|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
OP
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Wednesday and I were just chatting and somehow we got onto this subject. Many people across the World resent us because we are a so called Imperial Power......the last Super Power. History tells us that America didn't want this role........they were dragged into it kicking and screaming by the same people who resent us now for having said power.
Our faults as a country are a by-product of over 100 years of decision making. It is both foolish and reckless to say one man (Bush or Clinton) or one administration are the reason why the world "hates" us or that we have global unrest. Republicans and Democrats alike got us where we are today equally......good and bad.
During the first 2 World Wars we tried very hard each time to stay out of them. We answered the call to save democracy and to save Europe from tyranny......soon after whenever there was global unrest the rest of the world looked to us to go and do something about it........Vietnam was France's problem initially.....it seems that after the fall of the Soviet Union Europe wasn't as threatened anymore and didn't need us quite they way they used to. Not only that, they and others now resent us for doing the same thing that they begged us to do for almost 50 years.......protect the world from tyranny.
Personally, I tend to agree with people like Pat Buchannan who say we should be a Republic not an Empire. Obviously, after 9/11 we need to fight a global war on terror now so that really isn't an option anymore.
But whenever they need us and it's convenient for them, the world expects us to be there for them. During the Tsunami disaster no one gave more or did more than the USA.....yet you had the French calling us cheap.....and the tsunami victims themselves wanting the American troops out of there as quickly as possible. Now I'm glad we helped.....but if the world is so ungrateful maybe we should focus more on our own problems and let them deal with their problems themselves. We still have to fix Florida which still has debris on the sides of the road and buildings devastated by hurricanes that happened almost a year ago.......maybe it is time to turn our backs on the rest of the world and take care of our own.
So who is to blame for our "Imperialism"? .....I believe it's the very people who resent us.......what say you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
I say it's not so much a question of "who," but "what."
The answer is ignorance.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
During the first 2 World Wars we tried very hard each time to stay out of them.
I am uncertain that this is accurate. I'm not a scholar on Wilson and I know he was re-elected in 1916 in large measure because he "kept us out of war." Yet by April, 1917, the U.S. enetered the First World War. Wilson had an idea of his League of Nations and may have felt that U.S. entry into the European war was necessary to advance his global cause.
And there remains continued, ongoing controversy over the extent to which FDR "permitted" Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the extent to which he believed entry in WWII was necessary to shake off the final remnants of the Depression.
So I think, PJP, your above remark remains a position on which there is debate.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,286
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
the World Wars set up America as a major power.
Post-Kennedy the U.S. government seems to be slipping more and more towards Star Wars Empire level evil.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I think America's presense as an imperial power tends to wax and wane. It probably reached a zenith during the Vietnam conflict, and is coming back somewhat now (also acknowledging that we gave France money in the 50's via the Marshall Plan to prop up its military efforts in Cambodia and Vietnam). What makes America a unique hegemon is that our culture seems to be what is most offensive to other countries, our McDonalds and Nikes more threatening to them than bayonets and missiles.
Whereas England occupied various territories, America has no such comparable history; Panama, Grenada, and eventually Afghanistan will stand historically as short-term occupations where we did not extract significant levels of a countries resources. But the conversion and domination via the export of one's culture is probably the most threatening aspect of America to the world today. Cultures want to retain what makes them unique.
Overall, I don't see our country as an overbearing imperial power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
You make imperialism sound like its a bad thing, PJP. I personally blame President James Polk for deepseated US imperial ambitions. Who coined the phrase "manifest destiny"? Ah, here we go, from the reliable Wikipedia: Quote:
Manifest Destiny was a nineteenth century belief that the United States had a divinely-inspired mission to expand, particularly across the North American frontier towards the Pacific Ocean. The phrase, which means obvious (or undeniable) fate, was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." Manifest Destiny was never a specific policy or ideology; it was a general notion that combined elements of American exceptionalism, nationalism, expansionism, and racism. Some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny still form an underlying part of American outlook and policy...
...Belief in Manifest Destiny was one of the driving factors behind the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, during which the United States captured Alta California and Nuevo Mexico from Mexico. On December 2, 1845, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West.
Other examples of the Manifest Destiny outside the North American continent include the overthrow and absorption of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War (as a consequence of beating the snot out of Spain, the US - from memory - gained Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and half a dozen other places), and Cuba (Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders).
(Korea and Vietnam were arguably Manifest Destiny, but each was more a line in the sand to the Soviet Union and Red China.)
Next we turn to the Christian Science Monitor for a basic question and answer:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Quote:
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
A "benevolent global hegemon" is effectively imperialism. US multinationals cart home tribute. US laws proliferate through the WTO.
