The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Gatito Grande]

Hi, Kanina, just coming back here for a sec (still working on those damn dissertation revisions, Grrrr!):



ITA about the UN inspectors. It looks really bad for the UN, having an official policy of inspections, to pull the inspectors out just because the U.S. is making illegal war on Iraq. I mean, it's not like the Iraqi people could climb on those white SUVs and leave, right? Stand by your principles, the way the "voluntary human shields" did (though I understand why some of them left, because Saddam was more interested in using them according to his wishes, than he was in letting them do what they came to do---while other of the shields were actually expelled by Saddam. Man, that guy just couldn't buy a clue, could he?).



Re: what you say about the UN-as-useless-bureaucracy. Y'know, it reminds me of what they say about democracy: "It's the worst form of goverment . . . except for all the others." No one will argue that the UN has a globe-load of problems. Having said that, it's really the only game in town, isn't it? Doesn't it have problems because, well, humankind has them? I'm not saying that to be fatalistic: if ever there was an organization that needed permanent reform, it would be the UN. It seems to me that the key problem of the UN is that it reflects too well the problems of its sovereign members---and the more sovereignty those members aggrandize (e.g. the U.S.A.: "We'll do whatever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want. We just don't want to pay for it."), the more the UN suffers for it.



GG Proud to be a World Citizen . . . well, as proud as one *can* be, of this f*cked-up planet: "Beam me up, Scotty!" Out

[sparrow]

I have to agree completly with you kanina, the UN is a fat cat over stuffed bureacracy. In Iraqi, they hauled ass out of there when they were needed the most. They knew that there would be a lack of food and water and perhaps a need for medical services but instead of helping those who they claim they want to help all you could see was there dust. The UN politicians have no credability.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

Apparently Newt Gingrich has forgotten that we have NO right nor power to "demand" anything from any other country. His newest diatribe leads me to wonder what crack he and his other neoconservatives pals have been smoking:



story.news.yahoo.com/news...state_dc_4



[ETA: Oh my bloody hells....now the US has the audacity to mete out PUNISHMENT to those opposing them in this war (read: France)! Give me a break: story.news.yahoo.com/news...0422201720 Can we say World War III, boys and girls? That may very well be a possibility if the US doesn't quit all of its posturing.]

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/22/03 2:19:09 pm

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

The UN politicians have no credability.

---

That's too bad seeing as the UN wants to vote for equal human rights worldwide for gays. Something that is sorely needed. As we all know not only in most countries in the world but also in certain specific institutions such as the army, the US army included, gay rights leave something to be desired.



It is very easy to dismiss the UN just like that, but what should they have done while a war they tried to avert was being fought, without supplies or means to distribute them.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

[sparrow]

They have no cred when they pick up there toys and leave Iraqi knowing that they will be needed. Their field workers are great giving people and follow their cause with complete devotion however those who are at the top are typical politicians, overpaid just looking out for there own interests. Nuff said

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[justin]

Considering the fact that those toys were in the middle of a war zone, what should they have done?



They could hardly have continued carrying out weapons inspections or providing aid whilst there's a war going on around them.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[sparrow]

It's called staying where needed, no matter what to continue to mission of humanitarian aid.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

It's called staying where needed, no matter what to continue to mission of humanitarian aid.

---

Well that all depends on whether or not the UN had the right tools for the right job in order to stay there and be of any real help. UN inspectors aren't medical personnel and they're not trained peacekeepers. So those so called "toys" would've been ineffectual. Geiger counters and radiation monitors do not effective tools make. Let's know a bit more of the facts before we judge the UN's actions in that regard, shall we? Those UN inspectors lives were just as important as any Iraqis and the UN had every right to pull them. In addition, even if UN humanitarian aid workers were indeed there, there's no guarantee that there would've been enough to do any good, no way that their own personal safety could've been guaranteed. While field workers do feel a very deep calling for their work, they're not cavalier about their own well-being either.



