Everything was going good and then this guy harps that we have no interest in other countries resources. Give me a break. (This is historically accurate), but we have supported Dictators, strongmen, complete a holes who terrorize their people, for years and years in the Middle east simply because they will give us a good deal on oil. That's a fact and that is part of the reason we are hated. We would have absolutely ZERO interest in the Middle East if it wasn't for all the oil there. Period. We have supported these people because they act in our interests. Why are we surprised that the people they terrorized (with our help and support) now hate us? Now, let's take Latin America, we have specifically supported so called free market, democratic reforms, against (in some cases) the majority will of the people. I have no problem supporting free market makeovers if the people want them, but with Latin America it would be a lie to suggest that the majority of the population wanted these changes. Big American Business saw cash cows and with the help of the government worked to impose free markets on countries that didn't want ot ask for them, there is no other way around it. In this case how could you possible say its not imperialism? Or perhaps a better work would be corporatism?

Everything was going good and then this guy harps that we have no interest in other countries resources.

No, I said that we had no interest in PLUNDERING other nations resources. Obviously we're very interested in developing and exploiting them in the long term.

Give me a break. (This is historically accurate), but we have supported Dictators, strongmen, complete a holes who terrorize their people, for years and years in the Middle east simply because they will give us a good deal on oil. That's a fact and that is part of the reason we are hated.

You didn't actually read the last third of the article, did you? You do provide a great example of someone who has bought into the spurious 'blowback' argument, though.

Your mistake is in thinking that people in the middle east are foolish enough not to realize that they were better off under benevolent despots who built up their technology and modernized their society than they are under reactionary regimes which are just as oppressive.

We would have absolutely ZERO interest in the Middle East if it wasn't for all the oil there. Period.

And this is bad, why?

We have supported these people because they act in our interests. Why are we surprised that the people they terrorized (with our help and support) now hate us?

Except that for the most part they DON'T hate us. You may hate us. People in the Middle East just want us to benefit their interests and when we don't, they get hostile.

Now, let's take Latin America, we have specifically supported so called free market, democratic reforms, against (in some cases) the majority will of the people. I have no problem supporting free market makeovers if the people want them, but with Latin America it would be a lie to suggest that the majority of the population wanted these changes.

And why should we be concerned if people in Latin America are too ignorant or mislead not to realize that capitalism is to their benefit?

Big American Business saw cash cows and with the help of the government worked to impose free markets on countries that didn't want ot ask for them, there is no other way around it.

You can't 'impose' a free market. You can suppress a free market, or end that suppression. That's it. Even when you suppress a free market it will try to reassert itself constantly.

In this case how could you possible say its not imperialism? Or perhaps a better work would be corporatism?

No, a better word would be capitalism. Specifically the building of international trading relationships to the mutual benefit of the US and our trading partners.

Put down the little red book and take a look at the world around you and try thinking for yourself.

Dave

Best and briefest explanation of blowback i've seen to date.

I think that the truth is that what the real america haters hate about america is the capitalism not the imperialism.

"I think that the truth is that what the real america haters hate about america is the capitalism not the imperialism."

And I think that the truth is that what the real bush haters hate about bush is his sneer and not his policies.

Very Machiavellian, Dave. One of your very best.

I particularly liked this little gem:

"Culturally and economically subverting the nations of the world so that they want to voluntarily become part of the US sphere of influence..."

Now this really is such a convoluted, overarching and illogical justification of American foreign policy I honestly don't know whether to laugh, check my bank balance or hide...

The USA has always been emperialistic, just like any world trader, except we've mostly used means other than marching armies and military invasions. Usually we've used money, trade, coups, assassinations, filibusters, cultural exports, etc.

So Dr. Dismal. Why do u have a beef with Machiavelli. Even 500 years later he still makes a lot of sense. Just lighten him up with a dash of democracy and a sprinkle of compassionate liberalism.

I don't have a beef with Machiavelli, Lumps, he's dead. Note, though, that his seminal work on politics, The Prince, is not concerned with democracies or republics which he considered inferior forms of government, unworthy of his attention.

Dave, on the other hand, is alive and kicking (though you'd never know it from his profile pic), and exhibits here a fine example of his smoke-and-mirrors befuddlement tactics. I shouldn't be at all surprised in the coming year to read articles from him purporting to prove that up is down, black is white and the Miami Dolphins beat the Denver Broncos in the Superbowl.

Lol. That's our Dave. Sometimes I get the feeling that Dave once worked for a large and covert US security organisation with three initials in its name that is based in Langley, Virginia.

That's because he's a master of smoke and mirrors tactics, and an expert with pea-and-thimble tricks.

He also reminds me very much of my late father, in the way he argues, and my father, an engineer, spent most of his life travelling to very bizarre places: most of the middle-east, Nigeria (just happened to be at the height of the Biafran war), a few years in Iraq just prior to Saddam, during which we would get visits from a very artistocratic-looking Iraqi man known only as "the Colonel" and which included an escape to Tehran by bus on Day 7 of the six-day war, a subsequent return and an arrest at gunpoint in Beirut, and Pakistan, China, Poland (during the rise of Solidarity), East Germany and other parts of eastern Europe, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (at the height of the troubles), Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, and of course, the occasional visits both to London and the US (strangely often staying at places on the east coast like New York, Connecticut or Virginia Beach, or nearby), and both of these usually preceded by very long private telephone calls and report writing, usually after he'd returned from a place.

Often, he was not contactable for long periods, although did send the postcard so we did know where he actually was - and was never able to satisfactorily explain any of this away except to say, and get this, "no one else wanted to go to those places - they had families". Right, so what were we, then??

We would also get bizarre phone calls at all hours of the day and night from men with Eton/Oxbridge or cultivated Ivy-league American accents who never wanted to leave messages except to say that Mr Smith or Mr whoever called.

Arguing with him about anything was like hitting your head on a brick wall. He could turn any argument around and have you believing it as he walked out the door, but he had no charisma at all (not saying you don't, Dave :).

Of course, we all still think he was a spook - and as a foolish youth I once accused him of acting as an agent for imperialism, but as he got older he just used to laugh at us. Even the neighbours used to ask my mum questions about his long absences, along the lines of: "Where is he this time - Burkina Faso?"

He worked for a British company in Sydney that had a tiny office (almost devoid of any engineering files), covered in its work south-east Asia, the mid-east, parts of Africa and South America in its work, had a multi-lingual Russian-speaking Finnish secretary and the only other guy there was an Aussie who had spent years both in the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy and had met Churchill. Yes, curioser and curioser.

Whenever he spoke of some of his more bizarre adventures, like the escape from Iraq, he discussed it like he'd just caught the 273 bus from North Sydney to the city.

And Ruvy, doubtless, would have loved him - to death.

Still, like I say Doc ... it does take all kinds.

If Dave's in that league with that stuff, however, should be the least of our worries: I too am very worried about that picture.

That is the thing that really frightens me.

"Arguing with him about anything was like hitting your head on a brick wall"

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Yes. As you demonstrate so ably in your own "arguments".

Thick is thick in anyone's language.

And aren't you the one who didn't know the difference between articles of your own constitution (now accepted language) and amendments whilst trying to argue with me about the protection of Miranda-style rights? And still not - at any stage - understanding the gist of my argument?

And the one who described Spain as one of the great invaders of the middle-east this century. Actually, among about 30 other nations, they just had 1500 troops there as part of the reconstrunction effort in Iraq.

And no, they weren't even great invaders of the middle-east the previous century.

You should read more, insteasd of getting your info off the internet.

I hate to see a grown man cry just because I used the apple tree idiom.

On the issues you regurgitated, I thought they were settled when I admitted you were right.

Recall?

You said I didn't know the difference between clay and shit...

