Plenty examples of trying to control economically or politically. Go back to your definition.
Sure, only proves my point. You're not helping your argument, or the point you're trying to make with these random articles posts, one bit. On the contrary, it diminishes the message of the true harm from these types of actions.
Yes, imperialism, even if it's in the guise of: unlike the other imperial powers "we mean well", "we aspire to greater things", "we don't repress." Said every (benevolent) empire ever.
"Innate corruption, meekness, simple lives, squandered opportunities." Such stupid and thankless people, clearly not ready for those "universal GOOD things." Again a familiar refrain heard for centuries by apologists of empire. We just need to teach them through our "civilizing mission."
Imperialism is a state government, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
All nations want to exert power over others, but where exactly are we trying to extend dominion over afghan, iraq, libya, venezuela?
American interference has in situations contributed to this or that countries poor position. Ultimately, it is the country, leaders, people themselves who are responsible for their own state. Saying otherwise is merely saying the people are in fact meek, inferior, rather than acting meek.
Indeed, which is why they don't need us telling them how to run their country or by intervening there.
Bolton: "It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela." "We're in conversation with major American companies now...It would make a difference if we could have American companies produce the oil in Venezuela. It would be good for Venezuela and the people of the United States."
Afghanistan should be pretty self-evident, since you're still there doing "the good work."
Sanctions anyone?
plenty examples of bad actions, policy, comments...whatever, but not imperialism. bad reporting like that, or calling trump a fascist, just fuels the opposition. go back to my original comment.
Plenty examples of trying to control economically or politically. Go back to your definition.
Yes, imperialism, even if it's in the guise of: unlike the other imperial powers "we mean well", "we aspire to greater things", "we don't repress." Said every (benevolent) empire ever.
"Innate corruption, meekness, simple lives, squandered opportunities." Such stupid and thankless people, clearly not ready for those "universal GOOD things." Again a familiar refrain heard for centuries by apologists of empire. We just need to teach them through our "civilizing mission."
Imperialism is a state government, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
All nations want to exert power over others, but where exactly are we trying to extend dominion over afghan, iraq, libya, venezuela?
American interference has in situations contributed to this or that countries poor position. Ultimately, it is the country, leaders, people themselves who are responsible for their own state. Saying otherwise is merely saying the people are in fact meek, inferior, rather than acting meek.
Indeed, which is why they don't need us telling them how to run their country or by intervening there.
Bolton: "It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela." "We're in conversation with major American companies now...It would make a difference if we could have American companies produce the oil in Venezuela. It would be good for Venezuela and the people of the United States."
Afghanistan should be pretty self-evident, since you're still there doing "the good work."
Sanctions anyone?
plenty examples of bad actions, policy, comments...whatever, but not imperialism. bad reporting like that, or calling trump a fascist, just fuels the opposition. go back to my original comment.
Yes, imperialism, even if it's in the guise of: unlike the other imperial powers "we mean well", "we aspire to greater things", "we don't repress." Said every (benevolent) empire ever.
"Innate corruption, meekness, simple lives, squandered opportunities." Such stupid and thankless people, clearly not ready for those "universal GOOD things." Again a familiar refrain heard for centuries by apologists of empire. We just need to teach them through our "civilizing mission."
Imperialism is a state government, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
All nations want to exert power over others, but where exactly are we trying to extend dominion over afghan, iraq, libya, venezuela?
American interference has in situations contributed to this or that countries poor position. Ultimately, it is the country, leaders, people themselves who are responsible for their own state. Saying otherwise is merely saying the people are in fact meek, inferior, rather than acting meek.
Indeed, which is why they don't need us telling them how to run their country or by intervening there.
Bolton: "It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela." "We're in conversation with major American companies now...It would make a difference if we could have American companies produce the oil in Venezuela. It would be good for Venezuela and the people of the United States."
Yes, imperialism, even if it's in the guise of: unlike the other imperial powers "we mean well", "we aspire to greater things", "we don't repress." Said every (benevolent) empire ever.
"Innate corruption, meekness, simple lives, squandered opportunities." Such stupid and thankless people, clearly not ready for those "universal GOOD things." Again a familiar refrain heard for centuries by apologists of empire. We just need to teach them through our "civilizing mission."
Imperialism is a state government, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
All nations want to exert power over others, but where exactly are we trying to extend dominion over afghan, iraq, libya, venezuela?
American interference has in situations contributed to this or that countries poor position. Ultimately, it is the country, leaders, people themselves who are responsible for their own state. Saying otherwise is merely saying the people are in fact meek, inferior, rather than acting meek and squandering an opportunity to get their country/home back.
