Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

[Vangelovski]

Tom, above you said that you provided the commonly accepted definition of imperialism.
I can't find it, so could you please re-post it? Cheers mate.

Bill, see below - from the Chavez thread:

How about I offer up a better understanding of imperialism, and one which is much more broadly accepted within political science?

Initially, imperialism was an ideology, that promoted military expansion AND territorial acquisition, based on nationalist or racial doctrines. More recently, the concept has been bastardised and is now used to describe the system of political domination or economic exploitation. The key feature of imperialism is the asymmetrical relationship between the imperial power and its client territory or peoples (A. Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics, 2000, Palgrave MacMillan).

Lets keep it simple and go with the modern bastardised version. To support your claim that the US is an "imperialist" power, you would have to credibly demonstrate the existence of three factors:

1. That the US has 'client' territories or peoples;
2. That the US has established an asymmetrical relationship with these client territories or peoples; and
3. That the US actually seeks to dominate these client territories or people politically or exploit them economically.

[Vangelovski]

Of course it's imperialistic, which part of the US invasion of a sovereign nation don't you understand?
Furthermore, the US has forged the political landscape in Iraq to create political hegemony, as is being done in Afghanistan, as was done in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, parts of the former Soviet Union, South America and Asia in the last half century.

Invasion of one country by another is not imperialism. See my repost below. Your usual sweeping generalisations are not evidence.

Why do you assume that Iraq didn't have it's own experts and that all were corrupt, what makes Iraqi exiles the prefered moral and expert choice.

I know, I don't assume. Iraqi oil officials and oil "experts" were as corrupt and as incompetent as Macedonian officials and "experts" are. Iraqi exiles weren't the only ones placed in advisory positions, many professionals from across the world were used as well.

Chalabi was one of the US State Department favourites...remember you wanted to know who some of the hand picked individuals were?
Now there's probably a good reason he was a US favourite, the fact that the US probably felt that the administration could 'work' with him.

Chalabi is a charlatan and he is one of the people responsible for the invasion of Iraq, not the puppet you portray him to be. You should do more careful research on him before you provide him as some sort of imperialist puppet.

Muttitt is an investigative journalist and researcher, I'm not sure what tertiary qualifications you require from him before you accept any of this findings. I didn't realise you were tertiary qualified in the specifics of the Iraqi oil industry and the corresponding US interests that you could so flippantly ignore his work.

Journalists are morons, you know that. I am tertiary qualified in Middle East Affairs. I've specifically done a lot of research on oil politics. I have an MA in Arab and Islamic Studies from the ANU. I'm still involved in that faculty. I can tell you that Muttitt is an idiot.

I don't recall China invading Iraq and imposing it's political system on the hapless Iraqi's.

A state does not need to invade another to act as an imperialist - you made that point yourself. I'll ask you again why you continue to apologise for them?

I think you're still struggling with the article, it's not that you don't understand it but a disturbing unwillingness to accept an opposing point of view.
You throw up the example of China winning contracts to prove that the US wasn't exerting any influence in the process.
Once again, my point is that you're looking at it in a far too simplistic way, a way which supports your black and white debating style.

Now you've downgraded US involvement to just 'influence'? What happened to imperialism? That is what you were arguing, even in your opening paragraph of your latest post that I'm replying to now.

In an earlier post to me you claimed i was drawing a long bow about something but this comment of yours surely takes the cake.
Your comment is complete and utter BS.
The oil industry is extremely conservative and doesn't like risk. Clearly in this example the Chinese were prepared to a gamble, a gamble that the Western and US companies avoided.

This just contradicts your argument that the US is an imperialist state. Why would the US go after Iraqi oil if its own oil companies were not willing to take control of it? This makes no sense.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct, many of the Iraqi fields are yet to be developed and the geological data is with the Iraqi's, Western and US companies want access to this data, that's why they're getting their foot in the door, one way or another.
Muttitt talks about this but I guess you're not interested in his findings..