Granted, the UN could've handled it better. However, pulling out the UN inspectors and what meager numbers of UN aid workers that were there was probably a wise move. No more blood need have been spilled, especially ones by humanitarian workers becuase Iraq sure as hell was not going to bother with honouring the terms of the Geneva Convention.



We are simply not armed with enough information to know exactly how much UN humanitarian resources was in Iraq before the war to know if leaving in their field workers was a) a viable solution and b) a SAFE solution.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/22/03 2:21:10 pm

[sparrow]

Hmmm, humanitarian aid was being given out before the war started so hmmm humanitarian aid is what they should have continued instead of leaving.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

Hmm...and exactly how much humanitarian aid are we talking about here? Hmmm, do you happen to know the figures? Is it enough for an entire nation? Were the workers being protected by UN peacekeepers at that time? Would they have been protected from the looting and rioting that has been and is going on right now? Do tell! Inquiring minds wish to know. Do you have any proof other than mere speculation? BTW, I do believe the UN workers were ordered out for safety reasons because Iraq was intimidating and harrassing them:



www.fas.org/news/iraq/199...241568.htm



news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world.../58057.stm



www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/19/iraq.leaving/



www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...88,00.html



And here is something about the DANGERS humanitarian aid workers face:



www.csmonitor.com/2002/07...-wosc.html

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/22/03 2:42:52 pm

[sparrow]

UN faces dangers all the time and yet now they choose to depart. And why is it that when a position is presented that it is not valid if you don't have volumes of stats. Information is gathered and presented over the wire services, verified by numerious outlets and yet still there are those who have to argue for the sake of arguing. People are tripping

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[cassiopeia191]

So, do I understand you right, you really hold it against the UN weapon inspectors that, when the US made it absolutely clear that they were to fight this war without UN mandate, they left Iraq and did NOT dress in scrubs and start humanitarian aid? Or do you think that the UN should have sent humanitarian aid right when the bombardment started? (which, to me, sounds like sending someone with a tablespoon of water into a conflagration) Please do elaborate b/c honestly, this does confuse me and I'd like to understand.

And...hmm...don't you think that the US and the axis of the willing should have sent humanitarian aid right away...wouldn't that, if we keep cool logical inhumaine reasoning going, be their job and not something that the UN have the honor of carrying out?

-----

Well, I just got back and I'll catch up with this thread tomorrow and post when I'll have halfway recovered from my family . Why am I never related to those normal, consistent, peaceful people that surely must be out there? See you tomorrow.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

And why is it that when a position is presented that it is not valid if you don't have volumes of stats.

---

Well sparrow usually when someone makes a vehement assertion as fact one usually bears the burden of PROOF to support said argument. If not, then that usually indicates that the person's argument is weak to start with. That way one can determine if something is an "opinion" formed due to emotional response or if it is indeed a "valid argument" (and there are rules to determine such a thing). I have provided proof to support my argument from the very wire you speak of.



In no way has the UN showed true weakness in removing their humanitarian workers. The UN showed concern for their safety....there is a difference between knowing there is a possibility that one is going to be put in harm's way and having someone not do everything they can to protect me when I am helping someone else. If someone KNOWINGLY left me in a country where I might be killed, I'd be mighty put out with them. Those people don't need to die, be injured or tortured if they don't have to be. To say otherwise is cruel and callous IMHO.

Quote:

---

Information is gathered and presented over the wire services, verified by numerious outlets and yet still there are those who have to argue for the sake of arguing. People are tripping.

---

It's not "tripping" to require proof before making a sweeping generalization that is negative. And STILL that information you speak of has not supported your assertions in the slightest. There is a difference between arguing your opinions that are based on something substantial and just making random assertions with nothing to support them other than your emotions. That's the way people debate and discuss. I'm sorry if you feel that is not the case. Maybe perhaps you have information to share to support your case that none of us is a party to?

