Julian Assange, Swedish Law and the unholy alliance of the left and right!

Countries dont mean a whole lot in the Global Village. Multi-national Corporations and teh world bank decide whats what.

I hear the argument all the time that The US isnt in the plunder business, xcept the history of subverting democratically elected governments to install more US business friendly , militaristic regimes is standard operating procedure.

Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala Iran (in 53') these were not humanitarian endeavors. Quite the opposite.

War is big business. And business is booming. It won't be ending anytime soon. The America F*ck yeah sentiment is too strong.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

[quote=DexterRiley;712537]Countries dont mean a whole lot in the Global Village. Multi-national Corporations and teh world bank decide whats what.

Extreme right meets extreme left. Both factions have this simplistic notion they run the show and government heads are their puppets. it is all baloney.

I hear the argument all the time that The US isnt in the plunder business, xcept the history of subverting democratically elected governments to install more US business friendly , militaristic regimes is standard operating procedure.

Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala Iran (in 53') these were not humanitarian endeavors. Quite the opposite.

United States makes mistakes and those were a while back. We haven't installed any military regimes lately. When the United States introduced human rights as part of its foreign policy overt support of dictatorships went by the wayside. There are no military dictatorships in Latin American at the moment except in Cuba and United States policies have had some influence on that. Some of the governments are not friendly to the United States or US business and they are still there.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

May I suggest that you watch the Danish documentary Armadillo. It's a pretty good insight in how these Danish troops operate when they fight the talibans. Two things are obvious: that the Danish troops are superior to the talibans on all levels - except for perhaps knowing the terrain they're fighting in. The other thing is that the civilians, who literally live on the battle fields, are reduced to props, annoying elements that are "in the way".

Here's a link to a page with facts about ISAF: http://www.isaf.nato.int/mission.html

There you can read about the ISAF mission: In support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ISAF conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.

In my opinion, looking at a documentary like Armadillo and reading reports and documents on how things are going in Afghanistan, it is obvious that this mission does not have a chance of reaching its goal - simply because the troops don't seem to be aware of what the mission really is. If they did, they wouldn't work in a matter that with 100 % certainty will provide an insecure environment for the population instead of a secure one.

Why can't more resources be devoted to protection of the civilians while other troops scout the area in search of taliban fighters? In Armadillo the soldiers spot the talibans with radar and satellite cameras and give directions to their comrades or simply bomb the enemy to smithereens. A more intelligent approach, taking the lives of civilians in greater consideration, is technically possible and morally speaking a necessity. If it's in our interest (is it?) to avoid the scenario where more Afghans join the talibans, the number one priority should be to convince the talibans that we are friends. Locating the battlefield on their land is not going to accomplish this interest.

The problem is, is that this alternative tactic will require more troops and it's possible that it will initially cause more deaths of ISAF soldiers. So it's a political decision no politician probably will have to make.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

This fits in the same category as when conservative philosophy professor David Sidorsky says that American has not waged any wars since WWII as a reply to the argument that American power is structured around warfare. What does Sidorsky mean by this? Well, he divides wars into two groups: major wars and minor wars. The WWII was a major war. Every war that America has been involved with since then has been a minor war.

I wonder if 4-5 million dead Vietnamese - to mention one example - would agree with Sidorsky.

Reasoning like this, "building an empire" is all about semantics, but not very good semantics. You are basically saying that empire building isn't happening today because it doesn't fit with your personal definition of what an empire is. But just because gallant British officers aren't riding around in Africa, killing everything that comes in their way and then proclaiming the land to be theirs, doesn't mean that some kind of empire-building is taking place even today. If that was the case, then war doesn't exist since no one uses muskets anymore.

An empire is about controlling other countries with different strategies and to various degrees. It's about having power in such a way that decisions made by politicians, company executives and generals in other countries than your own are made in such a way that they suit the empire's agenda.

It's obvious that Americans don't like hearing that America is an empire while people abroad feel like America in some way or another is limiting their freedom. It's in the nature of things. I'm guessing, though, that Americans don't have the same problem with viewing China as a threat - as a growing empire threatening the American way.

What you don't view as empire building, big parts of the rest of the world does.

That would mean that war is a form of diplomacy, which of course it's not.