On the issue of whether US imperialism is a good thing or not, I'm very conscious of Rudyard Kipling's unconsciously racist call way back when for the US to bring peace and justice to the Philippines as the "white man's burden". On the one hand, we have aparthied in Israel perpetuated by US imperialism. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein has been deposed. Generally speaking, I'm in favour of US imperial ambitions when the outcome is to trash some arsehole tyrant. I just wish the post-trashing aspect was much, much better planned, and that it was more even handed.
One interesting thing you said, PJP, was this:
Quote:
the last Super Power
What makes you think its the last? China has an increasing male population (men are aggressive and lots of them need wars to keep them busy), and no oil except in the Russian Maritimes and places west of it. I'll bet you $10 that in the next 20 years we see China belt the crap out of Russia and annex Siberia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Oh, yeah, thanks Theo - I forgot about Grenada and Panama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
You're absolutely right Dave. In fact when I wrote that I thought the same thing. China is very much our equal in many ways and even better in some others......I didn't mention it because my own opinion is that many in the world don't view them as a Super Power......even though in reality they very much are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
Oh, yeah, thanks Theo - I forgot about Grenada and Panama.
I gotcha back, homey! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
My man! Quote:
PJP said:
You're absolutely right Dave. In fact when I wrote that I thought the same thing. China is very much our equal in many ways and even better in some others......I didn't mention it because my own opinion is that many in the world don't view them as a Super Power......even though in reality they very much are.
China is not really a superpower right now because they cannot project their military far beyond their borders. They only have a littoral navy, and without a deep water navy they're fucked, especially over Taiwan which is guarded by US carrier groups. Only the US, the UK and - surprise! - France can accomodate long range projection of military power (When Australia did it in East Timor in the late 90s, we all had to pay an "East Timor levy" of 1% of our income for that year. Sustained military projection is pricey). Japan probably could, too, but chooses not to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
I think it pre-dates the Republic. The very foundation of the Colonies were examples of British Imperialism. The popular version has Puritans founding the colonies in New England to escape religious persecution, but a quick look at a time line will demonstrate that Virginia colony was really the first colony (the story needed revision after the War of Northern Aggression). The French & Indian Wars were about colonist expanding into territories held by the Natives and their French allies.
One cause of the independence movement was the Brits banned settlement further in the west. Shortly therafter the first in a series of shady land deals started the westward expansion. Napolean conquered Spain, installed his brother as king and sealed the deal for the Louisiana Purchase. We sent the dough to the Bonapartes' to support THEIR expansion efforts. And so it went. Jackson was a notable imperialist being very big on ethnic cleansing (see Trail of Tears). And so it went with the siezure of Alta Mexico and a brief stop at the western edge of North America.
McKinley made our first Far Eastern adventure 1n the late 1890's with the war in the Phillipines. An early Guerrilla conflict that resulted in heavy American loses, which we no longer talk about. We made a stab at China in the early 1900's, sending Christian Missionaries to be followed by American merchants and of course, American military to protect our citizens. Unfortunately, the Chinese had seen this game before. They slaughtered the missionaries post haste and our military never made it to save the day. And we all know the rest of the story.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
Did you know that if a country wants to have a NAFTA deal with the US, a majority of their cinemas have to show mostly pictures made in Hollywood? Mexico's film industry has been growing lately because of a series of quality films being made in the country, but their growth was stopped when the quota of mexican movies shown in cinemas surpassed the quantity allowed by the treaty, so the US complained and they had to cut back on copies and stuff.
I'm not denouncing a crime against manking (it'd be more of a crime against culture, especially considering the quality of the average Hollywood movie), since these countries willingly signed the treaty, but it's still very curious. I doubt the film obligation is there because the US is worried about their economy...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
I think it was probably the Imperialists.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Did you know that if a country wants to have a NAFTA deal with the US, a majority of their cinemas have to show mostly pictures made in Hollywood? Mexico's film industry has been growing lately because of a series of quality films being made in the country, but their growth was stopped when the quota of mexican movies shown in cinemas surpassed the quantity allowed by the treaty, so the US complained and they had to cut back on copies and stuff.
I'm not denouncing a crime against manking (it'd be more of a crime against culture, especially considering the quality of the average Hollywood movie), since these countries willingly signed the treaty, but it's still very curious. I doubt the film obligation is there because the US is worried about their economy...
