Pic of the Week

[Groce]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/irak.jpg



"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." John Kerry

I guess some of us just get stuck in Korea.

[Finella]

And this belongs in the Anglican/Old Catholic forum because.....?

[DeoJuvante]

And this belongs in the Anglican/Old Catholic forum because.....?
Didn't you realise that points-scoring in US politics is a matter of deep and profound interest to all Anglicans?

[Groce]

And this belongs in the Anglican/Old Catholic forum because.....?

For the same reason all the other non anglican threads that are.

I didn't see you complain about the hobbit movie thread, it must be that when its something you dont like you feel free to try to put it down for no reason.

[Groce]

Didn't you realise that points-scoring in US politics is a matter of deep and profound interest to all Anglicans?

Im glad Im scoring points for the independents because I don't like either party.

[higgs2]

Where is the hobbit movie thread? I love hobbits!

[DeoJuvante]

Im glad Im scoring points for the independents because I don't like either party.
Not being American, the only American policies that interest me are foreign policies. And they're always imperialist. So you'll forgive me if I am not exactly enthusiastic about US politics.

[Groce]

Not being American, the only American policies that interest me are foreign policies. And they're always imperialist. So you'll forgive me if I am not exactly enthusiastic about US politics.

Always imperialist? Ha ha ha. Empires take territory, almost ever territory we have taken we have given back. Now if you would have said that me we get into other business then that would have made more since.

[Groce]

Where is the hobbit movie thread? I love hobbits!

http://www.christianforums.com/t4021326-hobbittsess.html

[DeoJuvante]

...Empires take territory...

Interesting theory.

[No Swansong]

Not every thread on the Anglican/Old Catholic forum must be of a Theological or Scriptural nature. We have had plenty of threads that deal with Harry Potter, favorite fiction etc. There is no requirement for anyone to participate.

[longhair75]

Friend jtbdad,
Not every thread on the Anglican/Old Catholic forum must be of a Theological or Scriptural nature. We have had plenty of threads that deal with Harry Potter, favorite fiction etc. There is no requirement for anyone to participate.
Very true. Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters over in OBOB have a very lively forum with many interesting topics. We seem to forget that we can just engage in friendly discussion here.

[Simon_Templar]

Not being American, the only American policies that interest me are foreign policies. And they're always imperialist. So you'll forgive me if I am not exactly enthusiastic about US politics.
you apparently have no idea what imperialist means

[Finella]

Not every thread on the Anglican/Old Catholic forum must be of a Theological or Scriptural nature. We have had plenty of threads that deal with Harry Potter, favorite fiction etc. There is no requirement for anyone to participate.
Noted and acknowledged.

I did ask, however, because it was a singularly political topic. Hobbits and books and food can be non-political and friendly. This OP seemed to be asking for a less-friendly discussion on the topic. Already we have sniping in this thread. I don't mind discussing the issue here, I would just hope for a more civil broaching of the subject. Additionally, what was the point of the OP? Or was it just an opinion piece?

[Groce]

what was the point of the OP? Or was it just an opinion piece?

That it was the best pic this week, and rather funny no matter what party you are in. He said that we were uneducated, the soldiers made a joke out of it. Its not political, I didn't say I didn't like Kerry (even though I don't) nor did I say I like Bush (but I'm not supposed to say that) and he is not my favorite person just the lesser of two evils.

[Finella]

That it was the best pic this week, and rather funny no matter what party you are in. He said that we were uneducated, the soldiers made a joke out of it. Its not political, I didn't say I didn't like Kerry (even though I don't) nor did I say I like Bush (but I'm not supposed to say that) and he is not my favorite person just the lesser of two evils.
The words may have come out of Kerry's mouth saying that people serving in Iraq were uneducated, but of course everyone knows that's not what he meant. So that's why I don't find the picture particularly funny, even if I agree that he sure did put his foot in his mouth. It seems to me the people who are still going on about this whole Kerry thing are making it a political statement as well. (I'm sure you're not voting for Kerry in this election, right? ;) )

But hey, I'll start digging up my favorite political pictures of the week as the election happens next week and post them here.

