been there i meant, lol

The Incas subjecting other people to maintain there wealth... seems hypocritical coming from an American...

Edison was a joke, the lightbulb, his most famous "invention" was invented by Sir Humphry Davy, an English physician.

Stevelers, let him rant. I heard this somewhere... 'do not feed the animals'

Haha! That's great.

You guys are all a bunch of deluded leftists, I don't know why I'm bothering.

Well, don't you right wing extremist

the TRUE delusion is America still thinking it has center stage! Lol. Move on over...

Ugh...

canute, who would you rather have "at center stage"? China? Good fucking luck with that.

yes, it probably was the greatest genocide in modern history.

still, america is still the greatest political force that is on the side of freedom, emancipation, liberty AND equality of any in all of human history.

the world america has created - the world of globalization - the world of global cosmopolitanism - the world that allows 1 billion people to move freely around the world pursuing their dreams & exercising their freedoms - this is a world that the american people have fought for and won for us all, and we owe a debt of gratitude not just to the americans and allies who have created this world for us, but for the very idea of it. not to mention that the peaceful globalized world we seek is also not only an american idea but the very purpose of america in the first place. there are certainly things you can say against america, but when it comes down to it, no other nation has done the hard work that america has done to benefit all of humanity.

I've always felt that genocide was the wrong term to describe the tragic destruction of the American Indian. To me, genocide is all about intent, and European Americans (with a few very notable exceptions), were not seeking to systematically murder the entire indigenous population of North America. I mean, if that had been the intent of the the various governments that have ruled our nation over the years, there would be no American Indians living today, right?

Compare this experience with the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, or even Darfur, and you'll get a very different picture. Was it a cultural genocide? Yes, of course. But an "American Holocaust", absolutely not.

well tuco, the definition of genocide is the intentional destruction of national-ethnic communities, and the people who endorsed the settlement patterns certainly knew that the destruction of the indians was inevitable - they knew this from at least the mid-1700s. of course, the defintion and laws of genocide were not written then, but still.

they were not seeking the murder of each and every indian, that is certain. in fact, they sought to protect the indian - but they sought to protect the indian from the perspective that their land and way of life would be cut out from under them by settlers. of course, this wasn't malicious necessarily. they just recognized that people would want to set out on their own and settle the new world. and in fact throughout its first 30, 40, 50 years, the federal government - though it wanted expansion - was simply not powerful enough to tell settlers "no". so though it wanted to say to settlers "yes" it was a weak force. but what happened - well, that was very clearly envisioned. the thing is, were they wrong? i mean, they would have had to send in the army to prevent colonization. and in fact, that was one of the big british policies that started the revolution - the british used their army, and the alliance with the french, and the supplying of the indians with arms - to prevent settlers into the ohio territory. the american colonial goverment was quite clear - they viewed expansion into the ohio valley as critically important to the development of a continent-wide commercial & industrial empire. they were quite right to both predict and take action that lead to that consequence. and they were quite right in predicting the collapse of the indians who stood in the way. quite frankly, their views on property and development never stood a chance.

i don't view this as a problem. after all, they were just viewing this as an inevitable consequence of broader forces. the holocaust was much more systematic - they knew precisely what mechanical actions they would take in 4, 5, 6 short years. yes, the americans knew that indians would be destroyed, but it was more predictive, more an analysis of trends, and it took 150 years and was largely driven by individuals - though it still meets the definition of genocide because government and military authorities endorsed and understood the implications of the policies.

Tuco is right. Most of the natives died due to diseases or at the hands of other tribes.

frankly, that's false.

Look at a tribe like the Souix, the other groups would rather deal with the Americans. Its really just natural.

yes, there is indeed a complex history of interplay between the various forces, french, english, indian, inter-indian, american. but it is true, that prior to the revolution, the goal of the french & english & indians was to limit settlement, and the goal of the pro-independence colonists was a continent-wide empire. they were quite explicit. they knew it meant "displacement" - at its kindest - of the indians. they didn't view them as disgusting or evil or anything - but they did view them as inferior because they did not understand the productive value of the land and the importance of commercialism, republicanism & euro-civilization.

i mean, yes, the indians fought one another. there was conquest and resettlement there. but the american nation was never unclear about what american settlement meant, and manifest destiny was not a new idea, just a new term for an old idea.

America still does have centre stage. Although, that centre stage is slowly moving with the fall of the Soviet Union and the lack of need for the US' protection of western values.

I should point out that the values that the US was based on stemmed from that of post-revolutionary imperialism. In particular, a place where ideas that truly were created in Western Europe were actually able to be applied.

Freedom of religion and belief of course started in its purest form with Martin Luther, as he rebelled against the corruption of the Catholic church, allowing for the protestant reformation and within a few hundred years freedom of religion.

The first ground gained for the average person and in particular the abolition of Feudalism and the first ideas of democracy was of course with the British Civil War in the 1640s and the resultant revolution of 1688 which saw the creation of the constitutional monarchy. The parliament was still hugely corrupt and unbalanced towards the upper class, but it was the first real step.

I'd also hardly say that America has done the 'hard' work. It has of course done a lot of fighting, but until World War II that fighting was usually done almost entirely by others with the US choosing when and where to tip the balance with the least input from itself - often after the other powers are totally exhausted.

After World War II an insane amount of funding has gone into its own protection as they were actually attacked by a foreign power for the first time in decades if not almost a century. Russia was also suddenly seen as a power that could rival its own. Ultimately Russia was never as strong as the US but it was strong enough to give the US a real war.

The thing is that every war and conflict after World War II has been surrounded with a huge amount of controversy - note that these were actually the only conflicts dominated by the US.

That's a reply to the 11:59 post - I've had it open for an hour and only just got a chance to post it. I've been doing too many things at once.

stating a time, does nothing. Its only relevant in ones own time zone. For eg. This post is around 407pm friday 11th April

since world war 1? first, you cannot discount america's defense of france and england toward the end of ww1. that is significant - england was long the home of moderate republicanism and the alliance of france and england and america was the ONLY power defending constitutional republicanism in that war. it was a decisive victory of democracy over autocracy and monarchism. in the second world war, american arms were essential in defending freedom from both fascism and communism. and the following four decades were a long string of defenses against totalitarian governance in favor of free and civil democratic society.

today america is still - you cannot discount this - it is still the defender of the european union and japan/south korea/australia. were it not for america, russia would easily dominate all of europe, given europe's largely non-existant defense force, as well as that of japan/south korea. china would dominate the east and russia the west were it not for the united states. you simply cannot discount the enormous amount of effort, blood and treasure america has expended in defense of a substantial portion of the world that exists in free society.

yes, america has had to pick and choose. that is because it is still only a minority of the world that exists in the free realm. but that realm has grown to the point of at least 1/6 of the globe and put at least another 1/3 on the trajectory toward freedom because of america's balanced picking and choosing. after all there is only so much 5% of the world can do. but it has done a lot. perhaps it is partially self interested, but there is also another part that is selfless. you could not have asked for a more benevolent, even benificent, global power.

america's "insane" military budget is not just for america. it is for england and italy, france and germany, the nordic and low countries, now for central and eastern europe, for turkey, egypt and israel, for india and japan and new zealand and australia and south korea. it is also for substantial parts of south america. it is for canada and mexico. it is a large sphere of free and civil societies - you cannot discount this and see that the burden was only limited and that the effect was only self-interest. yes, there was self-interest, but self-interest in doing what is right is still doing what is right. people under the US system are simply put, better off. there is really no serious contention to that claim. and the extent to which they are better off, compared with the early monarchical systems defeated in WW1, or the fascist systems defeated in WW2, or the communist systems defeated in the cold war, and the "islamist" systems that we fight today - there is no comparison between the superior american-lead system of free society, civil liberty, political democracy and economic advancement, and the backward and oppressive regimes america has fought.

i will concede that today it has become fashionable to reject america and to say its value are backward. believe me, we have been fighting the same arrogant mindset at home, because we were the first to realize just how backward and ignorant and spiteful the right in the united states can be. but ultimately, my country is an unparalleled force for human freedom and it deserves to be defended and loved - even loved despite the criticism - and it is important to understand the difference between short-term missed political opportunies as represented by bush, and the long term defense of human freedom that the entirety of america's history represents.

