See if this boils your blood

[vraiblonde]

I said i didnt agree, and i was speaking from what i felt someone else's view point was :\

Did you see me take up for you?

 

[Spoiled]

Did you see me take up for you?

I did and gave you rep for it... my rep doesnt mean anything though ;\

thank you <3


edit: see we are quite the team when we work together :snickers:

 

[FromTexas]

Syria news

How things are changing...

 

[Larry Gude]

There's an argument to be made there...

We want to own your business but you can self-govern

But it is not 'we the people' it is 'we the corporation'. I won't try and say that US corporate involvement always brings with it peace and prosperity but I will argue it tries...because it's good for business.

An educated, prosperous local community makes for a good business partner.

The British get comdemned for their empire and the global devestation it wrought in terms of what countries were before the Union Jack was planted.

Many historians would argue that the Empire brought about modernizing and liberalising much of the globe, arts, science, civil rights, medicine. Would it have been better if Japan had been in charge? Or Russia?

In any event the US, because of our history with the Brits, have adamently tried to NOT be imperialistic. We've tried to keep a lower profile in our international dealings.

Maybe things would be better if we were a bit more forceful?


In any other event, I argue that Iraq is much better off now and in the future with our intervention than it was before and it's because the Iraqi people are worth the investment.

 

[willie]

Nationalism means many things. First it's the belief that your nation is superior to all others... which it is. Second, it can be a profound sense of pride and love for your country, which should not be confused with patriotism, which is support for your government.

Signs of rampant nationalism can be physical, such as flying the flag, wearing flag pins, having rallys, etc. The can also be more high-level (which is what I guess this bumper sticker is addressing) such as believing that your nation's way of doing things is better than anyone elses, and that the world would be better off if everyone lived like us.

That's what I took it to mean. It's like anything else, a mild dose is good.

 

[Bruzilla]

How can you compare any of this with Hitler? Hitler sought domination through attack and conquer...

Hitler didn't sieze any territories though the use of nationalism, but he did bring himself and the Nazi party to power using it. It was also his use of nationalism that won him the support of the German people to start invading other countries.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes he did...

Hitler didn't sieze any territories though the use of nationalism

Poland and the Alsace-Lorraine region of France.

In fact, after having faked Polish attacks on Germans at the Poland/Germany border he launched WWII. German military forces staged a little battle. This all got off the ground a little late which would have been a bit embarrassing because the invasion of Poland, which came almost the next day, was suppossed to come in retaliation for Polish 'aggression'. He also used fake radio broadcasts leading up to all this of what were ostensibly pro German Poles demanding liberation by Germany.

Nationalism was a strong force in Russian territory along Germany's eastern border as well as many of these peoples were German in everything except where they paid their taxes.

German nationalism was a huge component of his plans and was successful in getting many Germans who were most decidedly not pro Nazi to go along.

I think it is fair to say that up until it was too late and the Nazi's had siezed power that German nationalism was much the stronger justification for heading to war.

This was manifest in regards to rebuilding the entire military, pre Nazis, in defiance of Versaille. Eveybody went along with this for nationalistic reasons; a strong Germany.

 

[Sparx]

This is bush's biggest fip flop
In his first presidential run against Gore, one of his major policy choices was against "nation building" using American troops.
If the Nationalism of Iraq isn't nation building using our troops what is it?

 

[Ken King]

This is bush's biggest fip flop
In his first presidential run against Gore, one of his major policy choices was against "nation building" using American troops.
If the Nationalism of Iraq isn't nation building using our troops what is it?

:dur: Our involvement in Iraq was strictly for removing a threat against our security. We have allowed the Iraqis to elect their own leaders without interference.

Have you always had your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine or is this a new endeavor that you are trying to become an expert at?

 

[Railroad]

This is bush's biggest fip flop
In his first presidential run against Gore, one of his major policy choices was against "nation building" using American troops.
If the Nationalism of Iraq isn't nation building using our troops what is it?

A very fortunate by-product of the war on terrorism.

Mr. Bush doesn't flip-flop. That myth was created by Democrats after watching Kerry do it and hearing Republicans (and some Democrats) call him on it.

 

[Bruzilla]

This is bush's biggest fip flop
In his first presidential run against Gore, one of his major policy choices was against "nation building" using American troops.
If the Nationalism of Iraq isn't nation building using our troops what is it?

