First I have no idea where this belongs so i decided to put it here, mods feel free to move it if it doesn't belong here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_missile_defense_11

The US and Czech Republic signed a missle defense agreement that seems to have pissed Russia the fuck off.

So pissed that the FM has said, "If the agreement is ratified, we will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods."

I'm trying not to be paranoid but do you think Russia would actually do anything, or is this one of those crazy threats that alot of countrys make.

Russia won't do anything, or at least not yet. I don't think they're stupid enough to pick a fight with the US at the moment, but maybe in the future...

Tensions have certainly been increasing, in large part due to the Russkis doing stupid shit like flying Tu-95s in British airspace etc.

As has been mentioned before, this would be akin to China trying to put missiles in Canada with the excuse "Oh no need to worry, its just for defense against terrorists".

That its meant to counter any attack from "rogue terrorist states" is just the excuse. The US knows Russia, and esp China and India will continue to grow economically and have the potentiality to become capitalist superpowers, threatening US hegemony in those respective regions. The US wants to put these missile systems in place now, long before any threat from these countries could materialize.

^^^^
This.

And that Ukraine is joining NATO soon, right? Russia can have US nukes on its' borders literally...what kind of shit is that?

Can't wait till the Russkis try and put some missile bases on Cuba....

Oh wai---

Hypocritical yanks.

Seems like the destruction is getting less mutual.

^^^^
This.

And that Ukraine is joining NATO soon, right? Russia can have US nukes on its' borders literally...what kind of shit is that?

Can't wait till the Russkis try and put some missile bases on Cuba....

Oh wai---

Hypocritical yanks.

They're not nukes. Its a missile defense system...

They're not nukes. Its a missile defense system...

If Russia tried to install a missile defense system in Cuba, I bet the US wouldn't have a bar of it.

If Russia tried to install a missile defense system in Cuba, I bet the US wouldn't have a bar of it.

True, but why say they're nukes when they're not. It's not even missiles that they want to install in the czech republic; its tracking radar. Also, we're going to let the russians inspect the missile sites. The whole situation is different than the cuban missile crisis.

None of us like how America is using half the fucking world just for their national security.

Talk about a heightened sense of self-importance, fucking hell.

Stop being little childish bitches and get along like every one else; god your country's leaders are scum.

They're not nukes. Its a missile defense system...

yes, but that allows the US to have more impunity with it' strikes on Russia and Russia cant shoot missiles back in return or defense. Russia can't defend itself.

as Failed Escape said

Seems like the destruction is getting less mutual.

yes, but that allows the US to have more impunity with it' strikes on Russia and Russia cant shoot missiles back in return or defense. Russia can't defend itself.

as Failed Escape said

And still I see no changes. Can't a brother get a little peace?
There's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East.Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me.

i dont that it will happen even if was one on one witch it wouldnt be russia has conscription already a huge army of professional soldiers and some of the best damn soldiers in the world.
and the us has about the best military in the world.and dont think the government wouldnt reinstate the draft in fact you might aswell kiss earth goodbye while you had your chance

and the us has about the best military in the world.and dont think the government wouldnt reinstate the draft in fact you might aswell kiss earth goodbye while you had your chance

You think China would lose to the US in a 1 on 1 man battle?

At this point the US with its technology could probably control the air, and thus take out carriers on the sea. I guess controlling the air is the most important part... but yeah. They're good, but not the top in every way.


SOLUTION TO THREAD:
Launch a dud nuclear missile at Moscow and say "just testin' son"

^^^^
This.

And that Ukraine is joining NATO soon, right? Russia can have US nukes on its' borders literally...what kind of shit is that?

that kind of "shit" was the exact cause of the cuban missile crisis

They're not nukes. Its a missile defense system...

the "intercepter" system uses a warhead to destroy incoming ballistic missiles. these "warheads" likely could be equipped with nukes.

which is what russia is afraid of, is taht we are putting this missile system there under the guise of "protecting EU from iran" when really it's trying to intimidate, counteract, and attack the east (russia/china)

not everything is what they say it is, buddy

None of us like how America is using half the fucking world just for their national security.

Talk about a heightened sense of self-importance, fucking hell.

Stop being little childish bitches and get along like every one else; god your country's leaders are scum.

We tried that before, playing nice with Saudi Arabia when the sovereign nation invited us to protect them. We made a peaceful deal in order to provide them security in exchange for oil. Turns out some asshole flew a couple planes into a bunch of people, wouldn't you know?

Last couple times the nation sat back with a cold one, we had a couple wars take over most of Europe. While not saying everything the nation does is right, there are obvious issues influencing America's involvement, be it from the UN, fear of global nuclear war (you do know that even a localized nuclear war would impact the entire world, right?) or preserving our own interests. Self-preservation, though not as admirable as self-sacrifice, is something most countries hold dear.

That's plain stupid, getiing pissed at someone for taking measures to be able to defend themselves.

I can't wait till the world moves off fossil fuels. The countries that will be hit the hardest (Saudia Arabia, Russia) are also among the world's shittiest.

And still I see no changes. Can't a brother get a little peace?
There's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East.Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me.

I agree with you. I know it's Imperialist Bullshit.

that kind of "shit" was the exact cause of the cuban missile crisis

yeah, the US/NATO placing Missiles in Turkey did force the USSR/Warsaw Pact to place nukes in Cuba.

We tried that before, playing nice with Saudi Arabia when the sovereign nation invited us to protect them. We made a peaceful deal in order to provide them security in exchange for oil. Turns out some asshole flew a couple planes into a bunch of people, wouldn't you know?

Last couple times the nation sat back with a cold one, we had a couple wars take over most of Europe. While not saying everything the nation does is right, there are obvious issues influencing America's involvement, be it from the UN, fear of global nuclear war (you do know that even a localized nuclear war would impact the entire world, right?) or preserving our own interests. Self-preservation, though not as admirable as self-sacrifice, is something most countries hold dear.Saudi Arabia isn't sovereign. The royal family are puppets of the US. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were indeed Saudi however none of them were from the royal family if I'm not mistaken. And one of the hijackers main peeves was US support of the Saudi royal family and therefore US control of their country.

The US was enriched greatly by both of the two imperialist world wars . It did sit back for much of WW1. Being a debtor nation at the outset of the war it was a creditor nation even before the end of the war. It gained even more from WW2.

