I visited the war museum during my time in Ottawa. It was a very different perspective than I got growing up down here. 
The information in that link is patently retarded, for the reasons stated above. Namely, that things such as the Berlin FUCKING Airlift are not part of “imperialist strategy of the United States”.
Neither was the Navy evacuating Americans from Mexico during 1913, World War I, World War II, Korea (UN mission), the Bosnian/Kosovo missions during 1998/1999, etc…
The nimrod who wrote the article is using ANY example of US troops being stationed or employed outside of the US as part of “imperialist strategy of the United States”. whether or not it’s sensible.
Funny that he forgot about:
[ul]
[li]Kashmir Earthquake 2005[/li][li]2004 South Asian Tsunami[/li][li]2005 Guatemalan mudslides[/li][/ul]
Anyway, this kind of crap steams me… it’s inaccurate and ignorant, and meant to inflame people who don’t bother to look stuff up and who already have an axe to grind.
If you want to make a hegemony omelette you have to break a few eggs.
This is the part where I say other governments did it also, then you say you don’t care whats done in the past, then I say most of what you’re talking about is the past, then you say what about now, then I say America is the sole remaining Super Power who else would do it now, then you want to take the moral high ground and say we shouldn’t, then I shrug my shoulders and move on 'cause people who agree with Chomsky are tools.
(If it wasn’t clear from the last line, my previous post was sarcastic.)
Tabernacle!
Er, I agree with you.
I myself was hoodwinked as to our reasons for going into Afghanistan. After I did a little research I found this, which while obviously biased, seems to point out factualy that we didn’t have a good reason to invade the country.
As far as letting the Taliban enslave their country, I ask how long we’re going to let Saudi Arabia and China enslave their countries. Oh, and North Korea too. And probably other countries that aren’t on the top of my media-driven brain.
I was going to mention that I realized what you were doing in your post but then decided to just let it lie so I could make my point.
I see I was somewhat misinformed. Thanks for fighting my ignorance, that’s what I’m here for.
The United Empire Loyalists—now with beavers!
The UEL Memorial in Saint John, NB.
Seriously, I do like this. I don’t mean to make fun. But I was surprised by the beavers, I mean, why beavers? I found out about this while browsing around Wikipedia, after watching the John Adams miniseries on HBO. I’d never heard of the U.E.L. before. That’s the neat thing about history–one story leads to another.
Huh?
Yeah I know, I hate the man just enough to know there isn’t a book called Noam Chomsky is Right About Everything, but not be surprised if there was.
I think this was one of the problems I had on seeing the litany of aggression I noted in the OP. For the first 150 years of our history we certainly weren’t anything like a superpower. The Mexican War was a clear-cut case of American aggression, but IMHO it was a case of a weak country attacking an even weaker one.
I think if we hadn’t done that, instead of posting from California I would be posting from…ah…(checking family history)…Pennsylvania or Ohio.
I was being ironic. Some people argue that our foreign policy, especially in the ME gets us so hated that we’re bound to be attacked sometime.
I was awestruck by Syntactic Structures in my first syntax class. On the one hand, he did so much to improve the scientific quality of linguistics. Then he goes off on this decades long rant, and thereby undoes some of the good he did for the field. It isn’t any help to the field of linguistics when it appears that it cannot hold the attention of one of its most original thinkers.
I agree that the initial, direct, intent was not to end slavery, but contend that the slavery issue was the principal cultural divide in this country.
What do you mean?
Also, what does it mean when the little circle to the right of a poster’s name is green?
It’s an indication that the poster is (or has recently) logged into to the Dope.
As usual find a nit to pick and pat yourself on the back thinking you proved someting. Iy is a long list and we are culpable.
How do you figure? I mean, obviously slavery was established earlier in those states/colonies that existed earlier. But slavery started around the same time in north and south. So, it started in Virginia (est. 1607) in 1619, in Mass. (est 1629), in 1629, New York (est 1621) in 1626, South Carolina (est. 1663), in 1669, and so on. The only exception to that was Georgia, where slavery was originally outlawed, and it was free of slaves for the first 20 years of its existance.
I don’t know when slavery was outlawed in New York, but I do know there were still slaves there as late as 1700. Slavery in New York had begun with the Dutch in New Amsterdam–not the proudest moment in Dutch history and certainly out of step with the many progressive things of which one can be proud.
From the explanation I’ve always heard, as the North moved towards industrialization, slavery became less practical. In some places it wasn’t outlawed, but just died out.