And I said you were right.

I said I had thought you were full of clay and I was wrong.

BTW, all that was said about Spain was that it was attacked because it had troops in Iraq.

And the Miranda case?

Go google it and see what the basis was for the Supreme Court decision.

I don't know where you dig up your shit but it must be a big pile.

And yes, Virginia, America is (now) an empire.

Washington even described it thus 200 years or so back.

And what about the invasion and takeover of the Phillipines at the time of the Spanish-American war and the insurgent campaign later?

If that wasn't an imperialist mission, what was.

But here's the rub: just like the Poms, wherever they've gone, the Yanks have left better schools and mandatory education, railways, roads, a higher standard of living, better life expectancy and healthcare for citizens, and so on and so forth. They've also been extremely generous and in many cases magnanimous to the point of it being ridiculous to their defeated enemies, again, like the Poms.

Makes you wonder why people take the opposite tack and blame us (collectively) for everything bad in the world. Actually, the opposite is true.

So what's the problem with calling it an empire. It is precisely that. But a good empire.

The big difference between America and Britain as world powers compared to the others: it isn't that they haven't done the wrong thing from time to time, but they've always had a free press and a public at home and democratically elected governments that demanded, when they did do something wrong, that they put it to rights. And they've used rule of law to achieve this.

What they've left behind has generally been better than what was there before.

None of that happened with the other colonising imperial powers. I'll cite France, Germany, Spain and Russia as the main ones. Portugal and Belgium weren't much better either.

Jacob: "BTW, all that was said about Spain was that it was attacked because it had troops in Iraq."

Actually, that's not what you said at all. You said they were among the worst invaders of the middle-east this century. We'll find the post if you like and re-post it.

Sorry mate, but you're just being dumb now.

As for the Miranda rights: look up the judgment and get the exact meaning. Yes, it does go towards protecting a person's Fifth amendment rights at trial, but the actual warning isn't protected by the constitution, even though it has been ruled to have a constiutional basis. The court left the door open - and there's been another ruling since too (in 2002 I think).

But that wasn't what I was arguing. I was suggesting that maybe they existed all along, under another amendment.

And if fact, they did exist under common law and were expected to be used but thgat was abused by some police forces in the US.

Example: we don't have a Bill of Rights here, but the cops have - since the year dot - given a similar warning. They are required to do so by law. Any statements made by suspects here now must also be corroborated, usually by video or audio tape. Nor does anyone charged with a criminal offence have to give evidence against themselves before a jury of their peers, and never has.

Why? Because the right to silence and all that other stuff has existed since the year dot at common law, just like it did in the US prior to the 1966 Miranda ruling.

Any police officer here, just like in the US, who doesn't issue those rights to a suspect in regard to the right to silence at time of arrest risks having the case dismissed by a judge.

And our law comes from the same place yours does. But you still didn't get the gist of the argument, did you? Which was, simply, that all along it might well have been protected by the 9th amendment - if you take the words of that amendment at face value.

As for the crying bit, well I hate to see boys cry - so sorry if you did.

I think you've also shown your true colours here by your unthinking support for Ron Paul and a lack of understanding of all the issues that even Paul himself doesn't seem to understand OUTSIDE the US. How is withdrawing from the UN, when the US has the permanent right of veto in the security council, going to make the US a safer place? More dangerous, more likely.

What, do you think all the ratbags are going to drop off attacking the US just because you stick your heads in the sand and pretend it's all good?

Your choice, of course, but what a waste of a vote. In the meantime, why don't you just drop off??

The problem is Jacob, you just never read a whole post, so you can't possibly understand what a person's point of view is - and then you want to argue about it.

"We'll find the post if you like and re-post it."

Please do.

"That's because he's [Dave's] a master of smoke and mirrors tactics, and an expert with pea-and-thimble tricks.... He also reminds me very much of my father, in the way he argues."

Let's see where this leads...

1. You are the apple that did not fall far from the tree and therefore you are like your father.

2. Dave is a master of smoke and mirrors and reminds you of your father.

3. Dave, your father, and you are alike.

4. Conclusion -- You are a master of smoke and mirrors.

5. It all adds up.

Jacob's post, submitted Dec 6, to Adam Ash's piece: " Ron Paul vs a nation of suckers:

"Actually, if you were looking for western countries with the most experience at invasions of the Middle East during this century (excluding the US), Britain and Spain are the two you'd pick".

Like I say, I'd hardly conclude that Spain, a country with 1500 reconstruction troops sent AFTER the invasion Iraq, would have the most exeprience this century of invading the mid-east.

And like I say, nor the last century

"the two you'd pick"???

What a crock.

That's not my post.

I never use the contraction "you'd".

Try again.

Conclusion -- You are a master of smoke and mirrors.

Post #117 of that thread. There in black and white ... your words mate, not mine.

Stop bullshitting.

This is where you got confused...

#92 -- December 6, 2007 @ 16:38PM -- Dr Dreadful [URL]
[splutters into coffee]

Hong Kong and Singapore rank highest on the list of 'countries most free'???? Whose list the hell is that?

Interesting question about why it was Britain and Spain who were attacked though. If you were looking for western countries with the most experience of dealing with terror, Britain and Spain are the two you'd pick. We eat terrorists for breakfast.

Mate, you are just a person who wants to argue for the sake of arguing, even when you can't understand the argument. Which is a worry, because you don't appear to even consider what anyone else is suggesting.

You're right, they're wrong, period.

And you still don't know shit from clay, so go and bother some other poor bastard next time.

Jacob, try your #117 of that thread in response to that. It's your post. It has your name on it, and it says exactly what's written a couple of posts above. That is what you said, and there's no getting around it. You may have used Doc Dread's contraction of "you'd", but the rest of it is yours.

You also asked in another post why al-Qaeda or their mates weren't bombing India when it's possibly one of the most bombed al-Qaeda targets in the world.

Now who's using smoke and mirrors?

And I don't expect you to apologise either, so maybe just drop right off, eh??

And yes, Britain and Spain ARE very experienced in dealing with terror, especially with tracking down bombers and would-be terrorists.

The Spanish have been dealing with the basque separatist movement ETA for years. ETA have been letting off bombs now for decades. The first reaction in Spain was that the Madrid bomings might have been the work of ETA.

Britain, meanwhile, has been fighting back against the IRA since 1916. They were pretty good at it too, as were the IRA in what they were doing. Last time I worked in London, there was always the fear that the IRA was going to bomb something. And often, somewhere in Britain or Northern Ireland, they did.

They've just recently gone to the peace table, which shows what can happen when you talk and both sides are prepared to make concessions.

Prior to that, the IRA weren't interested in talking unless they remained armed. A bit like what might happen if Ron Paul tries to make peace with islamic radicals without concessions.

"Yes, sure, honest, Mr Paul ... we won't attack the US or its interests. No way. You can trust us fully."

Dave, on the other hand, is alive and kicking (though you'd never know it from his profile pic), and exhibits here a fine example of his smoke-and-mirrors befuddlement tactics. I shouldn't be at all surprised in the coming year to read articles from him purporting to prove that up is down, black is white and the Miami Dolphins beat the Denver Broncos in the Superbowl.

Dr. D. There was nothing in this article that isn't absolutely straightforward. Your expectations must be coloring your percetions of my writing.

And Stan, perhaps your Dad knew my parents. And while I've never worked for the agency you name, I've certainly known and been related to those who have.

Travelling all over the world and being in the company of people with a variety of perspectives and experiences does color one's view of the world. IMO it makes it more realistic and informed.

DAve

Ironically, a major factor in the IRA suddenly being willing to make concessions was 9/11. The Americans who'd been funding them for years suddenly got to find out what terrorism was like at the business end. Just as suddenly, the cashflow dried up.