The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is imperialism. The class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie is the driving force. It is indeed out of the concern for self preservation that all these wars have been started, with many more yet to come. America is an imperialist capitalist country and as such must continuously expand throughout the world looking for new markets and raw materials to exploit. Spreading freedom and democracy, fighting terrorism; all these are just excuses designed to mask the imperialist bourgeoisies intentions.

Last couple times the nation sat back with a cold one, we had a couple wars take over most of Europe.

Not going to drag up the 9/11 stuff and all....but why should the US have been involved in WWI and II. I mean, it was a European conflict in WWI and the US really had no business meddling.

Saudi Arabia isn't sovereign. The royal family are puppets of the US.

Normally you're supposed to prove things because when you make wild statements, the burden of proof is on you.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020807-iraq8.htm
Oh, okay.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were indeed Saudi however none of them were from the royal family if I'm not mistaken.

Irrelevant.

And one of the hijackers main peeves was US support of the Saudi royal family and therefore US control of their country.
Yeah, that's what they say... what they don't want are non-Muslims in Mecca, which the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia invited. The fact is, the US-Saudi relations weren't so close prior to the Gulf War. In fact, in 1973, the Saudi's made a secret agreement via their government to use oil as a weapon to hurt the United States.

What's a stupid pawn know about the machinations of the US government and the Saudi family? You just said he wasn't in the family, so how'd he know what's going on?


The US was enriched greatly by both of the two imperialist world wars . It did sit back for much of WW1. Being a debtor nation at the outset of the war it was a creditor nation even before the end of the war. It gained even more from WW2.

The US also lost many lives. The US did not want to be involved in either war directly. What the US partially wanted to profit from both sides, not become drawn in.

The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is imperialism. The class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie is the driving force. It is indeed out of the concern for self preservation that all these wars have been started, with many more yet to come. America is an imperialist capitalist country and as such must continuously expand throughout the world looking for new markets and raw materials to exploit. Spreading freedom and democracy, fighting terrorism; all these are just excuses designed to mask their imperialist intentions.
That's one take on it. Of course, North Korea doesn't fit that model... nor does Keynesian... yeah, that's like retroactive literary theory. Nope. No proof whatsoever.
You don't happen to have a Master's or PhD in the subject do you?

Not going to drag up the 9/11 stuff and all....but why should the US have been involved in WWI and II.
Uh, well, you see... there was this little thing called Pearl Harbor awhile back...
I mean, it was a European conflict in WWI and the US really had no business meddling.

... and the Louisitania. Among other things.

Normally you're supposed to prove things because when you make wild statements, the burden of proof is on you.True I can't definitively prove it. But I'd be tickled pink if the US government openly admitted which regimes in the past and present were under its influence. However they of course aren't going to do that. Wouldn't be in their interests.


Yeah, that's what they say... what they don't want are non-Muslims in Mecca, which the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia invited. The fact is, the US-Saudi relations weren't so close prior to the Gulf War. In fact, in 1973, the Saudi's made a secret agreement via their government to use oil as a weapon to hurt the United States.Just because the Saudi royal family are under the control of the US doesn't negate their religious beliefs or any peculiarities resulting from their historical development. If they were openly accepting of Western influences it would create an undesirable effect on the population of the country. And of course the Saudis haven't been under US control since the inception of the US. There was a time when they weren't under US control. However they now are.


The US also lost many lives. The US did not want to be involved in either war directly. What the US partially wanted to profit from both sides, not become drawn in.Regarding WW1, America knew that all it had to do was step in at the end of the war and tip the scales. US involvement in WW1 was basically in order to protect her loans to the allied powers. The war made the US the leading world capitalist power. WW2 and German and Janpanese imperialism threatened the US' own imperialist ambitions. WW2 also once again threatened the other loans the US had made to a devestated Europe following WW1.


That's one take on it. Of course, North Korea doesn't fit that model... nor does Keynesian... yeah, that's like retroactive literary theory. Nope. No proof whatsoever.
You don't happen to have a Master's or PhD in the subject do you? Last time I checked North Korea wasn't an imperialist capitalist country trying to consolidate its hold on the world.

True I can't definitively prove it. But I'd be tickled pink if the US government openly admitted which regimes in the past and present were under its influence. However they of course aren't going to do that. Wouldn't be in their interests.

Saudi Arabia is not the US's puppet. I posted a link where Saudi Arabia denied the US war support. If they were a puppet regime, they would have provided the US with support, however, they denied a request of the US, which supports the deduction that your comment was not correct.

Of course Saudi Arabia is influenced by the US. That's how economics works- we pay them for their oil, as well as we protect them from other nations. They specifically requested our aid. They sell us oil, which means they influence us. Does that make us their puppet?

Just because the Saudi royal family are under the control of the US

The Saudi family is not under control of the US. I just supported the statement that they are not.

doesn't negate their religious beliefs or any peculiarities resulting from their historical development. If they were openly accepting of Western influences it would create an undesirable effect on the population of the country. And of course the Saudis haven't been under US control since the inception of the US. There was a time when they weren't under US control. However they now are.

So, secretly deciding to work in order to undermine the US in the past, limiting the timeline in which they could have been puppets, and then not allowing the US to use them as a launching platform for war are just ploys?

The Saudi's are not under US control. Prove they are, or your statement is baseless.

What happened was, the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia asked us to protect them. If you want to baselessly claim they are now our puppet, that doesn't change that they sovereignly entered into submission, however I have provided support of the view that they are still not puppets.

Regarding WW1, America knew that all it had to do was step in at the end of the war and tip the scales. US involvement in WW1 was basically in order to protect her loans to the allied powers. The war made the US the leading world capitalist power.
Which isn't necessarily Imperialism. This is preservation of self-interests, like every nation on the planet does. Also, you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. The US had loans to the opposing side as well, and Germany is actually thought to have owed more money than Britain, if I remember correctly.

WW2 and German and Janpanese imperialism threatened the US' own imperialist ambitions. WW2 also once again threatened the other loans the US had made to a devestated Europe following WW1.
I never said WWII didn't, however the US did not go to war because of those threats. I am not saying they didn't contribute. The US was drawn into conflict by the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor.

Last time I checked North Korea wasn't an imperialist capitalist country trying to consolidate its hold on the world.

In other words, it doesn't fit the statement "The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is imperialism." The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is diplomacy. The issue influencing... is economy. Prove me wrong if you'd like, but without any sort of support those are baseless claims.

