Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?
Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?
Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.
During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as American Indians or Alaska Natives in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves [including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus
In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.
You conveniently omit mention of the millions killed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the responsible and hardworking American taxpayers.
Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?
At least you are honest enough to admit the true motive behind our current trend of "Democritization".
Kudos. Most see the need to lie and obfuscate about this (if they are even astute enough to realize it).
To answer your question: I am not a subscriber in using the military to steal another nation's resources.
During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as American Indians or Alaska Natives in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves [including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus
In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.
You conveniently omit mention of the millions killed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the responsible and hardworking American taxpayers.
I take it you are unable to support "...massacring the Native Americans."
(fortunately you are unaware that today is the anniverary of the Chivington Massacre: 1864 500 Arapaho and Cheyenne attacked at Sand Creek
Colorado, after accepting peace. John Chivington led the militia
in the attack. Most of the 200 killed were women and children.
I wouldn't defend that one...)
It would be to everyone's advantage if we use language as defined in an accepted dictionary.
Steal:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal
So, are you either going to proffer an argument that the United States surreptitiously attained control of middle east oil, without involvement of contracts, or payment..or would you rather retract the left-wing smear of the United States that you learned in government schools?
It could also be construed as character assassination of the owners of the resources, as they must be either cowardly or ignorant to allow such 'theft.' Is that also your premise, if I may raise your buffoonery to that level?
Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?
It would be to everyone's advantage if we use language as defined in an accepted dictionary.
Steal:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal
So, are you either going to proffer an argument that the United States surreptitiously attained control of middle east oil, without involvement of contracts, or payment..or would you rather retract the left-wing smear of the United States that you learned in government schools?
It could also be construed as character assassination of the owners of the resources, as they must be either cowardly or ignorant to allow such 'theft.' Is that also your premise, if I may raise your buffoonery to that level?
To offer your quote again, in case I misunderstood you:
Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?
If the OPEC nations decide to cut off our oil tomorrow, what do we do?
Having been self-identified as not believing in American exceptionalism, you will never be able to see that the United States has been, more often than not, the champion of freedom and democracy.
The following, while not exatly verbatim, is close enough to make the point:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
But, I don't expect you to understand.
We've never been the champions of freedom and democracy. Can you name a single case where we promoted freedom and democracy when doing so was contrary to our national interest?
Having been self-identified as not believing in American exceptionalism, you will never be able to see that the United States has been, more often than not, the champion of freedom and democracy.
The following, while not exatly verbatim, is close enough to make the point:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
But, I don't expect you to understand.
We've never been the champions of freedom and democracy. Can you name a single case where we promoted freedom and democracy when doing so was contrary to our national interest?
We've never been the champions of freedom and democracy. Can you name a single case where we promoted freedom and democracy when doing so was contrary to our national interest?
What is the point of- and although it's not Easter, pearls before swine.
You will deflect every US involvement as in the national interest.
To be clear, I assume you are not irrational enough to be standing by the argument that the United States is stealing oil.
Since you have not repeated same, you must be retracting it.
A judicious retreat.
And your deflection is, it seems, that a nation would launch an attack in the face of an act of war, is this the case? And thus, at some unspecified imaginary date the United States would be guilt of theft during said war???
You have, it seems, stepped in quicksand.
To be clear, I assume you are not irrational enough to be standing by the argument that the United States is stealing oil.
Since you have not repeated same, you must be retracting it.
A judicious retreat.
And your deflection is, it seems, that a nation would launch an attack in the face of an act of war, is this the case? And thus, at some unspecified imaginary date the United States would be guilt of theft during said war???
You have, it seems, stepped in quicksand.
I am not talking about the status quo. I am talking about the future. (Though I certainly think access to oil drove our entry into Iraq.)
That, and the OPEC scenario, was not a deflection, it was what I perceived your point to be. If you don't want to address it, because you don't see it as germane to your thread, it is your prerogative.
As it stands, I viewed your post as a "the ends justify the means" when it comes to access to oil.
I certainly don't agree to that.
What is the point of- and although it's not Easter, pearls before swine.
You will deflect every US involvement as in the national interest.
Facts aren't deflection. That you don't even attempt to think of an example just shows how baseless your claim is.
Glad to see you have raced, full speed, away from your bogus statement the the United States steals oil.
As far as "I am talking about the future." I'm sure you agree with Yogi Berra 'I's difficult to predict, especially about the future."
Brilliant.
Speaking of running away from bogus statements, did you want to withdraw your support from Colin Powell's fallacious statement?
What is the point of- and although it's not Easter, pearls before swine.
You will deflect every US involvement as in the national interest.
Facts aren't deflection. That you don't even attempt to think of an example just shows how baseless your claim is.
You obviously went to government schools, don't belong to the right country club, and weren't invited to cotillion this year.
Therefore, you are too stupid to warrant a response.
Glad to see you have raced, full speed, away from your bogus statement the the United States steals oil.
As far as "I am talking about the future." I'm sure you agree with Yogi Berra 'I's difficult to predict, especially about the future."
Brilliant.
I didn't say we steal oil, I said I would not support a foreign policy that encouraged us to do so, which is what I perceived your statement to mean.
Speaking of running away from bogus statements, did you want to withdraw your support from Colin Powell's fallacious statement?
What was fallacious about standing firmly behind the brave froces who were able to conquer the forces of Nazism, Communism and colonialism.
And asking for no more than enough land to bury the dead.
Sorry you can't be proud of same.
One aspect of American Exceptionalism has been support for democritization and human rights throughout the world.
Our President has stepped away from this view: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
But it seems that other Western leaders agree with the President, and it seems to coincide with a view that, ultimately, Afghanistan may be more authoritarian than democratic.
Here is an interesting, short, article from Eurasianet, about upcoming elections in Central Asia.
"The quiet international response to Tajikistans electoral process is prompting some to suggest the United States and the European Union are growing fatigued with democratization in Central Asia.
... a western diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Why spend money on an electoral process that is pre-determined? In essence, assisting in pre-election efforts now with the close collaboration of the CEC would be tantamount to aligning oneself with the regime," the diplomat said. And beyond the money issue, the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan is prompting foreign officials and observers to "prefer a stable, rather than a democratic Central Asia," the diplomat suggested."
EurasiaNet Civil Society - Tajikistan: Is the West Showing Signs of Democratization Fatigue?
