Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The White Men in Afghanistan

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now, this is the road that the White Men tread
When they go to clean a land –
Iron underfoot and levin overhead
And the deep on either hand.
We have trod that road – and a wet and windy road –
Our chosen star for guide.
Oh, well for the world when the White Men tread
Their highway side by side!
– Rudyard Kipling

The above little bit of racially-chauvinistic and colonialism-touting versification is a blast from the politically boorish past that reminds us that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is an egregious example of how so much that's old and criminal in European and American history is uncannily new again.

Once upon a quaint time in the history of imperialistic geopolitics two great piggish powers, Great Britain and Russia, vied to establish their dominion over the land of the Afghans in such a long-drawn-out and conniving fashion that it came to be known as The Great Game. Today the same players, plus the good ole USA, are back at it once again.

That is, once again the White Men are following their guiding star, i.e. their arrogant sense of entitlement to the economic resources of other peoples, embarking upon the road of thinly-veiled imperialism, and venturing to clean Third-World countries such as Afghanistan of any elements that oppose the hegemony of the Western capitalist ruling class.

Yes, there's a bit more to the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan than merely depriving al-Qaeda of a safe haven/base of operation and putting an end to the reign of repression of the Taliban. Just as we were fed propagandic rubbish about Weapons of Mass destruction to conveniently justify aggressing against Iraq, we were also sold an equally bogus bill of goods about the true motive for conquering the sovereign land of Afghanistan.

Of course once again we've been encouraged to collectively delude ourselves into thinking that we're benevolently "cleaning a land". Our media keep driving home to us that Afghanistan is full of intolerant Islamists, terrorist sympathizers, misogynistic mullahs who only live to repress women, etc. And supposedly all that our chivalrous military forces are engaged in is the grand global public service of taking out all of this villainous garbage.

This is a tried-and-true MO of course. Eliminate the opposition to your dominancy in the name of suppressing religious fanatics and tyranny, in the name of spreading Western-style progress and freedom; gloss over the body count that your military racks up; and immodestly pat yourself on the back for your good works. And so what if we rapaciously reap the material rewards of our good works, this doesn't diminish their goodness, right? Oh my, perish such a cynical thought! After all, the might of Mighty Western Whitey isn't amoral; rather, it's exercised these days only in the performance of what used to be called the mission civilisatrice, the altruistic mission of bringing our eminently better form society to the backward peoples of the Muslim world. Mm-hmm, our occupation forces are missionaries of American civilization and values with M-16s!

Certain inconvenient facts, alas, can't help but get downplayed or falsified. For instance, that the faith-based civilization of the Ummah (the Muslim world) is not at all the atrocious thing that it's propagandically painted to be. In truth the religion of the Koran is quite socially compassionate and progressive, promoting justice for the poor and greater equality for women.

Ah, but then such a realistic portrait of Islam doesn't serve the purposes of the West's economic elite and the neoconservative agenda that it continues to pursue. No, it excuses and ennobles our mercenary militarism in a society such as Afghanistan much better if we focus on the bigotry, backwardness, and brutality of the Taliban; on its horrendous record on women's rights, for instance. This is pretty old-hat indeed. It's the same more-advanced-than-thou tack that the British took in India during the Raj, i.e. claiming that they were all about abolishing the barbaric Hindu practice of suttee (cremating a woman alive with her deceased husband's body), and bestowing enlightened British forms & norms on a benighted people. Improving the lot of women and modernizing conditions was also, btw, the benevolent pretext for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan!

How humane and high-principled imperialists are! NOT! In actuality colonialism is all about profit, all about systematically pillaging the resources and economies of other countries, and profitably deploying the obscenely overaccumulated capital of the economic elite. Humanitarianism is but a rationalizing afterthought. America has of course played this highly hypocritical, faux philanthropic game numerous times before and knows very well what it's doing. It fought the Spanish-American War to gain an empire but claimed to be fighting to liberate Cubans and Puerto Ricans from Spanish tyranny. It waged the Philippine-American war ostensively for the good of Filipinos (even though it killed perhaps a million of them!). Its jingoistic sense of neighborliness moved it to attempt the "cleaning" of various Central American lands in the so-called Banana Wars. Etc.