---

I am SO sorry about your troubles, Cass...unfortunately I don't have a huggle smiley so I guess the banana will have to do

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/22/03 6:40:54 pm

[The Angry Lion]

Newt Gingrich you say? this is the same man who led the 1994 to get the governments 'of peoples backs'. Does anyone know that Mr Gingrich lives in one of the most heavily subsidized neighbourhoods in the US? the mans picture should be in the dictionary next to hypocrite

tomorrow is now today

[Gatito Grande]

sparrow, I can't help but notice that you've posted 5 times to bash the UN. The point is, if the UN is bad, the U.S. is much, much worse.



Allowing people to die through incompetence or bureaucratic inefficiency (or even naked self-preservation) can in no way be compared with actively killing thousands and thousands. The UN has not dropped cluster-bombs, OK? The UN (weapons inspectors, humanitarian workers, or whatever) is not gunning down civilians at checkpoints. And, most of all, the UN had a true international mandate to do everything it did, not a mere edict from Mein Fuhrer, GWB.



A little balance is all I ask, 'kay?



GG So Hans Blix is trying to resume UN inspections, and guess who is saying "No, we'll handle it?" Just guess! (Ol' Hans might not be trustworthy-enough in the evidence-planting department) Out

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 4/22/03 11:16:31 pm

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Their field workers are great giving people and follow their cause with complete devotion however those who are at the top are typical politicians, overpaid just looking out for there own interests. Nuff said

---

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about George Bush. Nuff said indeed.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

[sparrow]

George Bush huh?

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[cassiopeia191]

sparrow, these snippy little one-liners with no content whatsoever don't do anything to support your point -whatever it is-, the only thing they do is provoke and get on people's nerves. I DON'T say:"leave the discussion", I am far from that, but please bring on arguments, back up the snippiness with facts.



"60% of the American people believe that Sept 11 was taken revenge for by the war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein"

Süddeutsche Zeitung/South German Newspaper, after a poll.

Now that is a very reliable and rather left-wing newspaper, one of the biggest ones in Germany, and I've read about this before. We've discussed the credibility of polls before but if this is true, a majority of Americans are brain-numbingly dumb...this is not only to blame on the media because after all, there is such a thing as critical perception.

When I read stuff like that, I wonder why I still care.

I'll try to articulate a more fact-based text later when I have more time.

Just one thing, about the thing that soldiers are not trained for war...my brother was drafted for 10 months and he was taught how to handle firearms as one of the first things. Of course, in an army as bad and useless as the German one, this might not be relevant but I highly doubt that the US army will not be trained for a possible war. That'd be odd considering how much the US seems to enjoy participating in them. But yeah, it might depend on where you serve.



-----

Thanks Kieli...I was immediately cheered up I feel so loved now.



Edited to add: My assessment of the German army is based on the experiences my brother and everyone else I talked to about it made. I am not talking about German soldiers who are on missions abroad and do what they can to ensure peace (at least, I hope that this is what they do), for example in Afghanistan.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 4/23/03 9:26:54 am

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

60% of the American people believe that Sept 11 was taken revenge for by the war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein . . . if this is true, a majority of Americans are brain-numbingly dumb

---

Y'know, growing up, I was one of those Yanks who really loved the Fourth of July. I used to get choked up watching "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" when Jimmy Stewart was taking the patriotic tour. I was terribly proud that my people were chucking out King George III (yep, I have ancestors who "go back to those times" just like Darla!) at the same time other peoples around the world were still bowing and scraping to the noble-born. "All [people] are created equal": well, duh! [Insert obnoxious chorus of "USA! USA!" here]



At the same time, I also grew up during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, so I knew all was not well in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." But the fact that people were marching in the streets about these things seemed to indicate that Americans were a self-corrective bunch, who would still lead the world (by example) to freedom.



I turned 18, eager to participate in the political process . . . and the American people (er, the ~55% or so that voted) in all their wisdom, elected Ronald Reagan (I'm a native Californian, so I knew just who we'd put in the White House, ex-Gov Ronnie).



Well,



In the following 23 years, I have only rarely had very much hope going into an election (and exceedingly rarely coming out of it).



My point, if there is one, is that you, cassiopeia191---and it *pains* me to say this---are exactly right. It's not just that Americans are uninformed, it's that they don't care that they are uninformed. As you say,

Quote:

---

this is not only to blame on the media because after all, there is such a thing as critical perception.