[Aymn27]

Not being American, the only American policies that interest me are foreign policies. And they're always imperialist. So you'll forgive me if I am not exactly enthusiastic about US politics.
I'd have to say that is buying into anti-capitalist propaganda. We have occupied/freed many countries in the past - we do not keep them as part of our "empire" - Japan, France, Germany to name a few....

I'm not saying you have to like our foreign policies - or our government at all for that matter - but I do have to take issue with the charge of imperialism.

BTW since groce is a soldier - I think it is perfectly acceptable to have that on this forum.

[Simon_Templar]

The words may have come out of Kerry's mouth saying that people serving in Iraq were uneducated, but of course everyone knows that's not what he meant. So that's why I don't find the picture particularly funny, even if I agree that he sure did put his foot in his mouth. It seems to me the people who are still going on about this whole Kerry thing are making it a political statement as well. (I'm sure you're not voting for Kerry in this election, right? ;) )

But hey, I'll start digging up my favorite political pictures of the week as the election happens next week and post them here.
The thing about all this that really annoys me is the self-righteous BS. The republicans are playing it up for political gain... OF COURSE they are. Everyone in the country knew they would as soon as this happened. Every time the situation has been reversed and a republican said something stupid and unintentional democrats have done exactly the same thing.

Considering who the president is, democrats have made a career for the last 8 years of focusing on his foot in mouth moments.

for that matter how many times have we seen liberal groups up in arms over some stupid slip of the tongue that supposedly offended them.

Yet republicans and soldiers are SO COMPLETELY out of line when they run with John Kerry's blundered comments and make fun of him.

you know what the difference is here between the soldier's response and the typical liberal response?

The soldiers made a joke back, poking fun at Kerry.
If Kerry had the misfortune to absent mindedly offend a liberal group, they'd be marching in the streets calling for his head on a platter.

So, are some of the republicans trying to hold his toes to the fire, as it were, and maybe being a little over the top with the whole thing... yea, so what. Its what every political group in the country does in the same situration

[higgs2]

wow, tempers sure flare when politics come up.

[Simon_Templar]

wow, tempers sure flare when politics come up.
I'm not mad at anyone in here, I'm just so sick of all the non-sense that I can hardly stand it.

Its not enough that 95% of what comes out of a politician's mouth is lies, and probably not even his own thoughts, On top of that they have the discourtesy to insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that they are idealist moralists who are above reproach and a shining example in everything they do.

I can tolerate that all they do is constantly bicker like children, and figure out new ways to screw up the country so that they can look like they are 'getting things done', I can tolerate that they never do what they say, and frequently do what they say they won't

It begins to stretch the limits of my credulity to the breaking point when they do all that and then expect that we should take the completely seriously at every turn and believe that they are above scheming petty politics and such things.

The only question I have is, are they really so completely deluded as to think that of themselves... and thus they expect me to believe it as well..
OR
Do they just think the rest of us are mentally handicapped.

I'm pretty sure its the latter as this also explains why they seem to think we need them to run our lives for us.

[DeoJuvante]

you apparently have no idea what imperialist means

Bzzt, wrong. I'm not in the habit of throwing around terms that I don't understand.

imperialism, n., 'The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.', (my emphasis, American Heritage Dictionary).

US foreign policy is imperialist because it has as strong tendency to use whatevever means are available to it to interfere with governments that oppose US political and economic interests. In many instances this has meant replacing a stable and elected government with a outright dictatorship. Actions such as invading countries, placing trading embargoes and restricting movement to and from foreign countries have a strong flavour of imperialism, especially when much of the rest of the world is opposed to such actions.

I'd have to say that is buying into anti-capitalist propaganda. We have occupied/freed many countries in the past - we do not keep them as part of our "empire" - Japan, France, Germany to name a few....