Saudi Arabia is not the US's puppet. I posted a link where Saudi Arabia denied the US war support. If they were a puppet regime, they would have provided the US with support, however, they denied a request of the US, which supports the deduction that your comment was not correct.

Of course Saudi Arabia is influenced by the US. That's how economics works- we pay them for their oil, as well as we protect them from other nations. They specifically requested our aid. They sell us oil, which means they influence us. Does that make us their puppet?So the Saudis openly denied the US some kind of support? That doesn't in the least validate that they aren't US puppets. The Iraqi government, also US puppets, have done the same exact thing. And you know what it is? A show. Meant to lend an air of legitimacy to these regimes. If they openly did everything that the US demanded of them, that would prove to their peoples and the entire world that they are in fact puppets under US control.

The Saudi royal family is influenced by the US in the way that, we keep them in power, supplying them with money and military hardware in order for them to supress their own peoples who know that they are puppets and want to overthrow them. Because if the royal family were overthrown then the regime whoever replaced them wouldn't be US puppets and wouldn't be apt to give the US such a good time regarding Saudi oil.


So, secretly deciding to work in order to undermine the US in the past, limiting the timeline in which they could have been puppets, and then not allowing the US to use them as a launching platform for war are just ploys?There was a time in the past, as I have mentioned before, where the Saudis were not under US control but are now. They became so at some point in time. And yes as I've said above, them denying the US whatever aid was a public relations ploy.


The Saudi's are not under US control. Prove they are, or your statement is baseless..And your statement that the Saudis aren't puppets, by merely posting a link that says they denied the US some aid, isn't baseless? Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving.


What happened was, the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia asked us to protect them. If you want to baselessly claim they are now our puppet, that doesn't change that they sovereignly entered into submission, however I have provided support of the view that they are still not puppets.The royal family portrays themselves and and their country as sovereign. The royal family entered into submission to the US by making a deal. The US supports them, finances them and supplys them with military aid and protection. In return the US gets oil. At a much better deal than they otherwise would get were the royal family not in power.


Which isn't necessarily Imperialism. This is preservation of self-interests, like every nation on the planet does..That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale. Every other nation on the planet isn't imperialist. But the US is. It has economic and political hegemony over the world to an extent that no other nation has ever had before in human history. The taking of western Europe into its sphere of influence after WW2 was imperialism plain and simple.


I never said WWII didn't, however the US did not go to war because of those threats. I am not saying they didn't contribute. The US was drawn into conflict by the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor.First you say the US didn't go to war because of those threats but then you say they did contribute. Which is it? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed the act that drew America into WW2. That was the signal to the American ruling class that their imperialist interests were being threatened by other rival imperialst countries.



In other words, it doesn't fit the statement "The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is imperialism." The issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is diplomacy. The issue influencing... is economy. Prove me wrong if you'd like, but without any sort of support those are baseless claims.The issue influencing... is economy.

Exactly. With that sentence you have drawn the connection that the issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is indeed imperialism which is tied up inseparably and in fact springs directly from the core of economic relations. Relations that have burst through the national barrier of North America and have by necessity spread over the world.

As far as continuing the argument whether the Saudi royal family is or is not a puppet and under the control of US imperialism, neither you nor I can prove definitively otherwise in favor of either of our assertions. So I think its a moot point continuing to debate that. We're going to keep going around in circles.

So the Saudis openly denied the US some kind of support? That doesn't in the least validate that they aren't US puppets. The Iraqi government, also US puppets, have done the same exact thing. And you know what it is? A show. Meant to lend an air of legitimacy to these regimes. If they openly did everything that the US demanded of them, that would prove to their peoples and the entire world that they are in fact puppets under US control.

Occam's Razor. The Saudi government inconveniencing the US certainly supports the idea that the Saudi government exercised autonomy over their land.

Of course, I could just as easily claim you've been deceived the shadowy Saudi conspiracy that controls the puppet US with their oil. With no evidence to back that up, both of our claims are equally supported, but can not coexist.


The Saudi royal family is influenced by the US in the way that, we keep them in power, supplying them with money and military hardware in order for them to supress their own peoples who know that they are puppets and want to overthrow them. Because if the royal family were overthrown then the regime whoever replaced them wouldn't be US puppets and wouldn't be apt to give the US such a good time regarding Saudi oil.

I never argued the Saudi family was not influenced by the US. You have not shown any evidence that "their people" want to overthrow them. This is sweeping generalization. You're also assuming that replacement wouldn't be puppets, or wouldn't barter a superior deal to the US in order for them to gain such a position.

There was a time in the past, as I have mentioned before, where the Saudis were not under US control but are now. They became so at some point in time. And yes as I've said above, them denying the US whatever aid was a public relations ploy.

You did not say that prior to my posting. That's unfounded and conspiratorial. How do you know that it was a ploy?

And your statement that the Saudis aren't puppets, by merely posting a link that says they denied the US some aid, isn't baseless? Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving.

Oh, don't trust the "world media" trust the guy posting on an anonymous web forum who probably hasn't ever been to Saudi Arabia. This is silly. Despite the appeal to authority, the media has the equipment and enough competition to have a reason to give accurate news. The media is not some globular group with a centralized authority.

A media or peer-edited journal is not baseless. It is supporting evidence. That is how arguments are supported.


That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale. Every other nation on the planet isn't imperialist. But the US is. It has economic and political hegemony over the world to an extent that no other nation has ever had before in human history. The taking of western Europe into its sphere of influence after WW2 was imperialism plain and simple.

Using your definition of Imperialism, which differs from my Oxford English Dictionary's, then every nation exercises Imperialism. What's your issue with the US doing the same?

First you say the US didn't go to war because of those threats but then you say they did contribute. Which is it? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed the act that drew America into WW2. That was the signal to the American ruling class that their imperialist interests were being threatened by other rival imperialst countries.

The US did not go to war because of the threats you mentioned. It went to war because of a series of threats, including those you did not mention. I never claimed the US was not influenced by what you claim- just that it was not the reason for war. The declaration of war, especially in WWII, makes that pretty clear.



Exactly. With that sentence you have drawn the connection that the issue influencing America's involvement across the globe is indeed imperialism which is tied up inseparably and in fact springs directly from the core of economic relations. Relations that have burst through the national barrier of North American and have by necessity spread over the world.
You were ignoring my other claim, and the fact that these are unsupported arguments, and thus equally valid to ridiculous claims like the Saudi Government exerts an equal but opposite reaction over the US.