These stories have many very good points, but their constant hyperbole with comments like US imperialism diminish the impact, for the majority of readers, just as the stories that call trump a dictator or fascist. Yes of course the US and other western countries are interested in their financial interests, perhaps first and foremost, but unlike an âimperialistâ they arenât looking to repress the other. On the contrary, they WANT a strong counterparty or trading partner, which is contingent on a strong populace. The problem is not failed imperialism, but a more simple type of failure on two sides.
When we see the west immediately attempt to prop up an unknown like Guaido, are they not simply reacting to atrocities of the prior leader (Maduro). Perhaps that is the only game in town, so we stumble, in the dark so to speak, to find a decent replacement, thinking if we support this guy who says he wants more democracy/free markets (which is a universal GOOD thing), he will inevitably get the support of his own people (not reliant on the US) and the country will improve. Are we fools to continue to think this can work, given the dismal historical record? Perhaps, but is there much of an alternative?
The other part of the problem is internal. Too often the failures of these regime changes is not just the innate corruption in these areas, but, yes also the meekness (and not in a humble sort of way) of the local people, and particularly the ones in the Mideast. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. When the US âfinishedâ the real military action, but were still present, where was the uprising of people against the oppressors? Nowhere to be found. They went back to their simple lives, not realizing the historical opportunity they had to improve not necessarily their lives, but those of their children. The opportunity squandered, and allowed the corruption from the old or a new oppressor to step back in. And then the few who were riled up enough see the US working with the still corrupt local powers that be, inevitably going to the new oppressor, and turned into suicide bombers⦠I'm not putting blame, they have extreme hardships, lack education, healthcare...but it seems this is a huge oversight on the part of the US intelligence and policy. We need to put more focus on the locals. Communicating with them, protecting schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. Then when the bad guys come to blow it up, its clear who is who.
Imperialism, no. Bad policy, yes.
Yes, imperialism, even if it's in the guise of: unlike the other imperial powers "we mean well", "we aspire to greater things", "we don't repress." Said every (benevolent) empire ever.
"Innate corruption, meekness, simple lives, squandered opportunities." Such stupid and thankless people, clearly not ready for those "universal GOOD things." Again a familiar refrain heard for centuries by apologists of empire. We just need to teach them through our "civilizing mission."
"I'm not putting blame, (...) but..."
There you go again.
As for bad policy: We mean well (see above), but we just happen to consistently eff it up (because we can't figure out who are the good and bad guys). What or who gives you/us the right to foist these policies (including, mostly unilateral, willy-nilly crippling sanctions that must be obeyed by allies as well) on other countries (and that contravene such things as the UN Charter)?
The answer usually is some variant of "well, might makes right: We're stronger and we know better. Now shut up already and do as you're told." No repression whatsoever.
Of course, the proof for all such benevolence would be in how well things are run at home: no corruption, no "atrocities", no hardships, no human rights violations, no poverty, top-notch education and healthcare for everyone, etc., etc.
With most media attention in the US on the government shutdown and border wall stand-off spectacle, the Trump administration has been quietly ramping up US militarism around the world. And it has set its sights on Venezuela, once again, by supporting a coup. Whether or not one supports the policies of Maduro or any other leader is inconsequential in this regard because, despite the empty mythos, the American Empire has never been interested in defending democracy. After all, its list of allies include fascist strongholds, a murderous medieval kingdom, a ruthless apartheid regime and several compliant, neoliberal states.
The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes its financial and geopolitical dominance, attempts socialism, or transfers its nexus to another powerful state entity, like Russia or China for instance. If one chooses to do so it is instantly targeted for assault either by crippling economic sanctions or embargoes, which make governance nearly impossible and primarily harms the general population, or covert subversion, or by direct and indirect military intervention. And the corporate media, when it chooses to cover these issues, generally parrots State Department and Pentagon talking points and obfuscations about the intentions of the US government, the role of corporations and global capitalism, and the character of the governments the US happens to be opposing at the time. And all of this is done with virtually no historical analysis. But of course none of this is new.
Whether it was for Reagan in Grenada or Bush Sr. in Panama or Kuwait, or Clinton in the Balkans, the American mainstream media has dutifully peddled the lies of Washington. The media cycle was drenched in the lies of the Bush administration about âweapons of mass destructionâ in Iraq. Despite Iraq having absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, the corporate media did little to underscore this fact at a time when the Empire was ratcheting up the war machine. Those who questioned it often lost their jobs or were marginalized. Now that this foray resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, mass migration, and the decimation of an entire region many in the media and some politicians have looked back with selective remorse. As if that helps the dead in any way.
