Home / Empire is Bad, M’kay?

Empire is Bad, M’kay?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As a good libertarian, I'm pretty skeptical about those "entangling foreign alliances" that George Washington warned against – and the money involved in paying for such things.

More importantly, in recent years and with hopefully a little more maturity in my thinking, I've become more specifically skeptical of our ability to do everything for everybody. We've only got so much money, so many soldiers, and limited US public patience. Thus, I would identify my own qualms about interventionism as reflecting more my conservative practicality rather than my more idealistic libertarian beliefs.

powerBut there's a school of thought in favor of engagement in the world. The world does perhaps need at least a little bit of policing, someone capable of keeping a lid on the worst bad guys, and keeping trading lanes open. To the extent that this has merit – which seems considerable – America is at this point the only possible candidate for the job.

I don't know that we should consider ourselves morally obligated to take action every time there's a problem anywhere in the world. Plus, again, there are the limits of how much we can do. Plus, of course, who died and made us boss? (Answer: a lot of brave US soldiers)

Still, like Gary Johnson in Team America, I don't want the power or responsibility. But if the US doesn't assert itself, then a lot of bad things happen to the rest of the world, and ultimately to US. Hitler and the Japanese weren't our problem until Pearl Harbor – which left millions dead before we got involved, and a much deadlier mess for US than if we'd all smacked Hitler down years sooner.

It's tough knowing what to do in the world, but this consideration just becomes more difficult when ideology takes over the discussion. Thus, when someone invokes the word "empire" in a discussion of US policy, that's pretty much a sign that you needn't bother talking to them. It's like saying that someone is a "racist." You've attached that stupid label, therefore you have proven your case. Quad erat demonstratum. Empire is bad, m'kay? If we have any troops in any other country in the world, then we are building "empire." Therefore, by definition we are cast as moustache-twirling villains.

Except that America is not engaging in anything like the bad things implied by the label. It's one of those stupid dishonest "package deals," as St. Ayn Rand would call them. Or as Jonah Goldberg puts it in a typically witty and insightful column:

America’s critics point out that the U.S. does many things that empires once did — police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency — and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren’t parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she’s the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works.

So exactly how much responsibility, cost and presumption of power should we take in the world? Would we be better advised to tolerate Iranian mullahs getting nuclear weapons, or would it be better to bite the bullet and take down their regime by force of arms if it comes down to that? That's a tricky question to know how to answer.

But it seems like we have to consider things carefully on a case by case basis of facts on the ground, rather just making broad categorical statements based on abstracted ideological sentiments not based on reality – even from guys I like. And we can definitely do without mindless and meaningless words like "empire."

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • RJ

    “Thus, when someone invokes the word “empire” in a discussion of US policy, that’s pretty much a sign that you needn’t bother talking to them. It’s like saying that someone is a “racist.” You’ve attached that stupid label, therefore you have proven your case. Quad erat demonstratum. Empire is bad, m’kay? If we have any troops in any other country in the world, then we are building “empire.” Therefore, by definition we are cast as moustache-twirling villains.”

    Love that!

    Phrases that should automatically let you know you’re utterly wasting your time arguing with somebody:

    – The United States is the most brutal/bloodthirsty/evil empire in history.

    – YOU’RE A RASSISTS!!11!

    – JEWS DID 911!!11!

    – BUSH IS HITLER!!11!

    – My astrologist told me…

    – As Noam Chomsky said…

    – Hillary Clinton is such a warm person…

    Anyone else have others? 😉

  • Clavos

    The juxtaposition of “wealth” and “obscene?” (Just saw it on another thread)

  • The use of the word “greed” to describe someone proposing government tax or spending cuts – that’s a pretty good sign that you’re dealing with envy and malice or just plain cheap demagogic class warfare rhetoric. A classic recent example was, of course, when Mike Huckabee responded to criticisms of his record by the Club for Growth by referring to them as the “Club for Greed.” That wasn’t even worthy of John Edwards.

