Thread: That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

"peace through strength" the reagan doctrine!
communism is a fail, central economic planning and oppression of political and social rights is an epic fail
(see gorbachov) domestic reforms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachov

Gorbachev ended the cold war, not Reagan.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

is it the word imperial that your stuck on?
the root imperial comes from the power given to roman magistrates "imperium" which gives the holder absolute power
the US by all definition does not have imperium
our power is checked, internationally through the UN, and locally through our own checks and balances

Really? In fact you make a good point by raising the UN. The US is not checked by anyone and acts totally unilaterally and as an imperial power. This is emphasized by the UN - the US was found guilty of war crimes by the ICJ, a body of the UN, but the US simply ignored the ruling.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the design of those satellite states IS an expansion of their borders
where they politically, socially and economically controlled with an "iron fist" their hegemonic world view
ask the peoples of eastern europe whether or not this was false
in turn
ask the peoples of western europe if they feel the same, in kind, of the US

The US had the same satellite states - and still has them. I have already listed them, do I need to go through it again?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

again, anti-communism, was our interest
did this me the self-preservation of power, yes, and already stated that i accepted this premise,but you must keep your eye on the "option" available
having a world free of antagonists, i.e. soviet sponsored destruction of your own being was the goal of US policy decision makers, nothing more, nothing less
would the US and the world benefit from this policy, yes, does the US become stronger if they do not have to spend all their time/energy and resources "containing" communism, yes it will
but has the world benefitted, YES it did!!!
1980-2000, the world saw unprecedented expansion of wealth
where did we see limited wealth?
in those remaining communist countries(sans china)
clearly in some instances the US did not do the right thing, we have supported the conservative element, but that in and of itself is what we do
status quo by nature is "conservative", we are conservative
clearly the communists lent itself to the liberal pro-democratic in name only element
peoples republic of North Korea(again name only)
remember the "option"
what's in south korea today?

Democracy because people resisted US backed rule - anti-US sentiment is high, if you hadn't noticed in SK.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

what's in north korea today?
who supports whom?

The USSR supported NK authoritarian and the US supported South authoritarians. They did it also in Vietnam. The US was as bad as the USSR.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

stalin was interfering in greece

Prove it.
north korea does not fart before it got approval from bejiing[/QUOTE]
So?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

you are wrong
communism is an epic fail, if it was a success, the USSR would of survived
it died!!!
we are still in greece?

You went back in 67 to institute the first fascist regime in Europe since ww2.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i have 3 complaints:
too much to respond to(i had to cut out your quotes-too long)
too long to write
my freakin patriots lost!

Fair enough.

To recap, it seems your entire argument is this;
The US had to place itself as a controlling state to protect form the USSR. According to you, its only objective was to defend from Soviet aggression.
But if this were true, US action after the Cold War, and US action independent of the Cold War should show the US is a peaceful, democratic, liberal country should it not? So lets analyze AFTER the Cold War to confirm this;

Lets look at the Middle East. Lets look at South East Asia. Lets look at South America. Lets look at the Grand Area fifty years after it was planned for US supremacy.
Lets look at the latest coups after the Cold War and US support for UNDEMOCRATIC, ILLIBERAL, AUTHORITARIAN regimes in these areas, and lets look at American SUPPRESSION of democracy.

The Cold War ended in 91, with the USSR opening itself to the world, and being met with the realization it was militarily and economically destroyed. With this knowledge the US had no reason to maintain its superpower hegemony - yet it did!
Today, whilst it claims to support 'freedom and democracy' in the middle east, it still financially and militarily supports the authoritarian dictatorship in Egypt and the undemocratic religio-political authoritarian regime of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, whilst giving arms to the military regime in Pakistan. In the last decade alone it has supported military uprisings and authoritarian groups in Venezuela, Honduras and Haiti.
Not only this but the US has retained the upkeep of its hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world and the near 800 military facilities it owns across international land.
This are not the actions of some peaceful, capitalist democracy that seeks nothing but self preservation. These are the actions of an imperial hegemon that seeks entirely to maintain its own power.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Gorbachev ended the cold war, not Reagan.