---

Not when it's Americans on America, there isn't. It's an a priori belief of *most* Americans that ours is the "greatest nation on Earth" and that our greatness automatically makes the actions of American leaders in the world RIGHT and any who oppose the U.S. automatically WRONG.

Quote:

---

When I read stuff like that, I wonder why I still care.

---

You better care, because you'll grow long in the tooth waiting for Americans to (to learn, to grow, to see themselves as belonging "merely" to the family of nations, and not the Pater familias of everybody else).



The U.S. has maintained its hegemony for the last 50+ years because the world was so divided: first by the Cold War, since '91 or so by nations cutting "free trade" deals and the like: sucking up to the (predominantly-American, or w/ American values) corporations. That's the way it's going to continue, until the world unites to put the U.S. in its place.



You non-Yank Kittens out there will find that there are a few Americans (well, quite a few at the Kitten!), here and there, happy to play Fifth Column and dish the dirt on just what selfish, idiotic b*stards most Americans are (even while they are ever so nice and friendly on the outside!).



But make no mistake, *YOU* are going to have to do the heavy lifting, because Americans aren't (It's our world---you just live in it---so we don't have to.)



If ever there was a wake-up call, it was 9/11. However, in the days and weeks there-after, it was positively verboten in the U.S. to ask, "What do they (the terrorists) want? Why are people cheering our buildings getting blown up?" When the questions were finally addressed months later, the answers given (the ones most Americans swallowed) were 1) there were just a few bogeymen out there duping the masses (Osama, Saddam: Oh, I'm sorry, those are one and the same person, aren't they?), so 2) the U.S. just needs better p.r. And nothing says "Obey Uncle Sam" like flattening the country that doesn't!



Don't get me wrong, Al Qaeda are sickos, willing to slash flight attendants' throats and incinerate office workers for the greater glory of god. But, however evil their actions (a shade more than Tommy Franks'?), they still delivered the wake-up call, which the American people mindlessly hung up on (not long before giving Dubya, Cheney and Rummy the green light to arrange war plans A, B, C, etc. ad nauseum). Any hope that the American people will learn some humility from that experience is as dead as the Iraqi Republican Guard. Change is not going to come from the "Last, Best Hope on Earth" (Yes, that's another way Americans have referred to their nation).



Kittens of the world, it's up to you.



GG And if you can manage it, please Please SAVE (U.S. of) AMERICANS FROM THEMSELVES. Out

[Ben Varkentine]

I just wanted to share this excerpt from Molly Ivins' last column, and see if it reminded anyone else here of the same person it reminds me of.



"-- Donald Rumsfeld and the looting of Iraq's incomparable National Museum in Baghdad. This one is so simple it's embarrassing. Does no one in this administration have any manners? Where is Karen Hughes? When something even more horrible than is usually expected happens in the course of war -- even when it is not our fault -- what we say is: "What a terrible thing. We're so sorry that happened. Even though it was not our fault, we -- like all civilized people -- - regret and mourn the irreplaceable loss to the history of civilization." That's all we have to say.



It is not necessary to become defensive and react as though the looting were some attack on one's professional competence, and it is certainly not necessary to become sarcastic and try to belittle the loss ("My goodness, were there that many vases?" asked Rumsfeld of the looting of 7,000 years worth of archaeological treasure. "Is it possible there were that many vases in the whole country?" he asked sarcastically. Well, yes.)



Is this really the face of America we want to show the rest of the world? Are there any grown-ups in this administration?"



Anybody need me to spell if out for them?

Ben



"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always

ready to defend their most precious possession."

[kukalaka]

The thing is, GG, nations that actually see themselves as part of the "family of nations" and not some kind of "Pater familias", really don't care about "putting the U.S. in its place" very much. They don't feel responsible for correcting everything they consider wrong in the world the way the US do.



Even though it might be needed.