  • troll

    hermano – I’d be happy to set ’empire’ aside and use whatever word you choose to label the phenomenon

    so…give it a name

  • Anyone else have others? 😉

    “Liberalism is a mental disorder…”

  • troll

    …how about: “be realistic…”

  • I’ve got another one:

    “Typical naive leftists…”

  • alessandro

    how ’bout ‘umpire’? The USA is the greatest umpire in the world.

    think the world is a bad place? think of it if the u.s. wasn’t around or decided to go isolationist.

    ugly indeed. every tin pot land with a name that rhymes with the female anatomy would jump at the chance of taking advantage of an absent America in world affairs.

    as i tell any anti-american: be careful what you wish for.

    and in any event, what’s wrong with a dash of empire anyway?

  • and in any event, what’s wrong with a dash of empire anyway?

    Nothing much if you do it the way the Persians and the Romans did it, which was to let the people they conquered pretty much continue to run their own affairs as long as they paid taxes and provided men for military service to the empire when needed.

    Since the US doesn’t even do that (yet) it’s probably not fair to accuse them of global imperialism (yet).

    The USA is already an empire though, and has been since the first settlers crossed the Appalachians. We need to remember that.

  • Moonraven

    All of you folks need a good enema, and a few courses in World History–especially the author of this piece.

    Al, your thinking needs to mature a whole lot more.

    At which point you will understand why the rest of the world hates the US: THE US is the WORST of the bad guys on the planet.

    Talk about the Fox guarding the Henhouse….

  • But it seems like we have to consider things carefully on a case by case basis of facts on the ground, rather just making broad categorical statements based on abstracted ideological sentiments not based on reality

    If Al B, RJ and several others actually followed this sensible precept in the comments section of Blogcritics, nearly all of their most annoying posts would vanish, and the world would become a better place.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  • Lapdog

    Oh say can you see?

    No! I was blinded by a US bomb and my wife and children were killed.

    “A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat–8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, “My government is the world’s leading purveyor of violence.” Shocking and horrifying.”

    Thank you Larry Mosqueda.

    BTW those are old figures from 2110.

  • Lapdog

    That should be 2001. In another hundred odd years???

  • The Obnoxious American

    Great article, I agree with your points entirely.

    I think there is a fine line, and I think, despite impassioned claims to the contrary by the left wing nutjobs, we’ve towed the line well. War for oil? I don’t think so.

    Lapdog, bad boy. SIT!

    8 million people eh? Do you include dead Iraqi civillians since 2003 in that number? I’m sure you do. Because Saddam, Al Qaeda, Iran and Baathists have absolutely nothing to do with those deaths right? Our presence there excuses everyone else from any responsibility right? With math like that, who needs science?

  • Lapdog, I don’t know where you get the 8,000,000 figure. That sounds way off – unless you’re counting WWII as part of it.

    Still, the US has killed a bunch of people over time. No doubt some of that has been – to a large extent unavoidably – mistaken. Innocent folk get killed in the crossfire, or by accident or misjudgment or bad intel in all kinds of tricky situations.

    But generally, from what I’ve seen, the big majority of people we’ve killed needed killing, and some of them needed it really, really badly.

    Alessandro, I like that word “umpire.” That’d be a lot closer to the mark generally than empire.

  • Lapdog

    Roll over and play dead, Obnoxious. Just play dead, M’Kay. No bleeding now!

    Remember, Saddam got hanged for his crimes against humanity. You do the math.

  • troll

    *big majority…needed killing* – ?

    come on now – the vast majority have been bystanders guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

  • Yes Lapdog, Hussein got hanged – and obviously deserved it very much. I’d be happy to have you count that as an American kill, though of course it was Iraqis that tried and executed him.

    However, I’ll be proud to claim for our kill column, among many others, the Hussein sons and a buttload of nasty Ba’athists and Al Qaeda.

  • The Obnoxious American


    You might want to lay off the scooby snacks, my friend. Yes, Saddam was hung. But before he died, he led an army to war against the US. Some of those soldiers died, and some of those soldiers killed Iraqis and Americans. I wonder how you count those deaths. Then again, I don’t wonder, you pin it all on the US because when you are tripping on dog food, everything is the fault of the US.

  • Lapdog

    Al, if you want numbers go to the link in #12.