Its not a quota, its the removal of tariffs abd the nascent film industry being unable to compete:
http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/international/diversite-culturelle/eng/publications-studies/ps05-05-27.htm
Quote:
Thus, according to Miguel Necoechea (Mexican Coalition for Cultural Diversity), Mexican cinematographic production has dropped by 72% due to the invasion of the market by U.S. products. From 2000 to 2004, only 102 films were produced, because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He cites Canada as an example, since it did not include culture in NAFTA. This was not the case for Mexico: “In 2004, 280 films were released in Mexican theaters: 166 were American, controlling 2,500 of the country’s 3,000 big screens and attracting 150 million viewers a year.” The result, he concluded, is “the closure of production houses, unemployment, and a drop in Mexican film exports. The relationship with the public has broken down; loyalty has dwindled and the American mindset dominates. Filmmakers are lobbying for an amendment to the free trade agreement, but the United States is placing enormous pressure on governments.” Necoechea believes that the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity should “provide for retroactive steps” to remedy this situation.
Nabil Ayouch (Moroccan Coalition for Cultural Diversity) says what happened in Mexico is also happening in Morocco: “It has been 2 to 3 years since the United States signed free trade agreements with some thirty countries. Negotiations were held to the distress of filmmakers and in secrecy (…) The U.S. is negotiating a “package deal” to throw the border to both countries open. It’s David and Goliath, an unmanageable matchup. The entertainment industry is one of the top revenue sources for the United States, some years even surpassing aeronautics. We look like protectionists, opponents to trade. It’s easy to caricature. Those who are fighting for diversity are not fighting for withdrawal, but openness. In Morocco, debate is growing. Now that the agreement has been signed and is being put into action, opinions are flying. We’re asking for a quota policy, but have been able to make it compulsory.”
The obvious solution is to vote with your wallet for your tastes. Enormous tax cuts (a form of protectionism) in Australia in the 80s meant that people staretd producing a wide range of very shitty films in order to get a tax concession.
If you're in Mexico, and you like Mexican film, then buy Mexican. But you shouldn't be encouraged to do so by tariffs on US films.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
The obvious solution is to vote with your wallet for your tastes. Enormous tax cuts (a form of protectionism) in Australia in the 80s meant that people staretd producing a wide range of very shitty films in order to get a tax concession.
If you're in Mexico, and you like Mexican film, then buy Mexican. But you shouldn't be encouraged to do so by tariffs on US films.
Yes, but the Australian film industry also produces some great movies! IMHO Mel Gibson did his best work in Austrailia in the early 80s. Galipoli and Tim were wonderful compared to the characature he's become. More recently (it just hit USA on DVD) Danny Deckchair is really sweet and funny. I generally don't favor protectionism but I think Austrailia was well served by those tax policies you mentioned.
Mexico has the potential to build a film industry every bit as vibrant as that of Spain. I only hope they get the chance to do it.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I think we are starting to define "imperialism" a little broadly, when we stop talking about "gunboat diplomacy" and start talking about which countries market their films better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Chant said:
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
No, it's not, but seeing as how we usually take a hit on any international free trade agreement. I say make any stipulation we want and if other countries don't want us to boost thier ecconomy by buying thier crap because they don't want to show our movies then so be it let them keep thier exports and have a "Yahoo Serious" Film festival.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Chant said:
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
No, it's not, but seeing as how we usually take a hit on any international free trade agreement. I say make any stipulation we want and if other countries don't want us to boost thier ecconomy by buying thier crap because they don't want to show our movies then so be it let them keep thier exports and have a "Yahoo Serious" Film festival.
It works both ways, you know. Stay for the credits see how much production was done in Canada. The favourable exchange rate and availability of labour at lower cost a great deal of Hollywood production has gone North. Talk to anyone outside the executive suite about it and you'll get an earfull about the GD Canadians.
Open the film with a panoramic aerial shot of NYC or LA and shoot the rest of the movie in Toronto or Montreal. All the dailys, film stock, caterers and carpenters are procured in Canada. It's had a big impact on our domestic film industry.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Chant said:
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
No, it's not, but seeing as how we usually take a hit on any international free trade agreement. I say make any stipulation we want and if other countries don't want us to boost thier ecconomy by buying thier crap because they don't want to show our movies then so be it let them keep thier exports and have a "Yahoo Serious" Film festival.
It works both ways, you know. Stay for the credits see how much production was done in Canada. The favourable exchange rate and availability of labour at lower cost a great deal of Hollywood production has gone North. Talk to anyone outside the executive suite about it and you'll get an earfull about the GD Canadians.
Open the film with a panoramic aerial shot of NYC or LA and shoot the rest of the movie in Toronto or Montreal. All the dailys, film stock, caterers and carpenters are procured in Canada. It's had a big impact on our domestic film industry.