How does your claim differ from my stating Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, etc. are Imperialist?



As far as continuing the argument whether the Saudi royal family is or is not a puppet and under the control of US imperialism, neither you nor I can prove definitively otherwise in favor of either of our assertions. So I think its a moot point continuing to debate that. We're going to keep going around in circles.
We'll only go around in circles if you can't support your argument.

Spreading freedom and democracy, fighting terrorism; all these are just excuses designed to mask the imperialist bourgeoisies intentions.

I half agree.

It would be foolish to assume that if a nation withdrew back to its own borders and adopted a completely isolationist policies that it would be safe. There would still be people with an axe to grind for many generations following the change in policy.

Freedom or democracy is not something you can give to a society over night. Read the Iraqi Constitution and see how much of it is not reflected in the current state of things over there.

It takes time for people to feel that they can do as they please especially when they've lived under a militaristic dictator for as long as they can remember. Basically, the polar opposite of the US. We assume we have rights and do not bother using them as much as we should. They give us just enough to keep us happy with the illusion.

Which is where terrorism comes in at.

Terrorism as applied to a democracy is about a highly vocal minority influencing the majority in order to control elections or public opinion. Or, it could be an inner-government coup and the majority would have no say in the matter at all.

Except religious terrorists are not logical. They are all about making sweeping statements with no real point except that their enemy will pay in blood for thinking differently. They can not be bargained with or appeased.

Until the terrorists surrender their ideals to the majority (just a simple majority) and decide to play the democracy game killing them in the name of peace is the only game worth playing.

Ideally, the majority would have enough rights to defend itself from violence, both externally and internal.

Basically, minorities play the game or wind up in a mass grave. Or a reservation.

(I'd apologize for the excessively long post, but I scrolled down. Off topic? Maybe...but so was the post I replied to)

governments are fucking retarded. we should really find one that is really going to work, how have the swiss been doing lately?

You think China would lose to the US in a 1 on 1 man battle?

At this point the US with its technology could probably control the air, and thus take out carriers on the sea. I guess controlling the air is the most important part... but yeah. They're good, but not the top in every way.


SOLUTION TO THREAD:
Launch a dud nuclear missile at Moscow and say "just testin' son"
well of course were not the best at everything but overall i would say we were and yes i do believe we would

Occam's Razor. The Saudi government inconveniencing the US certainly supports the idea that the Saudi government exercised autonomy over their land.

Of course, I could just as easily claim you've been deceived the shadowy Saudi conspiracy that controls the puppet US with their oil.Except the Saudis don't have numerous military bases inside the US along with thousands of Saudi troops, nor do they supply the US with millions of dollars worth of military equipment every year. Which is exactly what the US is doing in regard to Saudi Arabia.

Also only a simpleton believes that the concept of Occam's Razor applies to every situation especially in regard to history.



I never argued the Saudi family was not influenced by the US. You have not shown any evidence that "their people" want to overthrow them. This is sweeping generalization. You're also assuming that replacement wouldn't be puppets, or wouldn't barter a superior deal to the US in order for them to gain such a position.That theres been and still is a considerable amount of discontent among the Saudi people in regards to the royal family and their relationship with the US is well known. You have either been living in a cave or are chosing to ignore the situation in order to justify your assertion that the Saudi royal family aren't US puppets. If the royal family were overthrown its pretty self evident that the movement that led to their overthrow would institute some kind of regime that would be the opposite of the royal family and their policies. I'm not saying they wouldn't deal with the US, but it would no longer be the situation that exists now between the royal family and the US.



You did not say that prior to my posting. That's unfounded and conspiratorial. How do you know that it was a ploy?I don't know it was a ploy but I believe it was since I believe the royal family are US puppets.



Oh, don't trust the "world media" trust the guy posting on an anonymous web forum who probably hasn't ever been to Saudi Arabia. This is silly. Despite the appeal to authority, the media has the equipment and enough competition to have a reason to give accurate news. The media is not some globular group with a centralized authority.

A media or peer-edited journal is not baseless. It is supporting evidence. That is how arguments are supported.And you implicitly trust that the US "free" media is completely unbiased? That its not just propaganda that they color to their own tastes to influence the public?

I also never said and personally don't believe that the world media is some globular group with a centalized authority.


Using your definition of Imperialism, which differs from my Oxford English Dictionary's, then every nation exercises Imperialism. What's your issue with the US doing the same?I don't know how the Oxford English Dictionary defines imperialism, most certainly its not the Marxist view of imperialism, which is what I've been using: the expansionist politics of monopoly capitalism which includes the seizure of colonies, of markets, of sources of raw materials of spheres of influence.

The US is doing all of these things. Therefore since it fits this definition that make the US imperialist. And as I said earlier, not every nation in the world currently is imperialist. Name one country that is currently doing the same things as the US.



The US did not go to war because of the threats you mentioned. It went to war because of a series of threats, including those you did not mention. I never claimed the US was not influenced by what you claim- just that it was not the reason for war. The declaration of war, especially in WWII, makes that pretty clear.So you're saying the US did not go to war in either WW1 or WW2 to protect its material interests? What else would be the reason or the influence? The attack on Pearl Harbor? But what did that entail? What were the causes for that attack? That Japan just woke up one day and decided they had nothing better to do than attack the US? No it was because both nations were imperialist and their interests were at stake and they were on a collision course with one another that was eventually going to lead to conflict between them.

You were ignoring my other claim, and the fact that these are unsupported arguments, and thus equally valid to ridiculous claims like the Saudi Government exerts an equal but opposite reaction over the US.

How does your claim differ from my stating Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, etc. are Imperialist?How is it an unsupported argument that capitalist relations in the US have grown to such an extent that in order to survive they had to branch out internationally? The US has hegemony over the world market. US capital is in pretty much every nation on the planet. Surely you cannot think of contesting this blatantly obvious fact.

How are Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, imperialist? None of them fit the criteria that the US does. Yes some of them are capitalist but they have not become imperialist. By the course of their development they will someday, esp China and India, if the US allows them to get that far which is doubtful.




We'll only go around in circles if you can't support your argument.You can't directly support your argument either so I guess we'll continue if you wish.

Also hello to my old friend mrparks.

