I can expand on this, if you'd like.
3. Yes, Australia certainly perpetuates its own petty hegemony in the region and sides with other states to maintain its own strategic interests but this IS NOT justified and consequently there is no double standard in my analysis.

Yes.

How does OPEC impede corporate profit?

Correct. Doesnt change the fact the US has sought such hegemony. The primary goal is security of resources which IS in itself, control. OPEC may (*)(*)(*)(*) off the average consumer but that isnt much of a concern for the US policy makers.

How?

Corporate games with the government.

Sorry I dont understand your question here.

So you admit the US doesnt care for democracy? Then explain why it justified ventures and says it morally BECAUSE it stands for democracy? At the very least you have admitted US policy is lied about to the public and the world.

LOL Yes Iraq war 1 was international because it was approved by the international community. The US led the way because it had a clear interest in securing Iraq as the ally it had been for years before.

Clinton tried to have him assassinated.

It was a joke. Although granted, poorly written.

um..how is it threatened?

If you really think China would be stupid enough to do that you really haven't got a clue.

Yes, but as you point out we'd be defending ourselves. According to US logic, we should attack China right now and call it 'self interest'. Doesn't matter if we kill millions because its all justified according to you simply because we perceive a threat.

You have just admitted the US is imperialistic but now you are saying you believe imperialism and hegemony is fine.

What is a simple fact? That all countries seek hegemony? I disagree. Besides it isnt relevant to the question of the thread.

Where and how?

Your white flag is accepted.

They are intrinsic to the debate, well at least the US'. Besides such a statement makes you a TOTAL hypocrisy since you have made about 6 comments justifying US actions on 'self interest'.

Quite simple. The former was legal the latter was not. The latter also had little support within the actual countries involved.

Yes, certainly.

Yes, it does, it prefers despots and dictators,