What's the title going to be? "I Duh'd it My Way"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, you tell 'em Rush.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, you tell 'em Rush.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce... do you REALLY think you've made a telling argument to the thoughtful people with this juvenile jeer? Please try to offer an idea I can respect.

Originally Posted by Redux

I am a believer in the rule of law.

So you say, and repeatedly. Perhaps you even believe it. But the laws you believe in were laws carefully crafted to protect and preserve the Marxist tyranny of Sandinista Nicaragua. To be worth obeying, a law must be in the service of the good -- not to aid a tyrant, even an incompetent one. I've told you this at least twice now. You are remarkably resistant to understanding what is good and then going to do it. Well, that isn't me.

Nothing bit us in the ass in helping the Contras into power and the Sandinistas out. Sure, some of the usual antidemocratic pigs made the usual noises, but that's not a wound to us -- on the contrary, it's a sign we're wounding them. Fascisto-communist dickheads can compose speeches too.

Nicaragua has been a prospering, democratic state since the Sandinistas collapsed. With the Sandinistas running things, there wasn't a lot of prosperity to be found. Democracy advances, tyranny falls, collectivism dies, and that's the way I want it. I'm a libertarian. I care not a whit how many slavemongers die in the liberation. It seems to me when they're dead, they can't mount an organized opposition to a better way of life than they ever made.

Chavez will fall -- both because he will drive the Nicaraguan economy into the ground and because of his anti-American stance. He's anti-prosperity -- and we aren't. This is shown by his bottomless appetite for all the power for him, none for anyone else, and this is always a recipe for economic depression. This fall of the man on horseback isn't much of a wound to us, either.

You're quite losing this argument through not being enough of a disciple of liberty, you know.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nothing bit us in the ass in helping the Contras into power and the Sandinistas out. Sure, some of the usual antidemocratic pigs made the usual noises, but that's not a wound to us -- on the contrary, it's a sign we're wounding them. Fascisto-communist dickheads can compose speeches too.

Nicaragua has been a prospering, democratic state since the Sandinistas collapsed. With the Sandinistas running things, there wasn't a lot of prosperity to be found. Democracy advances, tyranny falls, collectivism dies, and that's the way I want it. I'm a libertarian. I care not a whit how many slavemongers die in the liberation. It seems to me when they're dead, they can't mount an organized opposition to a better way of life than they ever made.

Chavez will fall -- both because he will drive the Nicaraguan economy into the ground and because of his anti-American stance. He's anti-prosperity -- and we aren't. This is shown by his bottomless appetite for all the power for him, none for anyone else, and this is always a recipe for economic depression. This fall of the man on horseback isn't much of a wound to us, either.

You're quite losing this argument through not being enough of a disciple of liberty, you know.

The Sandinistas, the guys that Reagan broke the law to oust, returned to power in Nicaragua in 2007 and are "running things." Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) is president.....the FSLN holds the most seats in the National Assembly. And while they have initiated democratic reforms, particulalry regarding an independent judiciary, the model is Venezuela under Chavez, not the US.

From a US State Department report:

Since taking office again in January 2007, President Daniel Ortega has maintained the legal and regulatory underpinnings of the market-based economic model of his predecessors, but has rejected what he terms the "neo-liberal economic model," and along with it capitalism and the United States, which he refers to as the imperial power. Instead, he has allied himself with the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), whose other members include Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, and Venezuela. In 2008, Ortega declared that socialism was the only path for Nicaragua if the country wanted to alleviate poverty.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm

So you still justify Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra scheme? Tell that to the 11 Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes for their roles in the illegal foreign policy action.

How about GHW Bush's arming of Saddam to counter Reagan's arming of Iran...what a fuck up...arming both of our "enemies" in the region? What did that accomplish?

Why is the Bush/Iraq model of invade and occupy a better foreign policy approach than the Clinton/Bosnia model of tough diplomacy backed by a strong alliance of NATO forces?

No response to the fact that the US intel community, in NIE's for Bush, concluded that the invasion/occupation of Iraq and related torture of detainees from Afghanistan at Gitmo and black sites has resulted in a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment?

Where are the successes of your neocon policies?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Sandinistas, the guys that Reagan broke the law to oust, returned to power in Nicaragua in 2007 and are "running things." Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) is president.....the FSLN holds the most seats in the National Assembly. And while they have initiated democratic reforms, particulalry regarding an independent judiciary, the model is Venezuela under Chavez, not the US.

From a US State Department report:


So you still justify Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra scheme? Tell that to the 11 Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes for their roles in the illegal foreign policy action.