The door was clearly shut on the Americans. I've read Muttitt, and again, he's an idiot.

I'm not a Chinese apologist, certainly far more removed from the US apologist that you are.

If you're not a Chinese apologist, why do you find it so hard to criticise their actions? I criticise the actions of the US whenever I disagree with them on a principled basis. My posts are littered with criticism's of US policy/actions.

I'll go back to the basics on imperialism and what is a commonly accepted definition of the concept within political science (i.e., the relevant field of study).

Initially, imperialism was an ideology, that promoted military expansion AND territorial acquisition, based on nationalist or racial doctrines. More recently, the concept has been bastardised and is now used to describe the system of political domination or economic exploitation. The key feature of imperialism is the asymmetrical relationship between the imperial power and its client territory or peoples (A. Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics, 2000, Palgrave MacMillan).

Lets keep it simple and go with the modern bastardised version. To support your claim that the US is an "imperialist" power, you would have to credibly demonstrate the existence of three factors:

1. That the US has 'client' territories or peoples;
2. That the US has established an asymmetrical relationship with these client territories or peoples; and
3. That the US actually seeks to dominate these client territories or people politically or exploit them economically.

[Vangelovski]

Could USA be altruistic and just want to be the world police Vangelovski?
cue Team America ... Fuck Yeah

How would you describe their motivations on the world stage?

RtG, you know that there are literally millions of competing views and interests both within government and the private sector. You know (generally speaking, even if you are not aware of the specifics) that there were views and interests within both sectors that were opposed to war. You know that when you're dealing with so many competing interests and attempt to appease them that massive 'cluster fucks' (I think that is the term the US military uses) can occur. You see this in Macedonia on a daily basis. You see this in Australia. In short, I personally think the invasion was a massive miscalculation by the Americans who thought they could solve a decade old problem.

Lets not pretend that Saddam was some great hero like the Chavez supporters do with Hugo. He was a genocidal tyrant who gassed Kurds and Shiites, violated every fundamental human right there is, including those of his own people and literally murdered thousands. The Ba'ath regime could not possibly have been more hated by its own people.

But Saddam was a problem for his neighbours as well, including Iran, Turkey, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and, yes, Israel. He was a direct threat to their security. And lets not forget the Kuwaiti's who were invaded - they may be a small state-let, but they still want their independence. They all wanted him gone. He was also a problem internationally, mainly due to the disrupted supply of oil.

I think the US, due mainly to foolish advisors (including Chalabi who is like Macedonia's Jason Miko and the Jewish guy who's name I forget), possibly over zealous CIA agents and the pleas of Iraq's neighbours, miscalculated and thought they could solve a whole bunch of problems, including their own.

One of the things that I am critical of is the sanctions regime on Iraq. Its estimated that hundreds of thousands Iraqi's may have died because of it. I'm also very critical of the use of depleted uranium, which has had serious consequences. The US is directly responsible for these acts which in the end (regardless of motivations), amount to genocide (though we can't deny international responsibility more broadly as the sanctions were UN sponsored).

While I do not agree that the US had altruistic motivations in Iraq (even though getting rid of Saddam was an altruistic result), to claim that the US is an imperialist state, or acted like an imperialist state in Iraq specifically, is just ridiculous. The post-war events demonstrate that there is no client relationship or political domination or economic exploitation.

[George S.]

considering what the us did with their sanctions killed about 100,000 iraqi babies.Also when i heard of collatoral damage caused by the bombings So called smart bombs etc would have you beleive that they were very selective.Why did the americans really go to iraq if it wasn't for the weapons of mass destruction.For a while the had us beleive that is why they went there with the coalition of the willing.Do people remmber how the senate had difficulty in releasing money to the president.They had these so called experts trying to persuade them to say sadam had hidden the weapons of mass destruction.The president had a very hard time persuading the senate.Iraq swallowed a hell of a lot of resources & money like a black hole.You can see a whole lot of BS & rhetoric because that's the way diplomacy etc seems to be staged.Remember donald rumptsfelt lost all credibility when it was found that they & others were telling porkies on the weapons of mass destruction.Everything came at a cost,cost of lives,money & resources.