Yet we the people still play naïve and maintain that our imperialism isn't imperialism at all, that it's righteous retaliation for 9/11 and a truehearted effort to meliorate the lives of our victims. But then again, perhaps we're not so naïve. Perhaps you're thinking: "You haven't told us anything in your anti-imperialist diatribe that we don't already know. 21st century Americans are all hip to what the invasions/occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are really all about". But if this is the case, well, it raises a very troubling question indeed. Which is, if we all know that our government and ruling class is engaged in imperialism most foul then why isn't there more of an outcry to halt such criminal activity, and to bring its instigators to justice (i.e. putting George W. Bush and his hawkish neocon advisors, as well as certain profiteering CEOs, et al on trial)? Why is the emphasis more on supporting the troops than condemning immoral wars?

The obvious and odious answer is of course that the American public is sufficiently gullible and vindictive to buy that all of our ruling class's self-serving militarism post-9/11 must have at least a tiny bit to do with protecting us from terrorism and paying back those Middle-Eastern baddies. But there's a bit more to it.

Our mass media and culture have inculcated a patriotism and an ideological belief in our national moral superiority that inclines us to facilely and faithfully rationalize that American imperialism must always have a legitimate and morally lofty dimension to it. Mm-hmm, we're certainly not inclined to view our leaders as outright international gangsters who deserve to be jailed like a Milosevic or a Manuel Noriega, and this is very much due to our conceited self-image as a society and to ideology (in the Marxian sense of the word).

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 4:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conclusion

Also, there's the current conservative political zeitgeist which is decidedly unapologetic about such things as imperialism. And let us not forget another amoral contemporary zeitgeist, the "support the troops" zeitgeist which places tribalistic support of members of the armed forces and veterans ahead of ethics. Let me illustrate, just this morning I saw a segment on a news show about the bad behavior of military personnel in Afghanistan, an incident involving the desecration and destruction of copies of the Koran, but one of the anchors on this program just had to end the segment by offering an excuse for such condemnable conduct and by changing the subject to the need to take good care of returning veterans! Quite simply, when the focus is entirely on sheltering from criticism and hero-worshipping "the troops", then it becomes rather difficult to recognize and appreciate the enormity of the villainy they're engaged in.

Yep, it would be way too cognitively dissonant to own up the fact that the occupation of Afghanistan is entirely motivated by the desire to control the $12 trillion worth of oil & gas resources in Central Asia, and to admit that "the troops" are complicit in imperialism 21st century American style, while simultaneously singing their praises; so, instead we suspend our critical faculties and mentally parrot the rhetoric about the "war on terror" and liberating the Afghan people from the despotism of the Taliban.

Lastly, I'll refrain from going off on a tangent on our racist belief that the Western societal paradigm is superior and that we're doing Third-World societies a favor by forcing it on them.

In other words, and to sum up, our consensus as a nation on Afghanistan is full to brimming with all sorts of bullsh*t. But since there are no genuinely dissident gadflies in the mainstream media buzzing about and calling us, in a no-holds-barred critical fashion, on our imperialist bullsh*t, well, we can continue to retreat into its warmth and evade facing the cold hard fact that we're actually the bad guys, that we're actually the enemies of the "international rule of law", that we're actually the biggest and most self-deluded terrorists on the planet. But hey, we're a country ruled by rich white men who just want to unselfishly "clean" other people's lands, right Rudyard?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 5:37:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They need some version of the richter scale in order to rate the concentration of pseudo-intellectual terms, because you're proving we aren't just dealing with arithmetic or geometric increases.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 5:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 5:37:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
They need some version of the richter scale in order to rate the concentration of pseudo-intellectual terms, because you're proving we aren't just dealing with arithmetic or geometric increases.

Now that you've said something unbrilliant off-topic perhaps you'd like to challenge yourself and attempt to say something halfway intelligent on-topic?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 11:34:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apropos of this topic, http://www.nytimes.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 11:45:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It would probably help if your conclusions were actually conclusions. You can't just take the final third of your essay and call it a conclusion, especially if it starts with "also."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:24:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 11:45:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
It would probably help if your conclusions were actually conclusions. You can't just take the final third of your essay and call it a conclusion, especially if it starts with "also."

