US Military makes the US an empire.

[Unkotare]

what this boils down to is that some believe The United States of America is the single most evil force in the world... Some with say it is because of cost and some will say it provokes but it all comes to they honestly dont like or trust the USA. If you feel this way then please have the courage of your convictions and move.

You move. You don't understand the principles this nation was founded on.

Hey genius in 1776 it took months to get Europe. Isolation has NEVER worked. But it has done great for the homicidal tyrants

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

We weren't an empire then.

And we aren’t now.

 

[Penelope]

Where are all these Military men and women stationed?

The U.S. operates in over 100 countries, including the U.K., Germany, Italy, Bahrain, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Japan just to name a few.

U.S. Armed Forces Overview
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we take out other countries, next will be Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. If other countries do not bow down to the US we sanction them to near death and attack.

As long as the other countries behave they can do whatever they want, kill citizens, lock them up, we never do anything for humanitarian reasons, they can worship as they like, as long as they cater to the US and Israel.

This is why we have crumbling infrastructure and no money for healthcare as we have to keep the military alive and well, which the US owns the air, water and land all over the globe.

PS: they do not really care for the vets, they are no longer useful, they are used as a prop mainly and thank you for your service.

(in other words, we are Rome, before the fall) or England if you prefer.

There is a reason for it but I doubt that you would understand it.

Please tell us the reason?

 

[Penelope]

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we blah.. blah.. blah...

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

We are not an empire.

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

 

[Muhammed]

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we blah.. blah.. blah...

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

We are not an empire.

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't buy the supplements the tin foil hat you are wearing might not operate at maximum efficiency.

 

[gipper]

what this boils down to is that some believe The United States of America is the single most evil force in the world... Some with say it is because of cost and some will say it provokes but it all comes to they honestly dont like or trust the USA. If you feel this way then please have the courage of your convictions and move.

You move. You don't understand the principles this nation was founded on.

Hey genius in 1776 it took months to get Europe. Isolation has NEVER worked. But it has done great for the homicidal tyrants

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

We weren't an empire then.

And we aren’t now.

It is NOT isolation, it is NONINTERVENTION. Get it straight.

Why is it statists always resort to the use of the word isolation, to denigrate a policy of NOT killing and destroying?

Believing the US is not an empire, is an admission of ignorance. It may be willful due to a life time of brainwashing by the state.

 

[Penelope]

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we blah.. blah.. blah...

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

We are not an empire.

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't buy the supplements the tin foil hat you are wearing might not operate at maximum efficiency.

I think your wearing it.

 

[Muhammed]

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we blah.. blah.. blah...

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

We are not an empire.

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't buy the supplements the tin foil hat you are wearing might not operate at maximum efficiency.

I think your wearing it.

You are the one mindlessly repeating Alex Jones' message.

 

[Penelope]

For the allegiances of other countries, namely Israel and SA we blah.. blah.. blah...

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

We are not an empire.

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't buy the supplements the tin foil hat you are wearing might not operate at maximum efficiency.

I think your wearing it.

You are the one repeating Alex Jones' message.

I don't go to Alex Jones site and I certainty didn't come to my conclusion from listening to him.

 

[Muhammed]

Whatever Alex.

Want some supplements to go with your tin foil hat?

Words have meaning. We are not an empire.

Really?

Yes really. If you don't buy the supplements the tin foil hat you are wearing might not operate at maximum efficiency.

I think your wearing it.

You are the one repeating Alex Jones' message.

I don't go to Alex Jones site and I certainty didn't come to my conclusion from listening to him.

You quote him almost verbatim. Are you also a 9/11 truther?

 

[martybegan]

We have been an empire for quite some time.

As bad as that is, guess what it would be like to be at the other end of that stick?

Or what type of empire would emerge to fill in the gap?

America's version of "Empire" is one of the most banal forms the world has ever seen, right up there with the British Empire.

That's the question of the hour. I wouldn't say it was banal. There is a reason the US goes into countries and supports dictatorships. Dictatorships are legitimate forms of ruler-ship. That free speechy thang? I'd be hard pressed to find another country that has all that spelled out.There is a reason for that. Whatever type of next empire would probably not have the rights we are accustomed to.

