<p>news tidbit</p>
<p>"The euro hit $1.3007 after the release of the trade figures, breaking its previous record of $1.2987 set Monday amid concerns about oil prices and the U.S. trade and budget deficits."</p>
<p>Concerns about what?</p>
<p>Way to protect the value of our currency Dubya! Those foreign investors financing your deficits must be so happy!</p>
<p>Also each of the fall of major empires were preceded by wars of empire. In France's example it was helping the USA become independent. Its a alot of fun.</p>
<p>And to think we got leaders who got ivy in their blood and war leaders who avoided the draft and never were in the military.</p>
<p>Great post. Am printing up for HUBBIE and all his friends in the military! Let no one say "History does NOT repeat itself!"</p>
<p>Give me a break, the United States is in no way, shape, or form an empire. With all the time you spent trying to corroborate an erroneous statement, I thought you would have at least spent 20 seconds looking up the word "empire." </p>
<p>"A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."</p>
<p>The United States does not govern anything outside of its own country; Iraq has its own government, Afghanistan has its own government, and the "700 military bases" around the world certainly do not govern anything. So to compare the U.S. to famous empires is absurd.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to think we got leaders who got ivy in their blood and war leaders who avoided the draft and never were in the military.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All I can do is laugh at that quote. You listen to John Kerry and the Democratic party WAY too much. Maybe you should think before posting unsubstantiated claims.</p>
<p>UC_benz: I really like those quote boxes. Again can you cue me in on you do them. Or anyone.</p>
<p>UC_Benz: Us baby boomers, males, all remember a special day in 1968 without exception. Do you know what it is?</p>
<p>Excuse me! When our president feels it is his DUTY to impose our type of democracy upon third world nations who couldn't give a hoot or a holler about it and then invade them at our country's expense that connotes to me "EMPIRE" building.</p>
<p>I may be wrong on the specific year. Could be 69 or 70.</p>
<p>Empire-building is a state of mind, a philosophy of government, not an actual "THING". How concrete can you be? Think that date was installation of the draft?</p>
<p>
[quote]
UC_benz: I really like those quote boxes. Again can you cue me in on you do them. Or anyone
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Type (i''m spelling it out for you btw) in the following sequence:</p>
<ol>
<li>left bracket</li>
<li>"quote" (the word, without the " " )</li>
<li>right bracket</li>
<li>Copy and paste the section you want to quote directly after the right bracket (no spaces)</li>
<li>left bracket (immediately follows the quote)</li>
<li>front slash</li>
<li> "quote" (type again)</li>
<li>right bracket</li>
</ol>
<p>Establishing a functioning Iraqi-governed democracy is "empire-building"? I though Saddam was empire-building when he invaded Kuwait....and "empire-consolidating" when he murdered 100's of 1,000's of Kurds throughout the 90's. </p>
<p>It is "empire-building" when the object nation is exploited for gain. The US hasn't done that (we gain in that a free country will exist in the ME, but we get nothing material out of it directly); the Baathists did under Saddam.</p>
<p>UC-Benz, your simplistic counter by merely citing a definition roooted in historic parameters is laughable. Empire building has always been for the purpose of promoting a nation's values, economic and security self-interests. It the historic paradigm this was accomplished via conquest and colonialism. National power is not exerted in this way in the 21st century.</p>
<p>UC-Benz, do you know what Project for the New American Century is?? If not google it up and you will find out why we are in Iraq. Among its charter members are Dick Cheny, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Don Kegan and Eliott Abrams. Sound familiar. Well here is an exerpt from PNAC's Statement of Principles:</p>
<pre><code> "Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
</code></pre>
<p> we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;</p>
<p> we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;</p>
<p> we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;</p>
<p> we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. </p>
<p>".....extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."? "...global interests"? "...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values"? Sounds like imperialism to me.</p>
<p>Another exerpt from the Global Policy Forum:</p>
<p>"The United States is the most powerful nation in the world and it often acts unilaterally, but is it an Empire? Though some insist that empire means only direct rule over large-scale conquered territory, the United States today looks decidedly imperial. The term empire has entered common usage, not only among critics but also among advocates of muscular US policy and global superiority. Economist Niall Ferguson has written about the British Empire as a lesson-book for contemporary US power. Influential Washington neo-conservatives are using the E-word freely, insisting that the United States is the worlds most benevolent nation and that it should use its imperial power robustly to expand freedom across the globe." </p>
<p>UC-Benz, if we are not empire why do we have 702 military bases scattered in 130 nations around the world? If we are not projecting empire, close them all down, bring a half million uniformed and civilian personel home and save untold billions for another tax cut!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
If not google it up and you will find out why we are in Iraq.