Really? In fact you make a good point by raising the UN. The US is not checked by anyone and acts totally unilaterally and as an imperial power. This is emphasized by the UN - the US was found guilty of war crimes by the ICJ, a body of the UN, but the US simply ignored the ruling.


The US had the same satellite states - and still has them. I have already listed them, do I need to go through it again?


Democracy because people resisted US backed rule - anti-US sentiment is high, if you hadn't noticed in SK.


The USSR supported NK authoritarian and the US supported South authoritarians. They did it also in Vietnam. The US was as bad as the USSR.


Prove it.
north korea does not fart before it got approval from bejiing

So?


You went back in 67 to institute the first fascist regime in Europe since ww2.


Fair enough.

To recap, it seems your entire argument is this;
The US had to place itself as a controlling state to protect form the USSR. According to you, its only objective was to defend from Soviet aggression.
But if this were true, US action after the Cold War, and US action independent of the Cold War should show the US is a peaceful, democratic, liberal country should it not? So lets analyze AFTER the Cold War to confirm this;

Lets look at the Middle East. Lets look at South East Asia. Lets look at South America. Lets look at the Grand Area fifty years after it was planned for US supremacy.
Lets look at the latest coups after the Cold War and US support for UNDEMOCRATIC, ILLIBERAL, AUTHORITARIAN regimes in these areas, and lets look at American SUPPRESSION of democracy.

The Cold War ended in 91, with the USSR opening itself to the world, and being met with the realization it was militarily and economically destroyed. With this knowledge the US had no reason to maintain its superpower hegemony - yet it did!
Today, whilst it claims to support 'freedom and democracy' in the middle east, it still financially and militarily supports the authoritarian dictatorship in Egypt and the undemocratic religio-political authoritarian regime of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, whilst giving arms to the military regime in Pakistan. In the last decade alone it has supported military uprisings and authoritarian groups in Venezuela, Honduras and Haiti.
Not only this but the US has retained the upkeep of its hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world and the near 800 military facilities it owns across international land.
This are not the actions of some peaceful, capitalist democracy that seeks nothing but self preservation. These are the actions of an imperial hegemon that seeks entirely to maintain its own power.

Go tell it to Hobbes.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

So?

So what?

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Go tell it to Hobbes.

Go tell someone who cares what you think mate, I'm not interested in your fascism.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So what?


Go tell someone who cares what you think mate, I'm not interested in your fascism.

Fascism how?

Becuase I put "my own kind" first above all other people's in the world?

That's what a proper nationalist patriot does. Puts his nation above the needs of others. I'm not a citizen of the globe. I'm an American. I don't want to be a part of your nasty little global community full of communists/socialists/anti-corporate haters and societal rejects in a land that capitalism forgot.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Is it really a better place? I would argue it isnt for all those you took advantage of to secure your own power. For many the world is not a 'better' place - its just not as bad. The Cold war was a conflict between twp empires - one was bound to win because it was the more stronger, not because it was more righteous.

so are we to feel guilty, because we won, by containing the spread of communism?
ABSOLUTELY OF COURSE we are better!!!!!
and the global community is better!!!!
lets break this down:
two superpowers; USA v USSR
if USSR won the cold war, you are contending that the world would be better?
please explain how the world would be better economically, politically and socially living under the oppression, and economic malaise of communism, driving volga's to work....
have you heard of the kitchen debates?
"we will bury you" epic fail!!!!
explain how the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....
i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....
china, n.korea, and the peoples republic of cambridge, massachusetts....just to name a few, in name only's!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

But America supported oppressive, undemocratic, uncapitalistic nations anyway! They even created said governments and put them in power!

yes we did, have not denied it....
you cited korea, what is south korea today?
who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
and who support south korea?
rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Not worse, but just as bad for the people involved. I have not states this awkwardly, perhaps not as clearly as if I were to write an essay on the matter, but I have given plenty of examples.

by akward i meant that your brain has interfered with your heart....
you let your animous for our great bastion of liberty/democracy/freedom cloud what is the truth....
thats ok, school is in session!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

You were not angels, you were imperial troops serving the interests of your own hegemon - like the of the USSR.