This has nothing to do with capitalism, it's about the United States. Firstly, US imperial policy had not begun until after World War II. For some time before World War II, US policy was isolationist. Secondly, the USSR freed Germany, not the USA. Fourthly, to say that the US has not kept other countries as part of its empire is to take a rather narrow view of hegemony or to fail to distinguish empire for imperialism.

Imperialism is a foreign policy objective that pertains to the extension of one state's authority over other sovereign states. This is different from empire, which is one possible result of imperialism but is not generally the intended or historical outcome of imperial policy. But even empires do not necessarily control other states directly - the Roman Empire, for instance, left most details of government to locals within the subject states and, in the later years of the British Empire, the British government did the same. Imperalism, however, is broader than that and refers to any attempt to extend the hegemony of the imperialist state outside national borders (so the United States wanting to control the Confederate States was not remotely imperaliast because they were political divisions of a single nation but the US wanting to control Canada or Mexico would be imperialist because they are different nations).

[DeoJuvante]

...
you know what the difference is here between the soldier's response and the typical liberal response?

The soldiers made a joke back, poking fun at Kerry.
If Kerry had the misfortune to absent mindedly offend a liberal group, they'd be marching in the streets calling for his head on a platter.
...

No, you're a little confused. Soldiers march, not liberals. ;)

[higgs2]

I'm not mad at anyone in here, I'm just so sick of all the BS that I can hardly stand it.

Its not enough that 95% of what comes out of a politician's mouth is lies, and probably not even his own thoughts, On top of that they have the discourtesy to insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that they are idealist moralists who are above reproach and a shining example in everything they do.

I can tolerate that all they do is constantly bicker like children, and figure out new ways to screw up the country so that they can look like they are 'getting things done', I can tolerate that they never do what they say, and frequently do what they say they won't

It begins to stretch the limits of my credulity to the breaking point when they do all that and then expect that we should take the completely seriously at every turn and believe that they are above scheming petty politics and such things.

The only question I have is, are they really so completely deluded as to think that of themselves... and thus they expect me to believe it as well..
OR
Do they just think the rest of us are mentally handicapped.

I'm pretty sure its the latter as this also explains why they seem to think we need them to run our lives for us.

I must admit I will be glad when Tuesday is over. :sigh: Although, I don't know, maybe I'll be lonely with out nightly phone calls from complete strangers at call centers all over the US (except for in my state) to tell me to vote for the <fill in the party, they both do it>s :mad:

[DeoJuvante]

I must admit I will be glad when Tuesday is over. :sigh: Although, I don't know, maybe I'll be lonely with out nightly phone calls from complete strangers at call centers all over the US (except for in my state) to tell me to vote for the <fill in the party, they both do it>s :mad:
Political parties ring you up?

[higgs2]

Political parties ring you up?

LOL! yeah.

I just had a brochure dropped of at my door 2 minutes ago, too.

@@ <me rolling my eyes>

[Groce]

the USSR freed Germany, not the USA.


bzzt wrong. The USSR freed noone. They might have beaten the germans and taken parts germany, but you can't say anyone who lived under Stalin was free. And second the US did free parts of Germany, along with all or parts of France, Belgium, Italy, the Philippines, Korea, Afghanistan, ect ect.

[Groce]

(I'm sure you're not voting for Kerry in this election, right? ;) )

Is he even up for re-election? I don't live in Mass. and if I did, I don't think I would vote for him, but I really didn't want to vote for Bush last time, but I did only because he was better than Kerry.

[No Swansong]

The words may have come out of Kerry's mouth saying that people serving in Iraq were uneducated, but of course everyone knows that's not what he meant. So that's why I don't find the picture particularly funny, even if I agree that he sure did put his foot in his mouth. It seems to me the people who are still going on about this whole Kerry thing are making it a political statement as well. (I'm sure you're not voting for Kerry in this election, right? ;) )

But hey, I'll start digging up my favorite political pictures of the week as the election happens next week and post them here.



Actually Finella I tend to believe that John Kerry said exactly what he meant. I believe it was a calculated choice of words and that they were reviewed by policy makers, speech makers etc. John Kerry had the opportunity to take a shot at both Bush and the military. His two favorite targets.

[DeoJuvante]

the USSR freed Germany, not the USA.


bzzt wrong. The USSR freed noone. They might have beaten the germans and taken parts germany, but you can't say anyone who lived under Stalin was free. And second the US did free parts of Germany, along with all or parts of France, Belgium, Italy, the Philippines, Korea, Afghanistan, ect ect.
The USSR removed Hitler. The USA removed Hussein and claim that they have thus freed Iraq. By the same logic, the USSR freed Germany. With respect to the other countries, I would agree that the USA invaded all of those countries but not that they freed them.

[No Swansong]

So these countries are still occupied by Germany? I would never argue that the U.S. did it alone but it is unlikely that much could have been done by the USSR without the U.S. involvement. The Allies did indeed free countries contrary to your contention.

[DeoJuvante]

So these countries are still occupied by Germany? I would never argue that the U.S. did it alone but it is unlikely that much could have been done by the USSR without the U.S. involvement. The Allies did indeed free countries contrary to your contention.
I was actually thinking about Korea and Afghanistan. Yes, the Allies freed a great many countries in World War II. The USA could not have achieved much alone and neither could the USSR. When I was speaking of US imperialism, I tried to make it clear that I was speaking of post-World War II imperialism but certain individuals keep bringing up World War II (possibly because they contributed to the Allied victory), even though it is not relevant to my claim that US foreign policy since then has been imperialist.

I am really not aggrandising the USSR. I have no illusions that it would have been fun to live in East Germany, et cetera. I do, however, think it is hypocritical to suggest that the USSR went about expanding while the USA goes about freeing people. They have both done some very dodgy things. For example, Groce suggested the the US freed part of Korea. I would suggest that the USSR and the USA used Korea as a means to have a war without having a war so to speak and that ordinary Koreans were thus the victims of a ridiculous conflict between the USSR and the USA - both have to take the blame; there is no credit to be given for actions in the Korean War.

[higgs2]

Actually Finella I tend to believe that John Kerry said exactly what he meant. I believe it was a calculated choice of words and that they were reviewed by policy makers, speech makers etc. John Kerry had the opportunity to take a shot at both Bush and the military. His two favorite targets.

And commit political suicide? He got nothing from that comment, and it damaged him and his party. I seriously doubt he's so stupid, and against the troops (?!) that he would make that insinuation on purpose.

[Simon_Templar]

Bzzt, wrong. I'm not in the habit of throwing around terms that I don't understand.

imperialism, n., 'The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.', (my emphasis, American Heritage Dictionary).

US foreign policy is imperialist because it has as strong tendency to use whatevever means are available to it to interfere with governments that oppose US political and economic interests. In many instances this has meant replacing a stable and elected government with a outright dictatorship. Actions such as invading countries, placing trading embargoes and restricting movement to and from foreign countries have a strong flavour of imperialism, especially when much of the rest of the world is opposed to such actions.



This has nothing to do with capitalism, it's about the United States. Firstly, US imperial policy had not begun until after World War II. For some time before World War II, US policy was isolationist. Secondly, the USSR freed Germany, not the USA. Fourthly, to say that the US has not kept other countries as part of its empire is to take a rather narrow view of hegemony or to fail to distinguish empire for imperialism.

Imperialism is a foreign policy objective that pertains to the extension of one state's authority over other sovereign states. This is different from empire, which is one possible result of imperialism but is not generally the intended or historical outcome of imperial policy. But even empires do not necessarily control other states directly - the Roman Empire, for instance, left most details of government to locals within the subject states and, in the later years of the British Empire, the British government did the same. Imperalism, however, is broader than that and refers to any attempt to extend the hegemony of the imperialist state outside national borders (so the United States wanting to control the Confederate States was not remotely imperaliast because they were political divisions of a single nation but the US wanting to control Canada or Mexico would be imperialist because they are different nations).
Actually post WWII policy is a perfect example of this issue. Look at Soviet policy (which was imperialist) and then look at US policy, which was pretty much the opposite.

The Soviet policy was to maintain direct control (ie hegemony) through puppet governments and satalite states. The US rebuilt both its allies and its enemies, making no demands upon either other than what was agreed upon by all in treaty negotiations. The US turned its enemies into allies, not by turning them into puppets, or establishing hegemony over them, but by rebuilding them economicly, and extending them social aid, and freedom.

The real ironic thing in all this is that on more than one occasion the US has acted foolishly, and against its own interests (and sadly those of the place we interfered) by forcing governments, not to cow tow to our economic demands, or military demands, but instead to allow the 'opposing' view points a place in their governments. We've admitedly screwed over a couple of countries by trying to force them to be democratic by incorperating communist and other revolutionary elements into their governments. This happened a few times in the post vietnam era.

In any of these instances can you point out even a single country that the US has maintained control of, either politically or economicly?

what your actually griping about it interventionism, not imperialism. We do stick our nose in other people's business, but not to bend them to the benefit of our nation. We intervene to topple dictators, (wether real or percieved) we intervene to stop genocide, to feed people and we intervene to stop the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (again real or percieved). We intervene on occasion to assist allies.

In the last two administrations, (Clinton and George senior) many of our interventions were in the cause of globalism, not under the auspices of the US but rather the UN.

The only thing that the US does which comes close to imperialism is that we insist on helping people even when they don't want our help. (as in the case of Somalia)

Whe we do want to control a country, as in influence their policy, the way we do it is not with troops, and tanks.. but large amounts of money. The US rather than taking countries over, buys concessions. Were it not for the billions upon billions of dollars that we pour into the muslim nations such as Egypt, the middle east would have been consumed by chaos and probably WWIII long ago.

The thing that I find ironic about all this is that if the US really wanted to be Imperialist, we could be.

I wish that all the people in the world who complain about the US being imperialist could have a "its a wonderful life" type of experience in which they had a chance to see a world where the US really was imperialist.

My personal opinion, just for the record is that the US should not be so interventionist. We should stop sticking our nose in, especially where its not wanted.

My foreign policy would be quite simply, quit meddling, if someone attacks us or our allies, smite them mightily until they regret the day they thought to attack us, and beg for mercy. Then go home.

The US needs to learn, or remember actually, that democracy does not make people better, or free. Christ makes people better and free. If we want to export freedom, start exporting Christ, not democracy.

[Simon_Templar]

I was actually thinking about Korea and Afghanistan. Yes, the Allies freed a great many countries in World War II. The USA could not have achieved much alone and neither could the USSR. When I was speaking of US imperialism, I tried to make it clear that I was speaking of post-World War II imperialism but certain individuals keep bringing up World War II (possibly because they contributed to the Allied victory), even though it is not relevant to my claim that US foreign policy since then has been imperialist.

I am really not aggrandising the USSR. I have no illusions that it would have been fun to live in East Germany, et cetera. I do, however, think it is hypocritical to suggest that the USSR went about expanding while the USA goes about freeing people. They have both done some very dodgy things. For example, Groce suggested the the US freed part of Korea. I would suggest that the USSR and the USA used Korea as a means to have a war without having a war so to speak and that ordinary Koreans were thus the victims of a ridiculous conflict between the USSR and the USA - both have to take the blame; there is no credit to be given for actions in the Korean War.
thats lovely, lump the US in with Stalin. If you can't see a clear difference between the actions of the US and those of Stalin lead Russia, then there is little point in further conversation.

But for the record.

The Korean war began as a civil war between the North and South, an artificial division created after WWII because the Soviets refused to give up control of the north and the US refused to give them control of the south.