"Could USA be altruistic and just want to be the world police Vangelovski?
cue Team America ... Fuck Yeah""..I would like to say with a reserved yes & no.Yes because it's the truth ,justcie & the american way.They went there for the wmd.They were saying that so much that people started to beleive what they were saying until they saw what was coming reality.Remember what the inspector said that there was no wmd to be found.
No to being a police man of the world.In virtually all theaters of war it has been proven that the americans can't really perform the function of policeman.so MANY CASUALTIES have eventuated that you wonder if it's a valid reason.After examining all the reasons one can only conclude the americans went in there in their own usual self interest.Do people think that the americans are really altruistic.One does not know what o think with all the conspiracy theories floating around.As said the americans can;t do the function of being altruistic & a world policeman.They would have given that idea up years ago early in the peace.Can anyone really trust the americans with their peace & beleive in god we trust.??When they have lost all credibility.Remember how the coalition of the willing were led by the noose & hardly told of the real reasons they were going there.I doubt after the iraqi war & the afghanistan war they would be so eager to go there.The success was measured in the amount of body bags arriving on us soil.It casted huuge doubts as to why they were there in the first place.

[Gocka]

Gocka, you've just invented a whole new concept - "quasi imperialist". What does that mean? Fake imperialist? You don't know the meaning of words - you should look them up in the dictionary before you use them. This is probably why you are so misunderstood.

Further, simply saying something does not make it so no matter how many times you repeat it. If you think the US is an imperialist state, provide a concrete example/evidence. We want to get Macedonian thinking out of the gutter, not lower it further.

Finally, you weren't responding to anything, you were going off on a tangent.

You have got to be kidding me. How short is your memory 10 min 5 min?

Vangelovski View Post
Gocka, if governments are not largely driven by incompetence, as you claim, then how is it that the US has managed to so utterly fuck up in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are all the imperial "plunder" that they should have? Why is the US in a $14 trillion debt?

I did not go off on a tangent, I answered that question specifically and quoted it when I answered. Everything I said relates directly to that question to the T.

Quasi : : having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes. So Quasi, Imperialism = ? Having some resemblance to or holding certain attributes of Imperialism. It looks like you don't know the definitions of words. Show me how the word quasi equates to the word fake? So who is misunderstood again?

You are the one who brings every debate to the gutter because you are one of the dirtiest debaters Ive ever encountered. You act like a tyrant and can only accept one answer that it yours, everything else is stupid, misguided, inverted, perverted, demented cemented. Grow up.

You are the one who curtails critical thinking with your insults and complete incapability of respecting anyone else s view. For god sakes you challenge the definitions of commonly used words when they don't fit into your bullshit.

After I mocked you for attacking people based on "definitions" you use the same line on me when it was in fact you who miss used the word quasi. You are hilarious mate.

The US is a Neo/Quasi Empire, its what imperialism will look like from now on until someone else reinvents it and makes it even more discrete. What will satisfy you? If Barack Obama came on TV and said "We are an Imperialist state"? Or would you challenge him on the definition of the word "state" or the definition of "we", maybe the definition of the period at the end?

Quit embarrassing yourself, you dug yourself too deep on this thread so just cut your losses before you look even worse.

[Vangelovski]

I did not go off on a tangent, I answered that question specifically and quoted it when I answered. Everything I said relates directly to that question to the T.

No you didn't, you went off into a tangent about American debt and who's supposedly making money off whom domestically. It had nothing to do with how that relates to Iraq.

Quasi : : having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes. So Quasi, Imperialism = ? Having some resemblance to or holding certain attributes of Imperialism. It looks like you don't know the definitions of words. Show me how the word quasi equates to the word fake? So who is misunderstood again?.

