Nothing wrong as such, but the term carries too much “baggage”. Even though it may be very descriptive, it kinda carries the same sort of implications as “running dog” or “imperialist”. There are indeed elements of our most recent strategic policy that are blatantly “imperialistic” but I would hesitate to use the term in discussion because it raises red flags in the listener, and thereby impedes my purposes in subverting all that is good and decent in America.
I’m sure you understand, comrade. Please burn this post after reading, and see you at the next Comintern meeting.
The greatest sin in a social science is reducing a complex issue down to a simple explanation. However, there is one generalization that is relatively accepted: Great prosperity makes great civilizations grow complacent, corrupt or both. I’m not saying the sky is falling, but the post WWII United States, and the current President in particular, is walking a very fine line indeed.
I love my country and I’m all for the good things it stands for and does. I just won’t close my eyes to dirty deeds that get chalked up as the “cost of doing business.” I criticize because I care.
So all we need to do is depose those bastards that we installed, starting with Saddam Hussein, and then the people will love us again? That seems pretty easy. So can I count on your support for a war in Iraq?
Certainly, although not as an exercise in unilateral US jingoism but as a sanctioned UN response. While you’re taking votes, mark me down for an internationalized Jerusalem and a free Tibet.
I see the rhetorical question is still a touch advanced for you. :rolleyes:
I don’t think murder can ever be justified, and in this case it is also doing little to forward their cause. In fact I think the Islamists would be having better success in their uprising if they were utilizing non-violent protest instead of guerrilla warfare and terrorism. It worked for Gandhi.
