Hi Roger, David and All
First off Roger I'd be interested to know why yet again you have resorted to personal
insult as per the following:
On 17 Mar 2002 at 12:01, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> There were no other insults in this post other than
> my saying that you and Horse are "master planners who are convinced that
> everyone else is an idiot or exploited stooge." Your response here which
> dismisses my views as that of an exploited stooge to the giant (see below)
> pretty much confirms the accuracy of this statement though, doesn't it?
There has been no intention in any of my posts to imply any of the above and this
appears to be a mean-spirited reply of your own.
This isn't the first time that you have resorted to insult where I have offered none.
Perhaps your much-vaunted American values of decency, honesty and fair play do not
extend to hearing criticism of such a great nation - or is it, as is more likely, that the
comments I have made are too close to the reality of a system which is more concerned
with profit than life.
Anyway if you are unable to offer nothing better than personal insult then perhaps it
would be better to offer nothing.
On 16 Mar 2002 at 10:44, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> HORSE:
> Victorian (UK) foreign policy was to subdue each and every nation that failed
> to comply with it's favoured economic model and goals... which appears to be
> identical to current US foreign policy.
> Hopefully the new(ish) US imperialism will go the same way as Victorian
> imperialism...
>
> DMB...
> Exactly. Its no accident that US imperialism resembles the UK's colonialism.
> The US began to absorb Europe's colonies beginning in the late 19th century.
> It started with Spain's Cuba and the Phillipines in the 1890's, and was
> wildly excellerated after WW2 when the UK pretty much said, "Here, take
> these countries. We can't afford to keep them anymore." Naturally, the US
> has developed a more efficient form of imperialism. After all, colonialism
> is a rather expensive way to exploit nations. All that's left now are
> puppets, allies and enemies. "You're either with us or you're against us."
>
> RISKY:
> So exporting our ideals now classifies as IMPERIALISM? Since the start of
> WWII the US has done as much or more than any other country to defend peoples
> right to self determination. I already admitted that we made some mistakes
> along the way in our war against the spread of totalitarianism (nazi,
> fascist, communist, fundamentalist), but if not for us I suspect Horse and
> his European buddies would currently be little nazis in training. We didn't
> assume control of Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia, or the
> Phillipines, and we aren't going to assume control of Afghanistan or Iraq
> either.
Roger, please tell me why, if the US was so concerned about the rights of others all over
the world, that it waited so long to get involved in a war against such an offensive and
oppressive regime. Surely not because it was quite happy selling war supplies to the
Nazis even though it was aware of the attrocities against Jews, Blacks, Gays,
Intellectuals etc. As is still the case, the USA only gets involved when there is an
immediate threat to itself. In 1942 it was the Japanese who forced you to act and in
2001 it was the immediate threat of terror on its own soil that prompted it to act against
'Global Terror'. Prior to these events it didn't give a damn.
As far as I'm aware the only rights that the USA are prepared to defend are the rights of
the USA to do as it pleases, wherever it pleases regardless of the consequences. Can
you offer me an instance of the USA protecting the rights of a nations people to self
determination where that nation is not in some way useful to US economic or military
interests.
Perhaps you are not aware of the meaning of Imperialism - associating it with how
others act but not good ol' Uncle Sam. OK then, cop this lot. I lifted it straight from the
Oxford English Dictionary (the big one that comes either with it's own re-forestation kit -
or on a single CD-Rom).
<IMPERIALISM>
The principle or spirit of empire; advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests. In
nineteenth-century British politics, the principle or policy (1) of seeking, or at least not
refusing, an extension of the British Empire in directions where trading interests and
investments require the protection of the flag; and (2) of so uniting the different parts of
the Empire having separate governments, as to secure that for certain purposes, such
as warlike defence, internal commerce, copyright, and postal communication, they
should be practically a single state.
In the United States, imperialism was similarly applied to the policy of extending the rule
or influence of the American people over foreign countries, and of acquiring and holding
distant dependencies, in the way in which colonies and dependencies are held by
European states.
The essential features of imperialism are the concentration of capital, the merging of
industrial and banking capital into finance capital and the division of the world between
national and international monopolies.
</IMPERIALISM>
Whilst the US have not assumed control directly in the coutries you mention, the
installation of 'amenable and sympathetic' governments amounts to much the same
thing. This is most obvious recently in Afghanistan - first the Mujahadeen (sp!) were
assisted into government, then when they were no longer amenable and sympathetic to
the interests of the US the Taliban were similarly aided. Once it was seen what a stupid
mistake had been made the Northern Alliance (AKA Mujahadeen) were given military
and financial assistance to.... and so it goes on. All I can say is that I hope the Northern
Alliance don't welch on the deal to install the oil pipeline across Afghanistan or they too
will be shown the door.
Roger, please don't expect me to believe that the Social Level beast that is US foreign
policy is helping to export the Intellectual level values that will help to destroy it. That is
a nonsense - and incidentally goes against all the tenets of the MoQ. The US
Government, Military and US based multinationals are Social level and wouldn't know
squat about an Intellectual Value except to understand that they are a threat and must
be destroyed at any cost.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST