In a message dated 10/22/03 10:45:25 PM, steve@... writes:
Steve, I think permanence is implied in that definition you found. For
instance, are Germany and Japan imperial holdings of the United
though the U.S. "controlled" them as distant territories for years
I agree for the most part. But it remains to be seen:
1. if we will be there "permanently"
2. whether Iraqi's will be self ruled or ruled by a US backed puppet
And the US seems to be avoiding any commitments requested by the rest
of the world to ensure that these two things do not happen. Given that,
and the US's long history of foreign intervention (which did directly
support French imperialism in the case of Vietnam) I think it's fair to
say that, on the face of it, the US actions do appear to be imperialist
-- Steve >>
Steve, in my first response to Kelly I said.."It's much to soon to argue
that." I see you now agree, "it remains to be seen" is what you said. But now you
want Imperialist nations to decide for us what we should do?? When you say
"the US seems to be avoiding requests made by the rest of the world" I assume you
mean the UN security council, which is made up of the very evil imperialist
nations you fear we are? Please explain how France et al. is worthy of making
these decisions and why we are not?
Live free or die, Michael S.
Michael R. Sawyer
1761 Kelly Street
San Mateo, CA 94403