How about GHW Bush's arming of Saddam to counter Reagan's arming of Iran...what a fuck up...arming both of our "enemies" in the region? What did that accomplish?

Why is the Bush/Iraq model of invade and occupy a better foreign policy approach than the Clinton/Bosnia model of tough diplomacy backed by a strong alliance of NATO forces?

No response to the fact that the US intel community, in NIE's for Bush, concluded that the invasion/occupation of Iraq and related torture of detainees from Afghanistan at Gitmo and black sites has resulted in a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment?

Where are the successes of your neocon policies?

In places you haven't, or refused to, look, it would seem. Purblind is no way to go about anything. Heck, Wikipedia tells us how much of a lesson Ortega learned in his time out of power:

Ortega's policies became more moderate during his time in opposition, and he gradually reduced much of his former Marxist rhetoric in favor of an agenda of more moderate democratic socialism. His Roman Catholic faith has become more intense in recent years as well, leading Ortega to embrace a variety of socially conservative policies; in 2006 the FSLN endorsed a strict law banning all abortions in Nicaragua.

Did you notice any of that? Not that I'm at all keen on abortion bans, but I kept that in the quote as an example. (I reckon absolute control of whether we reproduce or not is better stewardship of the planet than any insistence by law on doing it otherwise.)

And we haven't had a lick of trouble out of Nicaragua, nor has Nicaragua had the kind of troubles that got us interested in the Contras in the first place. That's even with Ortega back in. He's acting like his ideas have changed in a more favorable direction, and that is surely what we want. That's no failure by any measure. It's an example of a bad-hat reforming.

Face it, Chavez's Venezuela is a pretend-democracy. The form may be there, but the function is not. Following such a model will not end well.

I never cease to justify the crushing of tyrants. Was not the Sandinista regime one of tyranny, impoverishment, and incompetence? The crushing of tyrants simply can't be wrong, and the liberation from oppression can't be wrong either. Always, I justify justify breaking bad laws (and laws shielding tyrants are never good laws, and you have (or you should) sufficient awareness to understand this too) to good ends. I've told you two or three times now that legislation was designed to keep Marxist monstrosities in office, their miseries the better to inflict. When will it sink in with you that it is bad to prevent liberation from oppression? I am not going to be impressed by your indignation because your priorities are both out of whack and strictly for partisan convenience. I will have nothing to do with either, being the good, thoughtful fellow I am.

The same goes for lunging into Iraq. It's expensive, yes, but what are their chances of going back to an avowedly capital-F Fascist government? I think they are small indeed. That's not a failure.

Afghanistan's a murkier case, because nobody there's willing to put up with being centrally governed anyway, given all their druthers. It's never really been a unified nation, however convenient it may be to call it by just one name. A lot of steep valleys, a lot of tribes, and the tribal level is where the loyalty pretty much entirely lies, and nothing seems to be generating an urge towards broader national consciousness or towards central governance either. A federated or a looser confederated model seems the natural one.

Let's see: before we invaded, Saddam ruled Iraq, funded terrorists and provided benefits for Israel-attackers' families, wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda as is evidenced by who was picking up the medical bills for al-Zarqawi's munched leg.

Now Saddam is dead, and his policies and alliances with him. Failure? I don't think so. Rulers who acted like Saddam have cleaned up their act, viz. Gaddafi. Was that a failure? I think that's an accomplishment. Funny how you can't.

Integration into the Functioning Global Economic Core continues. Our foreign policy troubles come from that part of the world that isn't integrated into globalization, which may conveniently be called the Non-Integrated Gap. We're fighting in the Gap right now. From time to time, we'll still be fighting here or there in the Gap region(s).

Why do you give half a fuck about "cause celèbre for terrorist recruitment" anyway? Could you tell if a terrorist was more annoyed with you just for being an American this year than a couple years ago? Haven't you noticed how difficult it is for the terrs to do anything anymore? Sure, they fight back. Just as sure, we shoot them -- and they've been stuck in the tribal territories of Pakistan, unable to reach out and touch us unless we're right there in their back yards, which is quite the contrast from the case at Sept. 11, 2001. Nasty people are going to hold nasty views of us, and because they're nasty, yeah, they're going to shoot at us too. Then we just smack their heads off their shoulders and the world gets a little better for having fewer bad actors in it. I have no problem with this, and will likely never understand why you think you should -- when you could just be happy more fascists died. Think how many Jews would have been saved if more fascists had died sooner. Think how many Jews would be saved now if all the Islamofascists were dead.

Which still leaves the great bulk of Islam around to practice their religion better, without these disgraces polluting it.