To open an embassy in a country is often a gesture of great respect towards the hosting country and a way to cultivate the diplomatic relationship with the country. That's why when things sour up between countries, embassies are closed or diplomats are thrown out of the country. That's not the case at all with military bases.

If USA established an embassy in Czech Republic or a military base, which option do you think would upset Russia the most? And why?

Well, then Sidorsky is wrong, and his semantics are confusing and unhelpful if he is using the word "wars" only to refer to "major wars." If he wants to make a distinction between major and minor wars, that's fine, and a distinction worth making, but swapping out "major wars" for "wars" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't think giving me an example of someone using phrasing incorrectly demonstrates that this other, unrelated phrasing is incorrect, however.

I don't think it's a "personal" definition at all. I'm saying empire building isn't happening today because it doesn't fit with the normal, traditional, historical definition of what an empire is, or how it expands.

We're definitely dealing with bad semantics, but it's from anyone who wants to toss around loaded phrases like "empire building" to describe actions that don't much resemble what that usually refers to. These phrases have historical meaning and connotations that don't apply in this context, and thus are not good descriptors. This is probably why they're used in the first place: to give the complaint more force and emphasis.

This is simply a non-sequitur. The definition of war is not altered by using rifles instead of muskets.

But notice the phrase "some kind of empire-building" (emphasis added). It sounds like you at least partially agree with what I'm saying already: that it's not empire building in the traditional sense, but something else. I suppose you might not think it to be meaningfully different, but I think that stance gets increasingly hard to defend as it becomes more specific.

This describes the aim of pretty much every foreign policy, though, including diplomacy. Countries universally try to protect their interests on some level; the only things that vary here are their ability to do so, and the lengths they're willing to go to do this.

Oh, I'm sure they do. And, amusingly, it's probably in their own interests to convince people of this, too.

I'm not sure I see your point; I'm not suggesting that military bases and embassies are identical. I said we have military bases in places for the same sorts of reasons we have embassies. Though Russia would be more upset by a military base, plenty of our allies would not. It's case-by-case, of course.

But this is already off the rails a bit. Let's get specific and consider the context of what you're quoting: it was in response to the suggestion that having military bases all over the world somehow proves that the United States is empire building. I'm saying that this isn't even in the same geopolitical universe as annexing foreign countries and forcing them to, say, pay tribute.

That's what's being argued. If you want to argue about whether or not my comparison is all that helpful, I'll indulge that, but the point of contention was about whether or not the presence of foreign military bases can be equated to conquering other nations, basically. And I think we both know they're worlds apart.

Sphere of infuence is not the same as empire building. Nuclear umbrella is not empire building.

When did the US introduce Human Rights as part of its foreign policy?

so you want a blue ribbon for Not invading everywhere?

Are you suggesting there is a difference between United States or US business ?

Human Rights as a component of our foreign policy started with Jimmy Carter. It has never been consistently applied, but all administrations have played lip service to it and it has put some limits on what governments the U.S. will support and what actions they take

Yes, I think ther is a difference between U.S. business and the U.S. Does business have a huge influence? Yes. Do they completely run the show? No, not even under a Republican administration.

You are delusional sir.

I don't think anyone who knows what "lip service" means could possibly disagree with what Will said. Either way, you'll have to do better than just calling people naive or delusional whenever they take a less-than-totally-cynical view of American policy.

My understanding is lip service means to say one thing and to do another.

Would Jesus approve of American Foreign Policy over the last 50 years Chris?

If you're defining lip service to mean saying one thing and doing another, then why are you disagreeing with it? Isn't that what you believe: that American foreign policy says it favors human rights, but doesn't do so in practice? I certainly disagree, but I can't figure out why you're disagreeing with Will.

I don't think Jesus would fully approve of anything we do, no. I certainly don't think He'd approve of the "none of our business" approach to foreign dictatorships, however. But I'm taking issue with one specific thing; I'm not sure why we're talking about something highly specific in one sentence, and the very next it's been extrapolated a thousandfold.

By lip service, I meant they all say they are for it and often speak out against flagrant violations of it even among our allies. Do we always go to war or have ecconomic embargos about it? No. Usually not. But sometimes making a public expression in some instances has an impact. Sometimes political prisoners are released because of international pressure led by the United States.