There is a difference between Empire and enforcing one's political and diplomatic will. Yes we supported dictators, but the ones that were overthrown, how well did the people in that country do afterwards?

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

 

[Unkotare]

what this boils down to is that some believe The United States of America is the single most evil force in the world... Some with say it is because of cost and some will say it provokes but it all comes to they honestly dont like or trust the USA. If you feel this way then please have the courage of your convictions and move.

You move. You don't understand the principles this nation was founded on.

Hey genius in 1776 it took months to get Europe. Isolation has NEVER worked. But it has done great for the homicidal tyrants

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

We weren't an empire then.

And we aren’t now.

It is NOT isolation, it is NONINTERVENTION. Get it straight.

Why is it statists always resort to the use of the word isolation, to denigrate a policy of NOT killing and destroying?

Believing the US is not an empire, is an admission of ignorance. It may be willful due to a life time of brainwashing by the state.

It’s due to an understanding of what the term actually means, rather than emoting.

The “isolation” thing seems to be a discussion you are having with someone else.

 

[Disir]

We have been an empire for quite some time.

As bad as that is, guess what it would be like to be at the other end of that stick?

Or what type of empire would emerge to fill in the gap?

America's version of "Empire" is one of the most banal forms the world has ever seen, right up there with the British Empire.

That's the question of the hour. I wouldn't say it was banal. There is a reason the US goes into countries and supports dictatorships. Dictatorships are legitimate forms of ruler-ship. That free speechy thang? I'd be hard pressed to find another country that has all that spelled out.There is a reason for that. Whatever type of next empire would probably not have the rights we are accustomed to.

There is a difference between Empire and enforcing one's political and diplomatic will. Yes we supported dictators, but the ones that were overthrown, how well did the people in that country do afterwards?

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

 

[martybegan]

Or what type of empire would emerge to fill in the gap?

America's version of "Empire" is one of the most banal forms the world has ever seen, right up there with the British Empire.

That's the question of the hour. I wouldn't say it was banal. There is a reason the US goes into countries and supports dictatorships. Dictatorships are legitimate forms of ruler-ship. That free speechy thang? I'd be hard pressed to find another country that has all that spelled out.There is a reason for that. Whatever type of next empire would probably not have the rights we are accustomed to.

There is a difference between Empire and enforcing one's political and diplomatic will. Yes we supported dictators, but the ones that were overthrown, how well did the people in that country do afterwards?

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

Venezuela screwed itself up, it didn't need our help. They had plenty of other markets for their Oil. We didn't make them nationalize industries, or try end runs around their own Constitution.

The only thing that can really be "blamed" on us is our resurgent Oil industry, which lowered overall global crude prices.

 

[Disir]

That's the question of the hour. I wouldn't say it was banal. There is a reason the US goes into countries and supports dictatorships. Dictatorships are legitimate forms of ruler-ship. That free speechy thang? I'd be hard pressed to find another country that has all that spelled out.There is a reason for that. Whatever type of next empire would probably not have the rights we are accustomed to.

There is a difference between Empire and enforcing one's political and diplomatic will. Yes we supported dictators, but the ones that were overthrown, how well did the people in that country do afterwards?

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

Venezuela screwed itself up, it didn't need our help. They had plenty of other markets for their Oil. We didn't make them nationalize industries, or try end runs around their own Constitution.

The only thing that can really be "blamed" on us is our resurgent Oil industry, which lowered overall global crude prices.

Wanted to make them pay for nationalizing their industries. That's telling.

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference between Empire and enforcing one's political and diplomatic will. Yes we supported dictators, but the ones that were overthrown, how well did the people in that country do afterwards?

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

Venezuela screwed itself up, it didn't need our help. They had plenty of other markets for their Oil. We didn't make them nationalize industries, or try end runs around their own Constitution.

The only thing that can really be "blamed" on us is our resurgent Oil industry, which lowered overall global crude prices.

Wanted to make them pay for nationalizing their industries. That's telling.

