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

I dont believe i said Walmart is running the States.

however, 21 facts for you to chew on Will.

1 The U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world rose to 497.8 billion dollars in 2010. That represented a 32.8% increase from 2009.

#2 The U.S. trade deficit with China rose to an all-time record of 273.1 billion dollars in 2010. This is the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.

#3 The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

#4 In the years since 1975, the United States had run a total trade deficit of 7.5 trillion dollars with the rest of the world.

#5 The United States spends more than 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.

#6 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent and it continues to fall.

#7 The number of net jobs gained by the U.S. economy during this past decade was smaller than during any other decade since World War 2.

#8 The Bureau of Labor Statistics originally predicted that the U.S. economy would create approximately 22 million jobs during the decade of the 2000s, but it turns out that the U.S. economy only produced about 7 million jobs during that time period.

#9 Japan now manufactures about 5 million more automobiles than the United States does.

#10 China has now become the world's largest exporter of high technology products.

#11 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#12 The United States now has 10 percent fewer "middle class jobs" than it did just ten years ago.

#13 According to Tax Notes, between 1999 and 2008 employment at the foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million. During that exact same time period, U.S. employment at American multinational corporations declined 8 percent to 21.1 million.

#14 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#15 Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China's share had soared to 20 percent.

#16 The number of Americans that have become so discouraged that they have given up searching for work completely now stands at an all-time high.

#17 Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.

#18 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#19 Since 2001, over 42,000 U.S. factories have closed down for good.

#20 In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.

#21 Ten years ago, the "employment rate" in the United States was about 64%. Since then it has been constantly declining and now the "employment rate" in the United States is only about 58%. So where did all of those jobs go?

__________________
"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.

Where's this list taken from? I ask in part because a lot of these really need to be sourced if they're going to be answered.

Well, I do since I think that you're doing the same thing as Sidorsky. Since your definition of "empire building" doesn't include any activities that America's been engaged in abroad, it's not possible to accuse America of "empire building". This is where the argument concerning the meaning of the word began, which is similar to the case Sidorsky made about "war".

By dividing "war" into two sub-categories and giving them different meanings, one of the categories (minor wars) lose its moral significance. But this applies only to Americans and supporters of American foreign policy. People in countries where minor wars are being waged (because a minor war wouldn't be a minor war if it was fought on American ground) would probably disagree with Sidorsky.

And this is similar to when I say that people in certain 3rd world countries would probably disagree with you when you say that they are not subject to American imperialism, simply because imperialism, in your mind, does not exist anymore. This is, you said, indisputable. Which I've been objecting to the whole time. It is disputable. I don't have any illusions of you changing your mind and agree with me that America has or have had imperial ambitions. But you can't reject the fact that many people view America as imperialists, and you can definitely not reject it on the basis of an incorrect use of the word "empire".

As is yours.

Yes, of course. I would say that the meaning of "superpower" is the post-colonial version of "empire". Would you disagree?


But, you are missing the whole point.

You are assuming that what you put into the phrase is the real-world usage, when this discussion is proof of that language and its meanings are very dependent on its context.

Wouldn't you say that the fact that you are living in an environment in which people rather not associate America with the word "empire" has affected your definition of the word? Which is (one of) the reason(s) to why you have a hard time accepting the association?

What is real-world usage in the USA is - which is my whole point - not always the real-world usage in the rest of the world. In fact, this discussion could be viewed as an example of how Americans have so much trouble understanding why people from other countries don't always approve of American foreign policies: because their experience of American foreign policies is diametrically opposed to your experience.

I didn't bring that up to "get you" - it surprised me just as much as you. I just thought it was interesting that it was put up there as a synonym, which I wouldn never have guessed.

I thought it was interesting because to me, a conglomerate is about control over financial "areas"; to incorporate as much as you can under your own roof to exercise as much control as possible over certain markets.

I don't think anyone would think of that word to describe relations between superpowers during the Cold War but now, during the globalization when the world is more about big financial markets (America, China, EU, India etc.) it feels more relevant.

Which is a highly subjective and disputable opinion.

I'll respond to the rest later. Bye!

__________________
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.

Oops! I meant South Korea.