we were not angels, agreed, but WE were a far better alternative to the evil of USSR!!!!
again, imperial, does not apply....
imperial denotes the political and military control of a territory....
not applicable....
did we gain power, and prestige....yes we did, empire NOT!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yes you do hear about them. Also this is increasingly irrelevant to this debate. You seem to be almost conceding my point - saying the USSR is also a hegemon, which I agree with, does not change the fact the US was ALSO a hegemon.

we hear of dissent in western europe from dissenters, the gov'ts and populations of europe and probably the rest of the world realize what is obvious, USA all the way!!!
you are a dissenter, a doubter, and i will show you the errors of your ways.....
there are very few learned people outside of the university pedogogy who doubt what i know, and you will find out.....
America was the best thing that ever happened to this world!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No legitimate to the people - democracy, liberty - America clearly did not support these ideals.

don't be fooled by in name only movements....
nazi's notwithstanding!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Indeed, as I showed the groups in Greece and Korea - where democracy was suppressed, had no connections to revolutionary socialism, let alone the USSR.

yes they did!!!!
i have showed you that they EMBRACED the comintern!!!!!
but lets say for a moment the USSR didn't?
(even though i showed you they did)
the expansion of communism was totally unacceptable to truman....
Truman doctrine!!
whether he believed or not, our policy was driven in response to soviet aggression!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No because there also the US was the greater threat. It was Reagan's action that saw the Dooms Day clock reach its closest point. The Cuban Missile crises only happened because the US deployed missiles in Turkey. There again, the US was the aggressor.

reagan was an old line cold war politician, and he totally understood how to meet aggression....
POWER THROUGH STRENGTH!!!!
it worked!!!!
USSR EPIC FAIL, i thank you and the world thanks you!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you admit the US is a hegemon?

were we one of two superpowers in the world....yes
does that make us a hegemony?
hegemony denotes evil, so if you are inferring through the label, evil, NO
i'm not admitting.....

i am kicking your ass, you better pick it up!!!!

Originally Posted by the big ragu

so are we to feel guilty, because we won, by containing the spread of communism?
ABSOLUTELY OF COURSE we are better!!!!!
and the global community is better!!!!
lets break this down:
two superpowers; USA v USSR
if USSR won the cold war, you are contending that the world would be better?
please explain how the world would be better economically, politically and socially living under the oppression, and economic malaise of communism, driving volga's to work....
have you heard of the kitchen debates?
"we will bury you" epic fail!!!!
explain how the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....
i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....
china, n.korea, and the peoples republic of cambridge, massachusetts....just to name a few, in name only's!!!!
yes we did, have not denied it....
you cited korea, what is south korea today?
who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
and who support south korea?
rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms
by akward i meant that your brain has interfered with your heart....
you let your animous for our great bastion of liberty/democracy/freedom cloud what is the truth....
thats ok, school is in session!!!!
we were not angels, agreed, but WE were a far better alternative to the evil of USSR!!!!
again, imperial, does not apply....
imperial denotes the political and military control of a territory....
not applicable....
did we gain power, and prestige....yes we did, empire NOT!!!
we hear of dissent in western europe from dissenters, the gov'ts and populations of europe and probably the rest of the world realize what is obvious, USA all the way!!!
you are a dissenter, a doubter, and i will show you the errors of your ways.....
there are very few learned people outside of the university pedogogy who doubt what i know, and you will find out.....
America was the best thing that ever happened to this world!!!
don't be fooled by in name only movements....
nazi's notwithstanding!!!!
yes they did!!!!
i have showed you that they EMBRACED the comintern!!!!!
but lets say for a moment the USSR didn't?
(even though i showed you they did)
the expansion of communism was totally unacceptable to truman....
Truman doctrine!!
whether he believed or not, our policy was driven in response to soviet aggression!!!!
reagan was an old line cold war politician, and he totally understood how to meet aggression....
POWER THROUGH STRENGTH!!!!
it worked!!!!
USSR EPIC FAIL, i thank you and the world thanks you!!!!
were we one of two superpowers in the world....yes
does that make us a hegemony?
hegemony denotes evil, so if you are inferring through the label, evil, NO
i'm not admitting.....
i am kicking your ass, you better pick it up!!!!