Again the difference is pretty clear considering the soviets installed a communist dictator and the US, well we called in the UN to establish and supervise free elections. Obviously the actions of imperialist swine.

anyway, both the north and south were intent on taking the entire peninsula. After about a year or so of small time fighting, the North (good ole Kim Il Sung) went to moscow and got approval for a russian and chinese backed full scale invasion.

The invasion of the south came as a complete surprise to the west. The US's initial reaction was to send supplies, but denied direct intervention via air strikes.

The UN, not the US, ordered the invaders to withdraw and called for all UN nations to send support for the South Koreans.
The US had no troop presense in Korea before the invasion, and had made statements to the effect that South Korea was not considered to be part of the US's defense perimiter etc.

So how exactly is it that we are included in some how using Korea as a test ground to fight the Soviets? by virtue of the fact that we didn't just let the south get over run and slaughtered.

[DeoJuvante]

SimonTemplar,

Firstly, imperialism does not require tanks. Vast amounts of money are just as effective a means of establishing hegemony (in this case economic hegemony) over other nations. So you have given one example of imperialist US policy.

Secondly, during the Cold War, a UN sanctioned action could hardly be said to be neutral. The USSR saw the UN as a vehicle for the USA to pursue its objectives and, consequently, the socialist states had little to do with it. This, in effect, made the UN anti-socialist since only the capitalist states took it seriously.

Thirdly, it seems like the distinction you are making between the actions of the USA and of the USSR is that American actions create 'good' governments ('democratic' governments) and that Soviet actions create 'bad' governments with 'bad' governments ('socialist dictatorships'). I would suggest that this categorisation is a reflection of American values... how are they any more valid than Soviet values? If the Soviets argue that Soviet-style are 'good' and American-style governments are 'bad', how can we decide who is right? I contest that for any government (Soviet, American or otherwise) to impose their set of values on other nations is imperialist, as it is an attempt to extend social hegemony over those nations. You yourself have admitted that the US government has intervened when the people did not want them to, so clearly they are not acting in accordance with the values of the people who actually belong to the nations they interfere with. So, yes, I am comparing the USA and the USSR. I think they are equally bad imperialists, given their relative situations.

And finally, are you actually suggesting that the USA should convert the world? :eek: I am horrified!!!

[Simon_Templar]

SimonTemplar,

Firstly, imperialism does not require tanks. Vast amounts of money are just as effective a means of establishing hegemony (in this case economic hegemony) over other nations. So you have given one example of imperialist US policy.

Secondly, during the Cold War, a UN sanctioned action could hardly be said to be neutral. The USSR saw the UN as a vehicle for the USA to pursue its objectives and, consequently, the socialist states had little to do with it. This, in effect, made the UN anti-socialist since only the capitalist states took it seriously.

Thirdly, it seems like the distinction you are making between the actions of the USA and of the USSR is that American actions create 'good' governments ('democratic' governments) and that Soviet actions create 'bad' governments with 'bad' governments ('socialist dictatorships'). I would suggest that this categorisation is a reflection of American values... how are they any more valid than Soviet values? If the Soviets argue that Soviet-style are 'good' and American-style governments are 'bad', how can we decide who is right? I contest that for any government (Soviet, American or otherwise) to impose their set of values on other nations is imperialist, as it is an attempt to extend social hegemony over those nations. You yourself have admitted that the US government has intervened when the people did not want them to, so clearly they are not acting in accordance with the values of the people who actually belong to the nations they interfere with. So, yes, I am comparing the USA and the USSR. I think they are equally bad imperialists, given their relative situations.

And finally, are you actually suggesting that the USA should convert the world? :eek: I am horrified!!!
I'm not surprised.

You're absolutely right, the USSR produced bad governments. The issue was not that they were socialist governments, but rather that they were brutal oppressive governments.
Communist governments in the last 75 years have put to death more people than probably any other government and/or ideology. Probably more than all of the rest combined.