Well, if you disagree with my conclusions, rather than attempting to invalidate them on the technical grounds that they aren't the conclusion of a formal argument, perhaps it would help the conversation in this thread if you posted your opposing views on the topic. You're welcome to do so if you deign to.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:19:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conclusion

At the risk of ruining your self-loathing pity, what exactly are you referring to when you speak of white men Afghanistan, when the majority of ethnic Afghans are *drum roll please* caucasian?

The term "Caucasian" derives from an amalgamation of the Caucasus mountain regions, which closely border the Hindu Kush regions associated with Afghanistan, and "Asian."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, most countries we equate as "Arab" simply are not. For instance, the ethnic babylonian, chaldean, assyrian, etc people are not Arab at all. Arabs later migrated north during the rise of Islam, which now blurs the line. Afghanistan falls in that same category. Although Pashtun clothing and customs may resemble Arab garb and culture, they are not one in the same.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:24:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?:

I think you'll find that most of the members of DDO agree that it is, which is why they aren't trying to tear you to shreds. Your achille's heel, however, is your lack of moderation. You seem to have an all or nothing approach to your topics. Most of the rest of us are a little more realistic about the way things actually work. Somehow you have this uncanny knack to alienate people who agree with you on some issues.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 2:45:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 8:19:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Conclusion

At the risk of ruining your self-loathing pity, what exactly are you referring to when you speak of white men Afghanistan, when the majority of ethnic Afghans are *drum roll please* caucasian?

The term "Caucasian" derives from an amalgamation of the Caucasus mountain regions, which closely border the Hindu Kush regions associated with Afghanistan, and "Asian."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, most countries we equate as "Arab" simply are not. For instance, the ethnic babylonian, chaldean, assyrian, etc people are not Arab at all. Arabs later migrated north during the rise of Islam, which now blurs the line. Afghanistan falls in that same category. Although Pashtun clothing and customs may resemble Arab garb and culture, they are not one in the same.

Thanks for the unnecessary ethnology lesson. However, the fine technicalities of who is and isn't Caucasoid has never stopped white racists from failing to recognize fellow whites as such, and from looking askance upon them. For instance, my Italian forbears were regarded as alien Mediterranean darkies by xenophobic/racist native-born WASPs. You see, racists aren't always so fastidious about whom they consign to the ethnic outgroup of "them" and "not us". But you seem to be intent on missing the real point of my choice to include a mention of race in the mix of factors that explain European-American imperialism, which is that racism, i.e. our racially-culturally conceited belief that we have a superior civilization and form of life to share with other peoples, whether they want any part of it or not, certainly helps rationalize our imposition of our hegemony on much of Third-World humanity.

Racism, you see, is something that people invent to justify their otherwise unjust treatment of fellow humans. And, of course, since racism, i.e. a sense of entitlement to dominate others based upon their supposed inferiority, is all about making us feel okay about behaviors such colonialism and slavery and genocide, racists really have no interest in being genuinely rational and scientific. Some, such as contemporary so-called "race realists" and the eugenicists of the Nazi era have prided themselves on being quite scientific, but their science is once again merely self-justifying junk science. No, the sort of racism that factors into imperialism is just not as keen on dotting its Is and crossing its Ts about who is in the ole Caucasoid club.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 2:48:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 8:24:55 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?:

I think you'll find that most of the members of DDO agree that it is, which is why they aren't trying to tear you to shreds. Your achille's heel, however, is your lack of moderation. You seem to have an all or nothing approach to your topics. Most of the rest of us are a little more realistic about the way things actually work. Somehow you have this uncanny knack to alienate people who agree with you on some issues.

So what you're saying is that perhaps some folks just can't handle my form of "political incorrectness", i.e. an undiplomatic statement of certain truths.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 2:51:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/21/2012 5:37:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
They need some version of the richter scale in order to rate the concentration of pseudo-intellectual terms, because you're proving we aren't just dealing with arithmetic or geometric increases.

You mean it needs to be measured logarithmically?

@ the post. I can't really find anything I disagree with. Some of the language may be a little too far. For example, the emphasis on "white man" - race may or may not be a factor - but the analysis about it being about profit it is much more likely and easier to prove.