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

Hi again and sorry for keeping you waiting. I wish I had the time I used to have for these arguments.

Absolutely. But when something is seen by supporters of democracy as politically incorrect - like empire building, for instance - it is a very effective strategy to re-package what you're selling, put a new label on it and then offer it to the public; it's not an invasion - it's a pre-emptive strike, it's not a war on a sovereign state - it's war on terrorism, it's not subjugation - it's installing democracy, it's not a war - it's a minor war and it's not empire-building - it's serving American interests abroad.

Empire building has, traditionally, been about conquering land and exploiting resources and man labour in the conquered areas in order to gain advantages compared to other empires. Today we say that colonialism has ended, but the same kind of exploitation is still going on, of course. It was perfectly legal and politically sanctioned then and it's perfectly legal and politically sanctioned now. Democratic or not, several governments of 3rd World countries are being backed with money from America, Europe and China and other countries, land and fishing-waters are bought cheaply from corrupt leaders who put the money in their own pockets and American and European conglomerates establish factories in low-wage countries where the workers aren't allowed to organize and where child labour is nothing unusual, to mention a few things. It's modern day empire building.

Similarly, you could say that America is using the UN to serve American political interest in a way that could be described with imperialist terms. Since 1984 China and France have vetoed three resolutions each, Russia/USSR four and Great Britain ten. USA has vetoed 43 - most of them concerning Israel. This passed friday, USA stopped a Palestinian resolution urging the UN to condemn Israeli settlements on Palestinian ground. 130 member states backed the resolution and 14 of the 15 Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution. Except for USA that vetoed the resolution. Not very democratic - but perfectly correct according to all thinkable rules.

At the same time America ignores the UN when it suits the American agenda, like in the case with Iraq when UN said that there was no evidence of WMD:s and America went on with the invasion anyway. Paradoxically, the invasion was sometimes justified with the argument that Iraq violated UN resolutions.

These arguments can of course be dismissed with the counter argument that even if so and so many states disagree with the American agenda, that does not automatically mean that the American agenda is wrong. For instance, it's more important to protect certain interests, using certain methods and to achieve certain goals than it is to do things in a 100 % democratic way, objectively speaking. I can appreciate that. But, it's impossible to continue with this strategy in order to defend American interests and at the same time expect the rest of the world (and the 3rd World in particular) to associate America with democracy and freedom and to dissociate America with empire-building.

You could say that I'm tossing the word around, sure. But I do think what you're experiencing as "tossing around" is actually me using the word in a much broader sense than you. I think it's symptomatic for this discussion that I am questioning your, as I see it, fixed definition of certain expressions while you are questioning mine, which is kind of more loosely defined. What I've been trying to say though is this is a strategy used in American foreign policy; America defines things and sets the table, decides what's good or bad, right or wrong. It doesn't matter if all the countries in the rest of the world oppose to the American definition of the world. The American definition is correct - because it's American. If this is a fact is impossible for me to prove and for you to dismiss, but this is the way many nations view the situation. And it breeds anti-Americanism.

To gain time....... Resistance it - however - futile.


I'm terribly sorry, but I was sidetracked as I was writing this response. I will try and get back to this tomorrow.

No worries...but should I hold off on replying until then?

One thing I won't wait to say is that all the instances in which you point out that I'm just stating my opinion kind of miss the point, I think. In each case I wasn't attempting to persuade you simply by stating my opinion, but by responding to something subjective with something equally subjective. If you tell me that other people around the world think the U.S. is an empire, it's not really possible to refute them empirically, so I simply pointed out, in each case, that they have their opinion and I have mine. You'll notice these are the only times I try to address anything by simply disagreeing with it.

I'll hold off on the rest until you've finished. And no rush. We're all probably a little busier than we used to be!

Feom two posts back:

"Empire building has, traditionally, been about conquering land and exploiting resources and man labour in the conquered areas in order to gain advantages compared to other empires. Today we say that colonialism has ended, but the same kind of exploitation is still going on, of course. It was perfectly legal and politically sanctioned then and it's perfectly legal and politically sanctioned now. Democratic or not, several governments of 3rd World countries are being backed with money from America, Europe and China and other countries, land and fishing-waters are bought cheaply from corrupt leaders who put the money in their own pockets and American and European conglomerates establish factories in low-wage countries where the workers aren't allowed to organize and where child labour is nothing unusual, to mention a few things. It's modern day empire building."



