View Single Post
      09-08-2006, 05:11 PM   #24
Second Lieutenant

Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by pawarrant
No, actually it means I can not comprehend calling the US some imperialistic power. The only response to it is that you are absolutely wrong. Here is the definition of Imperialistic:The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Let's look at that definition (by the way, I 100% agree with that definition). You are correct -- with respect to Iraq, the US has not declared Iraq to now be part of the US. But what is "political hegemony?" Political hegemony is "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over another" (in this case, with respect to its system of government). President Bush has consisently mentioned that we have liberated Iraq and have brought democracy to Iraq, and that the US will not withdraw its troops until such a time that the US determines Iraq has a stable democracy. In other words, the US invaded a nation (based on false pretenses) and then proceeded to instill its form of government on the population. I don't recall the Iraqis asking for our help (whether or not they are better off by it is irrelevant). That sounds like political hegemony to me.

Originally Posted by pawarrant
No nation in the history of the world has been so powerful, and yet used its power to do more good for the world. Every nation we have defeated in war, we built up to their betterment and left them to govern themselves instead of taking their land and riches. You are just plain wrong, or lying when you made that statement. It is hard to respond to a statement that is that irrational.
With respect to WWI and WWII, the US was but one member of nations who helped to rebuild those nations left defeated. In the Iraq war, the US is the largest player by far in the "rebuilding process." We have not yet left Iraq, and when (and if) we do, only then will we be able to comment on the "altruistic" nature of the US.

Originally Posted by pawarrant
As for the letter Harry Reid wrote, it has been well published in the media. I listened to an interview of the producer of the mini-series on Sean Hannity today. He confirmed the show has been edited in response to this political pressure from the Dems. He said from the beginning the mini-series was considered a docu-drama by ABC. Where is the valiant ACLU now to defend this artists freedom of speech and expression?
I did a Google search for various searches and found the letter to which you are referring This letter mentions that ABC is using public airwaves, and as such has a duty to the public to use those public airwaves responsibly -- responsibly, as in not using them in a misleading or inaccurate way. It does not threaten the revokation of their FCC license, nor any other penalities or sanctions, in any way. As for the ABC mini-series, consider the following: 1) not everyone who watches the mini-series will have read of the controversy beforehand. Thus, in the interest of maintaining credibility, it is necessary for ABC to either remove/edit the parts which take creative liberties, or they should disclaim that those creative liberties have been taken, and 2) ABC news will air a disclaimer (whether decided before or as a response to the furor, I do not know), but that the disclaimer will also contain text that it is based on the 9/11 commission report, even though the report itself will contradict scenes in the mini-series.

Originally Posted by pawarrant
As for you characterization of the FCC as "an extension of the Christian right", that too is wrong. In fact the FCC is a bureaucratic regulatory organization filled with union civil service employees. Most of us on the right are hardly supporters of big government bureaucracy. And by the way what is your problem with Christians. It seems throughout this thread you write as if Christians were bad and a problem of this country. This really shows how out of touch you are considering the great majority of Americans are good Christians.
I don't have a problem with Christians. "Christian-right" (also referred to as "Religious Right") is a common term to refer to right-wing Christian political movements. And whether or not the majority of Americans are good Christians, I have my own set of beliefs, which I (and certainly many others) would prefer over those of the Christian-right. Bush has set a clear agenda against gays, women's right (e.g. abortions), and embryonic stem-cell research. Going further, Christian-right beliefs would also bring back school prayer (what about all of the non-Christians? Would they be represented?), and let us not forget bringing back the teaching that evolution is only a theory and that creationism (not a scientifically valid theory, and not a belief held by all) should be taught in public schools. You have your beliefs, I have mine -- I won't try to force mine on you, so I'd appreciate it if you and others wouldn't force yours on me.