That the US is an imperial hegemon.

My reputation is a matter of indifference to me, particularly on this forum, given the preponderance of people whose style is merely to abuse the imagined person rather than deal with the argument. Their esteem is of little value.

And what all that nonsense about geography teachers is about is anyone's guess. You think people need geography teachers to know where Canada is? Well that would explain something about the way you think, I'm sure, but what else? You want the US to have a population the size of Canada (ie a tenth of its current population)? Good luck with that strange point of view. It is as orginal as it is bizarre. But I suppose wanting to see your country shrink so is consistent with protectionism.

The interesting thing would be to see what the immigration policy of the USA would have needed to be since 1776 to ensure that the population did not exceed 30 million today. This would have to take into account the natural procreation (rate of growth) of its population at that time which was already in the millions (about 4 million probably across the continent). My guess would be that the USA would have had to close its ports in about 1820. Would your ancestors have even got in by then?

Canada of course is a nation that exists around the US border area, with the rest of it being frozen wastes. This does not mirror the vast natural resources of the USA and the fact that it is - despite being a net importer - one of the top 3 biggest oil producing countries in the world. The USA, if it started to figure out how to use its oil reasonably, has ample natural resources for further growth.

Still it explains why you don't care about Americans, as you think that 90% of them shouldn't be in the USA. And so you don't care that ageing and a low birthrate are going to lead to sickening poverty amongst the elderly, and/or 80 year olds flipping burgers in McDonalds. And you are very rich, so someone's already lined up to wipe your arse in that exclusive nursing home that without any doubt the children of today's existing population will be unable to sustain on any widespread basis.

Or you don't understand simple demographics, which is I think where you need to go and seek out the geography teacher.

 

I've read very little of this thread but here's some input.

These are the words of an American general.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html

Here's a thread I started on this subject. Most of the info is in post #1.
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

 

HA HA. You stated so many wrong things, I might be here all day correcting them.. It's a good thing you weren't one of my students. You would have kept me really busy, like you're doing now

First of all, you are not a college educated person, are you ? Your ignorance is jumping off the computer screen. Lets start with your inability to even know what Geography is. You said > "You think people need geography teachers to know where Canada is?" So that's your idea of Geography ? LOL. Well for your edification knowing locations of countries is a part of Geography yes, but it's a part of history too. And Political Science too. Here is a definition of Geography for you just so you won't make the same blunder again.

Geography - The relationship between man and his environment, and its resources. Got that now ? Three generally accepted subdivisions of Geography exist : Physical, Cultural, and Economic.

Root of the English word "Geography" :

1. Geo (Greek) - Earth

2. graph (Latin) - description of

So Geography literally means description of the earth (but in modern Geography studies, we describe that earth in cultural, economic and physical terms).

As for the idea of 30 million being an optimum population for the USA (relative to its resource base), you can call it "strange" or any word you like, but that's the optimum population. Your guess of 1820 wasn't too far off. The US reached a population of 30 million in 1860, and one of my ancestors, my mother and her family would not have been able to immigrate here in 1929 as they did, although my grandfather (a highly skilled Danish carpenter) was never unemployed one day during the Great Depression)

You also said > "This does not mirror the vast natural resources of the USA"
FALSE ! Canada's natural resource base is relatively similar to the USA.

And I didn't say I didn't care about Americans. You made that absurd statement, not me. Of course I care about them, They are whom, I, as a protectionist, am protecting. And I am one of the aging people (65 years old), and I'm not rich, or anything close to that. as for the nursing home bit, I think I'm covered there by being a veteran, but I earned that.

Lastly, I'd say it's a good thing your reputation doesn't matter to you because, after your last post I'm not sure if you have one.

 

Nice personal abuse which explains a lot about the United States if you were one of it's educators. There you go again rambling on about the word geography, whose etymology you can't get right (my poor education told me immediately that it was all Greek and only passed through Latin, which a quick check confirmed).

