3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
Where's the colonialism?
Oi Vey! Grover, man, you're off your game today. I was prepared to entertain an argument over what exactly constitutes colonialism, but that kinda proves their case, especially as phrased.
Nothing characterizes the Mid east better than dependence, and they have been and currently are being, subjucted to control. However, this control has not always been overt, and at this point dependence is more a function of corporatism and native ineptitudes/corruption than colonial aftermath, or "American Imperialism."
However, I agree that this isn't exactly colonialism, though it may be something a touch more insidious than that.
PS, I don't think a little honest American rule is a bad thing at all, au contrare, if the gringos win bagdad, they ought to consider a prolonged stay (with help) and do the job of policing that the Arabs have convincingly proved they are incapable of doing at this time.
Iraq has enough secularity and education and progresive exiles, that it can become a secular democratic arab state IF (and I would say ONLY IF) someone keeps the factions from killing each other for at least a generation or two, and give an opportunity to rebuild institutions and RECONNECT with a more enlightened value system.
If America only stays for 24 months, in 32 months, one tribe/group/party will set in motion the killing of another, guaranteed.
I thought I would try to get away from the endless (but interesting!) semantic debates and returning to the original topic of this thread: Who is for/against this war. I found this interesting quote from an article in today's Guardian newspaper.
Quote:
Political dissent at the marines' mission persisted in Baghdad as evening fell yesterday. "Bush is a rich bully. The US has no legal right to be here. Probably Saddam would have sold chemical weapons to somebody someday and then the US would have been right to invade, but now this is the first free democratic country ever to occupy another without good reason," said a heavily armed man standing by the roadside. He was a lance-corporal in the US marines.
I am not presenting this quote as being my own views. My own reasons for being against this war I have put down elsewhere in this thread. I rather post it as being very good news for the United States. It is a sign of maturity and strength when political dissent can exist within the US Marines during wartime.
I also post it, of course, to annoy the conservatives on these threads.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
Where's the colonialism?
Oi Vey! Grover, man, you're off your game today. I was prepared to entertain an argument over what exactly constitutes colonialism, but that kinda proves their case, especially as phrased.
Nothing characterizes the Mid east better than dependence, and they have been and currently are being, subjucted to control. However, this control has not always been overt, and at this point dependence is more a function of corporatism and native ineptitudes/corruption than colonial aftermath, or "American Imperialism."
However, I agree that this isn't exactly colonialism, though it may be something a touch more insidious than that.
PS, I don't think a little honest American rule is a bad thing at all, au contrare, if the gringos win bagdad, they ought to consider a prolonged stay (with help) and do the job of policing that the Arabs have convincingly proved they are incapable of doing at this time.
Iraq has enough secularity and education and progresive exiles, that it can become a secular democratic arab state IF (and I would say ONLY IF) someone keeps the factions from killing each other for at least a generation or two, and give an opportunity to rebuild institutions and RECONNECT with a more enlightened value system.
If America only stays for 24 months, in 32 months, one tribe/group/party will set in motion the killing of another, guaranteed.
I used Omnidictionary and hooked up to the WordNet server and I got this definition for colonialism . . . surprise:
colonialism
n : exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of
the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich
the stronger country
maybe WordNet is making things up, hunh Grover?
Originally posted by der Kopf
groverat, why don't you just go to bed?
...and maybe just stay there?
- T.I.
Political dissent at the marines' mission persisted in Baghdad as evening fell yesterday. "Bush is a rich bully. The US has no legal right to be here. Probably Saddam would have sold chemical weapons to somebody someday and then the US would have been right to invade, but now this is the first free democratic country ever to occupy another without good reason," said a heavily armed man standing by the roadside. He was a lance-corporal in the US marines.
I am not presenting this quote as being my own views. My own reasons for being against this war I have put down elsewhere in this thread. I rather post it as being very good news for the United States. It is a sign of maturity and strength when political dissent can exist within the US Marines during wartime.
I also post it, of course, to annoy the conservatives on these threads.