[/quote]
Wow, you are THE national policy guru. I feel honored to be in the presence of such a senior member of the government. I'm surprised President Bush isn't going to appoint you to Secretary of State; after all, you know EXACTLY why we do stuff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The global responsibility is to keep peace. It's been a fact for years that the United States is the global "peacekeeper." You can spin it any way you want to, but it's the fact of the matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No where in that "consequence" does it say "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes BY WAR to our interests and values" You can challenge in a multitude of ways, we're challening North Korea right now. We're challenging Iran. China and Japan are challenging North Korea too. MAYBE THEY ARE EMPIRES ALSO. GOD SAVE US ALL. Since you obviously think the United States is trying to "conquer" the world, go ahead and say the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a good idea. No really! Go ahead and say it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this one; anybody with a pulse wants freedom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, I don't see it say "We are going to systematically impose our way of life on every country of the world. THE END." Maybe you don't want to extend our values, but I do. Maybe you would like genocide to continue in Sudan. I don't. Maybe you would like nuclear proliferation to continue in the Middle East and East Asia. I don't. </p>
<p>I'm sure you don't like Bill O'Reilly since you're a Democrat, but you should take his advice and enter the "no-spin zone."</p>
<p>
[quote]
When our president feels it is his DUTY to impose our type of democracy upon third world nations who couldn't give a hoot or a holler about it and then invade them at our country's expense
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What "third world nations" have we invaded? Afghanistan? Just like I challenged original, go ahead and say we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. Oh, and I'm sure the women in Iraq and Afghanistan "couldn't give a hoot or a holler about" being oppressed. I'm sure. Or maybe the millions of Kurds who died "couldn't give a hoot or a holler about" being persecuted because of their beliefs. Just maybe.</p>
<p>"I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this one; anybody with a pulse wants freedom."</p>
<p>....read his statement again and think it over. you obviously wouldn't score too high on reading comprehension.</p>
<p>"Maybe you would like nuclear proliferation to continue in the Middle East and East Asia. I don't."</p>
<p>we found wmd's in Iraq?</p>
<p>wouldn't they be in Iran, a country which we are basically leaving alone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
....read his statement again and think it over. you obviously wouldn't score too high on reading comprehension.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With that said, I still don't see anywhere where it says "WE ARE GOING TO PROMOTE FREEDOM USING COERCIVE MEASURES." Let's say I am going to go out and promote General Motors. Does that mean I'm going to invade someone's home and force them to buy a General Motors vehicle? No. The United States promotes freedom by simple communication means: treaties, summits, sanctions, etc. There are 193 countries in the world; guess how many the United States governs? 1. Your rhetoric is admirable Ace, but it doesn't quite hold up.</p>
<p>Obviously you wouldn't score too high on geography Ace. Last I checked, Iran was in the Middle East. What do I know though? It very well could have floated away since I last looked at a map.</p>
<p>We already had the draft. </p>
<p>UC_Benz : If you look at the manpower projections of your generation, the requirements for meeting military needs may be short. There are alternatives, all will take political and national soul searching.</p>
<p>Each of our past war's had ramifications well past their actual periods. This one will last at least as long and probably longer. It has a very good (perhaps excellent probability) chance to put the US in a position which it will never recover economically, politically, and militarily.</p>
<p>Our concern is can the time line be altered now, so that we don't have to look down the downward path. The longer we wait, momentum will not allow us to alter, only prepare and minimize the damage. GWB has taken the view that military action will take us to the higher moral road. Not all the world believes this to be true-hence our schism.</p>
<p>this is a worthy debate in your poly-science/philosophy/economics class.</p>
<p>i never stated Iran wasn't in the middle east. I was trying to point out that the purpose of occupying Iraq is not to secure us from wmd's. Otherwise, Iran and North Korea would be the countries we'd try to occupy.</p>
<p>Kill thread. Please! CC is not a proper forum for this topic.</p>