#117 -- December 6, 2007 @ 23:57PM -- Jacob

Re: #92 Dr Dreadful

You asked, "Interesting question about why it was Britain and Spain who were attacked though"

Then you say, "If you were looking for western countries with the most experience of dealing with terror, Britain and Spain are the two you'd pick"

Actually, if you were looking for western countries with the most experience at invasions of the Middle East during this century (excluding the US), Britain and Spain are the two you'd pick"

---

So -- did the US, Britain and Spain invade the Middle East this century?

And -- did the US, Britain and Spain all get attacked?

Still can't figure out what the issue was?

Keep trying.

IT'S CALLED BLOWBACK!

Dave: Dr. D. There was nothing in this article that isn't absolutely straightforward.

Apparently I need to post that little snippet again:

"Culturally and economically subverting the nations of the world so that they want to voluntarily become part of the US sphere of influence..."

Remember how it'd be on the Undergound Doc. You'd be looking at every bastard and wondering if the bloke with the bag was a Mick. And this coming from me, a part Irishman from a continent where heathens and Catholics buried the hatchet decades ago - and not in each other's heads.

In the end, you just stop being scared and become resigned - which is bad.

I think the reason for the peace in Oz in that regard is that about 40 per cent of all Aussies have some Irish background, although I did go to an Irish night once where they were handing the bucket round for "the cause". I put in 1 cent.

Might explain a bit too :) What an experiment in racial mixing, and certainly explains the accent - the mix of Irish and Cockney.

The Kiwi accent is a mix of Scottish and English, which is why it's a tad different to ours but similar.

For evidence of this Aussie accent theory, listen to a working-class Boston Irish accent some time and see how similar some of the words are when the pronunciation is compared to an Aussie accent. Car, for starters, and beer - that old favourite.

And Dave, honestly, I hate to think what my old man was up to (he spent some time in the British Army of The Rhine in Germany, too, and later on when I lived in England as a boy, he used to go away regularly with the Royal Navy but we never knew where or why because he wouldn't and couldn't tell us. He'd just tell us he was working on a navy ship. Sometimes, he'd be gone for weeks, a month, more, then he'd reappear happy as Larry, with a suntan.

One of the things he was really good at was drawing things in perfect detail from memory. Maybe he really was just an engineer, but everything I've written in regard to it above is the God's honest, and none of it adds up unless 2 + 2 = 7. We all thought the whole thing was suss, and the escape from Baghdad on Day 7 of the 6-Day War (I love that bit) was the turning point in terms of our disbelief.

Jacob asks: "So -- did the US, Britain and Spain invade the Middle East this century?"

No, the actual military invaders were the US, Britain and on a limited scale, Australia.

Spain sent 1500 troops to help in the civilian reconstruction effort well after the military invasion. They were mostly engineers (and some protection) engaged in helping put the place back together.

So no, they didn't invade. They joined a coalition afterwards of about 30 nations helping to rebuild Iraq.

Remember how it'd be on the Undergound Doc. You'd be looking at every bastard and wondering if the bloke with the bag was a Mick.

Yep. And looking at every rubbish bin wondering if there was a bomb in it. They started lining them all with bomb-proof concrete and when even that didn't work (Semtex), they took them away altogether. I'm here to tell you that they still haven't put them back...

"So -- did the US, Britain and Spain invade the Middle East this century?"

According to wingding. NO.

Let's see.

Did the Nazi army invade France?

No. Just the Panzer Divisions.

And, ah, 9/11 happened well before the invasion of Iraq, as did the Bali bomings targeting Australia. So blowback ... don't think so.

In fact, given the (not unreasonable) mindset (in this case) of Australians, that'd be the only reasons they joined in: "Let's pay the mongrels back - tenfold".

"And, ah, 9/11 happened well before the invasion of Iraq"

Ah, did the US have troops in the MIDDLE EAST this century?

Check your map.

The Middle East is more than just Iraq.

Jacob, you are driving me insane with your gormless arguments. I'd never normally make such a suggestion, but after you admitted you'd dealt with the VA I sometimes wonder if you've copped a bit of shrappo in the melon or something??

If so, I apologise for saying it, but you know ... you can be really hard work, and for no good reason most of the time.

Give it a rest mate. You sound like you're two sandwiches short of a picnic the way you are carrying on. If you've got something decent to contribute, do so ... if not, go and bother some other poor bastard instead of me. I'm over it.

Some of the other countries you've named, asking why they weren't attacked, had soldiers in Iraq too ... so there'd be a lot more to it all than you'd think, wouldn't you reckon??

"Some of the other countries you've named, asking why they weren't attacked, had soldiers in Iraq too ... so there'd be a lot more to it all than you'd think, wouldn't you reckon??"

If you reckon you think you know "a lot more", please share it...

Weren't the British and the Spainish warned to leave -- or else?

What happened is BLOWBACK!

The British have been warned to leave plenty of places, and mostly didn't listen.

So I don't think they'd have been too bothered. They don't like bullies and cowards dictating to them, and yes, they probably expected a reprisal.

As for the Spanish, can't tell you about them of late since they've only become a democracy in recent years, but no, I didn't hear that they were warned before the Madrid blasts.

And blowback is a bit more smoke and mirrors ... just a term used by some on the loony left to excuse atrocities by mass-murdering scum.

There's no doubt there might be some truth in it, but to use the term to justify every crime committed against anyone who doesn't have the same point of view just smacks to me of semantics.

Posted by Dave Nalle to 9/11 Truth Manifesto on 2007.12.20, 04:49:18
Anyone who thinks they own the absolute truth on anything ought to be looked on with suspicion just for that.

And yet Dave you're quite happy to write such as: "Thus, when a local government was working against the best interests of its people and the US - trade with the US generally being in the best interests of the people of a country - we have sometimes taken steps to remove, replace, or reform that government so that it will cease to be an impediment to free trade.

That kind of behavior has sometimes been mistaken for imperialism, but it's something very different."

I'm all for a philosophy, I envy you your faith, but your libetarianism and the perfect free markets on which it will float, are as much a chymera as the Marxist utopias you rail against so entertainingly.
The simple supply/demand "laws" of the pseudo-science of economics are not as immutable as the laws of physics, however much you wish they were. It's almost a religious faith to you, in fact, if it quacks like a religion...

You have ommited to mention the permanent American military presences around the globe which help to shore up this good-hearted, altruistic introduction to free-market capitalism for the good of all - whether the all want it or not: they have been misinformed and must be re-educated into the ways of the faith... It is exactly this sort of attitude that makes people anti-American - which, I would not regard myself as by the way.

Happy festivities to you all anyway. Peace, love prosperity and all that for 2008.

re Lumpy's questionin #7: what's wrong with Machiavellian realism -

it fails to adequately consider the impact of the means used on the ends achieved...which leaves it a pretty unrealistic theory and irresponsible approach to international affairs

Regarding comment #30:

I love it when you go on about different accents in English, but I have to tell you that time has changed the Boston accent some, as it has changed the Brooklyn accent some.

Bostonians do not sound like they used to forty years ago. And Noo Yawkehs - remember that I am native to Brooklyn, and not Noo Yawk - do not talk like they used to when my sister was fainting over Frankie Sinatra 60 years ago.

And boychik, I get to hear plenty of different English accents in this little village I live in: our ace photographer is from Kentucky or Tennessee, his wife is from Texas, the retired cop is also from Texas, his wife is from Washington State, the retired photographer is from upstate New York, his wife is from San Francisco (and damned proud of it!), the book publisher and his wife are from California, one of the tour guides is from Joizey, his wife is from Brooklyn, my wife is from Minnesota, the ad salesman is from the north of England (a Geordie), the car repair man is from Johannesburg SA, a computer guy is from Dublin, Larry (I don't know what he does for a living, but he is real good with a gun - you don't want to mess with him) is from Philadelphia, our resident astronomer is from Boston.... All this in just a village of 500 or so people.