Except the Saudis don't have numerous military bases inside the US along with thousands of Saudi troops, nor do they supply the US with millions of dollars worth of military equipment every year. Which is exactly what the US is doing in regard to Saudi Arabia.
1. This is what's called a negative proof, and is also fallacious in argument.

2. Substantiate that the US has numerous bases in Saudi Arabia with thousands of US troops and that the US is supplying millions of dollars worth of military equipment every year to the Saudi government... without using the world media you referred to earlier. You said the world bourgeois media can't be trusted, so operating under this silly principle, you can't use such media to support your claim. If you use any US media, please answer your own questions concerning "free" media below.

2.We'll assume you are correct in your statement above. Saudi Arabia supplies America with 1.453 million barrels per day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) which is at over $147 a barrel (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/). You do the math. The US pays Saudi Arabia extremely large amounts of money. This is an exchange, not a puppeteering.

Also only a simpleton believes that the concept of Occam's Razor applies to every situation especially in regard to history.
Which is irrelevant. I never said that I believed Occam's Razor applied to every situation, much less every situation with regard to history, especially or otherwise... I applied it to your argument. Please don't insinuate I am a simpleton... which appears to be what to you just did.

That theres been and still is a considerable amount of discontent among the Saudi people in regards to the royal family and their relationship with the US is well known.

If it's so well known how about you 1. support this and 2. use that fact to substantiate that the Saudi government is the puppet of the US, which you can not do because in order for the Saudi government to be puppets, they have to do everything the US says. A puppet does not move without a puppeteer. Puppet- person controlled by another. Control- power of directing. Directing- 1. control, guide; govern the movements of.
Please support the claim that the US controls or otherwise governs the movements of the Saudi government. Until you do so, your statement is baseless and thus is as valid as my claim that the Saudi's secretly run the US.

You have either been living in a cave or are chosing to ignore the situation in order to justify your assertion that the Saudi royal family aren't US puppets. If the royal family were overthrown its pretty self evident that the movement that led to their overthrow would institute some kind of regime that would be the opposite of the royal family and their policies. I'm not saying they wouldn't deal with the US, but it would no longer be the situation that exists now between the royal family and the US.You're making a false dichotomy in your first sentence here. It's a logical fallacy.

I never said that overthrowing the Saudi Royal Family would maintain the status quo. You are setting up a strawman if you are trying to say that I did, which is another logical fallacy.

It is not self-evident that someone overthrowing the Saudi government would impose opposing principles of government. They may have the exact principles of governing as the Saudi family, but not be governing. Their overthrow and subsequent usurpation of power would be a move motivated by greed.
I don't know it was a ploy but I believe it was since I believe the royal family are US puppets.
Okay. You said it was a ploy. That was an unfounded statement. What you meant was it was your belief that such a ploy existed. Your belief is irrelevant. Would you like argue your belief?

And you implicitly trust that the US "free" media is completely unbiased? That its not just propaganda that they color to their own tastes to influence the public?
No, I do not implicitly trust the US "free" media. I never stated that I did. In fact, this is the first time either of us has commented on the "US 'free' media." That means that your question does not have anything to do with my statement, or your preceding statement which I was responding to.


I also never said and personally don't believe that the world media is some globular group with a centalized authority.
I never claimed you did. Go back and read what I said.

"Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving." This was your statement. You are collectivising "media' into a global entity.

I don't know how the Oxford English Dictionary defines imperialism, most certainly its not the Marxist view of imperialism, which is what I've been using: the expansionist politics of monopoly capitalism which includes the seizure of colonies, of markets, of sources of raw materials of spheres of influence.
When you're going to define a term, you might want to include source it's coming from. That way we can all be on the same page. Also, no matter what view you stated, you still have failed to cite it anywhere. I'm aware of Marxism and many of its principles because I read _Capital_ and _The Communist Manifesto_ several years ago.

The OED ranks definitions of words based on statistical calculations, allowing one to easily see the most common definitions of words in the English language. It's used in every major university I've heard of and is highly respected in academia. I highly suggest you buy one.

The US is doing all of these things. Therefore since it fits this definition that make the US imperialist. And as I said earlier, not every nation in the world currently is imperialist. Name one country that is currently doing the same things as the US.
1.Please substantiate that the US is doing "all of these things." Until you do, I can tell you that the US is not, and we have equally valid points of view. Both can't be correct, but they're equally valid if unsubstantiated. If I were to define imperialism as having water, America would fit that definition as well. This is where an appeal to authority, though a logical fallacy, can be used as supportive evidence.
2. Assuming the US is doing these things, it fits this definition of imperialism. Okay.... This was not your previous definition of imperialism. "That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale." You changed definitions on me.


So you're saying the US did not go to war in either WW1 or WW2 to protect its material interests?
Not solely, no. I said it was an influencing factor.
What else would be the reason or the influence? The attack on Pearl Harbor?
That was another reason I stated, in the case of WWII.

But what did that entail? What were the causes for that attack? That Japan just woke up one day and decided they had nothing better to do than attack the US? No it was because both nations were imperialist and their interests were at stake and they were on a collision course with one another that was eventually going to lead to conflict between them.

Again, you are not substantiating your statements. Until you support them, they are invalid.

Reason for attacking the US has nothing to do with the reason the US went to war. If you hit me because I looked at you funny, and I hit you back because you hit me first, my looking at you funny has nothing to do with my reason for hitting you.


How is it an unsupported argument that capitalist relations in the US have grown to such an extent that in order to survive they had to branch out internationally? The US has hegemony over the world market. US capital is in pretty much every nation on the planet. Surely you cannot think of contesting this blatantly obvious fact.

It's unsupported because you have yet to provide any actual support for the argument. I don't need to contest that statement. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it is unsubstantiated.

