USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, because the liberation of that country was done due to the command of God and had nothing to do with geopolitical realities. Right....... You oversimplify, as is your wont. We had treaty obligations. We kept them. Unlike our treaty obligations with South Viet Nam. Those we didn't keep. I would, on the whole, prefer that the word of the US mean something.
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Then you are okay with people using Crusader as a pejorative even if others like yourself don't use it that way? I want to be understood accurately and I want to understand completely. BY said something to the effect of, You're a fool if you take offense when none was intended, and an even bigger fool if you take offense when it is intended. I am so very behind in achieving BY standards in this regard.
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 You oversimplify, as is your wont. We had treaty obligations. We kept them. Unlike our treaty obligations with South Viet Nam. Those we didn't keep. I would, on the whole, prefer that the word of the US mean something.So keeping a treaty turns a war into a righteous crusade? So that means that when Nazi Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor they were actually holy crusaders?And you accuse me of oversimplifying?
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Volgadon put me on to a book whose subject matter appears to follow my own thoughts on the subject of what jihad means, not in the textbook or in the newspaper article, but on the ground: http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-History-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300106033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414643951&sr=1-1&keywords=efraim+karshe The anti-imperialists of 40-70 years ago were not so much opposed to the concept of imperialism, they just wanted to be imperialists themselves, it appears. The question of whether the religion drives the imperialism or the imperialism drags the religion into the question is quite immaterial, to my way of thinking. He who would conquer and enslave me is my enemy. Everybody else I can do business with. The US remains the great anti-imperialist power in the world (once we reached the Pacific, we were pretty much done): The struggle with German imperialism lasted nearly 100 years. The struggle with the Russians' imperialism continues. We finally bought Britain's imperialism to a halt with our arms and material. The Frogs', Belgians' and Dutch's imperialism fell pretty much without much help from us. Accordingly, militarism and militaristic images in our hymnal necessarily mean something different from what many in this thread are trying to impose on them. The struggle is with sin, evil, and the soul, and not with principalities and powers, except to the extent those principalities and powers prevent peoples' perfectioning.
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 So keeping a treaty turns a war into a righteous crusade? So that means that when Nazi Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor they were actually holy crusaders?And you accuse me of oversimplifying? Oversimplifying or willfully obtuse. Let the reader decide.
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The US remains the great anti-imperialist power in the world (once we reached the Pacific, we were pretty much done): Imperialism is expanding your power and influence. It is not just gobbling up territory. The United States is the most imperialist power in the world. I don't doubt that other nations (China and Russia for example) would love to surpass us and do it in a less kind way but they don't have the ability. The United States has its fingers in everyone's business. Every major diplomatic decision made worldwide has to factor in what the United States will think about it. The United States is a hegemonic power. It dominates. This has positive aspects to it and also a few negatives especially when we are arrogant idiots about it. For example did we really expect to get the Ukraine into NATO without Russia taking action. We would have done the same thing. Imagine if China started building a military superalliance and were courting Canada and Mexico to join; would the United States sit back and let it happen? Oversimplifying or willfully obtuse. Let the reader decide. I will have to crusade against this.
BCSpace Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 No. The Gospel is a message of war and we should never become complacent or think otherwise.We may need to update the Beatitudes. "Blessed are the warmongers for they shall be called the children of God." Indeed we might: 1 Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.Psalms 144
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Imperialism is expanding your power and influence. It is not just gobbling up territory. That's the Kremlin's argument [and redefinition of the term] in 1955 and 1957 and 1968, etc, etc, etc. An empire is a bunch of real estate, or it's nothing. 1
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 That's the Kremlin's argument [and redefinition of the term] in 1955 and 1957 and 1968, etc, etc, etc. An empire is a bunch of real estate, or it's nothing.The Kremlin was right. Having satellite nations aligned to you (as the Soviets did to Eastern Europe until the wall fell) or having power to compel other nations to go along with your decisions (United States over most of the world) is a form of imperialism.Saying the United States is not imperialistic is laughable. It is sometimes a relatively benevolent overlord but it is imperialist. 1
halconero Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 That's the Kremlin's argument [and redefinition of the term] in 1955 and 1957 and 1968, etc, etc, etc. An empire is a bunch of real estate, or it's nothing. Eh, that can be argued. There are large maritime empires which wielded tremendous economic, political, and military power over other states that still didn't have much "terra firma" per se.