So no: spare no sympathy for the outraged feelings of bad actors, nor try to make nice to them. Their outrage is self-generated and it is unfair to us. They respond much better to the force of a 147-grain jacketed rifle slug through the cranium than to the force of a good example.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce... do you REALLY think you've made a telling argument to the thoughtful people with this juvenile jeer? Please try to offer an idea I can respect.

I can't give you an idea you can respect until you pull your head out of your ass and see what's really going on in the world. Imperialism is not the way to go.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I can't give you an idea you can respect until you pull your head out of your ass and see what's really going on in the world. Imperialism is not the way to go.

Bruce, if you think the United States is imperialist, you've not understood very much of US history at all. We have a conspicuously anti-imperialist habit, we've had it all our nation's life, and about our only departure from it was the Philippines and this was a) quite light, and b) temporary; it seemed more our following fashion than trying for empire. We noticed early on just plain open trading worked a lot better than the mercantilist economic theory that led to empire-building, by conquest or by lesser violence. It can be said of our early nation that the thirteen colonies were the first modern anti-Imperialist league. Though empire was the foreign-policy fashion then and through the nineteenth century, viz., Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, China, and later, Japan -- an empire pretty much defined a first-class power. We knocked Spain completely out of the empire business -- nobody else did. That one was ours. We finished them off after a lengthy imperial decline.

If you think I'm some kind of imperialist, all I can say is you're not paying any attention at all. That's not something I can respect either.

You've been pretty thoroughly misled by Communist rhetoric about "imperialism," whereby they dissed it while unabashedly practicing it. So, in the end, what is there for me to respect, again? Let's just put it this way: I'll look for respectable ideas from you. Now might be a good time for you to have them. I know you're not stupid, but the idea of "US Imperialism" should be buried by now, and not taken seriously by you. With you throwing ideas like that one around, are you quite certain you know what's going on in the world?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, if you think the United States is imperialist, you've not understood very much of US history at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, all those interventions at the request of United Fruit were just horseplay. We didn't really steal Hawaii, or crush the Philippines, or mess with Costa Rica and Haiti for 130 years.

None of that stuff actually happened. No, really.

[TGRR]

U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution
1893
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention

The Spanish-American War
1898
Inter-State War

U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War
1898-1899
Civil War & Foreign Intervention

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

Boxer Rebellion
1900
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention
Chinese Government & "Boxer" Rebels

The Moro Wars
1901-1913
Colonial Wars
Philippine Muslim Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution
1903
Secessionist Revolution & Foreign Intervention
Colombia

The Banana Wars
1909-1933
Civil Wars & Foreign Intervention
Various Rebel Groups In Central America

U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914
Inter-State War
Mexico

[TGRR]

Let's not even get into the more recent trade shows, like Vietnam or Desert Storm. All but about 6 American wars (Revolution, 1812, Shay's Rebellion, Bleeding Kansas, WWII, Korea) have been at the behest of monied American interests.

We might not have had a colonial office, but our imperialism is just as real as England's or France's.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Oh, yes, all those interventions at the request of United Fruit were just horseplay. We didn't really steal Hawaii, or crush the Philippines, or mess with Costa Rica and Haiti for 130 years.

.

Sorry, TG, but that is ill-considered.

By comparison with actual, permanent empire building, horseplay is exactly what interventions in protection of US interests from things like expropriation by local-dictator men on horseback was. We'd go in, sort the matter more or less well, and then we'd take off. Look up how many times that happened -- it's a political act typical of Gap states.

,
That is not the action of builders of empires, and that is very much our actions for those hundred and thirty years.

The Philippines were not crushed. They developed. Remember, they had Spanish rule to remember. They don't like Spain as much as they do us, even today. That should tell you a little something. Will it ever?

"Steal Hawaii"??? What, do the Hawaiians want it back to establish an autonomous collective? [/Monty Python & The Holy Grail voice]

Seriously, TGRR, your idea of "imperialism" is largely at variance with the historical examples. See, you've been taken in by another dumb leftist idea, where I have not.

Try Max Boot, The Savage Wars Of Peace for a good look at the whole.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, TG, but that is ill-considered.

By comparison with actual, permanent empire building, horseplay is exactly what interventions in protection of US interests from things like expropriation by local-dictator men on horseback was. We'd go in, sort the matter more or less well, and then we'd take off. Look up how many times that happened -- it's a political act typical of Gap states.

,
That is not the action of builders of empires, and that is very much our actions for those hundred and thirty years.

Tell it to Smedley Butler. He had a thing or two to say on the subject, and he has a bit more credibility than you.

And we didn't stay in Hawaii? What?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Meanwhile, In Pakistan... interesting doings in the Swat Valley.

Yeah, that Swat.