How are Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, imperialist? None of them fit the criteria that the US does. Yes some of them are capitalist but they have not become imperialist. By the course of their development they will someday, esp China and India, if the US allows them to get that far which is doubtful.
What criteria? You had never stated that criteria before, and they most certainly do fit the last of definition of imperialism that you used, which is how they are imperialist... by your first definition. I will reiterate with greater clarity:
"That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale." All of these nations preserve their self interests on a global or world scale. I had phrased this as a question, which needs no support. Now I will now support this statement in regards to Russia because it is an argument.
Russia has attempted to stop the US from implementing missile defense shields in former satellite countries such as the Czech Rep. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2008/space-080620-rianovosti01.htm
One of the reasons commonly cited for this is that Russia wants to prevent the expanse of the technological gap between the US and them from widening, with regard to missile technology. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_Russia_Fears_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_999.htm l

"Poland has taken a tough stance in the missile talks with the U.S., demanding it upgrade its air defense systems as a condition for agreeing to station 10 interceptor missiles on its territory."
This is preservation of self-interest on a global scale on the part of Poland.
Russia is building a missile defense shield of their own and test fired it in Kazakhstan. This is preservation of self-interest on a global scale.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/29/91940.shtml


You can't directly support your argument either so I guess we'll continue if you wish.

This statement is wrong. What was my argument?

Please don't be offended at what I am saying. I am not intending any of this to be insulting.

Uh, well, you see... there was this little thing called Pearl Harbor awhile back...


why Invade Italy and Germany-which did not attack the US at PH? Assuming the official story that the
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked?

... and the Louisitania. Among other things.

Germans warned the US they'd sink anything for months in UK waters going from the US to UK. The US did't heed the warning. Especially given Lusitania had ordinance on it.

why Invade Italy and Germany-which did not attack the US at PH?
Alliances and mutual defense agreements. "Because of the mutual defense agreement between Japan and Germany, the Germans declared war on the U.S. in another three days, setting in motion the chain of events that would eventually lead to German defeat."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/ww2/index.htm

"Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm#art3



Germans warned the US they'd sink anything for months. Especially given Lusitania had ordinance on it.

1. And the US didn't make it pretty clear sinking one of their ships would lead to war?

2. You did not support the claim that the Lusitania had ordnance on it. This makes your statement unsubstantiated, and thus just as valid as if I said the Lusitania had nuclear weapons on it.

3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE0D91E3EE033A25757C0A9609C94 6496D6CF That the Lusitania had ordinance on it is not a given at all.

The Russians are scared. We keep infringing on what they consider their area of influence. We even had an airbase in Uzbekistan for a while. They know we would absolutely pawn them in a conventional war, so their nukes are their only bargaining chip. That's why they don't like the missile defense.

I would be willing to throw a few concessions at Russia such as abandoning the missile defense if it helps them calm down, but they also need to start acting like a team player instead of doing stupid confrontational shit such as flying their bombers over Alaska.

As has been mentioned before, this would be akin to China trying to put missiles in Canada with the excuse "Oh no need to worry, its just for defense against terrorists".

That its meant to counter any attack from "rogue terrorist states" is just the excuse. The US knows Russia, and esp China and India will continue to grow economically and have the potentiality to become capitalist superpowers, threatening US hegemony in those respective regions. The US wants to put these missile systems in place now, long before any threat from these countries could materialize.

it's essentially the "Cuban missile crisis" type scenario, only the US and Russia have switched roles. :o

2. Substantiate that the US has numerous bases in Saudi Arabia with thousands of US troops and that the US is supplying millions of dollars worth of military equipment every year to the Saudi government... without using the world media you referred to earlier. You said the world bourgeois media can't be trusted, so operating under this silly principle, you can't use such media to support your claim. If you use any US media, please answer your own questions concerning "free" media below.So you're saying the US doesn't have numerous military bases along with thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia nor do they give them millions of dollars in military aid? What I said was: "Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving." I didn't say every single bit of news was false. But I don't even have to use that media source to prove that there are US military bases and troops in Saudi Arabia. Ask any service member of the US armed forces who has ever been stationed there. They will answer you in the affirmative.


2.We'll assume you are correct in your statement above. Saudi Arabia supplies America with 1.453 million barrels per day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) which is at over $147 a barrel (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/). You do the math. The US pays Saudi Arabia extremely large amounts of money. This is an exchange, not a puppeteering.I never said the US didn't pay for the oil they get from Saudi Arabia. That would be too sweet a deal for the US, and too bitter a deal for the Saudi public to accept.


If it's so well known how about you 1. support this and 2. use that fact to substantiate that the Saudi government is the puppet of the US, which you can not do because in order for the Saudi government to be puppets, they have to do everything the US says. A puppet does not move without a puppeteer. Puppet- person controlled by another. Control- power of directing. Directing- 1. control, guide; govern the movements of.
Please support the claim that the US controls or otherwise governs the movements of the Saudi government. Until you do so, your statement is baseless and thus is as valid as my claim that the Saudi's secretly run the US. Puppet regimes are given a certain leeway to do things so as to not appear as blatantly obvious puppet regimes. As the Iraqi and Afghan governments are allowed. But in the end, when it comes down to it, the US makes the last and final call on things. On all major issues.


It is not self-evident that someone overthrowing the Saudi government would impose opposing principles of government. They may have the exact principles of governing as the Saudi family, but not be governing. Their overthrow and subsequent usurpation of power would be a move motivated by greed.Not necessarily. It would most likely be out of a desire by the Saudi people to rid their country of foreign US influence.


Would you like argue your belief?Thats what I've been doing.


I never claimed you did. Go back and read what I said.

"Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving." This was your statement. You are collectivising "media' into a global entity. If you never claimed that I did then are you now saying that I'm collectivizing media into a global entity? There are ruling social classes throughout the entire earth, in every country. Many of these are bourgeois. Since these particular presses would be under the influence of the ruling social class, in that way, taken together, they would be the bourgeois world media. Each defending their own interests in the respective countries etc. However as I said I don't believe that there is a globular world united bourgeois media that controls the entire press of the planet.


When you're going to define a term, you might want to include source it's coming from. That way we can all be on the same page. Also, no matter what view you stated, you still have failed to cite it anywhere. I'm aware of Marxism and many of its principles because I read _Capital_ and _The Communist Manifesto_ several years ago.

The OED ranks definitions of words based on statistical calculations, allowing one to easily see the most common definitions of words in the English language. It's used in every major university I've heard of and is highly respected in academia. I highly suggest you buy one.Besides the works of Marx you mentioned which are great, I would highly suggest you read a book by Lenin called "Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism". Its a very good book and has great relevance for todays world. Especially in helping to analyze countries like the US.