You're misunderstanding what I/Sidorsky said. He doesn't equal "major war" with "war", period. What he is saying is that, sure, America has been waging wars since WWII - but since they're only "minor wars", that's really not a problem on a moral scale (he's discussing this matter from a ethical/philosophical point of view - what is right or wrong, good or bad). My objection - which is the same objection that I have with your definition of "empire" - is that it's not a conclusion I think he shares with the people living in those countries where "minor wars" have been waged. And similarly, I would say that people living in countries where their natural resources are being transported out of the country, sold by their corrupt leaders to foreign multinational companies, or where occupying foreign troops are controlling the entire state apparatus on orders from foreign politicians, killing civilians by the hundreds of thousands - I would say that these people very well might use the word "empire" if asked to describe the kind of power that controls their countries.

Would you also deny that America is the only remaining superpower in the world?

I'm trying to find a good online dictionary for this but I'm not too familiar with the English speaking ones. But there's one called Merriam-Webster that's supposed to have something to do with Encyclopædia Britannica, which sounds kind of fancy, so...

Anyway.

Definition of empire (noun):



1
a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit
b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2
: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion
3
capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] : a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple
See empire defined for English-language learners »
Examples of EMPIRE

She built a tiny business into a worldwide empire.
He controlled a cattle empire in the heart of Texas.
Origin of EMPIRE

Middle English, from Anglo-French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare to command — more at emperor
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to EMPIRE

Synonyms: conglomerate
Related Words: multinational; cartel, combination, combine, syndicate, trust; chain; association, corporation, organization, pool

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1297637296

I would say that your definition of empire fits under category 1 (a), while the more loosely defined 1 (b) would resemble what I'm putting into the world. Which would demonstrate that what you're saying, that your definition of the world is indisputable, is not true.

It's particularly interesting to see that they put "conglomerate" as a synonym to "empire". Let's look up "conglomerate" (same dictionary):

con·glom·er·ate noun \-ˈgläm-rət, -ˈglä-mə-\
1
: a composite mass or mixture; especially : rock composed of rounded fragments varying from small pebbles to large boulders in a cement (as of hardened clay)
2
: a widely diversified corporation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...2&t=1297638105

"A widely diversified corporation". A synonym to "empire". And let's have a look at some of the related words: international, cartel, organization. I think that's interesting and perhaps worth contemplating before dismissing the idea that big business may have something to do with a superpower's involvement in poor countries with great natural resources and crap leaders.

I can appreciate that you feel uncomfortable with the use of the word "empire" in the same sentence as "America". But don't you think this has more to do with you being American and a supporter of American foreign policies in the 3rd world than with me being wrong?

Star Wars? Cold War? War on terrorism? War on drugs? Minor wars? Major wars? Pre-emptive strike? Campaign?

Actually, I do think that the definition of war has changed, if definition means what people put into the word today compared to people in the 19th century - where your definition of "empire" comes from. So, times change and so do the meaning of words - even if I would say that the basic elements of a 21st century empire is quite similar to a 19th century empire. Which I think the webster something dictionary proved.

I would say that "empire" is not a fixed phenomenon with constant values, which is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Which is why I - and many with me - doesn't have the same trouble as you are having with resembling American foreign policies to imperialistic behavior.

- Hello, I would like to open an embassy in your country.
- Well, you're most welcome!
- Oh and btw, we're going to establish a military base at the same time.
- Oh of course - that goes without saying!!



Sweden doesn't have any permanent military bases anywhere to my knowledge. I don't think Germany has either. Or Peru. But we've got embassies.

I don't know exactly which countries - if any besides America - that has got military bases here and there, but my guess would be countries like France, Great Britain, China, and so on. Former, present or future empires.

Can't remember what this was a response to...

Please. You don't "see my point"?

Is there any scenario, any situation at all, where a military base would be regarded as less provocative or less deterrent (than an embassy) to someone that America views as a threat to American interests?

An embassy signals diplomacy - a military base signals potential violence.

I don't remember if that was what I was about from the start.

But, yes, I think United States having military bases all over the world has everything to do with American ambitions to remain the sole superpower in the world - both economically and militarily. I could live with the label "empire building" - you can't. I say tomato, you say .... potato, is it?

Again, your definition of the word is simply too narrow. Furthermore, we could have this whole discussion all over again - about the word "conquering". Are you saying that USA is not conquering other countries?

