Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

[Gocka]

likability has nothing to do with unity. Its because poeple think likability should be the bedrock of unity that there is no unity. Unity is based on shared prinicples.

Did I bring up imperialism. Here is the second post from this thread:

YOU brought up imperialism. You don't seem to understand - or you do and you're just trying to cover yourself now - that a word does not need to be used for the concept to be understood.

I was not implying imperialism, as you yourself said there are many factors that need to be fulfilled in order for something to be considered imperialism. You were the one raving on about the propriety of a word and the proper meaning, but now simply one vague sentence can mean only imperialism? Come on mate that's pushing it don't you think? Exploiting Iraq, which I said is only a theory, didn't even say it was based in fact, simply exploiting it would not be enough to constitute imperialism, this is by your detention. So I really don't see how you can make a case that I explicitly meant imperialism. I think you are the one who is trying to cover your ass and I think that this was a huge stretch and I'm not buying it. If you did take that remark as implying imperialism then you surely jumped the gun because I did not mean that at all. At best I've said the USA is quasi-imperialist, which to me means they sometimes do things that might be seen as imperialist but they are not really imperialist and I never claimed that they were. Why is that so hard for you to accept I think it's a fair assessment of US foreign policy. I never uttered the word until you did, and I didn't give you a good enough reason to think that's what I was implying either, I call BS. I think you are smarter than this and I think you could have done better.

I think you are the mentally challenged individual who seems to be having wet dreams about been a Gemigija calling on your blind sheep followers (totalling zero) to go out and rage against the system and execute mob justice, assassinations and whatever other childish dreams you have.

I think this is below the belt, I explained myself well enough. I was extremely angry with everything that went down that week, and after I calmed down which was pretty quickly I told you directly that I am not for mob justice or assassinations or anything of the sort and you know very well that I didn't mean it to be that serious. That's all I'm going to say about that because I think you are just grasping at straws at this point just trying to undermine my character rather than answer to my claims.

I am now positive that you are either a professor of political science or a PhD level student of political science, all of your tactics and opinions point in that direction. You play very dirty, like only someone with more in-depth knowledge of politics would

P.S. Why are you still crying and whining? I gave you the opportunity to disengage from this conversation but you chose not to.

I do apologize for attacking you personally even though I doubt you would extend the same to me. The only thing I won't retract is calling you arrogant, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that about yourself. At the end of the day I still respect you as a fellow Macedonian, and as someone who at least wants what I want, a free and prosperous Macedonia where Macedonians can hold their heads high and be proud of who they are and proudly wave their real flag and be called by our real name. This common goal is enough for me to forgive all your insults. That is who I am and that is what I am about. I believe the level of forgiveness and respect I have given you need to be exchanged between all Macedonians if we are to move forward.

[Big Bad Sven]

Syria crisis: Al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The announcement by Abu Mohammed al-Jawalani comes a day after al-Qaeda in Iraq said it had merged with al-Nusra.
But Mr Jawalani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.
Al-Nusra is at the forefront of the rebellion against the Syrian president.
It claims to be responsible for many of the suicide bombings in the country, and has been designated by the US as a terrorist organisation.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State in Iraq, which is the Iraqi wing of al-Qaeda, had said on Tuesday that his group would be joining with al-Nusra under the name The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
But Mr Jawalani said he only heard about the announcement from media and had no prior knowledge of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099

LOL at the USA and Australia supporting Al-Queada. I wonder how the families of 911 feel about this

[Big Bad Sven]

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801

Obuma the jive talking scum bag in bed with Al-Queada, what a dog.

[vicsinad]

Americans suffer from a disease: it's called consumerism and materialism. Our corporate powers understand this and will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits regardless of the social, cultural, health and environmental consequences. The government is bought by these corporate powers and controlled by these corporate powers; and Americans having a say in the federal process is merely an illusion. Consumerism and corporatism has contributed to this imperialism, and it will lead to the collapse of America.