Heh, of course - It was a reply to fwancophile's post about an hour before.

I should point out that in both World Wars that American involvement is much more minimal than is often attributed. When you look at death tolls it is near the bottom despite the much more substantial population than the other allies.

I do think that the selfless part is much much smaller than the part looking out for its own interests. It usually takes somebody to violently shove a problem into the face of the US to instigate a reaction.

I disagree with your point that we are today defending ourselves against the Islamist systems. The war is rather against a messy lack of solid governments in the middle east and areas where Islam just happens to be the dominant faith. I believe that if Christianity or any other religion was prevailent in the area we would still have internationally recognizable terrorist attacks.

The Middle East has also been divided repeatedly by Western Imperialism and changes that the Muslim world has little control over. The destruction and division of the Ottoman Empire in World War I of course created many serious divisions. The decision to reduce the size and power of the empires and encourage self-determination more or less divided them all over again. Within the countries you also have different sects within Islam (Sunni, Shiite...) causing even more divisions. The only way for anyone to really control a place with such a violently variable society is a dictatorship or at least a very one-partyish democracy.

I've spent too much time on this and am going to end it - I've got a bit more to say before I do though.

I do respect America and its accomplishments - to a degree.
I believe that others should also respect America and its accomplishments - to a degree.
America, its ideals and beliefs are not infallible as many seem to believe.

Of course America is not infallible, its a human nation run by human ideals. However, to prefer China or Russia, or some other nation take center stage in lunacy.

my educated opinion is: america = gay.
largely, but not at all comprehensively, due to bush.

bobby, that is very original statement. i can see the headlines in the paper tomorrow " Bad Bush increases homosexuality "
:)

anyway. McCain, thats big problem i have with people defending the US, they often say that if i attack the US political elite opinion then i must be pro russian or in bed with the chinese and that the US is by far better than those two.
yes...of course it is the case that the US is preferable to 2 nasty dictatorships like those. no shit sherlock. one can criticise US elite policy and still prefer american hegemony over the world to chinese hegemony. its like a torturer asking you " do you want your little pinky cut off or your genitalia crushed in a vice until they a pulped? " well geez id prefer to be given a bouquet of flowers but given the choice its goodbye pinky"

I personally believe that Russia is dead. It still has a say in world politics but it will never regain its full strength.

I believe that China would not be as bad to have as a super-power in the future as is perceived by most Americans. You have to remember that most actions by the Chinese are given a negative slant because of the US' relatively introverted and dogmatic view of world politics. The main problems seen with human rights issues and the lack of independant thought of the people will change if China is supported and introduced to western standards by the rest of the world. If people took a more positive view on China's steps we would have much to look forward to in the coming century. As it isn't, China will quite simply pull back and the world will be worse off because of it.

My educated opinion is: People/People run governments = gay
largely, but not at all comprehensively, due to other people.

Over the next century world governments will be revamped - I doubt democracy itself will be removed, just changed - probably with the emergence of a new political ideology within democracy that goes beyond simply right-left. A corrupt and fallible system of government will change to a new and improved corrupt and fallible system.

"in the world america has created, the world that allows 1 billion people to move freely around the world pursuing their dreams & exercising their freedoms"

yes fwancophile, at the expense and suffering of the other 5 billion people on this world.

and I find your justifications for the way the american government treated the indigenous people, well, disgusting and racist
they were in the way?
they slowed industrialization?

that would be like a wal-mart killing everyone in your neighborhood, so they could build a new store

I'd support Wal-mart killing everyone in your neighbourhood to build a new store. It is just as long as it is backed up by religious principles.