Definition of CONQUER

transitive verb
1
: to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2
: to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
3
: to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition <conquered the mountain>
4
: to overcome by mental or moral power : surmount <conquered her fear>
intransitive verb
: to be victorious
— con·quer·or noun


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer

China looks like a superpower to me these days. They are making our ability to deal with North Korea real difficult.

I might not have made myself clear, but yes, that's what I assumed he meant: he's dismissing their importance with semantics. Anyway, I think he's wrong. And I don't think this particularly parallels what we're talking about.

Probably, but whether or not some people would toss these words around to describe America isn't really under dispute. Whether or not their usage is fair or accurate is.

I'd probably agree with that, with the obvious caveat that it depends on precisely what superpower means. But probably, yeah.

I hardly know where to start. First, I didn't say my definition was indisputable. Second, I specifically emphasized that the problem with the phrase was its historical connotations: I was making the opposite of a technical, dictionary-based argument; I was arguing about real-world usage. And third, it was you who called my definition "personal," when in reality it's the first one listed in your quote!

Well, I haven't even had the opportunity to dismiss it, because you haven't suggested it. But this is a pretty weird line of argument: the word "conglomeration" is incredibly broad. This site is a "conglomeration" of people. If you want to say that America's foreign presence is like "a composite mass or mixture," I probably wouldn't argue with you.

It's the other way around: I'm a supporter of American foreign policy in general precisely because I don't think it's empire-building.

I don't merely feel "uncomfortable" with the word -- I think it's simply wrong. I could just as easily say that you're willing to toss the word around so casually because you already disagree with most of America's foreign policy, and so it doesn't bother you to use loaded phrases to describe them.

I have no problem with the idea that words change over time. But they still carry connotations with them, and that fact can be used by people to make a harsher-sounding accusation than they can support.

Also, are you claiming that you aren't using the word to mean the same thing it meant before, or not? Because when you toss a word like "imperialistic" around, it's hard to tell. You seem to be arguing both that the word doesn't mean when it used to mean, and that America's policy is like an empire even under the old definition, anyway.

You know me well enough to know I'm not going to pretend not to understand. What would be the point in that?

No, and I never claimed otherwise. I will repeat myself: I am not saying military bases and embassies are identical. I'm saying that we tend to have both for similar reasons: to have a presence in a region, to monitor an area, to help safeguard stability there. The context, again, was whether or not we're an "empire" just because we have military bases there. Seeing as how none of these bases are even remotely capable of invading a country, I think the answer is pretty clear.

Or potential defense. Or potential intelligence. Most military bases, correct me if I'm wrong, are placed on our allies' land, and are for potential staging outside of the host country. They're not occupying forces.

Please tell me honestly: do you know what an American military base consists of, or what its primary functions are, or are you speculating?

Yes, absolutely. That's an even easier case to make. Even using the literal definition you've provided, we're certainly not vanquishing the countries we've invaded recently, and it'd be quite a stretch to say we're "subjugating" them, given how relatively little ultimate control we have over either.

This is what it comes down to: it belittles actual conquering and actual oppression to so casually apply those words to things which only superficially resemble it. We are not forcing countries to pay homage or tribute, we are not laying claim to their land or resources, and we are not invading them for the mere sake of indiscriminately expanding. Thus, we do not resemble an "empire" in the way the phrase has been used through almost all of human history up to this point. It is a loaded phrase that conjures thoughts of oppression and dominance that do not accurately describe modern American foreign policy, and that is why I object to it.

When you say that we're just a modern version of an empire, that's really another way of saying that there aren't any more empires, so you're using the word for something else.

what part of American foreign policy post WW2 specifically would make him weep the most do you think?

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/12/22/t...uperpower.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1783...s-a-superpower

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6012000AA3xyH5


China has arrived. They aren't quite as super as us, but they are getting there and they are already trouble and are only going to get worse.

Are they.

Who suffers more if China stop feeding dirt cheap product to Walmart?

China isn't going to be funneling cheap crap to Walmart forever. Japan used to serve that fuction, then North Korea and at some point there is going to be demand from workers for higher wages and the low end factories will go to Malyaysia or somewhere else.

Walmart isn't omnipotent. They aren't growing like they used to. If Walmart is running the Unitrd States like you think, why has so many cities used zoning laws to keep them out? There still isn't one of those superstores anywhere I live, just one in a vacated ancient department store in a converted mall and it really sucks (doesn't have a supermarket).