The breadth of the subject geography is not disputed. The point is that your vague, unspecific and rambling waffle on the subject of geography is incomprehensible.

The branch of human geography that concerns population growth applies here. To ignore the demographics of developed countries which see aging populations emerge as a larger and larger proportion of the total population, renders anything said on the subject of immigration pretty worthless.

 

Whatever it is you're talking about (talk about incomprehensible - whew!), this is a simple deduction. If you have 14 million people UNEMPLOYED in your nation, you don't let millions of job-hungry foreigners in to compete against them. And when you have a huge debt and deficit, you don't let millions of welfare sucking foreigners in either. Get it ? Sheeeeeesh !!

This is more than reason enough - no need to even get into the resource and other reasons (I've already itemized them in a previous post anyway.)

 

Yeah I get it that you base your whole outlook on the situation now and find the concept of time moving and what happens as it does, somewhat difficult to grasp.

Are you really a teacher? You get to teach people and here you won't even grasp this simple point that I am making? Is this really over your head? You show your pupils that abuse is more appropriate than argument? This is really how you go about your business as an educator?

Still your language shows the prejudice and xenophobia that underlines your position.

Below is reason, rational argument and logic. Can you deal with it?

Your small population fantasy

To have a population of 30 million (your point) you would have had to have stopped immigration two hundred years ago. Do you get that? Can you run the math? Are you a native American or is it your ancestors who were job-hungry foreigners or welfare suckers?

Stopping Immigration Now

But even of we take the point that you want to stop immigration now you have to deal with the following arguments:

1. The USA currently has 40 million immigrants, far more than the unemployment level.

2. As medical care improves and the birthrate falls the average age of the population is growing.

3. In twenty years, assuming any sort of rate of development (even no growth which is extremely unlikely), you either will have (a) a labour shortage or (b) seniors working well into their seventies, unless you have immigration.

4. You can't just turn on and off immigration like a tap, emptying the bath when you want.

This is not just a question for the US, but for most advanced industrial countries.

Tell us clearly why you want to see 80 years old seniors still working in the USA. This is the question. Stop dodging it.

Protectionism

Of course protectionism is guaranteed to lead to economic depression and a shrinkage in the economy as America loses its exports, its financial industries are destroyed and its multinational companies are bankrupted.

In such an economy immigration will not be necessary. The economy will be shrinking. There will be no need to have any foreign labour.

But don't worry, in a situation where protectionism becomes the long term policy of the USA, banning the free flow of labour, capital, goods and services, the USA won't have a problem with immigration. You won't need laws. People will be lining up to leave.

 

Are you dense ? I already told you (twice, I think) that immigration should have stopped in 1860 (with a few exceptions). And that is 151 years ago, not 200. I also tole you my ancestors immigrated here from Denmark in 1929. So ???

And you want to talk about the future ? Sure let's do that. Today, the U.S. population has reached more than 306 million. The Pew Research Center reports that current immigration trends will push our population to 438 million by 2050. That’s 132 million additional people needing schools, jobs, and housing—as well as water and other natural resources. Take a moment to imagine what your neighborhood, your city, or your drive to work will be like with 40 percent more people and get ready for your housing prices.

Fortunately, unsustainable immigration is not a foregone conclusion. If we immediately reduce immigration to a replacement level, the U.S. population will reach 362 million by 2050, and stabilize soon thereafter. That’s 76 million fewer people than the Pew Research Center tells us to expect if current immigration policy persists.

In 1972, a two-year study by a joint presidential-congressional commission with representatives of major corporations, unions, environmental organizations, and urban, ethnic, and women’s groups recommended freezing immigration at its then-current level of about 400,000 a year as part of a national population policy. The commission concluded that it had “looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.”

Since then, annual legal immigration levels have risen to over one million persons annually today, and illegal immigration is adding an estimated 500,000 foreign residents annually. Baaad. Baaad.