1. You aren't kicking my ass at all, and are in fact losing by miles.
2. I will post a small summary of Nicaragua as I said I would alter on.
3. You have essentially admitted I am right, but the only question you have remaining is - is the US evil? The answer, if your definition of evil is repression, controlling, undemocratic and authoritarian in terms of international politics, then the answer is clearly yes, and I will address this.
4. The USSR was backward and posed a threat to democracy at various points in time, but this doesn't justify nor nullify the fact the US also was evil.
5. The US didn't change its ways simply because of the USSR and I will address this point also.

Hence, wait for my next reply and I will post a small explanation of some examples of US hegemony. You still haven't addressed South Korea or Japan as I did earlier, so you may want to go back and address them before you are totally wiped out. You haven't shown or explained US motives with any evidence, all you have done is shown how the USSR is bad - this has no bearing. You have used several logical fallacies, remember we weren't going to use these? Specifically you are using Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) - you assert simply because there was the Cold War, the US had to up its military agenda, yet haven't shown this, you have just assumed it - you need to prove it.
Similarly you have used Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") - you assert that everything can be attributed to the Cold War and fear of the USSR, yet have yet to show this.
Thus almost half of your arguments are red herrings, sine they dont actually answer the question.

You have admitted the US is a hegemon, so I have one half - now you dispute its role as a hegemon, so now you msut justify your new vision of its nature.

totally kicking your ass, so lets proceed;
under the definitions provided;
Hegemon;
hegemon - a leading or paramount power
so if the question is, was the US a hegemon, a leading or paramount power, the answer is obviously YES, we are the world's leading superpower, have been since 1945....so there's not much debate?
additionally, you proclaim and infer that because we are a superpower, that we must be an empire....
once again your definition:
Imperial;
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.
2. Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.
3.a. Having supreme authority; sovereign.
b. Regal; majestic.
4. Outstanding in size or quality.
5. Of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and measures.

as you can plainly see, it doesn't muster, doesn't apply.....
are we influential, yes, to state the contrary is negligable....
but your inference that because we are a superpower, we are "evil" is quite untrue....
i've offered several explanations to this, citing the world's other "option"....
now you state, this is unacceptable?
why because it is true?
i've already stated that US policy has at times, picked the wrong dog in the fight,
but i'll reiterate my claims;

you cited korea, what is south korea today?
who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
and who support south korea?
rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms?

and you failed to address the underlying theme of your argument, of how

the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....
i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....
china, n.korea, and the peoples republic of cambridge, massachusetts....just to name a few, in name only's!!!!

i will never have the time nor the energy, (at least in the near future) to cite or source every statement written, and i will not expect the same from you, there has to be a standard of trust established here.....
you are more than welcome to cite chomsky or kennan, as well as i will feel equally able to cite truman or reagan or whatever,
don't entertain that "slippery slope", of citing and resourcing because it will deflect the nature of this discourse...
keep it above board, and man-up.....cause you are getting your ass killed to date.....
oh yea, and by the way, greece embraced the ideals of the comintern......

lastly, take a few days to recoup, circle the wagons, the cold war world, saw TWO SUPERPOWERS, two visions for the world, to address the perceived evils of one, without addressing the evils of the "other" is.....
you cannot address this issue, as if the US was in a vaccuum.....

Originally Posted by the big ragu

totally kicking your ass, so lets proceed;

If that's what you call ignoring three of my points and providing no evidence for your conclusions, sure
btw I will repost the points of mine you didn't address and more in a short while. I just went on a short trip and just got back so wait a day or two and you'll have plenty to keep you busy.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

under the definitions provided;
Hegemon;
hegemon - a leading or paramount power
so if the question is, was the US a hegemon, a leading or paramount power, the answer is obviously YES, we are the world's leading superpower, have been since 1945....so there's not much debate?
additionally, you proclaim and infer that because we are a superpower, that we must be an empire....