    The 8,000,000 doesn’t include WW11.

    Sure Al, the Iraqis hanged Hussein….whilst under the control of the US. Which is where they remain.

    It’s not about oil though…nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

  • The Obnoxious American


    I’m shocked and horrified that you’d actually cite this crap. He basically blames every non-medical death on the US since 1948. Here is one quote:

    “Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually “hands on” murdered in the “Phoenix Program” (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in “The Pentagon Papers,” released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation.”

    Oh please, can’t even dignify this drivel with a response.

  • Lapdog

    Obnoxious, if I swallowed the crap you’ve been fed I’d be hallucinating right alongside you.

    BTW when Saddam “…led an army to war against the US.” which beach did he land on?

    Clavos, was it Miami?

  • The Obnoxious American

    And btw, the only people who still think Iraq was a war for oil don’t drive. 3 bucks a gallon buddy.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Good point Lapdog, Saddam really did try his best not to go to war, despite having resolutions in the teens and 6 months advance warning… He didn’t physically lead them to a beach to have war, he led his country into war with the US by not dealing properly with the international community. Please don’t waste any of our time arguing that point.

  • Moonraven


    You have managed to topple Nalle from his King of the Hill position as The Most Despicable Person Posting on Blogcritics.

    All those millions of people NEEDED KILLING?

    My ancestors NEEDED KILLING?


    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Lapdog

    Well, well, well, our Obnoxiuos American friend goes into Genocide Denial Mode. Typical!

  • Lapdog

    “And btw, the only people who still think Iraq was a war for oil don’t drive. 3 bucks a gallon buddy.”

    Oh those poor, poor oil companies….we feel their pain!

  • The Obnoxious American

    Moonraven, for the record, I don’t think anyone needs killing… I missed that, did someone actually say that in earnest?

    Lapdog, No denial here. Surely some portion of those that died in Vietnam were actually killed by COMMUNISTS? At least one or two right? I mean come on guy. When two (or more) people fight in a bar, the cops throw both in jail.

    Lastly this was never a war for oil. Was oil part of the issue? Yes, because the impact the disruption of it can have on GLOBAL (not just US) markets, but also because of the vast wealth it can generate for those who own it, even if they are terrorists. That said, did we want Iraqi oil? not really, and we certainly haven’t benefited from it. Going in the advertised cost of the war was 98 billion for the first year. Seems like we could have bought 1800 million barrels of oil and risked no lives for the same cost. This was so obviously not an oil grab as the hippies and their pets like to say.

  • Lapdog


    Saddam would have had far more than 6 months advance warning of the US led invasion of his sovereign nation in 2003 if only he’d read PNAC in 1997.

    “In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America’s Defenses states that “while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” and “Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

  • Lapdog

    Obnoxious has popped another one! You’re really gulping them down today, old chum.

    Hippies and their pets, eh? No war for oil???

    PNAC founding members are: Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

    Just look at those beads and headbands!

  • The Obnoxious American

    Hey, I don’t disagree, clearly we chose the lesser of two evils, when we should have been choosing the greater.

    There is something to the broken window theory, where while Saddam might not have represented the longest term threat out there, he was the most notable at the time, and Iran wasn’t.

    All this said, we are fighting Iran, within Iraqi borders. So the worst thing we can do right now is leave.

  • Lapdog

    “Lapdog, No denial here. Surely some portion of those that died in Vietnam were actually killed by COMMUNISTS? At least one or two right? I mean come on guy. When two (or more) people fight in a bar, the cops throw both in jail.”

    Obnoxious’ bar fight analogy only makes sense if you’re pissed to the gills.

    A realistic analogy would be one where a large group of home invasion thugs muscle their way into a private home and are eventually repelled by the homeowners with much loss of life. The home invasion thugs are not thrown in jail and refuse to pay reparations.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I see, so to be clear, in your theoretical, the big bad capitalist imperialist pigs bothered the nice communist home body who was just trying to sit down to dinner with his family right?

    That’s one way to look at it. The wrong way I might add. A more accurate portrayal would be where a home invasion was already in progress, we tried to step in and do some good, and a whole lot of people died.