I don't know what dictionary you use, but the Oxford dictionary defines it as follows:

apparently but not really; seemingly

This means 'fake'. It means that it may appear to be something, but it is not the genuine article.

You are the one who brings every debate to the gutter because you are one of the dirtiest debaters Ive ever encountered. You act like a tyrant and can only accept one answer that it yours, everything else is stupid, misguided, inverted, perverted, demented cemented. Grow up.

You are the one who curtails critical thinking with your insults and complete incapability of respecting anyone else s view. For god sakes you challenge the definitions of commonly used words when they don't fit into your bullshit.

If I was a tyrant who wanted to stiffle debate, I would just delete you from the forum. Yet you're free to dribble on and on and on. You're problem is that YOU don't like to have your uninformed notions challenged.

After I mocked you for attacking people based on "definitions" you use the same line on me when it was in fact you who miss used the word quasi. You are hilarious mate.

The US is a Neo/Quasi Empire, its what imperialism will look like from now on until someone else reinvents it and makes it even more discrete. What will satisfy you? If Barack Obama came on TV and said "We are an Imperialist state"? Or would you challenge him on the definition of the word "state" or the definition of "we", maybe the definition of the period at the end?

Quit embarrassing yourself, you dug yourself too deep on this thread so just cut your losses before you look even worse.

Again, if you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide some evidence, some examples. Tell us who you think America's client states are, tell us why you think they are client states and demonstrate how they are being dominated politicaly or exploited economically.

To date, I have not defined Imperialism myself. I have only provided a definition that is commonly accepted in political science. The particular definition was from Andrew Heywood. So, I'm not the one making up words or changing their meaning. You are the one that is trying to redefine what imperialism is because you can't actually produce anything to show that it meets the actual meaning of the word.

[Gocka]

No you didn't, you went off into a tangent about American debt and who's supposedly making money off whom domestically. It had nothing to do with how that relates to Iraq.

YOU BROUGHT UP AMERICAN DEBT! I explained where the debt comes from and how it relates to Iraq and other wars. You realize that all anyone has to do is go back 2 pages to confirm this right? You mentioned the debt and asked where the plunder was, So sila se prajs ili do tolku si?

I don't know what dictionary you use, but the Oxford dictionary defines it as follows:

apparently but not really; seemingly

This means 'fake'. It means that it may appear to be something, but it is not the genuine article.

Gospde da cuva, so I guess you just so happen to not see the other definition of quasi provided by your source Oxford.

Definition of quasi-

combining form

seemingly; apparently but not really : quasi-American quasi-scientific

•
being partly or almost : quasicrystalline

So thank you for providing the source it actually confirms that the word quasi can mean being partly or almost, thus quasi-imperialist means being partially imperialist.

If I was a tyrant who wanted to stiffle debate, I would just delete you from the forum. Yet you're free to dribble on and on and on. You're problem is that YOU don't like to have your uninformed notions challenged.

Your are quasi-tyrannical, of course by oxfords second detention. You are a tyrant in the sense that you pick and choose meanings as they suit your case and ignore everything else, you ask for sources but rarely ever provide any yourself, if someone provides a source its dubious, if you provide one it's the gospel. You only pick at points you think you can argue but ignore everything else as if it was never said, the least you can do is concede that the other person has a point.
I hope you realize how silly and petty you look, and if your aim is to get Macedonian thinking out of the "gutter" then maybe you should first get your overall shitty attitude out of the gutter first. The biggest downfall of most Macedonians is their arrogance which stops them from learning from mistakes, and moving forward as a people. You my friend are a prime example of that and it will be your downfall as well someday.
This was one of the pettiest debates I've ever been a part of and I am ashamed to have been a part of it, I think you should be as well.

[Vangelovski]

I’ll save you the trouble of going back two pages.

Gocka, if governments are not largely driven by incompetence, as you claim, then how is it that the US has managed to so utterly fuck up in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are all the imperial "plunder" that they should have? Why is the US in a $14 trillion debt?