No I showed that whilst you are a hegemon, you are also exhibit qualities of an empire - exerting power and leaving, what the government calls "military footprints" around the world.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

once again your definition:
Imperial;
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.
2. Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.
3.a. Having supreme authority; sovereign.
b. Regal; majestic.
4. Outstanding in size or quality.
5. Of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and measures.
as you can plainly see, it doesn't muster, doesn't apply.....
are we influential, yes, to state the contrary is negligable....
but your inference that because we are a superpower, we are "evil" is quite untrue....

Actually I never brought the label of evil into it, you did, but if the USSR counts for evil, which was to you, determined by policies of anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom, then the US is certainly evil, since it exercises the same policies.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i've offered several explanations to this, citing the world's other "option"....
now you state, this is unacceptable?

It isnt acceptable, unless your argument is simply "the USSR is more evil than the US" which I already said, and which proves my point since it doesn't disprove the fact the US is an imperialistic hegemon;
Your empire is that of the Cold War - and is like that of the USSR - built upon satellite states etc, not like the Victorian era will colonial governments. The US empire can be measured not by its number of directly controlled colonies, but rather its standing military bases and continuous coercion.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i've already stated that US policy has at times, picked the wrong dog in the fight,
but i'll reiterate my claims;
you cited korea, what is south korea today?
who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
and who support south korea?
rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms?

So you are saying all the 'bad dogs' were simply to fight communism, is this your argument?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

and you failed to address the underlying theme of your argument, of how
[I]the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....

Where did I say that? I said they would be better off without EITHER THE US OR THE USSR.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....

So what makes it legitimate?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i will never have the time nor the energy, (at least in the near future) to cite or source every statement written, and i will not expect the same from you, there has to be a standard of trust established here.....

Yeah but you cant make generalizations and total conclusions without any evidence. Sure the USSR is bad, I never denied this, I agreed with you - but this isnt relevant to saying the US isnt an empire. We aren't here to debate morality, we are debating whether the US is an empire, if you want to say it s great empire, fine, but you are still agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

you are more than welcome to cite chomsky or kennan, as well as i will feel equally able to cite truman or reagan or whatever,
don't entertain that "slippery slope", of citing and resourcing because it will deflect the nature of this discourse...
keep it above board, and man-up.....cause you are getting your ass killed to date.....

Seriously stop saying that its really childish, You have gotten totally blown out of the water. You have only responded to half of my points. I have sited more than simply Chomsky and Kennan, you on the other hand have merely talked about Stalin's purges - totally irrelevant. So far you actually in total agreement, the only thing you disagree with me on is whether the US is an evil empire or a good empire, which is another debate in itself - we can have a debate about that is you would like.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

oh yea, and by the way, greece embraced the ideals of the comintern......

No it didnt. I have already shown that by 1947 they had totally ditched tes with the Soviet Union. Even then when section supported the Comintern they did nothing of what you said they would do. You said, as loyal communists, they would resort to dictatorship, destroy democracy and liberalism - AND YET THE DID THE OPPOSITE! They formed elections - BY THEMSELVES. The allows 1 million people to participate - everyone they could. They respected the electoral system and did as their populace wanted - this is liberal philosophy.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

lastly, take a few days to recoup, circle the wagons, the cold war world, saw TWO SUPERPOWERS, two visions for the world, to address the perceived evils of one, without addressing the evils of the "other" is.....
you cannot address this issue, as if the US was in a vaccuum.....

So far you have agreed with my point of view, at least in terms of the topic of this thread. You have admitted that the US is an hegemon with imperial tendencies - you only dispute the course and nature of those tendencies. If you would like to discuss whether it is 'good' or 'evil', we can and you may beat me (I dont think so), but if you want to discuss that, then lets start a new debate. By all means make another OP, you can define what we are talking about and I will debate you. But this thread is about whether the US is a hegemonic empire and so far you have agreed, you even say so yourself.

Like I say we can start a new discussion about the NATURE of the US hegemon, but this will require a new thread.
If you are going to start such a discussion, I recommend you entitle it something like "the nature of US foreign policy" or "the goal of US hegemony."

If you want to continue discussing and dispute whether the US is a hegemon, start on these two points you failed earlier to address.