 

Good to see we can keep this alive.

I think I proved my point of Imperialism. The economic and political meddling seems undeniable.

More or less.

My point here is that the consumer are increasingly an elite class, rather than the general populace.

I disagree. Hence why Iraq war took place, as well as support for tyrannical regimes. As I said its a failed system, but a system none the less. US hegemony has moved to economics, but this does not prevent it from military or political intervention where it sees fit.

And in saying this I think you agree with my premise in the OP.

No worries.

Fair enough.

The reaction of China in this hypothetical is beside the point of the US' imperialism. If China did so I would criticize to the same degree. Whether I think they really would, is another story and really irrelevant to our discussion.

I never heard about such political machinations. I do know Rudd went over to China for an extensive political visit, and I do know Australia is worried about geopolitical dominance - hence why they warm so keenly to the US' desire for the same hegemony. Kevin doesn't have the top job anymore, however, and with the current PM, Julia Gillard, we are destined for a sustained pro-US foreign policy (although it has never been significantly different).

 

Could you define what you personally mean by "good"?

No worries. It took me ages to get it up here, so its only fair you have as much time as required to respond.

 

By small I refer entirely to its literal size, but then some may argue its big.

I do not believe they pursued a different "style" rather adopted an entirely different agenda in many respects. The height of the Cold War saw the British stripped of most of their imperial assets. In an attempt to hold on to any power in this regions they supported other powers, particularly the US. Hence the CIA coup in Iran was inspired by British administration's continuous push as much as US self interest. The British simply could not sustain their empire, hence the dropped it, only retaining a shadow of the ventures they previously conducted. This is different to the US where the same goals exists, along with the same repertoire for violence, except the main battle ground is economic rather than military.

How have I shown that? I'm certainly willing to acknowledge the good - the thing is that isnt really relevant to my case, and has not been presented as a substantial argument to contest my position, and I would not think it could be hence I dont mention it. Just because a nation is imperialistic does not mean it cannot extend some good amongst the misery exports.

I believe they do - they have to justify it on ethical grounds - grounds that are universal, not relative.

That does not mean it counts for nothing or that it is wrong. I am not a moral relativist, and for good reason. Furthermore, I established a rather extensive definition at the beginning of this thread so its not 'my' measure - its 'the' measure.

That would be entirely meaningless. If something is right or wrong, it should be self evidently so, not established by a vote. I believe US foreign policy is self evidently imperialistic and self evidently wrong.

Sure, but I believe the greed in the US system specifically had established under Monroe Doctrine.

Which is imperialism - ie being control of other government to the strategic advantage of the controller to the degree they see fit.

Sure, but an imperial power is one that kills and violates the interests of others totally self interestedly as a policy. Any country can seek the best advantage - but only an imperial power seeks control through violence and immoral act such as the US.

You misunderstood me.

So oil in Iraq is "America's resources"?

You forget the part about bribery, extortion and theft.

I dont disagree with this.

You seem to be misreading me, or perhaps I have not spelled it out clear enough. The biggest arena of control if the economics of globalization - we just said that. However, being such a grossly overpowered nation, the US still has the capacity to military and politically intervene as well as economically play other nations. This is a capacity China DOES NOT have, and something they wont conceivably have for a very long time given the internal conditions that plague the country.

LOL Not at all. I'm one of the people who thinks 'globalization' isnt actually a new phenomenon. I thinks its being going on for millennia. The only thing is that the few centuries have experienced fast growth due to various factors and events. The last thirty years has only changed do to financial restructure headed by the US but resisted in various ways by many countries - including the US later on. The whole point of a dictatorship opposing complete globalization and thus hindering the possible prosperity of its subjects is a concentration of wealth - which is exactly what the US wants. In the case of Haiti - a society dominated by a well concentrated elite that incorporates oppressive political institutions, the wealthy and the army, the US has maximum economic gain. The same is with Egypt. Half the country is in poverty, the US has still given the regime billions to maintain its military status so as to keep its place as a US outpost.

