2006-08-30 06:43:59 · 18 answers · asked by Shiraz 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Republicans are far too selfish to be Imperialist. Plus thats giving them too much credit for actually having a plan in place for what to do with the new found colonies.
2006-08-30 06:48:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Shiraz is whipping them out fast and furious (like a bad porn flick!).
Did we say Clinton was an imperialist when troops were sent to Bosnia and Kosovo to save Muslim skins? No.
Did we say Clinton was an imperialist when he poo poo'd Kyoto as well? No.
Did we say Papa Bush was an imperialist when he got the WORLD to invade Iraq in 1991 (and did an even WORSE job than this invasion, in my opinion)? Well, most didn't think he was imperialist.
I voted for Papa Bush as a young man (against Dukakis, c'mon, I had no choice!). I then felt Clinton represented an American leadership on world issues better than Papa Bush and his 70's era cronies or Dole, who I thought was too frail or too disinterested to lead a country during such changing times. As for the last two elections, suffice it to say that I didn't vote for Bush, ever, and definitely didn't vote for Kerry (couldn't look into my kids' eyes and tell them I voted for Kerry). Actually, no reasonable candidate with sufficient political capital and intellect has been in the running for a while, and I pride myself on voting for an American president, rather than one whose interests tend to lie elsewhere (Bush in Riyadh, Kerry in Paris)...Now, Clinton did much to internally improve the American economy for those who were completely disengaged from it. But he just left the barn door open when it came to foreign policy, military and energy. Did absolutely nothing meaningful there.
So, back to imperialism. An imperialist never leaves the conquered territory, the imperialist ANNEXES the territory and assimilates the people, culture, land, resources. Do you believe Republicans want Iraq as the 51st state or as a U.S. territory? I would consider the latter, not the former, but I'm out there when it comes to my thirst and desperation for oil (I am not hypocritical, I need oil, so do you, so no more complaining about what it takes to get oil, there is no current alternative!). But the Reps, Bush, NeoCons, they don't want U.S. territories in the MidEast, or South America or Central Asia. NO WAY! Realistically, mainstream Reps want more isolation than globalism, more caretaking of American soil and domestic interests, less worry about what goes on way over there. But oil is the spoiling X factor. Oil makes America what it is, which is ok, but sometimes it requires war. What're you gonna do? Stop driving and call me back in 20 years. We'll see then if there's a U.S. soldier any further than 5 miles offshore. Doubt it.
2006-08-30 13:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America has learned from the European powers and our own stinct in the Phillapines that directly controlling another country is worth it. With our military strength (bases all over the world, some places in places you wouldn't believe) and political influence as the UN, we used to be able to get what we want anyways much cheaper without making the other countries lose face. But you can only push countries so far before their own people hold them accountable.
2006-08-30 14:25:06 · answer #3 · answered by choyryu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, for the fool who claims that Democrats are communist let me say this about that claim....IT ISN'T TRUE! However, the Republicans being imperialist is true, especially when we pretty much forced Iraq to a regime change based on lies! There were no WMDs, but there was oil.
2006-08-30 13:59:51 · answer #4 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What a dream I had last night. I was in this big Democratic tent and Shiraz was there giving a speech and stirring up the crowds. Even Jesi was there dancing on the tables.
Then I woke up and found out that Bush was in New Orleans but that he got there a year late.
2006-08-30 13:59:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Imperialism? Do we extend our authority on another territory?
Do we establish economic and political hegemony over other nations?
OK, WERE IMPERIALIST
2006-08-30 14:00:12 · answer #6 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not imperialist. Bush just wants to outsource all of our jobs!!
2006-08-30 13:47:23 · answer #7 · answered by Lisa 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
whats imperialist
2006-08-30 13:46:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imperialism means taking lands and ruling over them
We believe in freeing people and letting them rule themselves!!
2006-09-01 14:00:24 · answer #9 · answered by ace 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You will never get a repuke to admit to anything so why even try.
2006-08-30 13:49:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