[sparrow]

Snippy, glad to see that it's come down to name calling when a point is made that is not your own. Thought this was a forum to express ones thought, beliefs and comments on reports. If this is the state of the kitten then I guess not everyone is accepted. Interesting indeed. Siempre Fi

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Snippy, glad to see that it's come down to name calling when a point is made that is not your own. Thought this was a forum to express ones thought, beliefs and comments on reports. If this is the state of the kitten then I guess not everyone is accepted. Interesting indeed. Siempre Fi

---

Odd, I thought the word "snippy" was an adjective to describe something and not necessarily someone. I don't think Cass called YOU snippy but the tone of your one-liners. Apparently you neither have the means nor the information to engage in true discussion and debate and thus can only say that we're "calling you names". This IS a forum to express one's thoughts and beliefs and comments. You were simply making one lined statements that had a "tone". If that's an expression of your "thoughts", I'd really be all excited to see you really debate



Again, people have asked you to elaborate on your "thoughts" and "opinions" and you have not done so which leads me to believe that you may not really know why you think or believe as you do. So it's much easier to cry "Censorship!" or comment bitterly about the "state of the kitten". And how is it that you were a member of the Corps and did not know that it's "Semper Fi" as in "Semper Fidelis"? Most have very eloquently stated their thoughts, concerns, disagreements, what have you. Why is it than when someone asks you to elaborate, you can't do so and claim that your opinion is not "accepted"?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/24/03 10:38:44 am

[urnofosiris]

Sparrow, if you feel people are breaking the FAQ in the way they address you can always mail one of the mods with a specific quote. The state of the Kitten is that we treat each other with respect and so far the people who have replied to you have done so and have taken the time to elaborate on their own opinions and ideas that caused them to question yours. You are perfectly free to state your own thoughts in a way that does not violate our FAQ. With opinions differing as vastly as they do on this subject and emotions running high that may not be easy, some posts or phrases may come close to crossing the line, but recently people have not been 'tripping' in this thread or calling you any names. Any further concerns on this issue can be taken to email so as not to distract from this thread's topic.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

[bzengo]

BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage

By Merissa Marr



LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday.



BBC Director General Greg Dyke singled out for criticism the fast growing News Corp. Ltd.'s Fox News Channel, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States, with over 1,200 stations, for special criticism.



"Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference.



"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media."



Dyke singled out Fox News, the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, for its "gung-ho patriotism," saying: "We are still surprised when we see Fox News with such a committed political position."



A spokesman for Fox News declined comment.



The British media veteran also attacked U.S. radio broadcaster Clear Channel and warned against British media becoming "Americanized."



'SHOCKED' BROADCASTER INVOLVED IN RALLIES



"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organize pro-war rallies. We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big player in radio in the United Kingdom when it is deregulated later this year," Dyke said.

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

[cassiopeia191]

"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media."



In fact, I think this credibility is already undermined - as I stated before, when 60% of the people believe that Saddam Hussein and his regime were linked to Al Quaeda while GWB himself declares that he can't say that this is the case, there must be some serious case of misinformation going on - which is, in fact, a political policy. Wasn't Michael Moore talking about the land of the semi-free? Independence of media (yeah, it sounds funny, doesn't it) and freedom of speech: those seem like essential milestones of liberty itself to me. Of course, a newspaper/TV station etc. can take a point of view but facts are still facts and there's a difference between opinionated and manipulated broadcasting. I wonder how all this could be taken away so easily from the American people after Sept 11th without a cry going through the whole nation.

I haven't experienced the American war coverage (I only hear about it from my family there) but in Germany, I have read a rather opinionated newspaper but I was still provided with the facts, tons and tons of facts (as far as the Bush administration would release information, of course) and the broadcasting was critical, but not to an excessive extent. It seemed like there were international laws and general moral standard and when the coverage wasn't strictly neutral, the happenings were judged by them.



GatitoGrande: I'll take your words to heart...thanks for your...speech, I'd almost say: it gave me at least a little bit of motivation and hope back.