Or an Arab Spring. Or an Aristide. Or an Arbenz. I've mentioned many.

Think again.

When I start using violence, theft, oppression and pillage as a means then you can call me all the things I have called the US. You seem unable to distinguish between the concept of coercion and persuasion; one is by force, the other be FREE CONSENT. I'm sure you know what free consent is?

 

Sorry, if I had known that I would have not wasted my time. What a pile of...!

 

As it chooses, but in line with the fact of considering others interests equally. I cna expand, if you want.

I guess, or rather as I aspire to.

Sure but they are thinking irrationally.

Easy.

I do not believe every thinks the same - but that is beside the point of how they SHOULD act. How they DO and SHOULD act are two very different things. When the Founding Fathers created the US constitution they aspired to the way people SHOULD act, even they many of those men themselves DID differently to this moral principle. But to answer your question, people SHOULD act morally in this way: they should consider the interests of other in the same way they consider the interests of themselves and act accordingly. Simple. There is no reason to say that one's interests are better or more important than those of another simply because they are their own.

Not at all. Another example of my position would be India's intervention in Pakistan.

That is irrelevant to whether they are acting morally or not - ie the subjectivity of the individual should be of no consequence - the way one acts, must be analyzed with some objective - ie non-personal principle, one that is self evidence and logical. There are very few in regards to humanitarian intervention, which is the examples you asked for.

Correct.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Australia is immoral. I have said this repeatedly. I never said they are excused because I am Aussie. I simply that this is IRRELEVANT. You see, the whole world, in fact EVERY INDIVIDUAL could be immoral, but this does not change what it is to be moral. So, when we analyze the US, we cannot make the most abhorrent excuse of saying US crimes are fine because they are committed by others, or that morality is mute because its true nature of debated. These are simply lazy reflexes designed to avoid such questions and such debate. But the reality is most US policy makers would see themselves as moral actors, even though they are wrong by their own standards - much like the Japanese in Manchuria, many of whom believed they really were saving the Manchurians and bring civilization to the region.

I do.

I do so.

Somebody else?

You can, you just haven't presented a convincing case. You seem to think free agreements include force and coercion through violence and unfree impositions.

Which I dispute, and as of now you have yet to validate.

LOL Regardless of my ethics which are ENTIRELY VALID, I am actually applying the US' own standard - ie the constitutional kind of free and friendly engagement. Furthermore, why should I consider my neighbor's ethics to the extent they are entirely wrong? If someone's ethics are bent, I will say so.

Why not? Again, are you a moral reletivist?

This is also beside the point of the US being an imperialistic hegemon. I defined what such a state is in the OP and later, so we have an objective criteria, one I think I have substantiated. If you want to discuss the ethics behind it or Australia under its application, I'd be happy to do so - BUT THEY ARE BESIDE THE POINT WHEN IT COMES TO THE US.

Economic data and happiness research. And I agree, the government in Australia is increasingly inept.

Depends what truth you want. If someone is happy, in their own opinion, and has a set amount of economic prosperity etc - all of which can be compared, then you can get some kind of scale. That is not subjective - that is reality.

How so?

What was that which I was taught that would establish my position? Do you not believe in any right and wrong? If so, why are you debating? Your post-modernist tangent is quite annoying.

Explain please.

Not at all, but they are irrelevant.

 

And thus maintain control.

Correct. Dictators and despots serve to carry out the imperialist ambitions of US policy makers by establishing local authority and order that caters to US supremacy, and thus imperialism.