1.Please substantiate that the US is doing "all of these things." Until you do, I can tell you that the US is not, and we have equally valid points of view. Both can't be correct, but they're equally valid if unsubstantiated. If I were to define imperialism as having water, America would fit that definition as well. This is where an appeal to authority, though a logical fallacy, can be used as supportive evidence.
2. Assuming the US is doing these things, it fits this definition of imperialism. Okay.... This was not your previous definition of imperialism. "That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale." You changed definitions on me.The invasions and take over of Afghanistan and Iraq to name a couple. Supporting pro-US candidates in eastern European countries and seeking to bring countries like the Ukraine into NATO and thereby into the US sphere of influence. Supplying hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and military hardware to US friendly regimes in places like Columbia. Thereby keeping these regimes propped up and in the US sphere of influence.

No I did not change definitions. A country that is imperialist capitalist is spread out or spreading out throughout the entire world. And that country must protect its self interests which are now on a world scale.



Again, you are not substantiating your statements. Until you support them, they are invalid.

Reason for attacking the US has nothing to do with the reason the US went to war. If you hit me because I looked at you funny, and I hit you back because you hit me first, my looking at you funny has nothing to do with my reason for hitting you.Why else would Japan or the US, or any country in the history of war have gone to war unless it was to protect material interests or aquire more? What other reasons would the US go to war for? Why wouldn't protecting material interests or aquiring more be the sole overriding influencing factor?


It's unsupported because you have yet to provide any actual support for the argument. I don't need to contest that statement. Regardless of whether it is true or not, it is unsubstantiated.Look at the world with your own eyes. You honestly don't believe the US has hegemony over the world market? Or that US capital is in pretty much every nation on the planet? You don't believe that the US is currently the one sole superpower of the world?


What criteria? You had never stated that criteria before, and they most certainly do fit the last of definition of imperialism that you used, which is how they are imperialist... by your first definition. I will reiterate with greater clarity:
"That is exactly what imperialism is! The preservation of self interests except on a world scale." All of these nations preserve their self interests on a global or world scale. I had phrased this as a question, which needs no support. Now I will now support this statement in regards to Russia because it is an argument.
Russia has attempted to stop the US from implementing missile defense shields in former satellite countries such as the Czech Rep. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2008/space-080620-rianovosti01.htm
One of the reasons commonly cited for this is that Russia wants to prevent the expanse of the technological gap between the US and them from widening, with regard to missile technology. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_Russia_Fears_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_999.htm l

"Poland has taken a tough stance in the missile talks with the U.S., demanding it upgrade its air defense systems as a condition for agreeing to station 10 interceptor missiles on its territory."
This is preservation of self-interest on a global scale on the part of Poland.
Russia is building a missile defense shield of their own and test fired it in Kazakhstan. This is preservation of self-interest on a global scale.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/29/91940.shtmlBut none of these nations has the same interests and state of capitalist relations in their respective countries nor the world hegemony that the US does. Russia has indeed tried and is still trying to stop the US from futher encroachment into their sphere of influence. For them its national defense. For the US it is not to protect national interests but its world interests.




This statement is wrong. What was my argument?

Please don't be offended at what I am saying. I am not intending any of this to be insulting.As I understand it, your arguments are that the Saudi Royal family aren't puppets under US control and that the US isn't imperialist. Don't worry no offense taken.

For us to continue this is fruitless. Is there any way I could convince you that the Saudi royal family are puppets of the US or that the US is imperialist? No I don't think so. Is there any way you could convince me otherwise? No there isn't.

i dont that it will happen even if was one on one witch it wouldnt be russia has conscription already a huge army of professional soldiers and some of the best damn soldiers in the world.


Far from it! Aging Equipment, low morale, a high rate of draft dodgers, and unprofessionalism make the Russian armed forces a far cry from the menace they once were.

Here is the deal, the phantom stranger. I am not disagreeing with you. While you read this post, realize that I am taking issue with your format. Do you understand the difference? I want to help you argue more effectively. Also, I will be pretty busy, so my next response my be later than you might expect. I apologize for this beforehand. So you're saying the US doesn't have numerous military bases along with thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia nor do they give them millions of dollars in military aid? What I said was: "Don't believe everything you read put out by the bourgeois world media. Its a tad bit deceiving." I didn't say every single bit of news was false. But I don't even have to use that media source to prove that there are US military bases and troops in Saudi Arabia. Ask any service member of the US armed forces who has ever been stationed there. They will answer you in the affirmative.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying your argument is invalid because it's unsubstantiated. Maybe I've been to S.A. Maybe I've seen firsthand and can't be convinced otherwise.



I never said the US didn't pay for the oil they get from Saudi Arabia. That would be too sweet a deal for the US, and too bitter a deal for the Saudi public to accept.

The flow of cash is into S.A. The exchange isn't fair. You don't pay a puppet. If you want to say the US bribes S.A., then I agree if you consider all political exchanges bribes.

Puppet regimes are given a certain leeway to do things so as to not appear as blatantly obvious puppet regimes. As the Iraqi and Afghan governments are allowed. But in the end, when it comes down to it, the US makes the last and final call on things. On all major issues.
Please substantiate this claim. All I have is your word for it. It may be true or not, but your word alone does make it so. Understand my issue?

Not necessarily. It would most likely be out of a desire by the Saudi people to rid their country of foreign US influence.
It doesn't have to be necessarily. I'm stating an alternate option that is as founded as your own. Please demonstrate that it would most likely be out of such a desire.

Thats what I've been doing.
No, it isn't. You're stating your belief, and not supporting it as an argument. Do you see the distinction? I am not claiming to disagree with your sentiment, but your sentiment is not in a true argumentative form.


If you never claimed that I did then are you now saying that I'm collectivizing media into a global entity? There are ruling social classes throughout the entire earth, in every country. Many of these are bourgeois. Since these particular presses would be under the influence of the ruling social class, in that way, taken together, they would be the bourgeois world media. Each defending their own interests in the respective countries etc. However as I said I don't believe that there is a globular world united bourgeois media that controls the entire press of the planet.


Besides the works of Marx you mentioned which are great, I would highly suggest you read a book by Lenin called "Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism". Its a very good book and has great relevance for todays world. Especially in helping to analyze countries like the US.
Thank you for the suggestion. I am going to Barnes and Noble sometime this week and I intend to purchase this. I have not read it yet, and I think this is a personal failing of mine.


