Both the Left and the Right think the other side is being 'duped'

[Cyrus]

Boy, you guys need your food chewed!

Summary of the point Alger made : The origins of neo-conservatism are bi-partisan. End of summary.

We will now break for our affiliate stations identification.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly display your intelligence by announcing to a shocked world that the "right" brought us Vietnam. I guess that Kennedy and Johnson were radical neo-cons.


[/ QUOTE ]

understood, and they were asshats in vietnam as well.

i was talking of todays general mindset of the right, should have been more clear

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you are 18, you just got to college, and a bunch of hippies on your dorm floor just told you everything "they" don't want you to know?

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

29, college educated (read: ripped off), and a product of the christain right upbringing.

started thinking for myself at some point.

for a lot of people that never happens.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?

[/ QUOTE ]

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as the US is trying to make puppets out of way too much of the world.

[PorscheNGuns]

[ QUOTE ]
started thinking for myself at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take that Mom and Dad!

-Matt

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, you guys need your food chewed!

Summary of the point Alger made : The origins of neo-conservatism are bi-partisan. End of summary.

We will now break for our affiliate stations identification.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of the OP is that the "right" brought us Vietnam, which is most assuredly not the case. I didnt think the OP was trying to mkae the more subtle point that modern neoconservatives have their roots in Democratic anti-communist hawks. If he was, I apologize for misunderstanding.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?:

[/ QUOTE ]
Under this defintion the British in India or the Soviets in Eastern Europe were't "imperialists" because the territorial boundries of the alleged imperialists remained unchanged, an absurdity. "Imperialism" is when a dominating state aggressively extends its political control over a subservient state. It doesn't require redrawing boundries.

[/ QUOTE ]

India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo, sir. So you see his point, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because India was PART of the United Kingdom. It was as much of the UK as Canada or Australia before they were granted their independence...

Furthermore, I must assert that the Easter Bloc might as well as been part of the Soviet Union. It was under that much control.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the point !

Boundaries were not changed for Great Britain. The borders of the USSR metropolis were not moved forward. Expanding the borders is NOT necessary in an imperialist endeavor.

Which is precisely the point that you missed when you wrote "If we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?"

If we were putting on cartons of milk every point in the 2+2 forums that you MISSED we'd run out of milk. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are clearly less intelligent than I had believed before. Mainly because Great Britian is PART of the United Kingdom. Just as much as Canada was a part of the United Kingdom. Just as much as India was a part of the United Kingdom. Just as much as Australia was a part of the United Kingdom.

Boundries for Great Britain WERE changed. Boundries for the USSR might as well have changed. Either way, UK/India fits definition 1 below to a T, and USSR/Eastern Bloc fits definition 2 to a T.

You are totally IGNORANT of the facts here, and you have shown it. Learn some history before you try to argue with the big boys. Thanks.

Imperialism-
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the point !

Boundaries were not changed for Great Britain. The borders of the USSR metropolis were not moved forward. Expanding the borders is NOT necessary in an imperialist endeavor.

Which is precisely the point that you missed when you wrote "If we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?"

If we were putting on cartons of milk every point in the 2+2 forums that you MISSED we'd run out of milk. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are clearly less intelligent than I had believed before. Mainly because Great Britian is PART of the United Kingdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great Britain IS the United Kingdom. You are clearly less intelligent than I had believed before.