    Lapdog, you clearly blame the US for everything and anything that could possibly be pinned on us (that initial link you cited to wit). I don’t hate this country – I don’t see evil when I look at other Americans. I see good people who are trying to do some good on this planet. There might be a few who go about it in the wrong way but I have faith in my fellow countrymen. Shame you don’t.

  • Clavos

    From his comments here and elsewhere, I think it highly unlikely that the canine is an American…

  • BTW, Saddam was hanged, not hung. Well, he might have been hung, but I don’t think any of us has any direct knowledge about that….

  • Baronius

    Obnox, are you sure that Lapdog wasn’t being facetious?

  • The Obnoxious American

    HandyGuy: Lolllzzzz

    Baronius: Could be. I for one think pretty much everything he says is a joke.

  • From his comments here and elsewhere, I think it highly unlikely that the canine is an American…

    He’s Canadian, isn’t he?

  • Lapdog


    You’re wasting your time trying to re-write Vietnam’s history. And history tells us the US wasn’t the knight in shining armor when it went on a killing spree over there. That’s ‘killing spree’ not rescue mission. French colonists booted out. US invaders booted out. Here ends the lesson.

    Face the facts and get over it.

  • The Obnoxious American

    You assigning way more passion to my feelings on this than actually exists. I really don’t care about Vietnam. But to your comments? Killing spree is a bit of a negative characterization.

    Fact: we did go in there trying to do some good.

    Fact: no one ever authorized a killing spree.

    Fact: 2 million more people died AFTER WE LEFT

    I’m not saying vietnam was a good thing. It certainly didn’t turn out good. But don’t try to tell me I am wrong when I say we went in there with good intentions.

    For people like you its never enough for there to be a mistake. Bush didn’t just ineptly handle the war in Iraq, he intentionally sent in young Americans to die so that Haliburton and the oil companies could make a profit.

    There’s always some evil underlying conspiracy that you imagine and that is what makes it hard for me to give your views any kind of weight.

    How about talking about what you can prove and not what you conclude. Because the truth about what happened in Vietnam and Iraq, is usually bad enough.

  • RJ

    “BTW, Saddam was hanged, not hung. Well, he might have been hung, but I don’t think any of us has any direct knowledge about that….”

    I hate myself for posting this, but

  • RJ, re #42: You [personal attack preemptively deleted before Comments Editor sees it]!

    What a sight that newspaper is. I’ll be having nightmares for weeks.

    The photo of Saddam in his skivvies isn’t pretty either! 😉

    Anyway, doesn’t look to me like he’s hung like a donkey. More like an old man in need of a truss.

  • alessandro

    #9: Dr., well put.

    #19: What were in those scooby snacks that made those two act like complete idiots?

    #25: Proof that Natives weren’t big fans of pacifism?

  • Baronius

    RJ, I’m having some software problems on my PC, and I can’t connect to your link. I was bummed out about it, then I realized that there’s nothing in the world that could make me look at that link.

  • Lapdog


    What good did the US do in Vietnam, apart from murdering people?

    The Vietnamese are still dying hideously from the deadly crap the US left behind.

    This fact of yours leads me to believe you are on the bottle:
    “no one ever authorized a killing spree.”

    The mass murder in Vietnam was un-authorized???

    There go your “good intentions”.

    For someone who claims, “I really don’t care about Vietnam.”, you sure over-reacted to a shot of the truth.

    As for Iraq see #29 PNAC.

  • Baronius

    Wow. I thought that Lapdog was parodying the anti-war people. My mistake.

  • We did not go into Vietnam with “good intentions.” Read your history. We were embedded there during the Eisenhower administration, along with the French and the Australians. It mushroomed from there, after the French and the Aussies pulled out.

    Lapdog– quit trying so hard to prove your point. Americans were victims there, too–and they’re dying, too. And OA– cut the crap. We lost in Vietnam. Period.

  • Lapdog

    That’s what happens when you have difficulty thinking, Baronious, you make mistakes.

    Smarten up!

  • It’s no different now, Ckavos and REMF. OA has stated that he has better ways to serve the country than get down and dirty. Apparently, rewriting history is one of those ways.

