We now have a P.M. in Britain, Whose love for the U.S is written, In the blood of all those, Whom he's sent out in droves, To help bolster U.S aggression.
READER'S REVIEWS (5) DISCLAIMER: STORYMANIA DOES NOT PROVIDE AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWS. ALL REVIEWS ARE PROVIDED BY NON-ASSOCIATED VISITORS, REGARDLESS OF THE WAY THEY CALL THEMSELVES.
"I'll say this for you. You are one consistent liberal asshole. You don't even know the meaning of imperialism. You throw the term around to include every English speaking person whoever set foot on foreign soil. What about the countless Iraqi civilians who were murdered and tortured BEFORE we ever got there? I guess that was different because at least outside imperialists weren't responsible for their deaths. " -- Richard.
"Hi Richard. You seem rather angry. Perhaps when one is faced with the truth, or at the very least an alternative perspective, one can become very unsettled. I can wholly understand this. In relation to the concept of Imperialism you are not quite accurate in your remarks. The term is generally applicable to powerful states who were historically fortunate enough to emerge as a tiny minority of nations that were able to industrialise productive economic relations. Imperialism itself has assumed many forms including super imperialism and the more contemporary ultra imperialism, whereby leading capitalist states co-operate in order to achieve mutual gains. Imperialism generally is necessitated and sustained by global uneven development which rich states (especially the USA) seek to maintain, by force if necessary.In short, exploitation is at the heart of imperialism generally. As to the deaths in Iraq before Gulf hostilities, Yes Saddam Hussein's state was often a repressive one in relation to its own peoples, yet the many acts of murder, torture and such like that the Iraqi state conducted internally over many years,passed without the West batting a 'political eyelid'. Even after Saddam's infamous gassing of the Kurds in the North of the country in the late 1980's (which was technologically assisted by The West), nothing was done militarily by the powerful Western states to punish Saddam, or his government when one might have expected it to be the opposite. It didn't happen, I believe, because it is ultimately 'economic' imperatives that inspire the USA and similar states to act (or not as the case may be), thus the timing of the Gulf conflicts it could be argued, were law governed by the need to secure control over the region's oil reserves. If you doubt that economic laws are at work, (economic laws which often serve to greatly outweigh rationality), then pause for thought one moment. Apart from the obvious anomalies such as the Kurds plight just mentioned, where for example were such purported principled ideals of Western democracy (yours Richard), when the Khmer Rouge were engaging in its 'killing spree' of the mid to late 1970's? Where were such ideals when countless hundreds of thousands of litres of 'agent orange' were released on the peoples of Vietnam by US military forces during the Vietnam War in the 1960's and 1970's?. Where 'are' such ideals now, in view of overt Russian state aggression in Chechnya recently? Stepping a little closer to (my) home, why doesn't the USA send in tanks and planes to help the Irish Nationalists recover the land that was arguably stolen from them by the Saxons centuries earlier ? Regards, Colin" -- Colin Baker.
"An "alternative perspective" does not necessarily equate to the truth. Inventing words like super imperialism and ultra imperialism may help to aggrandize your intellectual elitist frame of mind but like much of the "liberal" vernacular, it does little to aid you in re-inventing history, as most liberals and socialists who despise capitalism, religion, and nationalism, attempt to do. Your views of history are tainted and skewed by the doomed and warped ideology to which you have become addicted, most likely because it makes you feel superior to the rest of us; the slaves of capitalism and religion." -- Richard.
"Hi Richard... You are quite correct, alternative perspectives do not necessarily equate to truth. In fact the concept of truth in itself is a fascinating term for discussion. I personally did not invent the terms to which you refer above. Instead they have emerged as all concepts do, in response to real material circumstances and experiences in a human effort to explain and understand the world in which we all live.The concept on imperialism with all its sub concepts is an academic term but nonetheless a concept used for explaining and understanding. As to despising capitalism, religion and nationalism, let's take each in turn. Capitalism has, it is true been the most productive force yet known to mankind and without doubt, it has ushered in many inventions etc that will be of much benefit to the human species long after capitalism itself has been superseded. However, the optimum distribution of goods, services, wealth etc produced under the capitalist mode of production can readily be called into question. Capitalism is inherently unequal and uneven due to its inner laws of development as Marx and other subsequent authors have readily and convincingly pointed out. ( see for example Dr. E.J. Hobsbawm's works or E.P. Thompson's writings).As to religion, I do not despise this phenomenon at all, but see it as an evolving philosophy that is embraced by the ruling elites especially, in their efforts to distort scientific findings which continually serve to undermine such doctrines. Religion is part of human history and eventually will be history in its own right, when a quantitative change has grown in the consciousness of peoples generally, the need for religion as an explanatory framework will wither forever (see Dr. J. Lewis 'History of Philosophy' for example). This however, may be a century or so away. Nationalism again is a complex concept which you employ, like other academic concepts with untold haste. I am almost certain that your understanding of such a term is, at best primative. I do not despise nationalism, instead I choose to understand it as a necessary development of the capitalist socio-economic system, whereby stability of nations (IE. a transcending of political accumilation ) was a necessary law goverened development of capitalism itself. This stability was needed in order to establish and expand a global market in finance, goods and services on which the capitalist class depends. Nationalism, like religion is a transient phenomenon my friend. The human species has not always had nation states and nationalities despite what you may have been taught in your particular school Richard. As to a doomed and warped ideology of socialism, it is the doomed and warped ideology of capitalism that is currently see being played out across the world with horrendous results for many of the world's people especially those poor and defensless humans. (you know the ones Richard, the ones being killed each day by greedy capitalist politicians like GW Bush, T. Blair etc. The actions of which you only too readily condone from the comfort of your armchair). It's not me who professes a superiority Richard but GW Bush. I honestly believe he is so deluded as to think he is God Himself. I invite you once more, as I have done twice before to stop insulting and tackle the arguments themselves. Come on, pick out the key points and present evidence to support your view. we can then discuss your evidence together. I look forward to hearing from you. By the way, read 'Daisy Chains and Laughs(two humans being)' and 'Red Rain II', they are quite good I think." -- Colin Baker.
"Colin, The authors you cite, like 90% of academia, whose company obviously gives you comfort, are theoritsts, not doers. You can expound on their failed theories all you want, but none of their disciples has ever succeeded in implementing to any degree of success, a peaceful, cohesive, and economically "fair" communist or socialist state. If Bush and Blair are your examples of greedy capitalist politicians, they pale in comparison to the tyrannical elite leaders of communist and socialist regimes like Castro, Lenin, Stalin, etc. etc. The problem with your past and present heroes, which include scientists, is that everything they do is conceptual, based upon theories, many of which will never be conclusively proven. I especially disagree with your opinion that truth is conseptual. Truth is fact. Truth is reality. Only egomaniacal theorists and ideologues intoxicated with their own warped dreams of reality, believe truth to be in the eye of the beholder. You say religious doctrine attempts to distort scientific findings. Young man, I think it is just the opposite. Scientific therory, not findings, have for centuries, tried to undermine religious doctrine. This is primarily because most of the scientific elite are atheists to begin with and I'm sure they believe that they are more powerful than the God "invented" by the mass of non-intellectual humans. There is far more fact and truth in the Bible and the scriptures than in much of so-called scientific "findings." " -- Richard.
TO DELETE UNWANTED REVIEWS CLICK HERE! (SELECT "MANAGE TITLE REVIEWS" ACTION)
Submit Your Review for Imperialism Dear Boy, Imperialism
Required fields are marked with (*). Your e-mail address will not be displayed.
Submit Your Rating for Imperialism Dear Boy, Imperialism