Also, did anyone find this one easier to read than normal? I have attention problems and normally find it really difficult to read the posts, but this one was ok.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 2:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A typo correction, the sentence: "No, the sort of racism that factors into imperialism is just not as keen on dotting its Is and crossing its Ts about who is in the ole Caucasoid club." should read: No, the sort of racism that factors into imperialism is just not that keen on dotting its Is and crossing its Ts about who is in the ole Caucasoid club.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:39:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 2:51:23 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
... I can't really find anything I disagree with. Some of the language may be a little too far. For example, the emphasis on "white man" - race may or may not be a factor - but the analysis about it being about profit it is much more likely and easier to prove.

Thank you kindly for your feedback, Thaddeus. Race is most definitely a factor in behaviors such as imperialism because it's our desire to engage in such unjust behaviors that incentivizes the invention of racism as a self-justifying pretext in the first place. Quite simply, everyone needs a pretext for the sins of conquest and colonialism, whether it's racism, or the belief that "God is on our side", or establishing the "rule of law", or a cockamamie "war on terror", etc. Then of course after inventing a racist and culturally chauvinistic worldview people buy into it, buy into their own ideological propaganda, as it were, and thus it, racism, becomes a driving force that actuates, as well as a rationalization that excuses imperialism. In other words, racism becomes one of the vicious cycles of our history, originating as a motivated belief to salve our consciences and transposing into a motive for crimes ranging from imperialism to slavery to genocide. Afghanistan, and the politically-culturally holier-than-thou pretexts upon which the U.S. has invaded/occupied that sovereign nation, are arguably an indication that, alas, we're still quite caught up in this, in the same vicious cycle of racism-imperialism, that has driven so much of the last five hundred years of European-American history.

Also, did anyone find this one easier to read than normal? I have attention problems and normally find it really difficult to read the posts, but this one was ok.

I didn't make any conscious attempt to change my style of self-expression, so I doubt that this post was either easier or more difficult to read than my previous efforts. At any rate, I'm happy that you found it to be a better read.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Charles, can you please summarize your essay in a *short* paragraph? I grew tired of reading the whole long essays long ago. All I know about this is that it has something to do with the military because you always b!tch about the military.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 4:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 4:04:32 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Charles, can you please summarize your essay in a *short* paragraph? I grew tired of reading the whole long essays long ago. All I know about this is that it has something to do with the military because you always b!tch about the military.

Well, try reading my above replies to Thaddeus and PARADIGM_LOST. Also, the truth be told, reading the OP isn't all that time-consuming a proposition.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 5:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You see, racists aren't always so fastidious about whom they consign to the ethnic outgroup of "them" and "not us". But you seem to be intent on missing the real point of my choice to include a mention of race in the mix of factors that explain European-American imperialism, which is that racism, i.e. our racially-culturally conceited belief that we have a superior civilization and form of life to share with other peoples, whether they want any part of it or not, certainly helps rationalize our imposition of our hegemony on much of Third-World humanity.:

If you seriously think that you can oversimplify every American conflict and/or conquest as "racism," please tell me now. Because I seem to recall significant conflicts with the Russians, Germans, and English.

I'm sure it satisifes some self-depricating tendency in you to blame all military conflicts as "racist," but you really need to check your facts.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 6:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:24:47 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/21/2012 11:45:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
It would probably help if your conclusions were actually conclusions. You can't just take the final third of your essay and call it a conclusion, especially if it starts with "also."

Well, if you disagree with my conclusions, rather than attempting to invalidate them on the technical grounds that they aren't the conclusion of a formal argument, perhaps it would help the conversation in this thread if you posted your opposing views on the topic. You're welcome to do so if you deign to.

I do believe that there's some imperialism behind our oversea wars, but I can't quickly understand your view if your conclusio?ns are just more argument.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:09:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 5:05:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
You see, racists aren't always so fastidious about whom they consign to the ethnic outgroup of "them" and "not us". But you seem to be intent on missing the real point of my choice to include a mention of race in the mix of factors that explain European-American imperialism, which is that racism, i.e. our racially-culturally conceited belief that we have a superior civilization and form of life to share with other peoples, whether they want any part of it or not, certainly helps rationalize our imposition of our hegemony on much of Third-World humanity.:

If you seriously think that you can oversimplify every American conflict and/or conquest as "racism," please tell me now. Because I seem to recall significant conflicts with the Russians, Germans, and English.

