Posted on 06/06/2015 5:07:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
And the Uniparty is doing everything possible to correct that situation.
And there are people, Americans, who think America does not deserve it, who think America is fundamentally wrong, who gnash their teeth at the National Anthem.
We set up free republics in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The writer is delusional.
“We aren’t using our vast power for conquest”
Some of us know this.
at a dinner party some older neighbor, a business man was going on about how the US is questionable in morality in commerce. I suppose shady business guys have to rationalize.
AND in front of the kids. As usual none of the ‘men’ in the vicinity, a few of them military officers, would pipe up. I don’t know why - I miss my father.
I digress.
I said, ‘whoa. The US is not imperialist’.
He got so pissed - that’s how anti patriots argue.
“The US certainly is too imperialist. Of course they are”
This guy wants to argue with a mother in front of her kids over how bad the US is, and point out not only that the kids have a bad country but also a twit for a mother.
Where were the guys?
I asked him to explain his facts.
He said, ‘Oh we took over Guam’.
It was not enjoyable watching a guy deflate so quickly even the kids had to look down and slink out of the room.
But could more people just say to others, ‘just shut up about how bad the US is’?
Especially in front of the kids.
I NEVER heard such scandalous dialogue when I was growing up.
The men certainly would not allow it that’s for sure
And it shouldn’t end there.
America hasn’t done that since Mexico made the terrible mistake of attacking us after Texas chose to join our nation.
No question it was a terrible mistake. But it is at minimum highly debatable whether Mexico attacked us.
From another valid perspective, we intentionally marched troops into disputed territory and then claimed "American troops had been attacked on American soil." IOW, Polk staged the whole thing. I just listened to a book about Lincoln's term in Congress, and this issue dominated. Lincoln gained a (mostly unfavorable) national reputation by proposing a resolution requiring Polk to designate the "spot" on American soil where this blood was shed.
There is also the entire history of our expansion across the continent, merrily breaking solemn treaties as we went.
We also conquered the Philippines, though we didn't keep it long, and we acquired Hawaii by what can only be called dubious means. Not to mention the Panama Canal Zone.
All these and others have another side to the story, of course. I'm merely noting that our record is not as spotless as the writer seems to think.
The history of the expansion of the British and other empires is also not nearly as evil as the contrast he draws. Most of these empires, most of the time, did not have a consistent policy of expansion wherever possible. They expanded to preempt others or to stop border squabbles, which of course simply moved the border to a new location where they had to deal with new squabbles. Much expansion was done by the men on the spot, forcing reluctant home governments to accept a fait accompli.
In many cases the relationship -- at least at the leadership level -- is a very amicable one. This is one of the dirty little secrets we're learning about the whole Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation debacle. It's no coincidence that the U.S. has pissed away thousands of American lives and more than a trillion dollars in military campaigns in the Middle East for the benefit of governments and powerful people who are contributors to the Clinton Foundation and/or real estate partners with the Bush family.
“We ... have no qualms about toppling them through subversion or military force”
This is a lie
“It’s no coincidence that the U.S. has pissed away thousands of American lives and more than a trillion dollars in military campaigns in the Middle East for the benefit of governments and powerful people who are contributors to the Clinton Foundation and/or real estate partners with the Bush family. “
That is not the US. That is a couple of self appointed royal families who have no adherence to the Constitution.
Our Military, each member, takes an oath to defend the Constitution. They certainly do have qualms about running around being told what to do by people who are elected by uneducated people who also have no acquaintanceship with the Constitution. They trust the US voters to take care of its military by electing people with respect for their own oath.
Our military is what? the largest for questionable reasons?
That is a scandalous implication. You liberals who want a small military as if it is a sign of virtue do not care any more than Carter did, that we were not respected around the world, to detrimental effects.
Reagan built up the military primarily to get the USSR off our backs.
Get over it.
I know a guy who was a champion boxer at the military academy he attended. He is trained in hand to hand combat. is a marksman with a gun collection.
I’ve known him for 30 years.
No one bothers him. And he does not physically impose his will on anyone
I’m going to go watch Saturday cartoons.
This forum is nuts this morning.
D Day of all Days.
No. I’m going to put on ‘Band of Brothers’
imperialism
noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
Accepting a true definition of imperialism, there is no reasonable debate. If we truly “toppled them by force” in order to “impose our will,” why don’t these damn countries do what we want? Why am I still 7500 miles from my home?
Redefinition is the raison d’etre of Leftism. Calling good evil and evil good is the heart of the left.
Thanks. I’m glad there are some sane people left at FR.
Sigh. With that I will take my leave to American cultural Saturday morning entertainment.
Was.
Was the greatest nation in history.
This Canadian agrees wholeheartedly. Thank God for the USA and its fine people. Without you, there’d be no free world.
Now, to buy a few hundred rounds of hockey pucks, just in case. :-)
Cheers,
Jim
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of the dependent states.
Or we could look to Merriam-Webster since, as you pointed out, words have a precise meaning.
: a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world
: the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries
Imperialism was used correctly in this case.
While everyone joins the military for different reasons, as a veteran, I know patriotism is always high on that list. Unfortunately very little of what our military has done in recent decades has anything to do with “support and defend the constitution”. While the goal is not conquest it is certainly imperial. I have very strong feelings for the many 19 and 20 year old children who believed in that oath only to be completely exploited as pawns and fodder for the purpose of installing puppet dictators. While this may benefit some well-connected individuals it is corruption and war profiteering. Is there a worse crime one could engage in? Along this line we should also consider that our government is the largest exporter of arms in the world (whose beneficiaries include “moderate Muslims” and numerous human rights abusing dictators). Yes, there are plenty of people who have reasons to hate us which are not based on our freedoms.
I’m simply trying to point out that when one considers exceptionalism it should not be used to excuse our sins or denigrate the person questioning the actions or motives of government.
Furthermore I am strongly convinced that this same reasoning applied to politics has severely damaged our political process. We choose a candidate and support them by demonstrating their superiority to the opposition, often by calling attention to the opposition’s errors. This makes us reluctant to call out problems or question the voting record of our preferred candidate. In the end we compromise our views and allow politicians to run amok.
And the author of this article actually believes that the U.S. has any interest in promoting "freedom" and "democracy" around the world? LMAO.
The intent was not imperialistic, ‘dude’
Is it just a coincidence that all of these "nations" we build over there now conduct business in U.S. dollars even though they are falling apart just a few years after we leave? Do you really think any of that would have happened if there was tomato sauce under the ground over there in the Middle East instead of oil and gas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.