Gettin' the picture, Stan?

Talk about gatherin' in the exiles from the four corners of the earth!! And I haven't even talked about the Frenchmen and the Russians, whose English (both groups of them) is generally atrocious with the accent to match!!

Anyway, what was I talking about?

Oh yeah, now I remember.

That Anglosphere you keep talking up.

They may well run the world in the near future - but they won't be headquartered in Washington or London or Canberra. They'll be headquartered here.

For the record Ruvy, I'm typing this in a Forest of Dean accent, but not in Forest of Dean dialect or our communication would be even more hamstrung... I've heard it argued that American accents are closer to the 'sound of Shakespeare' than what us do speak ere now, innit. In fact, the accent of the American south in particular - where I understand we shipped a lot of convicts a long, long time ago.

The Boston accent I find quite grating. New York just sounds cool, but that's just because I associate it with a lot of cool people and Southern accents I find sexy when worn by women.

For the record Ruvy, I'm typing this in a Forest of Dean accent...

So, Colin, tell me? Where are the accent marks?

And, BTW, for someone who never lived on the British Isles, my geography is reasonably good - but the gazetteer knowledge also has its limits. Where is the Forest of Dean?

Ruve: "That Anglosphere you keep talking up ... it'll be run from here".

Possibly, Ruve, you might well be right - who knows? The anglosphere has nothing to with race, creed or religion.

Ruve: "Where is the Forest of Dean?"

And for that matter, where is Dean?? And what's the bugger up to these days?

Dave - I appreciate your argument that the term 'blowback' is misused and over simplified and I level the same charge against your use -

while I can't tell you how the word is used in modern spookville I can tell you that back in the day it referred to the impact that planted disinformation might have on the 'home population' were it to filter back from the field...more specific and interesting than just 'unintended consequences'

The Forest of Dean is in the West Ruvy... Where the River Severn comes in to cut the Cornish penisular from Wales, we're on the north side, right next ot England and right next to Wales... But of and in neither!

The accent is burrish - long rrrrrrs... And the dialect is semi-biblical - thee and thou persisted much longer than elsewhere, this is rendered Thic... Dare not would be dursent... Tis a strange but wonderful place!

Colin: Isn't the American accent largely derived from the West Country?

You can still hear it today in their accents.

Ah, Troll, now I see ....

Hot damn! Surely not Stan! Well hickory my jiggeries if there's not pokery afoot... Possibly, I guess it would make sense.

Incidentally, I'm sure it'll be discussed elsewhere at more length and more appropriately and probably with much doom-saying but Benazir Bhutto has been assasinated.

Historically the US has been remarkably uninterested in creating anything resembling an empire. Somewhere early in our history we realized that we could get most of the benefits of empire without many of the costs and inconveniences by making ourselves the most attractive trading partner imaginable for smaller countries around the world. With our massive consumer base we would buy their products at a fair price. We would export jobs, opportunity, and education to them and thereby improve their economies. We would provide them with manufactured goods they couldn't make themselves. In a pinch we would even step in and provide them with military protection and international diplomatic clout.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This paragraph is pretty straightforward. If you were to compare the ratio of ->

IMPERIALISTIC BEHAVIOR over RAW POWER

the US's ratio would be pretty low compared to other governments in the past.

Shit. Is that fair dinkum mate? Did you just see that on the net, or are you watching the box?? Is it definite, or just thought to have happened in the blast (which I know about)?

If so, I will possibly have to get into work at this ungodly hour as it's a fairly major kind of story, wouldn't ya reckon??.

fuck

"Historically the US has been remarkably uninterested in creating anything resembling an empire. Somewhere early in our history we realized that we could get most of the benefits of empire without many of the costs and inconveniences by making ourselves the most attractive trading partner imaginable for smaller countries around the world. With our massive consumer base we would buy their products at a fair price. We would export jobs, opportunity, and education to them and thereby improve their economies. We would provide them with manufactured goods they couldn't make themselves. In a pinch we would even step in and provide them with military protection and international diplomatic clout."

Geez, Dave, what you're describing there sounds remarkably like the British Empire :)

The Forest of Dean is in the West Ruvy... Where the River Severn comes in to cut the Cornish penisular from Wales, we're on the north side, right next ot England and right next to Wales... But of and in neither!

The accent is burrish - long rrrrrrs... And the dialect is semi-biblical - thee and thou persisted much longer than elsewhere, this is rendered Thic... Dare not would be dursent... Tis a strange but wonderful place!

Thank you, Colin. Just some thoughts for you. Thee and thou are remnants of the time when English normatively distinguished between the plural "you" and the singular "you" - thee (obj.) and thou (subj.). I remember the great linguist, Mario Pei, writing on an English phrase that may not be found much anymore - "shut thy gob" - but that I suspect may yet well be found up your way....

Hebrew, which is of course Biblical, still distinguishes between the plural "you" and the singular "thou" in all its conjugations and declensions. But to be absolutely honest with you, when I translate the Bible to English for any reason - especially on this site, I get rid of the 17th Century English. The idea is to understand the stuff, not worship it.

Hebrew is like strong coffee - generally. Maybe that is why Israelis (including yours truly) are so pumped full of the stuff. The English of the King James Bible is poetic, majestic even at times, but the strength of the strong coffee is lost in the the majestic prose.

As for Dave's topic - blowback is indeed an intelligence term for unintended consequences. And its use by those who condemn the government of the USA generally are misusing the term. But, no matter how Dave hems and haws at this, America is an empire (has been is probably more accurate) that has plundered in the past, using its Marines to enforce its will. This is not some hate-America rhetoric. This is just plain reality. That is what the economic domination of Latin America has been, along with the annexation of Hawaii.

American troops did not get off the ships and burn villages, steal women and cattle like Vikings did, but they did effectively control the countries where crops were grown, etc....

Heard on the beeb. It's on the front page of bbc.co.uk - shot by an assasin who then blew themselves up. Oh dear.

Bhutto HAS been killed, according to the wire services, and I believe them to be correct ... earlier reports said she was safe, but apparently not. Geez, what a drama that's going to be ...

Formerly part of the British Empire of course, and currently part of the American, courtesy of the billions granted to its Governments by Washington... But Bhutto would, I imagine be seen as the "Western" candidate - she spent a lot of time in Britain, appearing regularly in the media promoting a 'modernising' agenda for the country. I assume now there will be terrible repercussions/riots/reprisals in Pakistan - probably current home of Osama Bin Laden according to many.

Thank you for your generously shared learning Ruvy! I like King James English too. The Forest of Dean has been historically very isolated by two great rivers - the Wye and Severn - preserving some of its oddness in ways both bad and good. If you've ever seen anything written by the greatest ever British television writer, Dennis Potter, he was a Forester and employed it in several of his works - you should seek him out anyway, I think you'd like him. He did a very controversial play on Jesus called the Son of Man, I believe, and his greatest work, the Singing Detective is monumental and magnificent.

I can't see any news on WHO killed Ms Bhutto, and Beeb reports anger from her followers directed against Musharaf but aren't suicide missions the hallmark of Islamist radicals?

"And blowback is a bit more smoke and mirrors ... just a term used by some on the loony left to excuse atrocities by mass-murdering scum."

You still can't see through your own smoke.

Blowback generally takes the form of atrocities which would take the form of 500 lb bombs if the mass-murderers had them.

As Rummy said, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

Put simply, BLOWBACK is what happens when you put your foot into a snake pit.