One day Americans woke up and said, "hey, we don't want these factories in our backyard because they are polluting our air, land and water....but we also want cheap products." So the corporations said, "let's go to these impoverished countries, use up their resources and pollute their land...there are no environmental regulations there, no minimum wages, no labor rights." We have our government and corporations working together to keep these third world countries poor, dependent, rights-less, and sick so we Americans don't have to face high prices, environmental pollution, and social unrest here in America. Why the hell would these corporations and government NOT want to have an empire? They aren't saying to each other "let's have an empire." No. They don't need to say that...they just need to exploit and profit, control the legal and political systems along with resources, and there you have it...a group of people who, through a variety of means, control a majority of the Earth's resources. The minute these third-world countries start acquiring what Americans have with regards to rights and standards, America's economy will tank, the American lifestyle will implode...and the corporations' profits will disappear. They can't make significant profits when people will no longer let themselves and their resources be exploited.

America is 5% of the world population, consumes nearly 30% of the world's resources and creates over 30% of the world pollution. 50% of Americans' tax dollars go to fund our military...because we need 700 bases in 40 countries. Why? Because we're NOT an empire? Because we want to fight the bad guys, because we love humanitarianism? No, because we don't want Russia, China and the EU encroaching on what should be OUR resources because we're Americans dammit, and we're the greatest country in the damn world we want more, more, more! More TVs, more phones, more couches, more clothes, more oil, more cars, more toys, more plastic bottles, more food! Oh, do we love food... 65% of Americans are overweight or obese. We raise billions of animals in cages where they can't even turn around, and then pump them with hormones all for the sake of productivity and profitability...and then we go to the Amazon and chop down the forests so we can create farms to feed the animals that will feed us. Coke and its partners control much of the water in Africa; the Obama administration works with right wingers in third world countries to keep minimum wage low so Nike can sell products to Americans cheap; and let's not forget how nearly every Bush cabinet member from 2001 - 2007 were all former lobbyists and executives of major corporations.

Michael Parenti may be this "progressive", but you won't find any BS in what he says. Here is his 1999 talk entitled "The US War on Yugoslavia."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs

Wake the fuck up. America is an empire.

[vicsinad]

Vangelovski's argument is confused because it suggests, simply, that because the outcome of the Iraq War did not result in American take-over of Iraqi oil-fields that the Bush-Cheney-Energy Industry war on Iraq was not about oil. It suggests that reasoning for performing an action is solely based on the outcome.

(Sure, there were many reasons THEY went into Iraq...but those reasons all revolved around geopolitics and resources. The American public's reasons revolved around WMDs, terrorism, humanitarianism, and democracy building.)

That's beside the main point.

Vangelovski's argument is equivalent to saying that because I missed the toilet bowl this morning when I took a piss, my whole reason for taking out my tallywacker was not to piss inside the toiled bowl. Or, another analogy, it's equivalent to saying that Macedonia's struggle for independence in the early 1900s was not really about independence because it obviously didn't achieve independence and rather was split up into three pieces.

Both these analogies show what happened in Iraq: mistakes and miscalculations. Despite these mistakes and miscalculations, it does not mean that the war wasn't about oil and resources...for the people who started it. (And some things that seem like mistakes, such as political instability or the lack of WMDs, weren't really mistakes or miscalculation...that's another topic.)

Thus, just because the American public, and American oil companies (which doesn't constitute BP, but we know how much BP relies on American consumerism), are not controlling Iraq's oil field, it does not mean the Iraq war was not started because of oil.


Let's examine two articles. The first will highlight what the Iraq war was about; the second will show the outcome (and the differences between the intended outcome and actual outcome).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.


Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."


For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.


In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."

In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.

Here's how they did it.

The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

(You can read the rest by clicking on the link I posted).



Here's an excerpt from the second article:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c51d29fc-85c4-11e2-9ee3-00144feabdc0.html

With the fifth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, easy geology and low production costs, Iraq was expected to become a hotspot of global oil investment. The victorious Americans set out a blueprint for rehabilitating vast oilfields and raising production from about 1.5m b/d in 2003. Investment poured in. In August, Iraq overtook Iran to become Opec’s second-largest oil producer, for the first time since the late 1980s, pumping more than 3m barrels a day – the highest level since the US-led invasion.