Look at South Korea.
There the US oversaw the institution of Syngman Rhee, a complete authoritarian, whose rule saw deaths of over 100,000 people 'suspected' of being communists, but were actually anyone who opposed his US backed regime. These deaths are even estimated to have been as high as 200,000.
Before 1950, he began to institute such measures - ie before the North invaded, and thus US knew full well what was going on. A good example is Rhee's appointment of Kim Chang-ryong, an ex-Japanese soldier as his rightly hand man and security chief - who over saw the internal gestapo policies I just described. (Note when local resistance saw Rhee resign in 1960, the US supported General Park Chung-hee's military coup which saw an even more brutal regime come to power).
Unearthing War’s Horrors Years Later in South Korea

Also look, to Japan.
The US made extensive efforts to curb democracy, by hunting down dissident groups and spreading propaganda. To see declassified US documents and scholarly reviews of such information see Mario Del Pero, Diplomatic History, 2004. See ch 1, note 66.
In the post war environment Chomsky also notes amongst US diplomatic cables and more of Kennan's writing that "Washington intended to provide Japan with "some sort of empire toward the south", in George Kennan's phrase, something like the New World Order [that the Japanese sought to create in the 30s] but within US-dominated global system, and therefore acceptable."
See page 120 Failed States.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

If that's what you call ignoring three of my points and providing no evidence for your conclusions?

i've addressed your points:
1- hegemon? if you say so
2- imperial? NOPE
3- the world would be better without US? NOPE

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No I showed that whilst you are a hegemon, you are also exhibit qualities of an empire - exerting power and leaving, what the government calls "military footprints" around the world.

we are the most powerful nation on the face of the planet since 1945, how could we NOT be seen as so?

"exhibit qualities"....this is quite a retreat from earlier posts.....
you are wilting, under the BIG RAGU pressure!!!

and i am re-iterating that you cannot look at history as if the player is in a vaccuum.....to do otherwise is ridiculous.....
you continue to view this as if we were ALONE....
you cannot!!!!
the world post 1949, had two superpowers, one of which was driven towards expansion, the other driven towards checking that aggression...
its really that simple!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Actually I never brought the label of evil into it, you did, but if the USSR counts for evil, which was to you, determined by policies of anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom, then the US is certainly evil, since it exercises the same policies.

this is absolutely NOT TRUE....
i've given you mountains of evidence that illustrates the "evils" of the soviet "hegemon", (notice negative connotation)
and your response?
the "evil" (my word) soviet union models a repressive gov't which purged peasant's, ukrainians, german's, poles of millions.....hundreds of millions....
stalin's, krushchev, breshnev's blood stained hands....

how could even compare that "EVIL".....
we stamped out that "EVIL", you should be grateful...

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

It isnt acceptable, unless your argument is simply "the USSR is more evil than the US" which I already said, and which proves my point since it doesn't disprove the fact the US is an imperialistic hegemon;
Your empire is that of the Cold War - and is like that of the USSR - built upon satellite states etc...
The US empire can be measured not by its number of directly controlled colonies, but rather its standing military bases and continuous coercion.

actually my argument is simple:
+ the USSR was a far worse alternative; (Cold War = good vs. evil)
+ the world is better off because we defeated the soviets....
+ the US is the most powerful nation on the planet since 1945
+ we are not an imperialist country(using your own definition, already)

you should write a book, who else with come up with this nonsense:
The US empire can be measured not by its number of directly controlled colonies, but rather its standing military bases and continuous coercion.

think about what you just wrote, the US cannot be measured by its colonies....
but rather by its military bases, and coercion?

so the US cannot be adjudged by facts but by the amount of bases and "coercion"
interesting word...."coercion" now just how would the US be coercive, as opposed to those "lovely soviets" (PLEASE SEE SARCASM)

you know whats funny?
we should be talking and pointing out the genocide of those USSR, but nowhere, its always US this, US that.....why is that?
(sorry off topic)

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you are saying all the 'bad dogs' were simply to fight communism, is this your argument?

no what i am saying is that we have made mistakes, we are not perfect....
i've said it every post...and sometimes we have supported "bad" leaders at the risk of something worse....
real politik, the world was seen through the containment of communism, big picture, not the little picture, our critics, you included want to crucify for.....
we are the big kahuna, this is our world, we created it, Pax Americana
and you still see how screwed up it is, so we're definately not perfect, but
we mean well. and have!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Where did I say that? I said they would be better off without EITHER THE US OR THE USSR.