The moral to the story is:

Don't put your foot...

"The moral to the story is:

Don't put your foot..."

I agree; first, send in a CIA assassination team and cut the heads of the snakes off.

THEN send in the Air Force and then the Marines and make sure the snakes are all dead.

Fair enough Clavos, but then don't package it all as the spread of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. It sets up a bit of a dichotomy in the minds of those who then might be inclined to blowback.
Dave's article is probably more honest than what is presented to the world by US Governments (of both stripes) - the march of the dollars not the march of anything else.

I love the use of words like "rabidly" and all - isn't it funny how EVERY word which reflects any critical analysis of our country is the product of America and Bush haters. Talk about rabid, unhinged, reality free thinking, you ever look in a mirror?

Isn't it amazing how ever person who has ever been critical of Bush(incuding any former member of his cabinet that speaks out) or today's extremist conservatism just happens to be traitor or an America hater?

What is your point about the Unification Church? You know, the number one funder and molder of right wing thought over the last 25 years. I take that you see the Unification Church as a good thing, along with Moon reaching for his goal of a right wing extremist, homophobic, theocratic, authoritarian America when he wasn't funding all those torturing dictators in SA.

quoting James Whelan, the staunchly conservative first editor of the voice of the right in America, the Washington Times - the paper who fed the misinformation to Rush so he could feed it to unwitting conservatives and create this false reality the right lives in:

"They (the Moonies) are subverting our political system. They're doing it through front organizations--most of them disguised--and through their funding of independent organizations--through the placement of volunteers in the inner sanctums of hard-pressed organizations. In every instance--in every instance--those who attend their conferences, those who accept their money or their volunteers, delude themselves that there is no loss of virtue because the Moonies have not proselytized. That misses the central, crucial point: the Moonies are a political movement in religious clothing. Moon seeks power, not the salvation of souls. To achieve that, he needs religious fanatics as his palace guard and shock troops. But more importantly, he needs secular conscripts--seduced by money, free trips, free services, seemingly endless bounty and booty--in order to give him respectability and, with it, that image of influence which translates as power."

America is an empire (has been is probably more accurate) that has plundered in the past, using its Marines to enforce its will.

Nope, Ruvy. Just wrong. You're applying the term 'plunder' incorrectly. It doesn't apply to long term trading relationships. That would be 'exploitation'. Now I never said that the US didn't exploit some of its trading partners, but it's never been entirely one-sided and short term the way that true plunder is.

Dave

I've got nothing for you, Nate. I mentioned the Unification Church solely as an example of the unintended consequences of covert programs from the KCIA. It's got no more significance than that in the context of this article.

Dave

troll (#41) argues that Machiavelli:

...fails to adequately consider the impact of the means used on the ends achieved...which leaves it a pretty unrealistic theory and irresponsible approach to international affairs

A major motivation for Machiavelli in writing The Prince was to get himself out of the political doghouse he'd been banished to. Ingratiation with the power-brokers of the time was the way to go, which must have really stuck in his craw. If (using a decent translation) you read the ostensibly fawning dedication to Lorenzo de Medici in the book's foreword, you can almost see the sarcasm dripping from every word.

"First, send in a CIA assassination team and cut the heads of the snakes off. THEN send in the Air Force and then the Marines and make sure the snakes are all dead."

-- Clavos, 2007

First, send in a Gestapo assassination team and cut the heads of the snakes off. Then send in the Luftwaffe and then a Panzer Division and make sure the snakes are all dead.

-- Adolf, 1944

The technique is not new.

And the definition of 'snake' changes.

But B L O W B A C K can always be expected.

Well... The life expectancy dropped by 10 years in Russia after the 'fall' of the Soviet Union. Capitalism hard at work there. Obviously, I mean universal health care and workers' rights aren't nearly as important as US import tax or multi-national corporate interests, right? I mean, green pieces of paper have always been more important than human lives or free speech...

Look, you people have to face the facts. Look back at history for a second. Notice any long-standing police states? Any multi-century dictatorships? And how many of the few to actually sustain themselves didn't have violent revolts left and fraggin' right? How many times has an 'uneducated', repressed, and impoverished populace thrown down massive regimes, militaries capable of intercontinental wars? Poorly armed militias taking on professional armies.

Why? It's obviously... Your oppressive capitalist dictatorships can never be powerful enough to repress the general population because it derives its power from said populace.

And honestly, if you don't care about democracy, I don't see why you wouldn't support stalinism or maoism. After all, look at their economic output before their respective revolutions and then afterward... China quadrupled it's lowest class' income in under 40 years, Russia covered nearly 100 years of industrialism in just under two decades. I don't really care, because they only did this through the brutal and immoral application of force, but you on the other hand seem to have no problem with oppressive dictatorial regimes and the violent supression of the democratic majority. I mean, I could see you and Mao having a great conversation if you could avoid economic issues.

The time for autocratic and aristocratic societies is over. The elitist bodies that have been ruling humanity for thousands of years no long have the loyalty and power necessary to maintain their sway. All I see in US history is more land gained through military force than any nation to have ever exsisted excluding Mongolia. All I see is the support of dictators and monarchs, all with the intent to repress their populations. All I see is a country which has enough food to feed itself twice over but still has a malnurishment rate in slums and trailer parks comparable to some third world countries. I see a population that remains the only industrialized, 1st world country to still think religion should play a role in the government. I see poverty amongst wealth (38% of the globe's), starvation amongst abundance, and the desperation of a country who's realizing it's past its prime.

On a side note, why is everything a conservative disagrees with suddenly liberal? Like, Hollywood wanting to brainwash your children so they can erradicate Christianity is... Liberal? Doesn't sound like liberalism to me. Sounds like... ...I know, the successive misuse of a term originally coined to verbally depict something that is practically the used definition's antonym. Now, what was this article about?

Here's my bet ...

US and British troops now allowed over the border from Afghanistan to work with the Pakistani military in eradicating the country of militants.

Musharraf seriously has to get rid of these people. No more pissing about - just go and get 'em and stop them doing what they're doing, otherwise they'll keep using it as their little snake pit. The one Jacob's talking about.

My tip on dealing with snakes (and we do have most of the world's most venomous species peculiar to this continent, so it's not like I haven't had to kill a few over the years): don't put your foot in it. Poke it with a big stick first and deal with them one by one when they come out.

Otherwise, there'll never be any peace there.

And Pakistan has nukes.

Jacob: "You still can't see through your own smoke."

Well, at least I'm not blowing it my own arse.

"...into the valley of death rode the six hundred"

"First, send in a Gestapo assassination team and cut the heads of the snakes off. Then send in the Luftwaffe and then a Panzer Division and make sure the snakes are all dead.

-- Adolf, 1944"

Worked, too, didn't it?

"Worked, too, didn't it?"

Yeah. The Warsaw Ghetto ceasd to exist.

So what's today's version?

The "noble" 20,000?

Lovely place, Peshawar ... lot of snakes living nearby though.

You know, the kind who think it's great to fly jets full of people into American skyscrapers full of people.

But the B L O W B A C K was not far behind.

Directed at troll, that last one. Whilst we're only kind of arguing, how's the crook back?

not to bad of late thanks - and your daughter - ?

too

The author of this article, Dave Nalle, doesn't actually seem to have read the book. He certainly addresses none of the specifics that constitute the greatest part of it (I'm thinking of the extended analysis of Japan, the Koreas and China or that American prosperity has been exported to "developing nations" in return for cheap products and corporate power). Likewise with nearly every single comment posted here, especially the ping-pongers.

And all of you so...anonymous? Is that standard on "Blogcritics" boards?

"But B L O W B A C K can always be expected."

Blowback is something that occurs in fires.