The invasions and take over of Afghanistan and Iraq to name a couple. Supporting pro-US candidates in eastern European countries and seeking to bring countries like the Ukraine into NATO and thereby into the US sphere of influence. Supplying hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and military hardware to US friendly regimes in places like Columbia. Thereby keeping these regimes propped up and in the US sphere of influence.
If you were to substantiate this claim with evidence, it might be a very strong piece of support for an argument, but again... all I have is your word for it. I'm saying you are wrong- I am saying you are not validly arguing. If this segment right here is unclear, I am extremely tired and am beginning to lose my train of thought, so I apologize. Hopefully, if I'm not clear, reading the rest of my post will help you see what I originally meant.


No I did not change definitions. A country that is imperialist capitalist is spread out or spreading out throughout the entire world. And that country must protect its self interests which are now on a world scale.
I respectfully disagree. Your sentences are different. One is more specific and has more stipulations. It's like comparing a rectangle to a square; your second definition fits within the first, but the first does not fit within the second because it can apply to things that are not in agreement with your second definition.


Why else would Japan or the US, or any country in the history of war have gone to war unless it was to protect material interests or aquire more? What other reasons would the US go to war for? Why wouldn't protecting material interests or aquiring more be the sole overriding influencing factor?

Revenge. Self-defense. Protecting material interests is not usually the overriding factor in a rational thought process because a country or an organism must survive in order to protect material interests or acquire more. A nation will not rationally put self-defense at home on the backburner for protection of an interest or asset abroad.

Look at the world with your own eyes. You honestly don't believe the US has hegemony over the world market? Or that US capital is in pretty much every nation on the planet? You don't believe that the US is currently the one sole superpower of the world?

Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant. What I am bringing into question is the support for your argument. You have the burden of proof and should support your claim. I shouldn't have to.

But none of these nations has the same interests and state of capitalist relations in their respective countries nor the world hegemony that the US does. Russia has indeed tried and is still trying to stop the US from futher encroachment into their sphere of influence. For them its national defense. For the US it is not to protect national interests but its world interests.
This, I may actually disagree with. The US is building a missile defense grid which they want to use to protect themselves with. This puts Russian missile systems at a strategic disadvantage because they lose bargaining power if they can't threaten us.


As I understand it, your arguments are that the Saudi Royal family aren't puppets under US control and that the US isn't imperialist. Don't worry no offense taken.
I'm not saying the US isn't imperialist- I am arguing that given the way you first defined imperialist, every nation is imperialist due to the global economy. Thus, I believe your definition is too broad. I'm also defining puppet nation. I think your wording could be a little better. Surrogate may work, or quasi-surrogate. Based on how I have described or defined puppet, S.A. is not a puppet nation. If you provide a source stating a definition, and then we could agree on it, we could change each others' opinions... if they varied. If we can't agree on a definition, we must agree that we disagree on definitions.

Do you see what I mean?

Also, I'm glad you are not taking offense my statements. This will help us continue to maturely exchange ideas in a light that will hopefully not sour relations between us. I don't want either of us to walk away from this thinking negative thoughts of the other. Right now I have no negative thoughts of you, but I do not think you are effectively arguing your ideas and would like to help you.
For us to continue this is fruitless. Is there any way I could convince you that the Saudi royal family are puppets of the US or that the US is imperialist? No I don't think so. Is there any way you could convince me otherwise? No there isn't.

Here is the thing- I'm not trying to necessarily convince you otherwise... I am convincing you that you argument is flawed, and provided an alternative that is a better argument. I'm not saying it's correct- it's better. This is because I supported it, so by default, it is more substantiated, and thus a superior argument. If you were to support your own argument, this distinction would be much more difficult to try and make. I would have to try and refute your support, or provide enough support to overwhelm your own, which would mitigate your support.

The Phantom Stranger, here is another show to say what I mean to do. It's an exercise. Imagine we are debating in an open forum to convince people of two, disagreeing arguments.

You say S.A. is a puppet. I say it is not. Neither of our arguments are supported. They are equally valid because a reasonable person has no reason to believe on over the other. Because they are mutually exclusive, or a mutually-exclusive alternative to either of our arguments could be found, there is no reason to believe the arguments.

If you say S.A. is a puppet state, and then support your argument with the statement "there are US military bases in S.A." you are making another argument. I could argue that there are not military bases in S.A. Because you are supporting an argument with another argument, you are beginning an infinite regression loop/cycle where nothing will be resolved. If you now substantiate your statement that there are X number of US bases in S.A., and then cite that with a valid source we can both agree on (after analyzing how it came to that conclusion: ie counting, aerial photography, the US government and/or Saudi's told them), you have supported the argument about bases. Because the base argument is supported, you indirectly supported your statement that the US controls S.A. This is highly inefficient.

We are using inductive reasoning, where once you support your base argument, people will reasonably choose between the more reasonable of two sides. If I don't support my argument at all, it is reasonable to conclude your argument is better, and then most people will believe that. If I were to discredit your source, we are back to neutrality. If I were to support my argument more, then my argument is superior.

See what I mean? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you are not making it so that if I did, I would have a chance of reasonably changing my opinion.

Wow, I read this whole thread, it was interesting. Even though it veered off course from the original topic I didn't see one "Red Dawn" reference.

WOLVERINES!

Wow, I read this whole thread, it was interesting. Even though it veered off course from the original topic I didn't see one "Red Dawn" reference.

WOLVERINES!

WOLVERINES!

Best movie evar.

WOLVERINES!

Best movie evar.

The only reason I quoted this is because I needed to be said again...

Alliances and mutual defense agreements. "Because of the mutual defense agreement between Japan and Germany, the Germans declared war on the U.S. in another three days, setting in motion the chain of events that would eventually lead to German defeat."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/ww2/index.htm

"Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm#art3





1. And the US didn't make it pretty clear sinking one of their ships would lead to war?

2. You did not support the claim that the Lusitania had ordnance on it. This makes your statement unsubstantiated, and thus just as valid as if I said the Lusitania had nuclear weapons on it.

3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE0D91E3EE033A25757C0A9609C94 6496D6CF That the Lusitania had ordinance on it is not a given at all.

Oh, I forgot that. Conceded.

Wow, I read this whole thread, it was interesting. Even though it veered off course from the original topic I didn't see one "Red Dawn" reference.

WOLVERINES!

Oh that movie was fucking win and ownage. I remember some guys on another internet forum bitching about the movie being 'unrealistic' about the US Fleet being penetrated/defeated and the Soviets invading without any US warning. The guy was Russian so I wonder why :p