But the business climate has soured. Political volatility, fears about security and problems with infrastructure, including a lack of pipelines, pumping stations and oil storage facilities, have slowed the oil sector’s recovery. Iraq is now talking about increasing production capacity to around 9m barrels a day by 2017-20, sharply down from an earlier target of 12m b/d.

“Iraq is still nowhere near achieving its potential, considering the resources that it has,” says Raad Alkadiri of PFC Energy, a consultancy. “The Iraqi oil industry has always been bedevilled by politics.” The country has yet to pass a hydrocarbon law, first mooted in 2007, which would resolve who controls its oil and gas resources.

One part of Iraq that has retained – and even increased – its appeal for western energy groups however is Iraqi Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region that has run its own affairs for about 20 years. The Kurdish regional government (KRG) has signed 50 deals with foreign oil companies, including Exxon, Chevron, Total SA and Russia’s Gazprom Neft. Officials there want to raise production from about 200,000 barrels a day now to 1m b/d by 2015.

The production-sharing contracts offered by Kurdistan are more generous to the majors than the technical service contracts on offer in southern Iraq, where oil companies earn a flat fee per barrel of oil produced and the lion’s share of earnings goes to the government.


Don't insult your own intelligence. "War is a Racket" wrote Major General Butler in the 1930s. And only a few profit: the corporations.

War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[Vangelovski]

Victor has just posted another wha wha wha wha post that, as usual, completely misses the point. My argument was focused on whether the US is an imperialist state in general, not about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

[vicsinad]

Victor has just posted another wha wha wha wha post that, as usual, completely misses the point. My argument was focused on whether the US is an imperialist state in general, not about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

In post 3 of this topic, Vangelovski posted:

"But I'd like to hear the pathetic, grovelling explanation for this - the myth promoted by "progressive" circles in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq was that it did so for its oil. "

So you ask people to explain why US invading Iraq was supposedly about oil, and then when someone answers that question you bash them for missing the point. Interesting. Care to clarify yourself?


But sure...let's answer whether the US is an imperialist state. Imperialism is simply a state using its military to achieve its aims. Let's examine different definitions of imperialism, and then examine facts surrounding the US quest to achieve its aims.

Simple wiki definition: Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

A basic dictionary definition:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imperialism

A Marxist definition:

If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

And finally, the Oxford dictionary:
a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/imperialism

Now, let's examine US actions in the world.

Currently, mentioned 3 posts above this one, the US has 700 bases in 40 countries. Now let's look very generally at military engagements that US has participated in, starting with significant military since WW2:

Korean War
Vietnam War
Invasion of Dominican Republic
The Cambodian
Panama
Grenada
Iraq (twice)
Yugoslavia (twice)
Afghanistan
Somalia
Haiti


Now, should we count all the small troop deployments and bombings? Libya bombing? Pakistani and Yemeni drone bombings? How about CIA involvement

Based on the definitions above, it doesn't really matter why US has gotten involved in scores of countries just in the past 60 years alone. What matters is that they have forced themselves, in most cases, in the affairs of countries around the world simply to achieve their aims.

So, to answer your question, in general the US is an imperialist state: it uses its military, its CIA, its economic strength, and its corporate-government cronies to control what goes on in other countries, to spread its political power across the globe, and to extract their resources. Whether it was securing the Panama Canal to protect its trade interests, or stealing western US from the Spanish and Mexicans, or preventing Gaddafi from shunning the World Bank for an African Bank, or seeking oil in the Middle East while simultaneously neutralizing Russia, there is no doubt that US is an imperialist state.

Unless you have evidence that proves otherwise? I would love to see it.

[Vangelovski]

In post 3 of this topic, Vangelovski posted:

"But I'd like to hear the pathetic, grovelling explanation for this - the myth promoted by "progressive" circles in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq was that it did so for its oil. "

So you ask people to explain why US invading Iraq was supposedly about oil, and then when someone answers that question you bash them for missing the point. Interesting. Care to clarify yourself? .

Wha wha, you misconstrued my argument as being about the reasons for going to war in Iraq (that was nothing but a minor side issue in my posts). My argument was in relation to whether the US is an imperialist state. You, on the other hand, tried to set up a straw man for yourself so you could try to knock it down.