That's a new one on me, we are empire building in China! The United States has no control of the China leadership (we wish we did).

Will, I think Pid means China is empire building. They're investing money in improving some African country's infrastructures and as a payoff are reaping the natural resources of those countries - Zambia and copper, Congo and copper and cobalt, Angola and oil.

I support him, it was just diplomatic notes, nevertheless i guess he owns some more secrets. anyway, i hate seeing the judge falsely accusing him for sexual harassment.

Butthurt, huh? Never heard that particular phrase before. But you're responding to something other than my remarks when you start talking about the American way. Is there a definite American way? A single American way? There are probably about as many American ways as there are Americans, so I don't deal with the nebulous "American way."

But in a general discussion of war and national interest, I think the military and politicians are pretty well agreed that a war should protect and advance the national interest, or from the reverse side, don't go to war unless it is in the national interest.

Is it in our national interest to be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I have no idea. Right after 9/11 when everyone was yelling for US military retaliation, I kept saying we don't need to start shooting missles at suspect countries. Better to take a page from Israel's warbook and send in a small unit that will excise the brains of the offending unit.

If it's not in our national interest to be in those countries, we should get the hell out because we're wasting time, money, and lives. But if it is for some reason in our national interest to be there, then let the chips fall where they may. And if the rest of the world is appalled at our action, I really don't give a damn--so long as it is in our national interest.

I'm not sure how either of those countries would fit into a US "empire." Where exactly is this empire anyway? In the French graveyards for US soldiers from two world wars? Along the air routes to Berlin where US transports went down flying coal and winter food supplies into that city after the war when Russia shut down the land routes? In the Philippines and other Far East nations where we liberated people from Japanese imperialism? In Korea when we pushed back North Korea's invasion of South Korea in the first United Nations police action? In Bosnia and Somalia where we tried to protect unarmed civilians? Other than the Mexican War 170 years ago the only foreign soil the US has kept after a war was just enough in which to bury our soldiers who died freeing those countries.

I think this is another case of people not paying attention to specific words that communicate specific things and instead warping what they read--in Dexter's and Piddzilla's cases into what they wanted to read and believe.

My original statement was as follows, highlights added to make it easier for some to understand:

"Militarily we should only invade a country if it is in our interest to do so. If it's in our interest to be in Afghanistan, then go get 'em, tiger."

I think most of us would agree it would be foolish to invade another country that was doing us no harm since that invasion would not be in our interest. I really don't know if we have a vested interest in Afghanistan. I also really don't know that we have no vested interest in Afghanistan. I have no pretentions either way. But if it is in the US' best interest to be there, then I fully support it. End of story. And if that gives Dexter and Piddzilla butthurts, well, boo hoo hoo.

First you knock "this pretence that the US aren't and never have been empire builders" and then you list "two main reasons that the US doesn't build empires." So which is it--are we building empires or not? My opinion is not.

As for US military bases overseas, having been stationed at one myself back during the Cold War, I can testify we were welcomed by the Germans because of our huge monetary input into their economy, the source of jobs and sales, and the fact that our presence might have been all that was keeping the Russians on their side of the Iron Curtain. I know many--probably all--of those US bases were part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization involving the military of Germany, England, France, and others. When I was over there, the best possible duty was considered to the the SAC airbases in The Netherlands because the Dutch were still fond of Americans for liberating them from the Nazi yoke in World War II. US bases also were welcomed in Japan because since World War II, Japan has maintained only a defensive military force against possible invasion. It's forbidden to operate offensively by attacking outside Japanese territory. They can get away with this thanks to the US and other allied military bases in Japan.

