Bush DOES call himself Leader of The Free World....
Take care all.
Bush DOES call himself Leader of The Free World....
Take care all.
It doesn't mean he actually controls anything other than the US. "Leader" doesn't usually mean you have complete control over the people that you lead. In fact, he doesn't even control any US citizens. Yet he's still the leader of the US.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
American diplomats have claimed that their country is responsible for policing the world... recently, a US ambassador was commenting on nuclear weapons. He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US. Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders. What these guys are saying is that their country is somehow entitled to set the rules, that the rest of the world should conform to their wishes or "face the consequences". Kind of a disregard for the sovereignty of other countries. Only a few select individuals are behind these choice words, but it sure makes one think.
If Bush is re-elected, perhaps the rest of the world would vote him out of power?
Take care all.
He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US.
If this is even true (I have my doubts), then so what? People can say anything they want. Has the US conquered Britain and outlawed weapons? Once we do, then we're an empire.
Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders.
Expressing displeasure over something Australia does is wrong how exactly? Have we sent in the troops to enforce this man's wishes? Have we conquered your capital and erected nuclear reactors there?
Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic.
It's not really an empire. Nope.
Oh, and why would somebody be upset that another country wouldn't use nuclear power? That just seems like a really weird reaction.
"Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic."
Why then, did you post in it?
Besides, it's a hypothetical question. It seems that most everyone outside of the USA believes we are an Empire, while those that dwell within don't. I'm very curious as to why that is. That, is the point of this thread.
Take care all.
If anyone did the same to the US - tried to tell them what to do, purported to have some kind of non-existant authority over them - the US would respond with hostile rebuttals. I never said or intended to say that my quotes were proof of America becoming an empire, nowhere in my post did I say that at all. They are, however, indicative of a kind of adminstrative arrogance, a belief in one nation's superiority over its 'allies'.Originally posted by Dr Unne
He noted that they're immensely dangerous and destructive, and then said that it's up to the US to decide who's allowed to have them and who isn't. He said that France and the UK are *permitted* to have nuclear weapons because those countries are currently acceptable to the US.
If this is even true (I have my doubts), then so what? People can say anything they want. Has the US conquered Britain and outlawed weapons? Once we do, then we're an empire.
Then there's the US ambassador to New Zealand who implied that it's a deliberate insult to his country that my nation doesn't permit the presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear reactors, within its borders.
Expressing displeasure over something Australia does is wrong how exactly? Have we sent in the troops to enforce this man's wishes? Have we conquered your capital and erected nuclear reactors there?
Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
Honestly, this entire thread is ridiculous. I don't understand how people can make such huge leaps of logic.Actually, it's New Zealand... But anyway, here's how this discussion really went:Guy from the US: You should allow nuclear reactors in your country.
Guy from Australia: Nah, we don't want to.
Guy from the US: Well that upsets me.
Fanatical observer: HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE US BEING AN EMPIRE! DOWN WITH BUSH! DOWN WITH AMERICA!
NZ: *Outlaws use of nuclear reactors and presence of atomic weapons*
US: Refuses to say which of its ships are carrying nuclear weapons, because that would provide inportant information to the Soviets.
NZ: Refuses to permit any nuclear-capable warships from entering NZ waters until Cold War ends and US starts declaring which of their vessels are carrying illegal weapons of mass destruction.
US Ambassador(2003): Our country isn't just going to 'get over it'. (I.e., he can't accept that a country has a law that (1) acknowledges and promotes peace and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and (2) disadvantages the US military's desire to do whatever it pleases.
It was in late 2003 or early 2004, when a US military or ambassadorial official was commenting on America's role as global 'plice force' regarding weapons of mass destruction. He said it during a radio interview on a news item... but you can assume I'm lying if you want.If this is even true (I have my doubts)
Edit: Turned down the heat, in the interests of reasonableness.
No one's denying the US government isn't arrogant or whatever. Unne's point was that that doesn't prove that the US is an empire, which is what the thread's about. That's why he thought that you were trying to say that.
For the record, I'm not American, and I don't think it's an empire.
Why then, did you post in it? --The Captain
To point out the fact that it's ridiculous.
Fair enough. Then we agree to disagree. Neither of us are right, but I certainly hope Bush doesn't think America is an Empire.
Yet, it's not entirely an outlandish question. America is much more an empire than Iraq can ever be. You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire. Bush NEVER said anything about liberating Iraq. It was all about WoMD. Then, when that fell through, his interests changed. Seems kind of shady...
Take care all.
Last edited by The Captain; 03-29-2004 at 12:32 AM.
Neither of us are right... --The Captain
No, I don't agree with that.
Then pray tell, how you are right and I am wrong?
Take care all.
"America is much more an empire than Iraq can ever be. "
I'm much more an empire than a cactus, but it doesn't mean I am one.
"You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire."
No, Bush isn't making himself the leader of Iraq, thus not an empire. Puppetry/sway are merely speculations, and even if he was using them, if Bush isn't the president of Iraq, it's not an empire.
"Bush NEVER said anything about liberating Iraq. It was all about WoMD. Then, when that fell through, his interests changed. Seems kind of shady..."
Yeah, it does. I think their story for being there is shady, but it doesn't make the US an empire.
All you're proving is that the US is influential, perhaps manipulative, and arrogant.
I'm right that the US isn't an empire, for reasons stated by myself and others. I defined the word, and the closest anyone has come is saying "Some people in the US act arrogantly", which has nothing to do with being an empire, or by saying "'empire' no longer means 'empire', therefore with my altered definition, the US is one", which is a pointless argument of semantics. And you say things like
You can make the case that we are using Iraq as a puppet to increase our sway in the Middle East, which would fall in line with an empire.
Even if it's true that the US is "using Iraq to increase our sway in the Middle East", and I don't believe you've shown that that is necessarily true, it still has nothing to do with being an empire. We haven't conquered Iraq and made it part of the US. An empire doesn't conquer places and then leave after a few months to let them govern themselves. Are you arguing that the US' intention is to conquer the Middle East? Because I have yet to see this happen.
Or are you arguing that any country which ever fights a war with another country is an empire? Then pretty much every country on the planet is one. The UN is trying to increase its sway in Kosovo right now, sending in troops to stop a civil war, from what I hear. Is the UN an empire, then?
Many arguments in this forum are treated with far more respect than they deserve, in my observation.
Posting Permissions