I'm sure it satisifes some self-depricating tendency in you to blame all military conflicts as "racist," but you really need to check your facts.

Huh? Where did I ever say that I think that every American war or bit of conquest can be reduced to an expression of racism? This unfounded accusation is a halfhearted attempt to engage the topic that falls flat.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:27:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?
Here you go, I'll be blunt. Native American America will full of nothing but scattered tribal cliques.

You have the Maya and Aztecs if you move south of the Apache but that's all one can call civilisation.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.

I see, you inveterately insist on denying that indigenous peoples had anything that can be termed "civilization". Methinks that you, and your fellow right-libertarians and conservatives who agree with your racially disdainful estimation of native cultures, do indeed have some racial issues to address in the privacy of your own minds. At any rate, would you perhaps like to weigh in on the topic of the thread, i.e. the imperialistic nature of the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 1:45:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.

I see, you inveterately insist on denying that indigenous peoples had anything that can be termed "civilization". Methinks that you, and your fellow right-libertarians and conservatives who agree with your racially disdainful estimation of native cultures, do indeed have some racial issues to address in the privacy of your own minds.
Nothing racial about it. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. The concept was nowhere to be found.

At any rate, would you perhaps like to weigh in on the topic of the thread, i.e. the imperialistic nature of the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan?
As far as I can tell the US is far too lazy to wish to exercise permanent jurisdiction over Afghanistan, i.e., incorporate it into an empire. Not that I support the occupation part (too expensive, just kill off power projection gtfo).

And so what if we rapaciously reap the material rewards of our good works
Invading Afghanistan is a form of material expenditure. It's not a profitable enterprise. Occupying even more expensive.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 3:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:45:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.

I see, you inveterately insist on denying that indigenous peoples had anything that can be termed "civilization". Methinks that you, and your fellow right-libertarians and conservatives who agree with your racially disdainful estimation of native cultures, do indeed have some racial issues to address in the privacy of your own minds.
Nothing racial about it. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. The concept was nowhere to be found.

Quite the contrary, "civilization" is largely, behind its idealistic hype, the invention of organized social dominance; that is, the process of subjecting the many to the social, political, and economic hegemony of a ruler and ruling elite, of Pharaohs and priesthoods, of kings and aristocracies, and these days, capitalists and corporations; through the means of institutions such as church & state, law & government, forms of social morality that make us docile and compliant, technologies of communication ranging from writing to television, the modern capitalist forms of the organization of economic power, etc. Yes, "civilization" is indeed quite arguably the opposite of a process of human liberation.

At any rate, would you perhaps like to weigh in on the topic of the thread, i.e. the imperialistic nature of the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan?
As far as I can tell the US is far too lazy to wish to exercise permanent jurisdiction over Afghanistan, i.e., incorporate it into an empire. Not that I support the occupation part (too expensive, just kill off power projection gtfo).

Well, the U.S. may not be up for exercising direct control of Afghanistan in the fashion of a colonialist power in perpetuity, but when it finally withdraws its occupation forces no doubt it will continue to exercise control in a neocolonial fashion, through political compradors and puppet regimes.

And so what if we rapaciously reap the material rewards of our good works
Invading Afghanistan is a form of material expenditure. It's not a profitable enterprise. Occupying even more expensive.

Ah, but who's the recipient of the trillions that have been spent on the invasions/occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq? To state the obvious answer to what should be a rhetorical question, the beneficiaries of these multi-trillion dollar aggressions have of course been the American and European corporate elite. Which is to say that although these wars have been a financial losing proposition for the American public they have been very much in the interest of our capitalist masters.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2012 4:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 3:57:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:45:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.

I see, you inveterately insist on denying that indigenous peoples had anything that can be termed "civilization". Methinks that you, and your fellow right-libertarians and conservatives who agree with your racially disdainful estimation of native cultures, do indeed have some racial issues to address in the privacy of your own minds.
Nothing racial about it. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. The concept was nowhere to be found.