The corporate media came to the aid of the Obama administration when it targeted Libya, repeating stories, many unsubstantiated, about atrocities being carried out by the Gaddafi government. When Gaddafi himself was brutally murdered by a mob his death was talked about in the parlance of empire. âWe came, we saw, he died,â Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, maniacally proclaimed in a television interview. And the media barely lifted an eyebrow of shock. On the contrary, they laughed and applauded it. Now that country, once one of the most prosperous in Africa, has become a haven for slave traders and a focal point for the migration crisis in Europe. But one would be hard pressed to find many big news stories once the US/NATO war machine has finished bombing their intended target. All the monumental failures and brutality of militarism should rationally signal its end, not only in the US but everywhere. The interests of capital, however, drive its continued expansion. And the corporate media has been its ever faithful mouthpiece. (...)
These stories have many very good points, but their constant hyperbole with comments like US imperialism diminish the impact, for the majority of readers, just as the stories that call trump a dictator or fascist. Yes of course the US and other western countries are interested in their financial interests, perhaps first and foremost, but unlike an âimperialistâ they arenât looking to repress the other. On the contrary, they WANT a strong counterparty or trading partner, which is contingent on a strong populace. The problem is not failed imperialism, but a more simple type of failure on two sides.
When we see the west immediately attempt to prop up an unknown like Guaido, are they not simply reacting to atrocities of the prior leader (Maduro). Perhaps that is the only game in town, so we stumble, in the dark so to speak, to find a decent replacement, thinking if we support this guy who says he wants more democracy/free markets (which is a universal GOOD thing), he will inevitably get the support of his own people (not reliant on the US) and the country will improve. Are we fools to continue to think this can work, given the dismal historical record? Perhaps, but is there much of an alternative?
The other part of the problem is internal. Too often the failures of these regime changes is not just the innate corruption in these areas, but, yes also the meekness (and not in a humble sort of way) of the local people, and particularly the ones in the Mideast. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. When the US âfinishedâ the real military action, but were still present, where was the uprising of people against the oppressors? Nowhere to be found. They went back to their simple lives, not realizing the historical opportunity they had to improve not necessarily their lives, but those of their children. The opportunity squandered, and allowed the corruption from the old or a new oppressor to step back in. And then the few who were riled up enough see the US working with the still corrupt local powers that be, inevitably going to the new oppressor, and turned into suicide bombers⦠I'm not putting blame, they have extreme hardships, lack education, healthcare...but it seems this is a huge oversight on the part of the US intelligence and policy. We need to put more focus on the locals. Communicating with them, protecting schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. Then when the bad guys come to blow it up, its clear who is who.
With most media attention in the US on the government shutdown and border wall stand-off spectacle, the Trump administration has been quietly ramping up US militarism around the world. And it has set its sights on Venezuela, once again, by supporting a coup. Whether or not one supports the policies of Maduro or any other leader is inconsequential in this regard because, despite the empty mythos, the American Empire has never been interested in defending democracy. After all, its list of allies include fascist strongholds, a murderous medieval kingdom, a ruthless apartheid regime and several compliant, neoliberal states.
The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes its financial and geopolitical dominance, attempts socialism, or transfers its nexus to another powerful state entity, like Russia or China for instance. If one chooses to do so it is instantly targeted for assault either by crippling economic sanctions or embargoes, which make governance nearly impossible and primarily harms the general population, or covert subversion, or by direct and indirect military intervention. And the corporate media, when it chooses to cover these issues, generally parrots State Department and Pentagon talking points and obfuscations about the intentions of the US government, the role of corporations and global capitalism, and the character of the governments the US happens to be opposing at the time. And all of this is done with virtually no historical analysis. But of course none of this is new.
Whether it was for Reagan in Grenada or Bush Sr. in Panama or Kuwait, or Clinton in the Balkans, the American mainstream media has dutifully peddled the lies of Washington. The media cycle was drenched in the lies of the Bush administration about âweapons of mass destructionâ in Iraq. Despite Iraq having absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, the corporate media did little to underscore this fact at a time when the Empire was ratcheting up the war machine. Those who questioned it often lost their jobs or were marginalized. Now that this foray resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, mass migration, and the decimation of an entire region many in the media and some politicians have looked back with selective remorse. As if that helps the dead in any way.
The corporate media came to the aid of the Obama administration when it targeted Libya, repeating stories, many unsubstantiated, about atrocities being carried out by the Gaddafi government. When Gaddafi himself was brutally murdered by a mob his death was talked about in the parlance of empire. âWe came, we saw, he died,â Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, maniacally proclaimed in a television interview. And the media barely lifted an eyebrow of shock. On the contrary, they laughed and applauded it. Now that country, once one of the most prosperous in Africa, has become a haven for slave traders and a focal point for the migration crisis in Europe. But one would be hard pressed to find many big news stories once the US/NATO war machine has finished bombing their intended target. All the monumental failures and brutality of militarism should rationally signal its end, not only in the US but everywhere. The interests of capital, however, drive its continued expansion. And the corporate media has been its ever faithful mouthpiece. (...)
Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…
(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our ________ communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that ____ News produces.
(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.
(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.
(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
(B) At ____ it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’ Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.