Stalin alone accounted for 5 times as much domestic murder as the Nazi's. Then you can add to that the grand totals produced by Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest of the gang, and you expect people to just accept that they are on a morally neutral plane with the US and our actions?

I can't even respond to that kind of lunacy because anything I could say that would be acceptable on this board would utterly fall short of describing the reality of the situation, and anything which would accurately describe the situation would not be within the rules of ettiquette.

When I said that the US buys concessions, this does not equal imperialism. Only a skewed view point could conclude that from my previous statement (see above comment).
When we pay Egypt and other Arab countries not to start wars, we are not controling their economy, or exercising hegemony over them in any meaningful sense. Further we aren't doing this simply for our own benefit. Or only in so much as everyone benefits from not having a cataclysmic war in the middle east.

As for the UN during the cold war. Several of the top administrative offices over seeing military actions including BOTH KOREA AND VIETNAM were held by Russians.
Further the Soviets have the same veto Power as the US. The reason they didn't use it in the case of Korea was because they boycotted the security council in protest of the newly formed communist chinese government not being admitted.
If the Soviets felt the UN opposed them, perhaps its because they were pursuing an active policy of expansion, and virtually everywhere their influence went it produced civil wars, bloody purges, and what we today would call 'ethnic cleansing'.

And finally, I'm sure you are horrified :)

My comments on exporting Christ were not intended to advocate that the US forcibly convert people to Christianity. I was reflecting on the fact that the neo-con movement in the US today believes that democracy makes people better, and makes people free. The fact is it doesn't. Democracy is not inherently more or less moral, or shockingly any more or less free than any other form of government. (with the exception of socialism/communism which has at its core a philosophy which is inherently anti-freedom)
Those things, goodness, and freedom, are entirely dependant on the beliefs of the people, not the form of government. Further, they have only ever come from Christ and the only ever will.
The US, under the neo-con control has undertaken a foreign policy based on trying to make the world better through exporting democracy. I was reflecting on the fact that this, while noblely intended, is futile and foolish.
In the past, the US and England did make the world a better place, not through governmental foreign policy but through the fact that our societies sent out large numbers of missionaries.

I will not be surprised to find out that you think the missionaries were evil imperialists too, and just another facet of the USA's efforts to gain hegemony.

[No Swansong]

I was actually thinking about Korea and Afghanistan. Yes, the Allies freed a great many countries in World War II. The USA could not have achieved much alone and neither could the USSR. When I was speaking of US imperialism, I tried to make it clear that I was speaking of post-World War II imperialism but certain individuals keep bringing up World War II (possibly because they contributed to the Allied victory), even though it is not relevant to my claim that US foreign policy since then has been imperialist.

I am really not aggrandising the USSR. I have no illusions that it would have been fun to live in East Germany, et cetera. I do, however, think it is hypocritical to suggest that the USSR went about expanding while the USA goes about freeing people. They have both done some very dodgy things. For example, Groce suggested the the US freed part of Korea. I would suggest that the USSR and the USA used Korea as a means to have a war without having a war so to speak and that ordinary Koreans were thus the victims of a ridiculous conflict between the USSR and the USA - both have to take the blame; there is no credit to be given for actions in the Korean War.


What do you know about how the U.S. got involved in Korea? I await your answer before responding.

[Groce]

For example, Groce suggested the the US freed part of Korea. I would suggest that the USSR and the USA used Korea as a means to have a war without having a war so to speak and that ordinary Koreans were thus the victims of a ridiculous conflict between the USSR and the USA - both have to take the blame; there is no credit to be given for actions in the Korean War.


I can assure you that Koreans who can remember the war think we helped them save their country. How can I know you ask, because they have told me. And you can't say we occupy Korea, we only have about 34,000 troops over here.

If the Korean War was a testing site like you say it was, then why did the US not have its best equipment over in Japan before the war started. Why did we fly WWII era prop planes and obsolete jets at the for much of the war. Second what was their to test, in 1950 the US did have hardly any new equipment or strategies to test, just left overs from WWII.