I love the smell of victory in the morning!!!!!

you can have your cake and eat it too?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So what makes it legitimate?

you proclaimed them legitimate, i guess because in their name these organizations evoked "nationalism".....
"in name only"?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yeah but you cant make generalizations and total conclusions without any evidence. Sure the USSR is bad, I never denied this, I agreed with you - but this isnt relevant to saying the US isnt an empire. We aren't here to debate morality, we are debating whether the US is an empire, if you want to say it s great empire, fine, but you are still agreeing with me.

"slip, slide and away"......

we aren't here to debate morality?

forget the hundreds of millions murdered by the soviets, and the repression of humanity but remember the estimated 100 thousand murdered by by rhee?

you make the rules;
no morality, you got it!

the US isn't an empire, it is a great SUPERPOWER!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Seriously stop saying that its really childish, You have gotten totally blown out of the water. You have only responded to half of my points.

i've responded to EVERY STATEMENT made

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I have sited more than simply Chomsky and Kennan,

internal memos, are a product of a free and open society, aren't they awesome!!!!

keenan memo pps23 stated
I. United States, Britain, and Europe
On the assumption that Western Europe will be rescued from communist control, the relationships between Great Britain and the continental countries, on the one hand, and between Great Britain and the United States and Canada.... The solutions will have to be evolved step by step over a long period of time. But it is not too early today for us to begin to think out the broad outlines of the pattern which would best suit our national interests.

In my opinion, the following facts are basic to a consideration of the problem.
1. Some form of political, military and economic union in Western Europe will be necessary if the free nations of Europe are to hold their own against the people of the east united under Moscow rule.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_P..._George_Kennan

keenan was offering opinion and advice, he was RIGHT!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

you on the other hand have merely talked about Stalin's purges - totally irrelevant.

talked?
i gave you citations, didn't i, once again, slip, slide and away....
man-up, when one starts to lose, they grasp at straws, you are grasping, big ragu time
don't worry, your not the first to fall and beg forgiveness before the big ragu, many have fallen before, and many after....
i forgive you for your trangressions, just start reading some relevant history....
you are absolved!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So far you actually in total agreement, the only thing you disagree with me on is whether the US is an evil empire or a good empire,

not true!!!
superpower, yes....empire NOT!!!
evil, definately NOT!!!!
God smiles on the United States of America and all its friends!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No it didnt. I have already shown that by 1947 they had totally ditched tes with the Soviet Union.

did you now, and i showed you truman's response to the stalinist or trotskyites or tito or maoist or whatever!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Even then when section supported the Comintern they did nothing of what you said they would do. You said, as loyal communists, they would resort to dictatorship, destroy democracy and liberalism - AND YET THE DID THE OPPOSITE! They formed elections - BY THEMSELVES. The allows 1 million people to participate - everyone they could. They respected the electoral system and did as their populace wanted - this is liberal philosophy.

GREECE?
finally!!!
In October 1946, DSE (Democratic Army of Greece) launched a campaign to win control of the whole country, and received support from neighboring Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria.
http://www.marxists.org/subject/gree...-war/index.htm


It is unquestionable that in 1936 Greece was in the throes of a revolutionary crisis. The Greek workers were prepared to overthow capitalist rule and join hands with the peasantry to form a government of Workers and Farmers. The Communist Party dominated the whole working class movement and likewise enjoyed strong support in the countryside.
http://www.marxists.org/subject/gree...945/02/x01.htm

By 1936, on instructions from the Comintern, they had made an about face and began their ultra-opportunist course of the People's Front. Instead of organizing the workers for decisive revolutionary action and working to draw the peasants of the countryside into the struggle
http://www.marxists.org/subject/gree...945/02/x01.htm

it goes on and on, you read it!!!!
the marxists actually blame the british for alot of their discontent....
trotskyites, stalinists, who gives, the best red is a dead red!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Look at South Korea.
There the US oversaw the institution of Syngman Rhee, a complete authoritarian....

we are still in greece, save this!!!!

This is the basis for the Great Game.