(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to ____news.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you.
(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual… We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day.
(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback.
It turns out that William F. Buckley, Jr. was a life-long cia agent. His mission was to sneer at effective speakers of the left, especially on television.
A quick google revealed WFB Jr. served in the CIA for only a couple years. Would not be surprised if you're right about his mission though.
There was a William Francis Buckley, unrelated, who served in the CIA for a number of years, and was executed by Hezbollah in 1985.
It turns out that William F. Buckley, Jr. was a life-long cia agent. His mission was to sneer at effective speakers of the left, especially on television.
This has always been one of the most misguided notions ever put forth. Does anyone really think it has to do with a certain "generation", as if those born after the early 1960s are not consuming just as the "boomers" are? Is there something inherent in people born from 1943-1960 or 1945-1964 that causes them "to consume at someone else’s expense"? Did they get a special gene or something that no one else was ever born with?
What about those of earlier generations, like say, the Romans, or the slave owners in the U.S. south, or those that drove the beaver and buffalo to near extinction in North America and slaughtered Native Americans to do so? The examples are nearly endless.
I'd argue that if you took any generation and put them in the conditions of post-WW II U.S. (barring niche groups like the Puritans/Calvinists) they'd have done much the same as the baby boomers. The "overriding imperative" is human greed and selfishness given the opportunities, not a sample of people born in the span of 15-20 years.
Well of course, there is nothing "special" about the genetic makeup of boomers that makes them more selfish than other generations. What is special is the environment they grew up in and how that impacted their approach to consumption/debt. Arguably, even the ethos of the hippies, breaking down rules, norms and even manners which kept people in line, contributed. Relative to the environment of the "greatest generation" who went through the depression and WW, it's easy to see why they were conservative. And for the subsequent generations, arguably they are even worse...which begs the question: " How are we ever going to get out from under this mountain of public and private debt?"
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
Posted:
Mar 2, 2017 - 8:51am
black321 wrote:
Thought this comment summed it: "A giant generation of boomers can and does, and their overriding imperative is to consume at someone else’s expense. To say they succeeded is to understate."
This has always been one of the most misguided notions ever put forth. Does anyone really think it has to do with a certain "generation", as if those born after the early 1960s are not consuming just as the "boomers" are? Is there something inherent in people born from 1943-1960 or 1945-1964 that causes them "to consume at someone else’s expense"? Did they get a special gene or something that no one else was ever born with?
What about those of earlier generations, like say, the Romans, or the slave owners in the U.S. south, or those that drove the beaver and buffalo to near extinction in North America and slaughtered Native Americans to do so? The examples are nearly endless.
I'd argue that if you took any generation and put them in the conditions of post-WW II U.S. (barring niche groups like the Puritans/Calvinists) they'd have done much the same as the baby boomers. The "overriding imperative" is human greed and selfishness given the opportunities, not a sample of people born in the span of 15-20 years.
I read that article a few days ago and I thought it was interesting in the way it was written. I suppose you could take anything historical and weave a narrative around it. Us baby boomers have heard about ourselves so much that I do think that some of us belive we are special after all. (sorta like Jerry Seinfeld once said, "my mother was right, I am special") From my viewpoint from this little plot of Earth that I occupy I have alway thought that baby boomers are the luckiest generation in history, If you were born in the USA after WWII all you had to do was try and you'd be alright the other thing, boomer's children are spoiled rotten brats due to their parents
as far as how they "destroyed everything", well not everything but we have been on a free ride from the government if you look at the spending Our parents went by the code if you can't afford it you can't have it, not us baby it's party time
Thought this comment summed it: "A giant generation of boomers can and does, and their overriding imperative is to consume at someone else’s expense. To say they succeeded is to understate."
I read that article a few days ago and I thought it was interesting in the way it was written. I suppose you could take anything historical and weave a narrative around it. Us baby boomers have heard about ourselves so much that I do think that some of us belive we are special after all. (sorta like Jerry Seinfeld once said, "my mother was right, I am special") From my viewpoint from this little plot of Earth that I occupy I have alway thought that baby boomers are the luckiest generation in history, If you were born in the USA after WWII all you had to do was try and you'd be alright the other thing, boomer's children are spoiled rotten brats due to their parents
as far as how they "destroyed everything", well not everything but we have been on a free ride from the government if you look at the spending Our parents went by the code if you can't afford it you can't have it, not us baby it's party time
(...) The reaction to last night’s Owens moment was fascinating because the widespread media contempt for Trump clashed with their instinctive veneration of all matters relating to U.S. war; in most cases, the latter triumphed. But more interesting than that is what this ritual reveals about how Americans are taught to think about war and the reasons it is so easy for the political class – no matter the outcome of elections or what polling data tells us or how many people senselessly die – to continue and escalate endless wars. These propaganda rituals are well-tested and very potent.