That doesnt change much. Kennedy's administration was attempting to establish the US as humanitarian as it breached Geneva Accords in Vietnam and elsewhere in Indochina. Of course Johnson came back with a vengeance, particularly in Hispaniola, where the Dominican Republic was political invaded. Haiti was not a key objective at the time - political support was. Only later, when agribusiness expanded and was capable of getting support to take advantage of economic opportunities, ie exploit the nation's poverty, did Haiti was more extensively interfered with by the US, as I describe. You haven't shown anything you state. What are these "many other things?" A rebuttal cannot consist simply of 'oh what you have written proves my point'. You need to explain yourself. You didnt acknowledge latter policies, particularly under Reagan, or more currently. The fact Kennedy altered US support for Haitian oppressors in a break with most US policy, does not change the rather apparent US imperialism in the country.

 

Well no since, as I have shown, the US replaced such policies with imperialist hegemonic plans of its own.

LOL

Those people create that money - not the US government so this is a fail argument.

Actually such welfare is some of the lowest. As I say the jobs they work are those that most Americans wouldn't - they work harder and longer. This does not make them 'pillagers' - it makes them capitalists - they work for their families and their livelihoods. The only reason most of them are there to begin with is US trade relations anyway. If the US had a free market you'd have to compete with them anyway. But policies such as NAFTA purposely protect US industry from such competition, hence you get massive immigration to the border. You also fail to take into account the fact it will be US consumers who benefit from such work as lower wages means lower priced products - ie you are only counting one side of the economic equation.

Your proof is...?

If you earn that money - its yours. Whether its 25 billion or 500 trillion.

... wtf?

 

Sorry?

At the time it was secret and in violation of OAS treaties.

 

Political and economic meddling is undeniable. Proved imperialistic intent? No. All nations meddle economically and politically, but they do not necessarily control. Which we entirely agree on. The fact that the US has the power of hegemony, gives them far more influence than you like, does not mean you show control.

It would depend entirely on what you call elite class. However, Rule of corporation is to grow. This can not be achieved by catering to one area of the populace. Under your interpretation corporations must grow the elite class to continue to grow itself. Even on that basis it must still cater for the general populace to grow it’s basis of support.

If you contend that Iraq was simply for the oil, perhaps you did not see the ramifications of not cleaning up a previous mistake. First action on Iraq could be construed as being just for the oil, However, you will never know, as it was direct response to Iraq invading another country. How you judge that, is simply speculation.

Is it flawed? Yes the US can politically and\or militarily intervene, But you contend they wish to control

No, I do not agree with the OP, I agree with your perception of US foreign policy. I do entirely agree that the rhetoric of US foreign policy would be questionable. However, the major mistakes in their actions, in attempts to carry out that foreign policy, is far more condemning. BUT to see that a majority of their foreign policy would actually benefit attempts to bring human rights to the world and other objectives generally overlooked by critics.

Relevant only to they way the US has formed it’s foreign policy toward them. That very same foreign policy your are attempting to use to label the US.

It was in discussion ( I believe with Hillary Clinton) reported by US embassy. The rhetoric of Australian politics to all is they welcome China economically and politically. However, this shows the TRUE stance of the political scene in Australia toward China. As in your condemnation of the US, Australia is also not being truthful in rhetoric. It is irrelevant who is now in power to China, for the obvious reason stated above.

I will have to address more later, possibly in the next 20 hrs or so. I have to go now, work calls again, but I am very interested in this so please do not think I take you as frivolous. I will return.

 

I think the point of conflict on this point is what is "control". We need to define this first.

con·trol/kənˈtrōl/
Noun:
The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Verb:
Determine the behavior or supervise the running of.
www.thefreedictionary.com/control

In this sense, control equal imperialism, or imperialistic intent, as I am arguing. This, I do believe, is evident in US foreign policy. I can see it personally, in the sense of national displacement with the arrival of Obama and the introduction of a few thousand more troops, and extension of bases and missile systems in Australia's north directed at maintaining Asia-Pacific dominance.

Only to the extent it sustains the elite, yes.