Despite the CIA's use of the term to describe human activity, that's NOT its meaning, except to people whose thinking is so shallow they can only talk in terms of meaningless jargon and bumper sticker ideas.

"Reaction" or "revenge" or "retaliation," all are better (and much more accurate) words than "blowback."

Blowback is something that occurs in firearms..

Troll: that's good mate ... I have one too, a bulging disc that pops out every now and then that I got originally playing rugby. Now it only happens when I'm doing something innocuous (and I can tell you that being married, it NEVER happens, and can't, doing anything exciting).

Thanks for asking about my girl. Much better and feeling less uncertain about herself thanks to medication. She's repeating her first year of high school though starting next term. She's here with me right now at work (2pm Friday), waiting for her mum who works at a nearby hospital. She's got laptop, iPod, DVDs and Sims games all happening at the same time, while most of the time I struggle to log on ... 1st generation computer kid - they even use laptops (notebooks in the US?) for most of their schoolwork.

What happened to the pen and the notebook??

It's for this reason that kids in Oz, especially girls, now sound very much like kids in California, just in their inflexions etc. We call the accent "mid-pacific", which is pretty accurate. I blame Sesame Street completely.

Troll ... Maybe that's the blowback Dave's talking about here. We have become Little America. Which to be honest, isn't that bad a thing all things considered. Just with free healthcare :)

Clavos, perhaps thus will help you out...

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy.

-- Chalmers Johnson

Thanks, Jake, but I don't need any help, especially not from the likes of Chalmers Johnson.

In any case, your cut-and-paste merely served to reinforce my point: "blowback," as first coined (in that context) by the CIA, and now used by everyone on the internet who lacks a real vocabulary, is meaningless jargon.

But you know that.

Language evolves.

You have to keep up with it.

G'day Clav ... hope you're keeping up with that evolving language.

Get down this way and we'll teach you a thing or two about speaking proper :)

How was your Chrissie, and is the missus OK??

Bullshit.

Language is my principal field of study.

There's a difference (a vast one) between evolution and crap.

Apparently, you don't know the difference.

"Language is my principal field of study."

Have you been doing your homework?

I'd call it devolution if anything.

And Jacob, was your #86 a subtle attempt to demonstrate what a buffoon Johnson is? It literally proves the point I make in the first part of the article.

In any case, your cut-and-paste merely served to reinforce my point: "blowback," as first coined (in that context) by the CIA, and now used by everyone on the internet who lacks a real vocabulary, is meaningless jargon.

Which was the point of the first third of this article. Glad someone got it.

Oh, and STM. If your daughter needs a US penpal or IMpal of about the same age and gender, drop me a line - use the contact link on my site at www.republicofdave.com - I'll pass her IM address on to my teen daughter.

Dave

Thanks Dave, that'd be good actually. It's good for kids to have a penpal from another culture, although I'm not sure how different they are any more except for free healthcare and steering-wheel placement. At least they'd be able to understand each other perfectly with their bizarre, shortened and coded SMS and email messaging which just leaves me scratching my head - I'll do it. Lizzy's just about to turn 13, how about your's??

"The common usage of the term [Blowback] has now come to represent the idea that nothing bad that happens in the world is every anyone's fault but America's."

-- Dave Nalle

"every anyone's"

It appears you were a bit confused when you wrote this article.

Or it could be that bullshit is difficult to write and keep straight.

CJ took a bit of jargon from the CIA and created an analytical category out of it. CJ's "blowback" is the predominant meaning for the term now. As your friend Jacob says, language evolves. Whether you personally like the usage or not, people use it. Some people who use it do so with an impressive degree of critical acuity. Dave Nalle ignores this group. Most use it to the best of their critical ability, which Mr Nalle considers laughable and "simplistic". Mr Nalle's blanket usage, sniggeringly delivered with no attempt to comprehend CJ's usage, and indeed evincing no signs that the author has read CJ's original book (or Sorrows of Empire or Nemesis), leads me to think he belongs more to the latter group than the former.

Clavos, I haven't heard anyone reputable whose "principal field of study is language" be so caustically normative in my entire career of studying language and languages. We're descriptivists after all. Aren't we? What's the nature of your career?

Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ

Those who like to look at the United States as an imperialist power and the source of all the world's ills have enthusiastically latched onto the term 'blowback'...
-Dave Nalle

Dave, maybe the problem is your premise. In this introductory sentence you have already said that your interest is not in the term in intelligent discourse, but rather, the term as used by people who think the US is the source of all the world's ills. Those who think in that mindless, reactive way are expressing emotion, not reason. Try reading Chalmers Johnson for the antithesis of dumb emotionalism or blind nationalism (patriotism in the US dialect). You might be surprised.

Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ

I must agree Dave ... the US is as much an empire as was the British.

What's the difference between Union Jacks fluttering all across the globe and corporate HQs at every point of the compass.

Not much, especially if the intent and the end result is the same.

The British Empire existed for all the same reasons as America's "non-empire" - power that enabled free trade, import of raw materials for manufacturing and the boosting of the standard of living of the British people.

If it quacks, etc

However, that doesn't mean it's all bad.

I have had it up to my forehead lately with the revisionist view of history that blames all the world's ills on the English-speaking peoples, who although colonisers (yes, you are Dave - remember the annexation of Hawaii and The Philippines insurgency campaign at the turn of the previous century, which happened about the same time the British were fighting the Boers in St Africa), have been among the most benign - despite more than the odd fu.k-up.

They have also been the first to stand up collectively to murderers and bullies.

At least the fu.k-ups don't get brushed under the carpet: free press, healthy debate among genuinely free people and democratically elected governments bound to riule of law are what makes us different, even as empire-builders.

As author Andrew Roberts points out, the British Empire was the first one to have a self-imposed use-by date, and there's no doubt America's "corporate empire", if you like, consciously goes along similar lines.

Having said that, I still think the term blowback in this context is bollocks. Yes, it's just a word, and just an argument. But still ...

Such repercussions are an inevitable result of empire building.

It doesn't excuse mass murder, however.

"It doesn't excuse mass murder, however."

But it does attempt to explain why it took place.

True. If you builds empires, you gets yer fingers burnt.

If the US genuinely doesn't want to get burnt fingers, then it'll have to shut down every overseas-based US corporate HQ and every multinational whose profits go back to shareholders in the US, rely on locally produced petroleum products - and then see what happens.

The first place to suffer would be the US (terribly, I'd bet), and I'm not sure that it would be of that much benefit elsewhere either.

I don't hold with Dave's "white man's burden" style of view but the US has mostly (mostly) been a force for good this past 100 years or so.

What I don't understand is why it insists on trying to export its brand of democracy and McDonald's capitalism. There are places where that's totally the wrong idea - Iraq, for instance, would be one glaring example.

Still, at least McDonald's and Americans don't make hamburgers out of their own people by feeding them feet-first into industrial paper shredders - one of of Saddam Hussein's favourite little tricks.

It appears you were a bit confused when you wrote this article.

Or it could be that bullshit is difficult to write and keep straight.

Jacob, I'd say the bankruptcy of your argument here is defined by the fact that you resort to criticizing a typo when you can't deal with the content of the article.

Dave

Jacob, I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Would you like to buy it?

Tim, I have read Johnson's rather biased and ideologically crippled book, hence my reference to it in the article.

You seem to have missed my rather simple point, that Johnson's distortion of the term was the action which popularized it and opened the door to the widespread misuse and misapplication of 'blowback' now enjoying such popularity.

Since you agree with Johnson's simpleminded and politically corrupted thesis, I don't expect any kind of rational discussion from you, of course.

Most of those who find Johnson's work appealing do so primarily because they feel that it helps to legitimize their own irrational hatred of the US and its historical actions.