Yea, not really sure what that has to do with what I said. Trade is trade. You give us something we want we give you something you want. Sounds like that's the case with Canada, eh?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Post-Kennedy the U.S. government seems to be slipping more and more towards Star Wars Empire level evil.
You do realize that pretty much every "imperialistic" thing that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bush's have done has an antecedent in the Kennedy administration.
JFK was a committed cold warrior, believed in the "Domino effect," and had no problem propping up alleged dictators if they were anti-Communist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Most of JFK's "cold warrior" tendencies came from Dulles and other people from the Eisenhower administration--the original "cold warrior".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Kaff kaff...Robert McNamara...kaff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
...who was groomed by cold warriors like Dulles, who were using Marshall money to help France fight in Cambodia while ol' Mac was workin' for Ford. I gotcha back, big homey... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Post-Kennedy the U.S. government seems to be slipping more and more towards Star Wars Empire level evil.
You do realize that pretty much every "imperialistic" thing that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bush's have done has an antecedent in the Kennedy administration.
JFK was a committed cold warrior, believed in the "Domino effect," and had no problem propping up alleged dictators if they were anti-Communist.
I think you're far too genourous to Kennedy. The policies that were the Cold War were continuations of policies, primarily made by Democrats, before Kennedy.
There seems to be this idea that history didn't start until Dec. 7, 1941. If we want to name the original Cold Warrior, my candidate would be Woodrow Wilson, closely followed by FDR.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Chant said:
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
No, it's not, but seeing as how we usually take a hit on any international free trade agreement. I say make any stipulation we want and if other countries don't want us to boost thier ecconomy by buying thier crap because they don't want to show our movies then so be it let them keep thier exports and have a "Yahoo Serious" Film festival.
I'll take two Yahoos for one Sleepless in Seattle, monkeyboy.
I win again!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Post-Kennedy the U.S. government seems to be slipping more and more towards Star Wars Empire level evil.
You do realize that pretty much every "imperialistic" thing that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bush's have done has an antecedent in the Kennedy administration.
JFK was a committed cold warrior, believed in the "Domino effect," and had no problem propping up alleged dictators if they were anti-Communist.
I think you're far too genourous to Kennedy. The policies that were the Cold War were continuations of policies, primarily made by Democrats, before Kennedy.
There seems to be this idea that history didn't start until Dec. 7, 1941. If we want to name the original Cold Warrior, my candidate would be Woodrow Wilson, closely followed by FDR.
History was rebooted with VJ Day, IMHO.
I certanly don't correlate "Democrat president" with "non-imperialist". Its one thing to want to raise taxes, but another thing to not want to fire missiles at Qadaffi or Sudan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:
magicjay said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Post-Kennedy the U.S. government seems to be slipping more and more towards Star Wars Empire level evil.
You do realize that pretty much every "imperialistic" thing that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bush's have done has an antecedent in the Kennedy administration.
JFK was a committed cold warrior, believed in the "Domino effect," and had no problem propping up alleged dictators if they were anti-Communist.
I think you're far too genourous to Kennedy. The policies that were the Cold War were continuations of policies, primarily made by Democrats, before Kennedy.
There seems to be this idea that history didn't start until Dec. 7, 1941. If we want to name the original Cold Warrior, my candidate would be Woodrow Wilson, closely followed by FDR.
History was rebooted with VJ Day, IMHO.
I certanly don't correlate "Democrat president" with "non-imperialist". Its one thing to want to raise taxes, but another thing to not want to fire missiles at Qadaffi or Sudan.
What I mean is that the policy of containment of communism goes back to the days prior to and after the Bolshevik Revolution. That policy led to our initial support for fascist regimes in Europe because they opposed communism. The Republican admistrations in charge of the USA from 1921 - 1932 were isolationist. The Dems pushed our involvement in world affairs.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
How can Wilson be a Cold Warrior?
He was into his *second* term in Office when the Russian Revolution occurred in Oct. 1917.
I don't see Wilson's League of Nations as a stance against Communism, but more as stance that Isolationism would become a flawed foreign policy for the 20th Century.
I don't see Wilson as a cold warrior, but more as the 20th Century's first Political Visionary; the first leader who grasped the impending fact of international connectedness and influence.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
How can Wilson be a Cold Warrior?
He was into his *second* term in Office when the Russian Revolution occurred in Oct. 1917.
I don't see Wilson's League of Nations as a stance against Communism, but more as stance that Isolationism would become a flawed foreign policy for the 20th Century.