No the first conflict was more about curbing the rogue character of a previous proxy. Reagan sought to give Saddam nukes. Having him turn into an independent brut, rather than a loyal one, was what motivated the US topple him, otherwise he was entirely supported. The last invasion was, to an extent about finishing the job, but had transformed into a broader resource based objective in securing and reaffirming geopolitical dominance.

Name these other objectives that would counter the "mistakes" which I would argue are deviant and purposeful acts.

LOL Since when did China invade a country or present any serious threat to regional political stability?

Sure, I just dont think Australian authorities want let alone think a military conflict is going to take place. They certainly lie about their motives, but I'm not disputing that.

Take you time.

 

Agenda does not change, the agenda is to grow. Even in a empire wealth is distributed down the populace, all be it extremely slowly. It really does not matter if you considered it as adopting or pursuing it is chalk and cheese.

much has changed over the years, and yes the militant style of both regimes has been a large participant to the foreign policy. However, you correctly point out that the US has moved to a more economic, or better put financial persuasion rather than control. As in the story of using aid to Haiti to gain the support of the regime rather than an attempt to control the regime.

Well the fact is that it is all relevant. It must all be taken into account as the foreign policy is also encompassing. If you pick through policies you can show many things. However, it is necessary to examine all the policy to then decide the one thing we are at odds at, Imperialistic intent. For example, would you consider Australia has tendency for violent political intervention in other nations to impose it’s own political agenda? I would suspect you consider that NO would be the answer, they would have the best intentions of supporting the population rather than militant regimes. Due entirely to the fact that Australia has joined the US in a few major conflicts in eagerness and also had a few military actions without the US. One would have to ask this, considering the rhetoric during such events. HOWEVER, does this represent the true nature of Australia? Not from my understanding. (again not something you need to defend, just an example).

universal to whom? Ethics, as in morals, is subjective to the holder. Your ethical stance does bias you when judging others ethics. Morals and ethics are relative to what you believe.

Sure it does not mean it accounts for anything or is right either. To the US it is right, as I say they do not have to justify this stance. They only need to justify how they achieve it. As to the measure, if it is not ‘your’ measure, then whose is it? When you are discussing morals and ethics, you are using either your own or others whose you agree with. To simply say that it is not your’s, is actually ignoring the fact that many other people actually feel morally correct to wipe the face of the earth of people like you or me. Would you agree they have different morals than you and I? should we just pretend they do not exist? Are we morally correct to pre-empt them and destroy them?

Is abortion self evident? Is population control self evident? So again you say “ you believe….wrong” but you tell me you are not imposing your own measure on them.

Not sure you read that one correctly let me see

So, now we come to the crux of the issue. You assume that they continue through simple violence. I contend not, they wish to use influence and persuasion. However, that is the contention of both parties, except one small point. US foreign policy supports Globalisation which is compromised by imperialistic intent. You would contend that Globalisation is good, and to many it is. For it affords small nations the advantage of growing from investment for whatever reason it is in demand.

So you do believe that Iraq was for the oil. Tell me, why would they want to go to war to gain control over something they already had control over?

No, I did not forget about them. This falls into business ethics which may differ directly from yours. Maybe you could let me know if you agreed for the sale of Australian Wheat to Iraq?

So what? The US is so large they play economic games, this is ethically wrong? If so perhaps you should look around the world. The fact is the US does not win as many economic wars as you would think. You say China has not got that ability, yet they own about 20% of the US economy. A debt if called in tomorrow could not be paid. You naively consider the only nation that play these economic games are the US? No, they simply have an advantage of being the largest at this time.

The basic principle has existed since the time one tribe decided to swap produce with another country. It is not a new concept at all. Never suggested it was. However, what has changed is the attitude of why should we produce our own when others can provide it cheaper. this movement has been growing since WW2 not only the last thirty years odd. Perhaps you do not realise, many countries came to the realisation in about the seventies or in Australia’s case in the eighties, they can no longer survive without globalisation. As China joins the global market, it is fast becoming apparent that they can not continue to maintain an empire and are preparing to restructure their current regime to something that will accommodate the current market. That restructure will produce what? That is the interesting thing. BUT I ask you, are we morally or ethically correct to demand they follow our systems?