That's only fair. Nationalizing does imply paying. Confiscating implies taking.

If a US company invested in a company that was to be nationalized, they expect and should expect compensation.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

No we remember American Europeans fought the British, Mexicans and French not to mention the Native Americans. The Spanish American war as well.

The expansion of the US began with WWII when we became the saviors of England and the sun set on England and rose on the US and has not stopped.(but it will).

Hateful Canadian?

 

[Disir]

That depends on the regime change and which little disenfranchised group was chosen to replace the other.. The question is how well did that little disenfranchised group do? People are expendable whether it is our own or others.

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

Venezuela screwed itself up, it didn't need our help. They had plenty of other markets for their Oil. We didn't make them nationalize industries, or try end runs around their own Constitution.

The only thing that can really be "blamed" on us is our resurgent Oil industry, which lowered overall global crude prices.

Wanted to make them pay for nationalizing their industries. That's telling.

That's only fair. Nationalizing does imply paying. Confiscating implies taking.

If a US company invested in a company that was to be nationalized, they expect and should expect compensation.

Venezuela had no problem selling to China. Companies were compensated fairly up until 2008. Then Exxon and Conoco slammed Venezuela with lawsuits. Even so, none of that makes Venezuela a "national security threat". It doesn't rise to that level.

 

[gipper]

You move. You don't understand the principles this nation was founded on.

Hey genius in 1776 it took months to get Europe. Isolation has NEVER worked. But it has done great for the homicidal tyrants

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

We weren't an empire then.

And we aren’t now.

It is NOT isolation, it is NONINTERVENTION. Get it straight.

Why is it statists always resort to the use of the word isolation, to denigrate a policy of NOT killing and destroying?

Believing the US is not an empire, is an admission of ignorance. It may be willful due to a life time of brainwashing by the state.

It’s due to an understanding of what the term actually means, rather than emoting.

The “isolation” thing seems to be a discussion you are having with someone else.

That’s funny. Give me a bit to compose myself, as I am laughing too much.

 

[martybegan]

It's the degree of expendability that explains the difference between banal empire and oppressive empire, just like it decides the difference between banal government and oppressive government.

One can argue that the US government can do bad things to it's people, but one can also argue that more oppressive governments like Venezuela can do far worse.

My point was that the US government can't do to it's people what other countries can do to theirs. You wont necessarily see that on our own soil. The reasons behind regime changes have nothing to do with the people of that country. Pick a disenfranchised group that agrees with the business interests and back it. The people in the US are not about to be supportive of out and out saying something like........the market over there needs to let Nestle in. It's not going to happen. But, if you send in a bunch of human rights activists to support that disenfranchised group and send filmed interviews and "personal interest" stories of the group you want in power then you get the people to support it.

We have been screwing with Venezuela since before 2006 hard core. They aren't a threat.

Venezuela screwed itself up, it didn't need our help. They had plenty of other markets for their Oil. We didn't make them nationalize industries, or try end runs around their own Constitution.

The only thing that can really be "blamed" on us is our resurgent Oil industry, which lowered overall global crude prices.

Wanted to make them pay for nationalizing their industries. That's telling.

That's only fair. Nationalizing does imply paying. Confiscating implies taking.

If a US company invested in a company that was to be nationalized, they expect and should expect compensation.

Venezuela had no problem selling to China. Companies were compensated fairly up until 2008. Then Exxon and Conoco slammed Venezuela with lawsuits. Even so, none of that makes Venezuela a "national security threat". It doesn't rise to that level.

And Venezuela was rightly sued.

They are a threat because of their stated policies and viewpoints, and their destabilizing effect on the region.

If the US parks a CBG in the Med off of Spain or Italy, they look forward to the shore leaves, we do the same to Venezuela they will cry to the UN and anyone else that will listen.
That's the difference between a threat and not a threat.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Maybe but it has caused a great deal of death and destruction, in many parts of the world.

Just so you know.....

Americas War Machine Death Toll overall since 1800........45,400,000
Liberals Death Toll on the Unborn Children since 2000.....148,900,000

It's nice to have your priorities straight