Edited by: BytrSuite at: 4/25/03 4:20:59 pm

[Kieli]

Here's a couple of articles that I feel give us ALL pause and something to ruminate:



Rooney Draws Ire with AntiWar Sentiments:

story.news.yahoo.com/news...ey_s_war_5



AntiWar American looks to North And South for a New Place to Call Home

www.globeandmail.com/serv...tional/Idx

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/25/03 9:45:00 pm

[Gatito Grande]

I think this link might work better to the second article (if you haven't fixed it already Kieli)



www.globeandmail.com/serv...r+american



This is the line that struck me from the Andy Rooney (whom I usually loathe) article (it's Gary Bauer, speaking of Rooney):

Quote:

---

I just hope that when we take on the next part of the axis of evil, he'll be on our side.

---

Finally, here's a pro-war article, from a commentator I often respect (Andrew Sullivan):



www.andrewsullivan.com/ma...m=20030416



I include it, not only to be fair and give another point of view (I'm nowhere near that noble!), but to point out a patently ridiculous assertion:

Quote:

---

The concept is not some new American empire. Any European who believes that is letting his insecurities get the better of his judgment. America doesn't have imperialism in its DNA. In fact, it has anti-imperialism in its DNA.

---

First of all, a credible argument can be made that the "United States of America" is *nothing but* an empire (I believe it was called "Manifest Destiny"?). Not withstanding the imperial subjugation of the indigenous peoples of the "Americas," one can go back at least 100+ years to the Spanish-American War (which was all about ending Spain's empire, and replacing it w/ the USA's). The Phillipines? We never really left. And why are those Al Queda and Taliban detainees in freakin' Guantanamo, Cuba?? Because "America doesn't have imperialism in its DNA?" Not so much.



The 20th century was the history of the U.S. building it's empire, and the 21st is turning into the story of making sure the whole planet falls under the "U.S. national security umbrella" (if that ain't "empire" with another name, then Joss Whedon is *Mr. Integrity*, a true mensch).



GG And Sullivan is the "Thinking Person's Pro-Warrior": I say the imperialist wears no clothes! Out

[Kieli]

To be fair, GG, I think Mr. Sullivan is misusing the word imperialism because he apparently is equating "imperialism" with only part of the definition of the term. He apparently seems to think that America is "anti-Imperialist" in a "we don't advocate the absolute power or government of an emperor" sense. For him to think that way is rather odd since he seems to have missed the latter half of the definition "the policy, practice or advocacy of seeking or acquiescing in the extension of the control of the empire of a nation by the acquirement of new territory or dependencies especially when lying outside the nation's natural boundaries, by the extension of its rule over other races of mankind (as where commerce demands the protection of the flag) or by the closer union of more or less independent parts."



If he thinks that America doesn't have any imperialism in its DNA, he is WOEFULLY uninformed. As a matter of fact, most great empires and political powers are imperialist by nature. Here are a few links that prove that world power nations like America does have imperialist tendencies:



www.smplanet.com/imperialism/toc.html

www.geocities.com/Athens/.../usimp.htm

www.marxists.org/archive/...6/imp-hsc/

(and here is the search where I got a good bit of information from: search.yahoo.com/bin/sear...&ei=UTF-8)



Here is a study on anti-imperialistic essays by some key figures in history who were quite opposed to the tendency adn subsequently lead to the American Anti-Imperialist League around 1899 in response to the Phillipine-American War:



www.boondocksnet.com/ai/

www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ai_essay.html

www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ai_lit.html

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[The Angry Lion]

Yes I was drinking something when I read that anti-imperialism isnt in the dna bit, and I spit it out, and not in the way ppl usually do, this was a disbelief spit. My God do any of these commentators have even a smidgen of historical knowledge?



One thing that enraged me today was hearing about holw the Dixie Chicks have 'suffered' commercially from their anti-war stance, you know Ive heard the opposite, my sources say the Dixie Chicks are still one of the hottest selling most played country groups in the US. And I hope so, because the American war against dissent is becoming almost as grotesque as its war for oil (okay a little melodramatic but in a country where Freedom of Speach is supposedly enshrined the response to the Anti-War movement has been appalling).

tomorrow is now today