[Finella]

Actually Finella I tend to believe that John Kerry said exactly what he meant. I believe it was a calculated choice of words and that they were reviewed by policy makers, speech makers etc. John Kerry had the opportunity to take a shot at both Bush and the military. His two favorite targets.
Actually, no. There is no evidence that Kerry intended to insult the troops' education or intelligence. There is evidence that he was intending to poke fun at Bush's intelligence, however: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012

I don't have time to dig up the whole video of the speech so you can verify the context of the comment yourself, but I will later if you need me to. And of course his remarks had been reviewed before he spoke them, but then he has to deliver them right. We all know Bush can't manage to do very well delivering his highly-reviewed remarks very well half the time. The one time Kerry makes a gaffe, all of a sudden he's demonizing the troops.

I have friends who have a page-a-day calendar of "Bushisms" -- it's incredible what's come out of that man's mouth, and he gets away with it 90% of the time.

[No Swansong]

Actually, no. There is no evidence that Kerry intended to insult the troops' education or intelligence. There is evidence that he was intending to poke fun at Bush's intelligence, however: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012

I don't have time to dig up the whole video of the speech so you can verify the context of the comment yourself, but I will later if you need me to. And of course his remarks had been reviewed before he spoke them, but then he has to deliver them right. We all know Bush can't manage to do very well delivering his highly-reviewed remarks very well half the time. The one time Kerry makes a gaffe, all of a sudden he's demonizing the troops.

I have friends who have a page-a-day calendar of "Bushisms" -- it's incredible what's come out of that man's mouth, and he gets away with it 90% of the time.



I have heard the comment in context and I still believe there is no doubt that it was a calculated shot at both Bush and the Military. And just out of curiosity what does this have to do with President Bush"s ability or inability to commuinicate? Karry has full responsibility for this quote. I don't think it is unreasilitic to accept that not only was the speech written for him, and approved by his Chief of Staff it most certainly was also approved by Kerry himself. If others chose to believe it was misunderstood then so be it, but I believe that to be a naive position.

[Simon_Templar]

Actually, no. There is no evidence that Kerry intended to insult the troops' education or intelligence. There is evidence that he was intending to poke fun at Bush's intelligence, however: http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012

I don't have time to dig up the whole video of the speech so you can verify the context of the comment yourself, but I will later if you need me to. And of course his remarks had been reviewed before he spoke them, but then he has to deliver them right. We all know Bush can't manage to do very well delivering his highly-reviewed remarks very well half the time. The one time Kerry makes a gaffe, all of a sudden he's demonizing the troops.

I have friends who have a page-a-day calendar of "Bushisms" -- it's incredible what's come out of that man's mouth, and he gets away with it 90% of the time.
I personally don't believe that Kerry intended to insult the troops, I believe he did intend to insult the president.

I think there are two things in this that democrats are missing.

No matter what Kerry INTENDED to say.. he said what he said. Over and over I've seen democrat pundits and apologists go off about how in context thats not what he said etc etc.. well yes.. it is. He may not have intended to say that.. but he did say it. In context there is nothing in his quote which would indicate that it was meant to be directed at the president or that it was not directed at the soldiers.
Maybe he didn't intend to say that.. but he did say it.

Secondly... I love the irony of the fact that Kerry was trying to play off the perception that Bush is stupid, a perception created in large part by the democrats focusing and harping on the numerous misstatements and foot in mouth moments Bush has had over the last 8 years. In the process of trying to play off this perception with a joke insulting the intelligence of the president, the man so badly botches the joke that he manages to insult the entire military, and the sensibilities of most of the country, while not actually making any remarks which reflected on his intended target.

then, as if that weren't enough poetic justice, Kerry goes on to throw a temper tantrum over people treating him the exact same way that he was attempting to treat the president.

*shakes head* who's the stupid one again?