Plan B Forum

It is It is time to stand up for your country. Do you agree with Scooter? Is the United States of America an imperialist nation?

I don't know about Imperialist, however we the US cannot supply our needs for raw material within our own borders and we sure do like the preeminence...

If we are imperialists we aren't very good at it. I'm not aware of a long list of nations who are under the thumb of the U.S. government. Most of our attempts to influence foreign events are laughably (or tragically, depending on your perspective) ineffective. Hell, we can't even get Israel to do what we want, and Israel wouldn't even exist without our support.

Why not define the term and we can discuss it?

Are there people that don’t know what is meant by the term imperialist?

In simplest terms it means: To rule over other people in order seize their resources.

BTW scooter voted yes.

Who's resources are we SEIZING?

keld feldspar wrote:Who's resources are we SEIZING?

Well, the latest victim was supposed to have been Iraq, but I have not seen any of the oil.

Yer a standup comedian at night are aintcha?

Yer just testing yer material arentcha?

keld feldspar wrote:Who's resources are we SEIZING?

You know we really should ask scooter; he is the expert on this subject.

I went back to check on what you were referring and saw nothing.

I did see where YOU posted that we (the US) were not Imperialists.

But nothing that indicated that Scoot made the accusation...

keld feldspar wrote:Yer a standup comedian at night are aintcha?

Yer just testing yer material arentcha?

That’s funny but if asking; I have no hidden agendas; if I am not clear just ask for clarification.

keld feldspar wrote:I went back to check on what you were referring and saw nothing.

I did see where YOU posted that we (the US) were not Imperialists.

But nothing that indicated that Scoot made the accusation...

Re: It is just a hobby
by liberty » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:46 am

Scooter wrote:
You can "not agree" until you're blue in the face, the facts don't change, and the facts are that Puerto Ricans have overwhelmingly rejected independence time after time after time. Your attempts to ascribe your own warped meaning to those plebiscite results change nothing.

And if it wounds you so much to be called an idiot, then perhaps you might think about ceasing to post idiocy. Like, you know, claiming that a majority of Puerto Ricans want independence.

And guess what, Puerto Rico is a colony, one among several, and your country is and always has been an imperialist nation.Learn to live with it or continue in your delusions, the choice is yours.



It is better to know an ugly truth than to believe in a pretty lie for a lie has no value at all.liberty

Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana
Private message

Well you brought it up.

However if one throws out yer definition and inserts the real definition of Imperialism.

We (the US) DO fit the definition, I'll have to look up Hegemony one day but other than that...

liberty wrote:

keld feldspar wrote:Who's resources are we SEIZING?

Well, the latest victim was supposed to have been Iraq, but I have not seen any of the oil.

You are referring to the Bush-Cheney Lie that Iraqi oil would pay for their asshole war?

As big as lie as the WMD was?



yrs,
rubato

I'm not going to vote in this poll, (and I'll vote in almost any poll) because I find the phrase "imperialism" to be too loaded a term, and too open to multiple interpretations, to give an up or down vote to...

If I were to accept lib's definition "To rule over other people in order seize their resources" then I would have to say no, of course the United States is not an "imperialist" country...

However there are of course a number of other ways to define "imperialism"...

Including some that I would agree the US might fit, and would not necessarily see as a bad thing....

There are some ways one could define "imperialism" where I would say, "Yes, the United States meets that definition, and thank God it does"...

Lays out the argument very articulately; one of many excellent resources to make the obvious case.

Is this the United States:

im•pe•ri•al•ism
   ɪmˈpɪər i əˌlɪz əmShow Spelled[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2.
advocacy of imperial interests.
3.
an imperial system of government.
4.
imperial government.
5.
British . the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

keld feldspar wrote:Well you brought it up.

However if one throws out yer definition and inserts the real definition of Imperialism.

We (the US) DO fit the definition, I'll have to look up Hegemony one day but other than that...

Do we as a nation steal other nation’s resources as they the Communist claimed? Was it the plan to steal Iraq’s oil?

Gee, looking at the results, looks like folks don't care to "stand uip" with you on this issue.

And contrary to your lie:

liberty wrote:BTW scooter voted yes.

I did not vote. Perhaps an admin has a way of confirming that if you are not man enough to admit it.

Although I am not an Admin, I do have it on the best authority that this Bulletin Board does not give ANYONE the ability to see which poster voted for what option.

To claim such is an outright lie.

So let's see, we've come to the same place in this discussion as we do in most of the others.

"Imperialist" does have a meaning, to wit, An "imperialist" nation is one which seeks to extend its rule or authority over foreign countries, or to acquire and hold colonies and dependencies. In fact, when one wants an example of Imperialism, one can always refer to the British Empire - one with which we are all familiar.

So it is obvious beyond words that the U.S. is not an "imperialist" nation, and has not done anything even remotely resembling building an empire since...I don't know...the Spanish American war?

Does the U.S. attempt to exert influence in foreign countries? You bet. Does it have "territories" which voluntarily remain its territories (because economically it is very advantageous to do so)? Sure. Is the U.S., as the world's only remaining "superpower" expected to play a role in stabilizing situations that have no bearing on our own safety or security? It would appear so.

But that does not make us an "imperialist" country, because we have no COLONIES, and have no subordinate states, in the sense that Canada and Australia are subjects of the Queen.

But as is the custom on this Board, any word can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean (e.g., "Christian," "marriage"), so of course one cannot challenge scooter when he says that the U.S. "is and has always been an imperialist nation."

I guess that settles it, then.