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The Kremlin was right. Having satellite nations aligned to you (as the Soviets did to Eastern Europe until the wall fell) or having power to compel other nations to go along with your decisions (United States over most of the world) is a form of imperialism.Saying the United States is not imperialistic is laughable. It is sometimes a relatively benevolent overlord but it is imperialist. em·pireˈemˌpī(ə)r/nounnoun: empire; plural noun: empires 1. an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. "the Roman Empire" synonyms: kingdom, realm, domain, territory, imperium; More commonwealth; power, world power, superpower "the Ottoman Empire" a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group. "her business empire grew" synonyms: organization, corporation, multinational, conglomerate, consortium, company, business, firm, operation "a worldwide shipping empire" an extensive operation or sphere of activity controlled by one person or group. "the kitchen had once been the ladies' empire" supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority. "he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor" synonyms: power, rule, ascendancy, supremacy, command, control, authority, sway, dominance, domination, dominion "his dream of empire" archaic absolute control over a person or group. 2. a variety of apple.
USU78 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Eh, that can be argued. There are large maritime empires which wielded tremendous economic, political, and military power over other states that still didn't have much "terra firma" per se. See the next prior post.
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 em·pireˈemˌpī(ə)r/nounnoun: empire; plural noun: empires1. an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress. "the Roman Empire" synonyms:kingdom, realm, domain, territory, imperium; Morecommonwealth; power, world power, superpower "the Ottoman Empire" a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group. "her business empire grew" synonyms:organization, corporation, multinational, conglomerate, consortium, company, business, firm, operation "a worldwide shipping empire" an extensive operation or sphere of activity controlled by one person or group. "the kitchen had once been the ladies' empire" supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority. "he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor" synonyms:power, rule, ascendancy, supremacy, command, control, authority, sway, dominance, domination, dominion "his dream of empire" archaic absolute control over a person or group.2. a variety of apple.And if the word imperialist as currently used related solely to the word empire that would win the argument but I never said the United States was an empire.
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) And if the word imperialist as currently used related solely to the word empire that would win the argument but I never said the United States was an empire. We been an empire for a long time now. Some put it at the Spanish American War. I put it at the Mexican American War. Some even put it at the Louisiana Purchase. We didn't buy it from the Indians. We stole it fair and square and we ain't giving it back. Edited October 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) We been an empire for a long time now. Some put it at the Spanish American War. I put it at the Mexican American War. Some even put it at the Louisiana Purchase. We didn't buy it from the Indians. We stole it fair and square and we ain't giving it back.Territorial expansion is mostly gone. We also do not overtly control other nations in a legal sense. That is usually what is meant by empire but there definitions of empire I think the US fits. I would not say it because it would lead to a semantic discussion. Edited October 30, 2014 by The Nehor
halconero Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 See the next prior post. Contained within said post: a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group."her business empire grew"synonyms: organization, corporation, multinational, conglomerate, consortium, company, business, firm, operation"a worldwide shipping empire"an extensive operation or sphere of activity controlled by one person or group."the kitchen had once been the ladies' empire"supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority."he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor"synonyms: power, rule, ascendancy, supremacy, command, control, authority, sway, dominance, domination, dominion"his dream of empire" Every heard the concept of a sphere of influence, a protectorate, or neo-colonialism?