But sure...let's answer whether the US is an imperialist state. Imperialism is simply a state using its military to achieve its aims. Let's examine different definitions of imperialism, and then examine facts surrounding the US quest to achieve its aims.

Simple wiki definition: Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism


A basic dictionary definition:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imperialism


A Marxist definition:

If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...p-hsc/ch07.htm


And finally, the Oxford dictionary:
a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force


http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/imperialism



Now, let's examine US actions in the world.

Currently, mentioned 3 posts above this one, the US has 700 bases in 40 countries. Now let's look very generally at military engagements that US has participated in, starting with significant military since WW2:

Korean War
Vietnam War
Invasion of Dominican Republic
The Cambodian
Panama
Grenada
Iraq (twice)
Yugoslavia (twice)
Afghanistan
Somalia
Haiti


Now, should we count all the small troop deployments and bombings? Libya bombing? Pakistani and Yemeni drone bombings? How about CIA involvement

Based on the definitions above, it doesn't really matter why US has gotten involved in scores of countries just in the past 60 years alone. What matters is that they have forced themselves, in most cases, in the affairs of countries around the world simply to achieve their aims.

So, to answer your question, in general the US is an imperialist state: it uses its military, its CIA, its economic strength, and its corporate-government cronies to control what goes on in other countries, to spread its political power across the globe, and to extract their resources. Whether it was securing the Panama Canal to protect its trade interests, or stealing western US from the Spanish and Mexicans, or preventing Gaddafi from shunning the World Bank for an African Bank, or seeking oil in the Middle East while simultaneously neutralizing Russia, there is no doubt that US is an imperialist state.

Unless you have evidence that proves otherwise? I would love to see it.

You’re making the claim that the US is an imperialist state and then asking for others to disprove the claim you made? What uni did you say you go to? In the real world, the person making a claim is the one that needs to demonstrate that claim.

Your two paragraphs do not demonstrate that claim at all. They simply make more unsubstantiated claims and open more questions. Further, you confuse yourself (but that’s nothing surprising). You first state the following:

Based on the definitions above, it doesn't really matter why US has gotten involved in scores of countries just in the past 60 years alone.

You claim that it doesn’t matter WHY the US got involved. But the WHY has everything to do with determining whether it’s an imperialist state. The definitions you provide also imply that the question of WHY is important by providing some reasons for domination that would accord to imperialism.

Then, you contradict yourself by providing a WHY:

What matters is that they have forced themselves, in most cases, in the affairs of countries around the world simply to achieve their aims.

Here, you admit that there is a need to achieve their aims, making claims as to what their aims may be but failing to actually substantiate those claims.

Tell me, why did you go to all the trouble of finding inferior definitions when I have already posted (nearly 10 times) a commonly accepted one among the academic world? Did you miss all the discussion on dictionaries and their inability to properly define political concepts due to limited space? Did you miss the whole wikipedia thing about it been really crap?

[vicsinad]

"Wha wha, you misconstrued me argument as being about the reasons for going to war in Iraq (that was nothing but a minor side issue in my posts)."

You emphasized the "oil and Iraq" argument throughout this entire topic. Don't act like it was simply a minor side issue.

"You’re making the claim that the US is an imperialist state and then asking for others to disprove the claim you made?"

You're making the claim it's not. So why can't you back your claim?

"In the real world, the person making a claim is the one that needs to demonstrate that claim."

You feel the same way about God? Regardless, I have two previous posts of information; none of it you addressed. Furthermore, you claim that the US is not an imperialist nation. So shouldn't you demonstrate that claim with evidence? Hmmm...


"You claim that it doesn’t matter WHY the US got involved. But the WHY has everything to do with determining whether it’s an imperialist state. The question of WHY is what determines whether it is an imperialist state or something else. The definitions you provide also imply that the question of WHY is important by providing some reasons for domination that would accord to imperialism."

Aside for self-defense, does it really matter if you bomb 100 countries because you want their resources, or because you want changes in political systems, or because you care about humanitarian concerns? My previous two posts (watch the Michael Parenti video) clearly provide those reasons. Yet, you didn't address any of these reasons. You're more interested in winning an argument.