Quite the contrary, "civilization" is largely, behind its idealistic hype, the invention of organized social dominance; that is, the process of subjecting the many to the social, political, and economic hegemony of a ruler and ruling elite, of Pharaohs and priesthoods, of kings and aristocracies, and these days, capitalists and corporations; through the means of institutions such as church & state, law & government, forms of social morality that make us docile and compliant, technologies of communication ranging from writing to television, the modern capitalist forms of the organization of economic power, etc. Yes, "civilization" is indeed quite arguably the opposite of a process of human liberation.
>implying buying and forcibly taking are the same thing.
If "civilization" is where the chief or the consensus of the tribe decides everything, then yeah, Native Americans were pretty civilized. But that's not what it means.

Well, the U.S. may not be up for exercising direct control of Afghanistan in the fashion of a colonialist power in perpetuity, but when it finally withdraws its occupation forces no doubt it will continue to exercise control in a neocolonial fashion, through political compradors and puppet regimes.
A "Puppet" regime is usually a bit more obedient than Karzai and Co.

Ah, but who's the recipient of the trillions that have been spent on the invasions/occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Most of it is destroyed.

To state the obvious answer to what should be a rhetorical question, the beneficiaries of these multi-trillion dollar aggressions have of course been the American and European corporate elite.
A non-entity.Some corporations have received some money. Those corporations don't decide when the US goes to war, they have not received most of the money (because most of the value is destroyed), it was taken from other corporations or their well-paid employees, etc.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2012 12:32:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 4:57:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 3:57:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:45:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:25:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:22:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/23/2012 1:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/22/2012 7:04:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 1:11:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Come now, is there anyone here who genuinely doubts that the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan is at least partially a manifestation of this country's imperialistic tendencies?

What country does not seek to spread its cultural influences? Oh that's right... the ones that got swallowed up like the Native Americans....

They weren't a country, though they contained several, including many empires, both real empires and the sorts of things Charles would cite as evidence of US imperialism.

Getting your right-libertarian rocks off by putting down Native American civilizations, hmm?

I'm not sure civilization is the right word.

I see, you inveterately insist on denying that indigenous peoples had anything that can be termed "civilization". Methinks that you, and your fellow right-libertarians and conservatives who agree with your racially disdainful estimation of native cultures, do indeed have some racial issues to address in the privacy of your own minds.
Nothing racial about it. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. The concept was nowhere to be found.

Quite the contrary, "civilization" is largely, behind its idealistic hype, the invention of organized social dominance; that is, the process of subjecting the many to the social, political, and economic hegemony of a ruler and ruling elite, of Pharaohs and priesthoods, of kings and aristocracies, and these days, capitalists and corporations; through the means of institutions such as church & state, law & government, forms of social morality that make us docile and compliant, technologies of communication ranging from writing to television, the modern capitalist forms of the organization of economic power, etc. Yes, "civilization" is indeed quite arguably the opposite of a process of human liberation.
>implying buying and forcibly taking are the same thing.
If "civilization" is where the chief or the consensus of the tribe decides everything, then yeah, Native Americans were pretty civilized. But that's not what it means.

You continue to express the need to implicitly put down Native American societies as savage by denying that the term "civilized" is apt to describe them. Does this perhaps come from a place of racial-cultural chauvinism? Or just plain chauvinism, i.e. the egoic pleasure of looking down on someone else as inferior?

Well, the U.S. may not be up for exercising direct control of Afghanistan in the fashion of a colonialist power in perpetuity, but when it finally withdraws its occupation forces no doubt it will continue to exercise control in a neocolonial fashion, through political compradors and puppet regimes.
A "Puppet" regime is usually a bit more obedient than Karzai and Co.

That's like saying that because Israel is far from being an Uncle Tom to Washington ergo it isn't ever a proxy of the United States.


Ah, but who's the recipient of the trillions that have been spent on the invasions/occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Most of it is destroyed.

Yes, matériels are used up and destroyed, but this only serves to necessitate and justify the expenditure of more tax payer dollars to replace said wasted and destroyed matériels, which is more money in the bulging coffers of big-business titans such as Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Remington Arms, Colt Defense, et al.

To state the obvious answer to what should be a rhetorical question, the beneficiaries of these multi-trillion dollar aggressions have of course been the American and European corporate elite.
A non-entity.Some corporations have received some money. Those corporations don't decide when the US goes to war, they have not received most of the money (because most of the value is destroyed), it was taken from other corporations or their well-paid employees, etc.

Are you actually, even semi-seriously trying to deny or downplay the fact that defense contractors profit from American militarism?!!!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.