My question was where is the IMPERIAL “plunder” (Trying to ignore what imperialism actually is won't help you - I've provided the definition a number of times).

Your response (below) went into an incomprehensive rant that made so many more unsubstantiated and uninformed claims that it would take months to go through them all.

But here you claim that it was the American people that were plundered, yet at the same time you are trying to claim that Iraq is a client state of some American imperialism. You are completely contradicting yourself. If the US was an imperialist state, it would be the Iraqi people that are economically exploited, not the Americans.

You’re trying to say something, but you yourself have no idea what.

Ah what the hell Ill answer you anyway. The plunder as you call it sometimes is not as visible and obvious as one might think. The US did plunder just not what you think. You mention the debt, so if I am crooked and lining my pocket do I give a fuck about the national debt? The debt will only hurt the average American in the long run.
The plunder was the American people, someone made 14 trillion dollars that were spent. Do you know how much money was made by construction contractors, defense contractors, weapons makers, all sorts of "consultants", etc. Where did most of the machinery to search and dig for oil come from? If there were no wars what would the defense contractors make money on private security? Why when you can make a few billion working for the government as a private army. Why build an apartment building in your local town when you can get paid 10x the amount to build one in Iraq, how would gun makers make billions, certainly not selling guns to hillbillies. There are only 2 gun makers, 3 defense contractors, a handful of huge construction companies that are large enough to build whole cities, do you get the picture? The wars are used to funnel money out of the American pockets into a select few industries that are made up of only a few companies. Oh and let's not forget the other big money maker, as in all capitalist structures there's the sugar daddy who also needs a cut. Who lent the US that 14 trillion that the US taxpayers have to pay back? The federal reserve, and don't let the federal fool you, it's a private institution of private banks who have the authority to print US dollars and then lend it back to government with interest of course. So they get the interest payments on 14 trillion which is how much per day? In 2012 the US paid 360 BILLION in interest expense. Now it's even more complicated then that because the Fed only owns about 1.7 trillion of that 14, but do that math they got a nice chunk of that interest anyway. US government agencies like social security and state pension funds hold about 30% of the national debt. So the country holds 30 percent of its own debt? So people pay into a pension fund, then they lend the money in the fund to the federal government and now the same people who put money into the pension fund now have to also pay off the government debt so they can get the money back into their pension fund? Are you telling me that is not a form of plunder? It's like a giant revolving ponzi scheme where lots of people get their cut in some way.
It's a giant web that is very complicated and very clever and simply calling it incompetence is laughable because it is in fact genius not incompetence.
I think you are over your head on this one, or you have your blinders on and are infatuated with the bullshit idealized democratic and capitalist principles. Sometimes it seems hard for you to believe that even in the world's wealthiest Democracy that democracy doesn't always exist. I would also say that the USA is not imperialist in the traditional definition but is some form of Neo imperialism. Same shit different century, isto serajne drugo pakovajne. The people who seek and have power have just found new ways to accomplish the pillaging of peasant. Doing it by force went out of style now it's done by deception. And no its not some super elite group who has ruled since a 1000 years ago but just really shity and greedy people from all over who have no regard for anyone but themselves, it's a perpetual door and it is open to anyone without a soul.

Gospde da cuva, so I guess you just so happen to not see the other definition of quasi provided by your source Oxford.

Definition of quasi-

combining form

seemingly; apparently but not really : quasi-American quasi-scientific

•
being partly or almost : quasicrystalline

So thank you for providing the source it actually confirms that the word quasi can mean being partly or almost, thus quasi-imperialist means being partially imperialist..

Gocka, the point of the definition is that while it may appear or seem similar to, its NOT the genuine article.

Your are quasi-tyrannical, of course by oxfords second detention. You are a tyrant in the sense that you pick and choose meanings as they suit your case and ignore everything else, you ask for sources but rarely ever provide any yourself, if someone provides a source its dubious, if you provide one it's the gospel. You only pick at points you think you can argue but ignore everything else as if it was never said, the least you can do is concede that the other person has a point.