"Tell me, why did you go to all the trouble of finding inferior definitions when I have already posted (nearly 10 times) a commonly accepted one among the academic world."

That's the problem with most academics. They live in their own little world, circle jerking and stroking each other, until they bust all over each others' theories. But work with your commonly accepted definition. How doesn't US fit in that definition?

[Vangelovski]

Victor,

Can you use the quote function? It makes you're posts easier to read.

I used the example of post-war oil contracts in Iraq in relation to the question of whether the US was an imperialist state. It had nothing to do as to the question of why the US went to war in Iraq, which is what you idiotically tried to state.

As to the rest of your rubbish, how about you try and read the thread and the previous threads to which this is a continuation, rather than pretending that the conversation started with you yesterday. Once you've done that, the rest of your garbage will be irrelevant as its already been addressed.

As for academics circle jerking themselves, you wouldn't have even herd of the term "imperialism" were it not for them. So, if you're not interested in what they have to say, why even post on the topic?

[vicsinad]

Victor,

Can you use the quote function? It makes you're posts easier to read.

I used the example of post-war oil contracts in Iraq in relation to the question of whether the US was an imperialist state. It had nothing to do as to the question of why the US went to war in Iraq, which is what you idiotically tried to state.

As to the rest of your rubbish, how about you try and read the thread and the previous threads to which this is a continuation, rather than pretending that the conversation started with you yesterday. Once you've done that, the rest of your garbage will be irrelevant as its already been addressed.

As for academics circle jerking themselves, you wouldn't have even herd of the term "imperialism" were it not for them. So, if you're not interested in what they have to say, why even post on the topic?

So let me get this straight:

1. You claim you are using post-Iraq war oil contracts to demonstrate that the US is not an imperialist state.

2. You then claim that it is important to understand WHY a country goes to war to determine whether it is an imperialist state.

3. Then you claim that you can still use post-Iraq war oil contracts to show that the US isn't an imperialist state, even though imperialism, with regards to the Iraq example, cannot be examined without analyzing US intentions for the war and after the war together?

Which one is it: does imperialism need a reason or not?


But let's examine what you've said:

the myth promoted by "progressive" circles in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq was that it did so for its oil

You're telling me it has nothing to do with why the US went to war with Iraq. But in this quote above, why then mention that in 2003 progressives were claiming the US invaded Iraq for its oil. Hmmm...seems to me that it did have something to do with WHY...though now you're claiming it has NOTHING to do with why. Interesting.

Then later on you state this:

but you were claiming that the US is an imperialist state, which implies that it controls Iraq and that Iraq would not be able to do anything without US permission.

Yet, your posted academic definition of imperialism doesn't suggest that "Iraq would not be able to do anything without US permission" in order for US to be considered an imperialist state. Iraq was, for a good decade, militarily, politically and economically subordinate to the US, even though you only need one of these to be considered a client territory of the another state. Clearly, the relationship between Iraq and the US (or the Iraqis and the Americans) was asymmetrical. Finally, the US sought to dominate and exploit Iraq politically and economically. Your posted definition doesn't account for whether they were successful, just whether they sought to. (Which brings up another point: if your posted definition of Imperialism that you're using includes important questions like "what the US sought to do" and then you only post the oil-related outcomes of the war to destroy the imperialism "myth", how can using post-war oil contracts be any measure of imperialism in Iraq?

Then later you say this:

The US has effectively disengaged from Iraq, leaving them to govern themselves.

The conscious decision to allow Iraq to govern itself, one example of which was to competitively sell its own oil contracts on its own terms, contradicts YOUR claim that the US is an imperialist state

First, you claim that the US allowing Iraq to sell its own oil contracts contradicts imperialism. Yet, no where does your posted definition of imperialism require one state to govern another. Second, on the topic of governance, and maybe more realistically what constitutes client territories and "political" exploitation, does such governance have to be direct? Do you know the extent of CIA and other US involvement in narrowing the field of Prime Minister candidates of Iraq? If the US was not trying to dominate Iraq politically, would they really be involved in who the Iraqis get to vote for as the head of their state?

