US Military makes the US an empire.

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,511
Reaction score
9,605
Points
2,040
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
36,424
Reaction score
8,725
Points
1,330
If our reality show POTUS had a lick of sense he’d have started with infrastructure. Instead, we got another couple trillion in deficit spending on things we didn’t need.

Do Republicans care? Nope, they only care about their beloved tax cuts for multi-millionaires & Fortune 1000 corporations the booming economy be damned.

As Dirty Dick Cheney reminded us: Deficits don’t matter ... unless there’s a Dem in the White House.
Gosh! You mean people sometimes kill each other? We don't always sit in a circle holding hands and singing folk songs?

Maybe it's time you became aware of the fact that in the real world it sometimes comes down to kill or be killed. Most of us know on which side of that equation we prefer to be. Civilians hire the military to do the killing and dying for them but are equally responsible no matter what they prefer to think.
Do you think your opinion justifies the heinous warmongering the ruling class has imposed on the American people ?
I think you've swallowed far too much far left wing propaganda. I am an American. I cannot and will not be ruled. The only warmongering I know of is being done by radical Islam.
I understand that you would prefer to play the victim of some bogey-man "ruling class" because you think that doing so absolves you of any blame or responsibility for your own woes or tor those of anyone else. But that is really a pathetic and unrealistic attitude. I prefer to take control of my own life.
That is hilarious. Everyone here who knows me, knows I am about as far from being a leftist as is possible.

You can’t control your life if the ruling class gets you killed.[/QUOTE]

More pathetic whining by the snowflake who is just so so abused by his mythical ruling class. Woe is him! Woe is him![/QUOTE]
Kill Bubba. Kill!
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,124
Reaction score
4,436
Points
290
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
No. It isn't an attack against "us". If you, as an individual, go to work for an American company in another country and you are kidnapped, the US government is not coming for you. They might pick up the phone and make some calls. They absolutely will not pay ransom. They are more than happy to let your family sell everything they own and borrow to high heaven and in a couple of years maybe you get to come home. There is an entire insurance industry for that but it will take a minute. However, if you are a nation-state that is in the process of self determination and it just so happens to piss off some nitwit executives that can't do whatever they want then, by golly, now you have done it. Now it's a threat. These are corporate wars. It's ok for the expendability of our own people for corporations with people that would damn sure not allow their own children to fight in these wars.
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,124
Reaction score
4,436
Points
290
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?
It's not a binary choice between being the bully or the victim.
It shouldn't be a binary choice between being the bully or the victim.
Ahh... I think I misunderstood you. I took your post to be saying we've got to be a bully so that we don't become a victim. Re-reading, I'm thinking you meant that, however much some of us in the US might be frustrated with a government trying to run an empire, the people in the countries being dominated like it even less.
Yep.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,581
Reaction score
11,089
Points
1,440
Location
Florida
The US has certainly been involved in wars for the last one hundred years. However, it hasn't been for empire building or domination. We could conquer any place on earth we wanted. We could make the old Roman or British empires look like amateurs if that was our desire.

Instead we run a welfare foreign policy. We protect other countries and we fight other people's wars for them and we don't get much in return. It is foreign welfare.

We need to stop both our domestic and foreign welfare programs. We need to concentrate on making this country great again and that includes protecting our borders instead of other people's borders.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
34,395
Reaction score
3,445
Points
1,130
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,927
Points
290
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.
An empire extracts tribute from its subject states.

The USA gives away free foreign aid.

The USA is not an empire it is an imbecile.
 
OP
Penelope

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
46,318
Reaction score
5,367
Points
1,860
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.
An empire extracts tribute from its subject states.

The USA gives away free foreign aid.

The USA is not an empire it is an imbecile.

Is Hegemony a better word for you?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
91,415
Reaction score
8,557
Points
2,015
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.
An empire extracts tribute from its subject states.

The USA gives away free foreign aid.

The USA is not an empire it is an imbecile.

Is Hegemony a better word for you?
Sounds like CCP propaganda.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
91,415
Reaction score
8,557
Points
2,015
Some people just can't let go of false narratives once they've bought into them. Some people won't let go of the "overpopulation" myth despite all the evidence proving it is a non-crisis. The global warming panic is just a mutation of "The Next Ice Age!" scare of the 70s. Likewise, some people can't/don't want to let go of the "America is always the bad guy" mantra because some ahole college professor once made them believe that holding this position in and of itself makes the holder "intellectual." The 'America as policeman' notion is just an off-shoot of this.

We are not an empire.
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,124
Reaction score
4,436
Points
290
Some people have never read anything written by or listened to Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski. Perhaps it offends delicate eyes and ears.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
Don't be silly. They are getting their nation defended at the expense of the American taxpayer. What's not for them to like?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,511
Reaction score
9,605
Points
2,040
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
I'm not talking about military access, I'm talking about companies doing business and having their shit taken.

Have we appropriated Samsung or Sony's shit on our soil recently?
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,124
Reaction score
4,436
Points
290
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
I'm not talking about military access, I'm talking about companies doing business and having their shit taken.

Have we appropriated Samsung or Sony's shit on our soil recently?
Let's ask Paul Singer.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,511
Reaction score
9,605
Points
2,040
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.
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
I'm not talking about military access, I'm talking about companies doing business and having their shit taken.

Have we appropriated Samsung or Sony's shit on our soil recently?
Let's ask Paul Singer.
One guy buying bad debt isn't government policy.
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,124
Reaction score
4,436
Points
290
Tears are not weapons. Stated policies and viewpoints are not weapons. It does not rise to the level of a "national threat". You don't have that. You have some pissed off corporations.
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
I'm not talking about military access, I'm talking about companies doing business and having their shit taken.

Have we appropriated Samsung or Sony's shit on our soil recently?
Let's ask Paul Singer.
One guy buying bad debt isn't government policy.
Then you haven't followed Samsungs issues.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
52,511
Reaction score
9,605
Points
2,040
Which are part of our country, made up of shareholders of our citizens, and deserve the protection of our government when some two bit socialist moron tries to steal from them.

An attack against our interests is an attack against us.
I sort of doubt you're willing to extend the same prerogative to other countries. Would you authorize other nations military access to the US, as long as they are "protecting their interests"?
I'm not talking about military access, I'm talking about companies doing business and having their shit taken.

Have we appropriated Samsung or Sony's shit on our soil recently?
Let's ask Paul Singer.
One guy buying bad debt isn't government policy.
Then you haven't followed Samsungs issues.
The US government is trying to nationalize Samsung USA?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top