If you'll recall, Bush made those statements IRT efforts like those in Haiti, where you have a country with no hope, no economy, and nothing but misery and try to build it into a nice place to live. That's a far cry different than a place like Iraq that just suffered from poor leadership. All we need to do is fix things there, not build them all from scratch.

 

[SamSpade]

This is bush's biggest fip flop
In his first presidential run against Gore, one of his major policy choices was against "nation building" using American troops.
If the Nationalism of Iraq isn't nation building using our troops what is it?

I read that debate. (I wouldn't term it as "major policy choice". It was a talking point of one of the debates. People like *KERRY* tried to convince us otherwise).He was objecting to the use of force in places like Haiti and Somalia, which were disastrous because we didn't go in to fight a war but to try to avert one. I can agree with that - it's not the proper role of the military to go in some place, and simply avoid getting shot.

On the other hand, it was Gore who claimed it was "part of world leadership" (nation-building). So I'm bewildered by those who take issue with Bush on this, and yet, it's a position *STRONGLY* supported by someone like Gore. Somehow, the intervention of the American military in the aftermath of WW2 to help nations recover was appropriate "nation-building" - one that in some ways, we're STILL doing. But that a nation like Iraq (where everyone seems to agree on two things - leaving would be disastrous, and a successfully democratic Iraq would transform the region - viz Lebanon this past week) for some reason, doesn't warrant such attention.

 

[Sparx]

:dur: Our involvement in Iraq was strictly for removing a threat against our security. We have allowed the Iraqis to elect their own leaders without interference.

Have you always had your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine or is this a new endeavor that you are trying to become an expert at?

I think it has been soundly proven that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time of invasion. But they do have a lot of oil.

Have you always had your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine or is this a new endeavor that you are trying to become an expert at?

 

[Pete]

I think it has been soundly proven that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time of invasion. But they do have a lot of oil.

Have you always had your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine or is this a new endeavor that you are trying to become an expert at?

Sparx you are correct. I feel that big labor is more of a threat to this country than Iraq, Iran and North Korea are.

 

[Railroad]

I think it has been soundly proven that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time of invasion. But they do have a lot of oil.

And I'm sure you'll recall that at the time, nobody knew the reports which had us all believing there was a threat there were false. (I don't think they were false anyway - I believe the weapons were moved out of Iraq at the last minute). And yes, Iraq still has a lot of oil - which by the way they still can't deliver and won't be able to for some months to come.

But I think you missed the point of our work over there. Iraq was (is) just a battle in the war on terrorism that we have been waging since September 12th, 2001. The Iraqi government, along with several other members of the network, harbored, aided, and abetted terrorists.

The war on terrorism includes a very hostile approach to countries that shelter or support terrorists. The mid-east terrorists have stated that their aim is to attack America and her friends - all the non-Muslim infidels of the west, with America at the top of the list.

Until September 11th of 2001, most of us considered the terrorist threat to be a very minor one, and we ignored it to a large extent. Once 3,000+ people paid with their lives for us not paying attention to terrorists, we reacted in a very strong way and declared the war on terrorism, which continues to this day and will continue for some time to come.

 

[somdcrab]

I was up in D.C. this past Wednesday. I was in a parking garage and saw a bumper sticker that made me want to commit an act of vandalism. It read:

"STOP AMERICAN NATIONALISM"

I can't even imagine what kind of person living in this country would put that on their car.

more like they are called Bushies/log cabin republicans????

 

[Railroad]

more like they are called Bushies/log cabin republicans????

Ya lost me. Care to explain?

 

[SamSpade]

I think it has been soundly proven that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time of invasion. But they do have a lot of oil.

'Course not. Neither was Hitler. Shoulda left his azz alone.

I'm amused by the critics who think we should have taken Saddam out the last time, but think we should have left him ALONE *this* time. The same ones think we should have dealt with Osama *before* he attacked us, but are against us doing the same thing to Saddam.

 

[SamSpade]

But they do have a lot of oil.

And if we wanted it, we could just take it. Funny about that, huh?

And oil companies DON'T want a *glut* of oil. They want higher prices for THEIR oil. MORE oil is bad for business. It's that simple. How come no one ever seems to GET this?

 

[Bustem' Down]

One definition of Nationalism is this.
"the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals"

Not really a bad or good thing, just depends on what your opinion is. Acording to this definition, I support stoping nationalism. We would do better as a society if we worked together rather than independantly, but I think that the point of the bumper sticker is to be so vague as to mean anything.