Silhouette Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Accordingly, militarism and militaristic images in our hymnal necessarily mean something different from what many in this thread are trying to impose on them. The struggle is with sin, evil, and the soul, and not with principalities and powers, except to the extent those principalities and powers prevent peoples' perfectioning.I agree with this. When singing these types of hymns, I've always thought that the "conflicts" and "battles" mentioned therein referred to a spiritual battle between God and Satan, and that "We are all enlisted" in God's army to fight for Him and defeat evil. I think I envisioned this war or battle as occurring perhaps after the Millennium, when Satan is "loosed" for a little while. I never imagined that these hymns meant anything referring to this earthly time that we are living now.
volgadon Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Eh, that can be argued. There are large maritime empires which wielded tremendous economic, political, and military power over other states that still didn't have much "terra firma" per se. The terra firma is still the raison d'etre for having maritime power. 1
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The terra firma is still the raison d'etre for having maritime power.No, it is the resources. You do not have to own the land they are on.
volgadon Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Yeah, but there were less instances of massacres in the Jewish quarters because they were eating babies again. There were also less instances of Christian kingdoms kidnapping and forcibly converting Jewish orphans, as well as fewer instances of publicly stoning jews for being jews.
WysteriaBlue Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) We may not own the land, but we do owe trillions to China...and with 21?? other countries voting to change international banking from the dollar to the yen or some other Asian currency to be determined....In China...it may be that our empire building and influence in international relations and basic beliefs and desire for freedom for all will fail.Machinations aside, unless we stop borrowing from countries that do not have the same values that our democracy supports, the empire and it's outlanders will fall away. Many of our supposed "allies" will say, "what have you done for me lately"....they will not remember all the support and loans and subsidies we gave them. Just a different point of view to consider.... (btw, if you get to see Robert Kennedy Jr's interview on Al Jazeera America, it is worth the time to watch. I saw it today and it was eye opening....he is quite wise and holds the democracy and what it stands for quite closely.)actually, just found the link...http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/talk-to-al-jazeera/articles/2014/10/16/robert-kennedy-jrtalkstodavidshuster.html Edited October 31, 2014 by WysteriaBlue
Tacenda Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I think you're all right!! But it's way over my head, because in school and in life, I wasn't always thinking about this, lame brain me. But thanks for the political science and history lessons, keep them coming. Learning about this opens my eyes not unlike watching those illuminati conspiracy theorists online, I tend to trust things here a little more. But do they have something? Did our forefathers want to be a world order? Is that pertinant to the discussion in any way?
USU78 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 The terra firma is still the raison d'etre for having maritime power. Indeed: And the redefinition of imperialism by the Sovs was done in Oorder to "soften the blow" of their naked territorial aggressions 1938-1989. "See, you do it, too." Except NATO, including us, didn't. SH's Iraq engaged in territorial aggression. That was imperialism. ISIS/ISIL seeks to conquer Iraq, Syria, Israel and who knows how far beyond that. That is imperialism. Russia has dismembered and devoured parts of Ukraine and Georgia, leaving toothless rumps behind. That is imperialism. Coke bribes Mexican officials in order to get their products on shelves. That is not imperialism. That is graft. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I think you're all right!! But it's way over my head, because in school and in life, I wasn't always thinking about this, lame brain me. But thanks for the political science and history lessons, keep them coming.Learning about this opens my eyes not unlike watching those illuminati conspiracy theorists online, I tend to trust things here a little more. But do they have something? Did our forefathers want to be a world order? Is that pertinant to the discussion in any way? Some did, some didn't. SEE Manifest Destinyhttp://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/manifest-destiny---the-philosophy-that-created-a-nation.php
The Nehor Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Indeed: And the redefinition of imperialism by the Sovs was done in Oorder to "soften the blow" of their naked territorial aggressions 1938-1989. "See, you do it, too." Except NATO, including us, didn't. SH's Iraq engaged in territorial aggression. That was imperialism. ISIS/ISIL seeks to conquer Iraq, Syria, Israel and who knows how far beyond that. That is imperialism. Russia has dismembered and devoured parts of Ukraine and Georgia, leaving toothless rumps behind. That is imperialism. Coke bribes Mexican officials in order to get their products on shelves. That is not imperialism. That is graft. Whereas US imperialism during the same period was utterly benign. We were not willing to destroy any government that might lean towards communism and support any butcher who happened to be in power just because he was anti-communist.
Recommended Posts