Dave

I must agree Dave ... the US is as much an empire as was the British.

I'd argue that especially in their early imperial history the British exercised much more direct administrative control than America has even attempted. In fact, the US taught them the very clear lesson that the cost of that direct control was higher than was justifiable and that they could profit more at less expense by relinquishing control and focusing on commerce.

I do agree that the basic objectives of both nations in building an international presence is very much the same. In fact, the US economic sphere of influence is in many ways a direct outgrowth and continuation of the economic structure of the British Empire. We benefitted from the lessons of the British Empire and therefore have avoided the pitfalls of trying to actually conquer and control a physical empire as much as possible.

The British Empire existed for all the same reasons as America's "non-empire" - power that enabled free trade, import of raw materials for manufacturing and the boosting of the standard of living of the British people.

By the 1800s the British Empire was very quickly evolving into a not-empire in its own right. Look how far they bent over backwards to privatize their ventures in India and not get stuck administering the place. They ended up getting stuck with it anyway, but they clearly at least attempted to do the right thing.

I have had it up to my forehead lately with the revisionist view of history that blames all the world's ills on the English-speaking peoples, who although colonisers (yes, you are Dave - remember the annexation of Hawaii and The Philippines insurgency campaign at the turn of the previous century, which happened about the same time the British were fighting the Boers in St Africa), have been among the most benign - despite more than the odd fu.k-up.

My argument would be that these direct interventions are against the general trend of US policy and almost always turn out to be mistakes to a greater or lesser extent.

They have also been the first to stand up collectively to murderers and bullies.

Which carries the obvious implication that those who are leading the objections to American 'empire' are inconvenienced murderers and bullies.

BTW, my daughter is 15 but I think she could stoop to chat with a younger teen from a cool foreign country.

Dave

And I also hope, Dave, that for the other side of the coin, you've also read Andrew Roberts' follow-up to Churchill's histories.

If not, it's a must. It hasn't changed my views one iota on such issues as the conduct of the "peace" in Iraq - Roberts appears a very-to-the-right conservative, and possibly just to the right of our old mate Genghis and I daresay our political views would collide with the force of the Titanic and the iceberg.

But it does offer a more realistic point of view than a lot of the dribble the loony-left is punting up at the moment and presenting as fact.

"Since you agree with Johnson's simpleminded and politically corrupted thesis, I don't expect any kind of rational discussion from you, of course."

This over-reaction shows that one of Nalle's nerves has been hit.

Can this over-reaction be considered 'Blowback' from Nalle?

Jacob, with only a few days left in the year it turns out that I've already used up my annual allocation of tolerance for arrant foolishness. Check with me on Tuesday for a full dollop of patient hand-holding and pats on the head.

Dave

Can this over-reaction be considered 'Blowback' from Nalle?

Yes.

Less than clever Jake seems to be repeating himself.

Umpy, s hat ou?

;-)

ey oc,

hat's p?

What have you done with my friend Lavos?

ent im to enezuela, oc.

e sked or t; o oonraven ent im o ork n he lums or he havez egime.

Ut ot efore icking im n he onads, 'm ure...

Ou uys re wful - ut ike ou!

YHA, ow as our Hristmas?

amn... uck his or a ame f oldiers...

[slaps self on back of head]

That's better. BTW, how was your Christmas?

Are you asking me or hristopher?

Mine was great, but today is even greater: for the first time in two months, MY WIFE IS HOME!!!!

(Hold on a sec, Doc)

HONEY, WOULD YOU ROLL OUT TO THE KITCHEN AND GET ME A BEER? I'M GLAD YOU'RE HOME AGAIN!

%$#@&****%$#@ *&&^% ^^%$ #@%^

(Wow! Has that woman got a mouth on her!!)

:>)

But seriously, folks, it's great to have her home and back to her old self again.

How was Christmas in Fresno, Doc?

And on the Isle, Chris?

How was Christmas in Fresno, Doc?

Well, you know Fresno. (Actually, you probably don't, and that's just as well.) It was OK. Wife's parents are a bit hard to take (especially for her!) so there was a fair bit of stress there. I presented my sister-in-law and her new husband with their wedding video, which I shot and edited onto a DVD for them, and that went down extremely well which was nice.

Your wife must be ecstatic about being home. I once stayed overnight in hospital and I was going stir crazy, so I can only imagine what it must have been like for her. Give her my best and I hope she can stay away from the white walls from now on.

I was asking you, but Christopher posted at the same time I did. I scarcely need to ask how his Christmas was, having spent 34 of them where he spent his this year. It was cold, wet and gloomy! ;-)

Clav: "ent im to enezuela, oc."

Lol. You blokes are on fire today.

Where is oonraven, TW?

Anished, TM.

Must be good to have the missus back, eh Clav?

I noticed you were off the threads briefly (a few days?) so I thought something must have been going on.

Perhaps moonraven has gone on holidays. Or maybe she's come back as Jacob ...

Clavos, #122: Was that banished or vanished?

I hink Ambenek anned her for a onth fter hat rack bout Lavos's ife.

(Umpy, ook hat ou ucking tarted!)

STM, #123: No, despite his similar argumentation style, Jacob isn't Moonraven. He's far too polite.

BTW, just for your edification: Tim Behrend, the former US academic now based in Auckland, who questioned you about your study of language, I believe is an an expert in Javanese script and and an expert on Indonesia, who I also believe has presented the so-called spiritual leader of J.I, Abu Baku Bashir, in an interview as preaching a message of non-violence but recommending people re-examine a world view that is not America's.

Not sure why all that leaves me scratching my head given my personal knowledge of the Bali bombings, but it does, even if opposite points of view are valid. But you know my views on JI and their associates.

To be fair to him, though, in the interview I saw, the carnage caused, the other side of the coin, was included in the introduction, but I don't think he likes your mob that much any more. Probably not mine that much either.

He certainly got stuck into Dave, who had a bit of pea-and-thimble stuff going on at the time :)

It's great 'avin' 'er back, mate!

She was even polite enough to chuckle at my heavy-handed attempt at humor upthread, which is proof positive that she's glad to be back.

Yes, I was off the threads for a bit; had some business that needed my attention, then had a conference with some of the medical types at the hospital, who actually wanted to kick the missus out a week earlier. Neither she nor I felt that was a good idea at the time.

I had the same discussion with a similar group at another hospital two years ago, but I was green then, and didn't know the jargon well enough, nor the right buttons to push, so I lost that time.

I saw your comment to Doc or Dave (I think it was) regarding your daughter. It has to be one of the most difficult things in the world to see one of your youngsters ailing.

Doc, I intended "banished," but either works for me.

:>)

Just joking Doc ... he's been driving me bananas, which is probably the intention :)

Enjoyed our Fresno Chrissie did we ... ?? Miss the plum pudding and whatnot?

That's good Clav ... glad to hear it.

My youngest is doing a lot better actually. She's had her meds adjusted after a visit to a paediatric neurologist, and she's a bit more confident.

The bad thing is, she went from being in a group of 10 girls who were as thick as thieves for the six years at primary school (grade school, and we have no junior high here), then went to what's best described as a lovely private school (part of its name is "Ladies' College"), but couldn't adjust. She made some nice friends and the staff were great there but she was having petit-mal fits in class, and thus not hearing all of what was happening, and her grades went down (only to Bs, though, and it wouldn't have bothered me if they were Zs as long as she was having a go).

So next year, she is moving to the local state high school and repeating Year 7 (first year of high school) and is very excited about going back to a public school. She went there to meet the deputy principal a few weeks back, who is lovely and best described as eccentric.

Me too - especially with the extra $20,000 going back into my kick. That might mean that we can all head over your way in the school hols.