Before getting too carried away with the US "empire," give a little consideration to the Marshall Plan through which the US spent billions to help rebuild war-torn Europe and Japan after 1945. Yeah, it was in our national interest to rebuild trading partners overseas. But the fact remains this was the first time in the history of the world that the winning country rebuilt the losing countries and even our own allies after the war. Usually it was like after World War I when Germany was loaded with debt to repay the allies for the damange inflicted in World War I. Seems to me any empire claim totally conflicts with the facts of the Marshall Plan

Is that a futile attempt to gain time or resist Yoda's argument, Piddz?

We shouldn't be invading other countries because we want their oil or opium, but I support the idea we should only war with other countries if it in our national interest in terms of security. Afghanistan was enabling and protecting a terrorist group that declared war on us. Iraq when it invaded Kuwait without provocation was not in our national interest, nor most of the Middle East and the rest of the world. The invasion of Iraq was more problematic. It would have been justified if they really had weapons of mass destruction, but Bush's real motive was to take care of some unfinished business with what his father started. That was not in the national interest of the United States.

Now this is just silly! How many times have the handful of US bases in the UK taken to the streets to keep you Brits "in line?" Is that why so many of your prime ministers have sided with US presidents on international issues? You were afraid we were gonna nuke you if you disagreed?

But then how many times have the British military bases in Germany been turned out since 1945 to keep the Germans in line?

Like you said, you're English. When it comes to empires and empire building, we're nothing at all like you. I'd have thought you had learned that back in 1776.

I always thought it suspicious that the decision to invade Iraq came soon after evidence that Iraq was involved in a failed plot to assassinate Pappy Bush. I always thought those "intelligence" reports about WMD and airbases hidden under the desert prior to the invasion were a lot of smoke and mirrors. It was particularly ironic since Bush the Elder when vice president chewed Israel's butt for sending in an airstrike to take out an atomic plant in Iran back then.

The reason we didn't follow the Iraqis home when we kicked them out of Kuwait was due to government concerns that an even longer line of burned out vehicles and skeletons of Arab soldiers would upset other folks in the Middle East. That and the fact they let the Army handle the final negotiations. At first they were gonna ground Iraqi military aircraft, but the Iraqis pulled a sad face and claimed all of their roads had been destroyed, and our top brass said OK, you can use your helicopters. And the Iraqis promptly used their helicopters to drop poison gas on the dissident Kurds within their borders.

Did we do any good going into Iraq? Who knows--probably nothing that will last. I imagine they'll have another strong man replacing Saddam at some point. Had we waited, would the Iraqis been in the streets against Sadam as has since happened in Tunisia, Egypt, and is going on in Libya? Maybe, but god what a bloodbath that would have been.

The most interesting thing to me is that in all these revolutionary uprisings in North Africa is that there are no shouts of opposition to the US or Israel or even any great cry for full democracy as we practice it. What's bringing down these dictators is the high cost of food, due largely to the high cost of oil, the high cost of grains due to ethanol, and the US export of inflation to other countries by the Federal Reserve Bank manufacturing money to stimulate our economy. Oil and most foods are priced internationally in US dollars. Lowering the value of the dollar as the Fed is doing raises the price of oil and food. (Meanwhile, the only placards against the US and Israel and for the Palestinians are the ones in sympathy demonstrations in Europe, so far.)

Oh, please fire away.

Meanwhile, a British court has decided that Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden for questioning about the rape and sexual assault accusations. Assange will appeal, of course. I doubt this farce will be over before the summer which is really unfortunate.

Yeah, thanks for highlighting. So, you really don't know if you support the American military presence in Afghanistan, is that it? You support USA being there if it's in your interest but at the same time you have absolutely no idea if it's in your interest to be there. That's comforting.

It's exactly what I said it was. But if there's anything in particular that you or anybody else want me to answer - let me know. I can't guarantee that I will understand your question though, because frankly you don't make much sense to me. And I rarely have time to sit down here for more than a short while at the time, and my discussion with Chris have a tendency to be quite lengthy.

So, what do you want to know?

So we got a Brit, a Canadian, and a Swede looking down their noses at the US. Oh, my, I am so shocked.

Let me make it plain for you, Piddz, so you can stop guessing at what I'm saying: I personally don't give a damn about Afghanistan. Go or stay, it's all the same to me. I don't care if they become another Greece of the classic age or if they get bypassed in the backwaters of history. Like Sweden.