So you would morally go to war with a despot, in the belief you are living in the best system. You would change one form of corruption and greed to another, because you are happy to live with it. As I said before, “Dammed if they do, dammed if they don’t”

 

This is the problem with the Australian population. They can not see very far into the future. You expect the US to implement a regime, that you and they should agree on. You can not see that even though you and I see that the regime implemented is a terrible one, does not change the fact that the people that are the ones you are imposing their regime, who decides?

Oh so you contend they control Egypt?

Naive

You forgot corruption and bribery. If that is your measure, then I do call you all those things and more.

That is my point, you proclaim control and coercion. I proclaim influence and persuasion. As in the Haiti by forcing an elected official to be re-instated to office, not to the like of the US government but to the wishes of the people. You simply stated, they may have changed their minds.

 

You do not do that, why should others? You consider your interests in consideration of the interest of the collective in you immediate region. Who are you to demand different from others?

So, you would impose your standards on the rest of the world, because you feel you are the best example of how others should live, IYO?

possibly, they are. You would impose your standards and measures on them, which may very well destroy them, should they just lay down and die?

So, let us all in on your secret.

So, we agree that the US should be judged on their actions and expected to be held accountable for their actions, not their rhetoric?

Whose morals are correct? Of coarse there is a reason to say ones interest is more important to another person or nation. If your interest is to survive, then that is more important than another to gain wealth(for example) each and every nation has a right to uphold it’s own interest regardless of moral and ethical standards which in many circumstances different from your own.

LOL, so in other words they should not have different morals than you? The morals and ethics of a nation is built from what is needed to survive. Due entirely to the fact that you have not faced the hardships of other nations to be where you are now, means you can not logically deduce what morals should be at play. As in my previous examples, abortion, population control and so on. Should one be allowed, in say China, to force families to have abortions because the system can not support the amount of population that is born? There it is immoral to have too many children. To analyse anything objectively, you must abandon your own morals and ethics and ignore other peoples moral and ethics, UNLESS that us exactly what you are analysing.

Oh, I see. You really do think this is about morals. So perhaps you should narrow down their moral standards you disagree with. The thing you do not see is that, if you are judging moral standards, then it is your moral standards that also must be examined. But I am a little confused now, first of all you criticized your first proponent for raising the moral issue, now you would contend that it is a very important part of the debate? Please clarify

Obviously, as you proclaim you are not using your own measure.

you seem to think buying support means that there is no free will. They do not have to sell it to them.

The last few posts validate this. I will explain.

I continue to suggest you leave morals and ethics out of the issue. You contend you where not using YOUR morals and ethics but others, THEN proclaim that Morals and ethics ARE the debate. However, you go to great lengths to explain you are measuring the US’s morals and ethics based only on their morals which you can not actually know. However, you are attempting to use another person’s and standard to justify your standards, one whom I would suggest you agree with their morals. SO as I point out you are subjecting their morals and ethics on your learnt morals and ethics of your own to create a logical fallacy of your own measurement and understanding.

Yes, your morals and ethics are entirely valid, never stated they where not. But you are not Appling the US to their own standards. You are basing their standards on YOUR understanding of their morals in correlation with your own.

BY The way, Who are you to say that your neighbours ethics are BENT? Simply because they do not agree with YOU?

Was self explanatory, you are not American and they are not Australian. If you wish to join the US then go for it.

Sorry, did not know you asked. No, I am not a moral relativist However, I do know that one does not think the same as me, and I am not almighty, so I do not know that I have the best standards and morals. I simply know it would be Amoral for me to attempt to impose MY morals onto others, regardless of right or wrong IMO.

Make up your bloody mind will you, first it is not relevant then it is the debate now it is beside the point.