Enjoyed our Fresno Chrissie did we ... ?? Miss the plum pudding and whatnot?

Actually, Stan, I'm not a fan of Christmas pud, but the wife loves it. My brother and his missus, knowing this, put one in the grocery hamper they made up for us while I was over there. So it's all good.

I do love mince pies, though, and sadly I've already been through the two boxes of them that were in said hamper.

I unfortunately find myself bereft of proper Cadbury's chocolate as well. I'd been meaning to stock up at Heathrow on the way home, but my bus got caught in a horrendous traffic jam and I barely made the flight. Probably just as well, as I quite like my waist the size it is now.

Nevertheless, if you do head over here next year by way of the Old Dart, I may have a mission for you...!

(And of course, as you know, if a few irresponsible hotheads hadn't thrown our tea into Boston Harbor all those years ago, none of this would be an issue.)

Yep, what a dreadful waste of good tea.

And the ruination of perfectly good flag.

I better not bring the Cadbury's from Sydney though Doc. There won't be much left by the time I get there. It also has a terndency to melt, which is one of its more unfortunate qualities.

Actually, I spent Xmas in Spain where, ironically, it was cold, wet and gloomy. By way of contrast, as I look at the sea through the living room window here in the Isle of Wight, it is blues skies and sunshine. It's the end of the world I tell you!

Are you flitting back and forth Rosey??

It's a three-hour flight to Spain isn't it. Or 10 if you include delays at Heathrow.

I hope to be flitting back and forth in the future, Stan. First I need to do a few things, like get a few new online businesses established and sell the villa. At 360 sq metres it's a tad on the large size for two people and two dogs!

Heathrow is a freaking nightmare but fortunately we can avoid it by flying out from Southampton or Gatwick if we are taking the dogs.

Here's a bizarre question: do you have to immunise the dogs for heartworm in Spain? I heard recently that there is some illness quite prevalent and thought it might be that. I know heartworm's not a problem in the UK, but it's a drama here.

Darn right you do, Stan, but it's just a tablet, no big deal.

My dog spits 'em out. She's too smart (Border Terrier). She only eats what she wants to eat, which is anything but heartworm tablets. You have to push 'em right down her throat, which my wife does 'cause she's a nurse, although you can immunise.

(this thread clearly needs something to fight over...)

had your idiot of a monarch used his pea brain for a moment and backed his loyal colonial subjects and their assemblies over his greedy parliament by allowing self rule on matters domestic England might well have defeated the Muslims generations ago and would have remained the royal seat of a mighty Empire to this day

OK, Troll, you did good ... You knew I'd be here too. But what the f.ck are we talking about here???

Are we talking about mad King George, who promoted self-interest and meddled in parliament by having his own little crew there when he wasn't supposed to? Or are we talking about Britons not being able to decide their own futures as compared to America's?

Slavery was outlawed 100 years earlier in Britain than in America (and I believe the anti-slave movement and rulings of the King's Court in London in regard to slavery were one of the prime reasons for the American Revolution, not a three-penny tax on tea). By the standards of the day, Americans weren't oppressed. That's bullshit. They had better lives than most people on the planet.

Voting criteria for parliamentary representation in Britain at the time of the American Revolution was about the same as that required of American voters afterwards and for a similar period of time - owning property being one of them. And all the time America had that constiution and that bill of rights but still kept slaves and denied some people their rights because of their colour, the whole argument of freedom, liberty, bill or rights, constitution is and remains utter bullshit.

Americans weren't really free until ALL black people anywhere in the United States were aloowed to sit anywhere they wanted on a bus and use the same toilets as white people. So we're talking the 1960s.

If you are talking about empire. I don't think the British really considered they had an empire (say in the way the Spanish did) at the time of the American Revolution.

Their primary consideration was trade, and speheres of influence related to trade and maritime passage. At the time, they were also fighting the French - big time, and for a long time. It really became an empire in the time of Queen Victoria, and believe it or not, was at its height just after WWI, when it also received mandates to govern in the mid-east.

Or are we just promoting a nice argument:) ??

Here's my view on the whole take of empires, British or American.

They were inevitable (the start of globalism). They've done more good than harm, although they HAVE done harm, and in the same way Americans should be proud of who and what they are, so no Briton or anyone of British heritage (including me) should be ashamed of who they are.

I'm proud of my heritage. If there's ever a movement to take the Union Jack out of our flag I'll be the first to jump up and down. If any fool tries to turn a perfectly good democracy and constitutuonal monarchy into a republic, I'll be the first to jump up and down too. I'm of the if it ain't broke, don't piss about trying to fix it school. So if they wanted to include a Bill of Rights, good. It'd be good to have it all written down and not just existing as a given, almost wafting around in thin air.

But am I British, and would I like to be British now?

No way. I'm something else completely. But it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what I've been given by them. And nor should anyone with half a brain.

we're talking about the mad King and his willingness to allow the (short sighted) Britons to decide the future his colonists

...shoulda used New World mercs to suppress his populace - think of how things woulda been different under a resurgent aristocracy

Nah, troll. I dunno. I'm kinda glad I'm just part of an old empire, not part of a new one.

Now you guys cop all the sh.t, not us.

But I still mean what I say about freedom in America. It was a nonsense - all that Constitution and Bill of Rights - and was a total, meaningless crock that might as well have been written on toilet paper until ALL Americans became free, and that didn't happen until 200 years AFTER it was written: in the 1960s.

You can't be considered free if you don't have the same rights as everyone else, and some didn't for no other reason than the colour of their skin.

And I still maintain that Americans weren't oppressed up to the time time of the Revolution ... many of those who backed and led the independence movement were VERY interested in fostering their own interests in regards to power, money and control. Slavery was a key issue in the break from Britain (and I don't really care how unpopular that view might make me here. I truly believe it).

My view: not that people don't have the right to decide their own futures, but when the writing was on the wall from the late 1700s but before the revolution in regard to the abolition ofr slavery, when it was effectively outlawed in Britain and set the stage for abolition of both the trade and the practise itself, Americans, led by people people like Jefferson, revolted. Yet even Jefferson had slaves, even whilst banging on about freedom. I don't believe a man who was instrumental in coming up with that document but kept people in what amounted to unpaid penal servitude (there's my anti-authoritarian genetic national convict streak coming out) should be revered the way he is in America. Surely you can see my point here.

Strange co-incidence, the timing of it all, wouldn't you think? And as all good cops know, when you're investigating, there's no such thing as a coincidence. I believe the American Revolution was more a civil war between two people of common beliefs, a war in which one of them was veering towards greater freedom (despite the monarch's parliamentary meddling) and that one was Britain - especially in its grass roots, democratic movement to end slavery across the globe.

So if you were take my view as fact, could you then take it all a step further and say that the foundation of the entire United States wass based on a lie and was a sham (even if it came good eventually)? The freedom issue too in regard to race is really important, because you could argue that it made the Bill of Rights into nothing more than a lie and a pean-and-thimble trick.

And could America's notion that it is not an empire therefore also be a delusion, considering that it has done everything the British did except plant the flag. And actually, it did plant the flag - the Philippines insurgency against American rule being one classic example. It was a very bloody conflict.

So while Americans were criticising the British for the Boer War (which was a war in regard to the rights of English-speaking Sth Africans denied them by the Dutch-speaking Boers), America was doing even worse not too far from where I am now by denying a people their own destiny and killing them for it. Empires ...

It's also my belief that Britain has also been a more free society in the modern age than has America, especially in terms of human rights. I believe Americans delude themselves into THINKING they have more freedoms, but most haven't lived anywhere else so they really don't know. They can't speak with any real knowledge. Yes, they are more free than most, but not more free than everyone.

So there's me argument, troll, and I believe every word of it ... any takers?