Are you still ignoring the actual meaning of Imperialism? Or are you just hypocritically trying to claim that I ignore the actual meaning of words?

I provide many more sources than you could ever dream of on this forum and have never claimed that they are anything more than they are. When I claim a source is dubious, I provide my reasons why.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

That would be the high school definition.

How many definitions can there possibly be? The one that has been provided several times now is defined as such in a number of globally recognised English dictionaries. An interpretation of that definition would most definitely categorise the US as an imperialist state in a modern context. It doesn't matter if the definition of imperialism has been distorted over the years, its' modern application points to one answer.

I'm not sure why you are trying to alter the modern definition of imperialism, which is commonly accepted throughout the world.

[Vangelovski]

How many definitions can there possibly be? The one that has been provided several times now is defined as such in a number of globally recognised English dictionaries. An interpretation of that definition would most definitely categorise the US as an imperialist state in a modern context. It doesn't matter if the definition of imperialism has been distorted over the years, its' modern application points to one answer.

I'm not sure why you are trying to alter the modern definition of imperialism, which is commonly accepted throughout the world.

EM, no offence, but you wouldn't know what the commonly accepted definition is. Political concepts (and concepts in other fields) are far more complicated than the simple dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are used to define words, not necessarily concepts.

I'm not the one trying to change its meaning. In fact, if you read my posts, I haven't even provided my definition of imperialism, I provided one by an internationally recognised scholar on political ideologies - Andrew Heywood.

[Bill77]

I think if we are to move on, we need another word instead of imperialism.

So what would you call a nation that is
A)meddler in foreign affairs (to many to mention)
B) That are terrorists, (use night raids, fear and torcher to extract information, resort to bombings on many occasions often areas of non military nature)
C) where little international law applies to them, so it seems that way, or they show disregard and get away with it. (UN, Geneva Convention, just to name a couple)
D) Who in history, Have been involved in majority wars and conflicts in one way or another,
E)who designed/employed/perverts a number of international bodies such as, UN/ OECD/ WHO/G8/IMF/WB/WTO/NAFTA/MAI/FTAA/Colombo Plan/NATO/SEATO/CTO/ANZUS/OAS
F) And who are just plain old assholes that nobody likes.

Then ask yourself, why does this happen? What are their motives? Surely the costs..... financially, lives, reputation, increased danger levels of security to the state, citizens back home and abroad. We can forget about the word Altruism they would have packed up long ago. And if their agenda is not of and description be it scientific be it websters dictionary translation meaning Imperialistic then what can be used?

Any suggestions

[Vangelovski]

I think people need to be more honest with themselves, because they're not fooling anyone. If you hate America, and by extension many also throw in 'the west' of which Australia is an integral part, then just say so. Don't pretend that you have a rational basis for doing so, because if you did, you would despise many other countries even more. Also, don't pretend that you prefer the alternatives, because if you genuinely did believe they were better, many of you would have sought refuge there or just remained in Macedonia.

[Phoenix]

I think people need to be more honest with themselves, because they're not fooling anyone. If you hate America, and by extension many also throw in 'the west' of which Australia is an integral part, then just say so. Don't pretend that you have a rational basis for doing so, because if you did, you would despise many other countries even more. Also, don't pretend that you prefer the alternatives, because if you genuinely did believe they were better, many of you would have sought refuge there or just remained in Macedonia.

While we're all getting cosy with our honesty, it would be nice if people also put into perspective many of the evil things the American's have done and continue to do.

[Vangelovski]

While we're all getting cosy with our honesty, it would be nice if people also put into perspective many of the evil things the American's have done and continue to do.

I have, many times on this forum. How about you with China et al Phoenix?

[Phoenix]

I have, many times on this forum. How about you with China et al Phoenix?

What's your beef with the Chinese...?