So, you are following the leader up the garden path.

Just to get a rough idea, could you explain what you get from this article, don’t worry it is only small. http://www.smh.com.au/executive-sty...-wealthiest-20111101-1mt2r.html#ixzz1d43TfC9E

Already explained

YOUR morals and ethics

LOL, post-modernist tangent, LOL. Do you really understand that this entire subject is to black and white? Perhaps could you tell me is it right to steal to save a life? Stealing is immoral, but are you morally bound to save a life if that is in you ability? LOL post-modernist tangent/

As you go through life and experience things, you change your moral sensibility to agree with your own understanding of what has occurred. However, your moral base stays the same.

Irrelevant to what degree, that you can not disassociate yourself from your morals?

 

Tell me, If you buy the services of a mechanic, does that mean you control A, the mechanic and B, the workshop? You contend it does. but he also has the choice to say no. does not show control at all.

Long straw there with the old dictators and despots, you have not shown that at all. You have shown support and your examples of Haiti and Iraq show more to the problem of you imperialistic intent, that they where obviously not following your control criteria.

Did you read your own links? Again they simply expanded on what I posted, they showed nothing of what you proclaimed to be false.

First, it is you who attempted to discredit what I posted on Haiti, with your unsupported allegations that where wrong, secondly I ACKNOWLEDGED that your material simply expanded on what I posted. Third, I NOTED that what YOU posted did not show my original post as being incorrect.
SO YES THAT DOES PROVE MY POINT OF BEING RIGHT BY YOUR OMISSION OF PROOF OF YOU CLAIM.
ALSO I did state Kennedy’s altered support to Haiti. However, I did not name him as the President that did. AS for Reagan, I did not even reflect on him.

BUT remember it is of my LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH, you are the one who proclaimed as false.

Sorry, before making such allegations, you should read back to see what I posted and your response.

 

And you know it was secret how? perhaps I should clarify. I knew about it, others in my region knew about it. guess it was the worst held secret ever.

 

From dictionary.com...

Having a network of friends and allies who let us build military bases on their soil isn't quite the same thing. Being the sole producer of the world's reserve currency (with which our own debt is measured) also doesn't quite hack it. Our control over Puerto Rico and some random Pacific islands, however, just might.

 

We have broached this several times with total agreement by both parties. No less than 3 times. Now I find I am wasting more time going through another link to find not only the particular wording of this from your link but to ensure that the correct context is meant. The closest I find is

FROM YOUR LINK

Could you please indicate, exactly where Your quote is within your link, as I can not find it. You will note that the quote I made us totally different from the words you proclaim.

IF you can not I will immediately end any debate on the issue, as this would be redefining the dictionary to suite your own debate. IMO IF this is the case, then I believe all credibility would be destroyed beyond repair, making the debate totally irrelevant.

I await your response before we can proceed.

 

To a certain degree, yes sure. They usually prefer other countries do it for them to their benefit, like Indonesia in Timor.

Oh I see your point. No most Americans would not agree, if the knew the full extent of it, with the policies of their government. Most wouldnt, for example, know anything about the history of US foreign policy and Haiti. Most Americans, I wouldnt think, have very noble intentions, as do many policy makers, fact is that the state's inevitable programs are dominated by imperialistic policy.

No, they are not.

Reality's measures - logic's.

No I am using simple logic.

They have morals, but they are not correct. There is such a thing as correct, true, or logical morality however you describe it - a morality that renders the others incorrect and, often, immoral.

If you want to think like that, yes.

That's right I'm imposing logic.

It is the fact that when it does not benefit them(US) the US will act to control or change the state, by force or coercion, to obtain such benefits. This is control.

I would argue the US is rather opposed to globalization. It, for example, opposed free markets in many ways, not to mention international legal bodies that check criminal activities, such as the ICC.

They believed they could obtain greater regional control and long term hegemony.