In another post, you go on to say this:

Why have American companies fared so poorly in open and competitive tenders for other oil related projects

First, in a previous post you recognize that stupid people make stupid mistakes. Thus, my first question is: why is it that the US faring so poorly in oil related projects constitutes evidence as the US not being imperialistic, but doesn't constitute evidence that the US is incompetent and failing its agenda?

Second, again, the outcome of a state's actions is not necessary for it to be an imperialistic nation, according to your posted definition.


The term imperialism does not interest me whatsoever. It's the actions and consequences of those actions which is represented by the term "imperialism" that interest me. Label it imperialism, cornbreadism, or fucking-people-over-ism...doesn't matter to me.

[Big Bad Sven]

Syrian rebel filmed cutting organs out of a soldier's body and putting them in mouth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/he-will-be-punished-severely-free-syrian-army-vows-to-hunt-down-rebel-commander-abu-sakkar-filmed-eating-government-soldiers-heart-in-gruesome-propaganda-video-8615112.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/syrian-rebel-eats-heart-of-regime-soldier-20130515-2jlac.html

Well done guys, its good to know we are supporting the good guys. I cant wait until Al-Queada, oops i mean the 'rebels' come into power and produce and harmony

Allah Akhbar

[Big Bad Sven]

Interesting turn of events.

We'll it's official, the rebels are now classed as terrorists by the US. Chance of the US doing anything is now effectively 0.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-16/news/sns-rt-us-usa-syria-sanctionsbre94f17n-20130516_1_assad-syrian-government-chemical-weapons

These reminds me of the Chechen war. There was a lot of sympahty for the chechans in the begining, but after the beslan seige and all of the gruesome snuff video's coming out of chechnyia people did not want to support them. Even the USA didnt want anything to do with them.

What can the 'rebels' except when they kill innocent woman and children. And the idiots even put their handy work up on the internet and snuff sites for everyone to see just how barbaric and twisted they are.

The 'rebels' make Assad look like Santa Clause. Idiots

Is this a victory for Russia and Assad, and dare i say it the Syrian people? With the internet and information so freely available is this the end of ameria supporting terrorists groups like Al-Queada?

[Big Bad Sven]

A well informed article about Syria and the division of people and the possible break up of the country:

Three Syrias emerge on sectarian lines

http://www.smh.com.au/world/three-syrias-emerge-on-sectarian-lines-20130517-2jrx7.html

From the above article:
"three Syrias are emerging: one loyal to the government, to Iran and to Hezbollah; one dominated by Kurds with links to Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Iraq; and one with a Sunni majority heavily influenced by Islamists and jihadis."

LOL at Turkey, they supported America and Israel like little puppets, and for their reward they get another region being Kurdish controlled. They must be devastated know lol

[Big Bad Sven]

A very informative documentary about Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrtNd5h2L_Q

interesting part is when the nurse/sister talks about how the fanatical islamists kill a shop owner, cut his body up into pieces and then pull out a camera and pretend it was the Syrian army that did this LOL

This is a bullshit war, and alot of these crimes against humanity are self inflected and a lot of the images and footage and altered. It sure reminds me of the bullshit kosovo and macedonian war - where the shiptars made very lie about 'attoricites' committed.

There is footage and proof of how disgusting these 'rebels' are. Its too bad you wont hear about it in western media, and obvisouly cant see it because it is gruesome/disgusting

Also interesitng to note that the 700 captured 'rebels' were mostly people from Iraq or the Gulf countries, no Syrians? Interesting enough their weapons and equipment were made in the USA and Israel. What a crazy alliance this is: Israel and the USA with Saudi Arabia and Al-Quaeda. I wonder how the Sep 11 victims and jews feel that their governments are supporting the terrorists that attacked and killed them



I also found this post from a macedonian user very good as well:
"why in every documentary everyone mention Kosovo and noone ever mention Macedonia and the conflict in 2001? it was made by the same peoples that occupy Kosovo. UN ordered Macedonian army not to use our jets against the islamic terrorists, and UN even told Macedonian army to stop attacking and rescued the terrorist from an surrounded village (Aracinovo), by buss and armored vehicles. then they moved the terrorists with UN protection to other occupied villages. terrorist were using US weapons too."