I don't see Wilson as a cold warrior, but more as the 20th Century's first Political Visionary; the first leader who grasped the impending fact of international connectedness and influence.
I'm not saying Wilson was an evil dictator. But he did send 10,000 USA troops to Vladivostok in support of the White Army, along with with 10,000 each from France and Britain. We also supported Japan in its incursion into Siberia to protect their interests. American capitalists were scarred shitless by the rise of communism. Government policy reflected that fear.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,027 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,027 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
magicjay said:
What I mean is that the policy of containment of communism goes back to the days prior to and after the Bolshevik Revolution. That policy led to our initial support for fascist regimes in Europe because they opposed communism. The Republican admistrations in charge of the USA from 1921 - 1932 were isolationist. The Dems pushed our involvement in world affairs.
I understand and agree with your point, Magicjay, even before you gave clarification of what you mean.
Communism was certainly seen early on as a threat to the U.S., way before the nuclear age. Because communism under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin was always ideologically stated as a movement not only for Russia, but to sweep across all the nations of the world.
Whether or not Russia had the ability to spread the revolution in those early years beyond their own borders.
Quote:
from The Story of America by John Garraty, pages 860-861:
Isolationism [in the U.S.] was an aspect of a larger postwar reaction. The Great War has been a great mistake, most people now thought... The world had certainly not been made safe for democracy, as Wilson had promised.
In 1919 most Americans seemed more worried about making the United States safe for themselves. Many seriously believed that a communist revolution might break out in the United States at any moment.
They were mindful that a tiny group of communists had taken over Russia in 1917. Now there were perhaps 70,000 communists (or Reds) in the United States.
Communists wanted workers to raise the red flag of revolution, take up arms, and destroy the capitalist system. At the same time anarchists, wanting all governments violently abolished, stirred up workers.
But most were simply trying to keep their jobs. Going from war to peace had been difficult for American industry. Without contracts for war supplies, many plants shut down temporarily or slowed their operations. Hundreds of thousands of wage-earners were thrown out of work. Soldiers returning to civilian life found it almost impossible to get jobs.
Many of the workers found their jobs had been filled by African-Americans who had moved from the South during the war to work in the factories. This added feul to racial tensions, that erupted into situations like the 1919 Chicago Race Riot.
As a result a wave of strikes spread over the land. At one time or another during 1919, 4 million workers were on strike.
Seattle was paralyzed.
In Boston the police walked off their jobs. Strikes by police were unheard of at that time. With the streets of Boston unprotected, looters began breaking into stores. The governor of Massachusetts, Calvin Coolidge, finally called in troops to restore order to the city.
At the same time, a series of bombings by terrorists took place. To this day, no one knows who was responsible for most of the bombings. But the tendency was to blame "the Reds".
A Big Red Scare swept over America.
President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, became convinced that a massive communist plot was being organized to overthrow the U.S. federal government.
He ordered raids on the headquarters of suspected radical groups.
These Palmer Raids were often conducted without search warrants. Many suspected communists were held for weeks without formal charges. There was no evidence of a nationwide uprising.
Yet in 1921, Palmer announced that such a revolution would take place on May 1, the communist Labor Day. When May 1 passed by quietly, Americans realized that the danger of a revolution had only been in their minds. As quickly as it had begun, the Big Red Scare ended.
The nervous mood of the 1920's then took other forms. One was a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.
Klan membership grew between 1920 and 1923 from about 5000 members to several million.
Unlike the Klan of Reconstruction days, this one spread into the Northern States. It became a powerful but short-lived political and social force in the early 1920's and did much to harm many innocent people.
To give a sample of the issues of the times.
And it contrasts well how incredibly mild the Patriot Act is, compared to exertions of federal government power in past eras.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Chant said:
I think you are correct G-man, almost. But on the subject of the movies....
To force countries to show a majority of Hollywood movies if said nation wants a nafta deal?
a show of respect for other nations culture this ain't
No, it's not, but seeing as how we usually take a hit on any international free trade agreement. I say make any stipulation we want and if other countries don't want us to boost thier ecconomy by buying thier crap because they don't want to show our movies then so be it let them keep thier exports and have a "Yahoo Serious" Film festival.
I'll take two Yahoos for one Sleepless in Seattle, monkeyboy.
I win again!
Sleepless in Seattle is teh best American movie you could come up with off the top of your head?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Chant said:
I'll take two Yahoos for one Sleepless in Seattle, monkeyboy.
I win again!
Sleepless in Seattle is teh best American movie you could come up with off the top of your head?
No shit! That's not even in my top 50!
Last edited by magicjay; 2005-07-21 8:02 PM.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