  • Lapdog


    There’s a big difference between American and Vietnamese victims. American victims were adults and young adults who could have refused to go to Vietnam.

    Vietnamese victims ranged in age from newborns to the old and infirm. They were being attacked in their own country and had nowhere else to go.

    The US didn’t give a fuck who got ‘wasted’ in that invasion and it doesn’t in the current one either. It’s tough to have any sympathy for the aggressor.

  • Yes Moonraven, I’M the one needing killed for expressing opinions on a blog that you dislike, not the thug dictator and his henchmen who murdered a million or so people.

    Yup Lapdog, WE’RE the aggressors and bad guys for taking out the likes of Hussein. Got it.

    The world should only be fortunate enough to have more bad guys like US.

  • Oh yes Moonraven, also thank you very much for saying that I’m more despicable than Dave Nalle. That Dave Nalle’s a real sonofabitch. If I’m a worse bastard than Dave Nalle, then that’s saying something.

    By the way, whacking badly deserving sonsabitches doesn’t particularly have anything to do with any real idea of “empire.” That would have to do with occupation and tribute. But killing some thugs is just public hygiene.

  • Lapdog

    No Al, you haven’t GOT IT AT ALL. Too bad you had to ‘take out’ a few hundred thousand innocent people in the process of catching Hussein.

    But, I know – that’s ok – because Saddam was a mass murdered too.

    How fucking altruistic can you get!

  • Baronius

    It’s 43 billion. The US killed 43 billion Iraqis. (What the heck, everyone else is making up numbers.)

  • I actively opposed the war in Vietnam– or as we called it then, Viet Nam. Did I avoid the Draft? No– my number came up high in the lottery. Would have I volunteered? What? Do I look crazy?

    That being said, Lapdog and OA, I see you both as kids with too many slogans and soundbites, and very little sense of history.

    I knew a lot–and I mean a lot– of kids who went to Vietnam. And I know a lot of kids who served in Iraq. Not a damn one of them were “oppressors.” Neither were they gung-ho about the government’s policies. The ones who came back were changed, usually not for the better.

    It’s one thing to lump all soldiers together as oppressors”, or to insist we’re defending the Universe. It’s quite another to live it.

    Never ever call a soldier an oppressor. And don’t set them up as the last defense against godless heathens. They’re just kids doing a job.

    Which is more than I can say for either of you.

  • Lapdog


    Thanks for the lecture but…

    Who said anything about “oppressors.”?

  • The Obnoxious American

    “And OA– cut the crap. We lost in Vietnam. Period.”

    Um, where, o where did I ever say anything different? I guess when you have no real platform to argue from, you fall back to ad hominem attacks and putting words in your opponents mouth.

    The only point I made was that at no time was there an order by this government to go out there on a “killing spree” – I think the US goal in Vietnam had more to do with stopping communist rule than simply killing people. That said, I also acknowledged that many people ended up dead as a result on both sides (as well as after we left).

    You can keep putting words in my mouth, or calling me names (calling me a kid because you don’t like what I am saying is childish my friend), but that won’t change what I actually said.

    “What good did the US do in Vietnam, apart from murdering people? ”

    Lapdog, have you been checked recently for rabies? I’d see a vet right away (not a Vietnam one either). This is the conversation on drugs (picture of eggs being fried)…

    I said we went in with good intentions, and you counter with “what good did the US do…” I said we went in with good intentions. In English that means we went _IN_ with good intentions, not that we actually did good. I acknowledged that we didn’t actually wind up doing good (“and alot of people died”). I don’t know how clearer I can make that for you.

    The quality of this conversation is pretty poor if the best responses you can come up with amounts to name calling and changing what I say to better fit your argument.

  • Lapdog

    I don’t have any bite marks, Obnoxious, but if any show up they’ll be checked against your dental records.

    Here’s your #40 “Fact: we did go in there trying to do some good.”

    Here’s my #45 “What good did the US do in Vietnam, apart from murdering people?”

    Like the French colonial Armed Forces, the US was in Vietnam to kill people. And for the main part that’s precisely that’s what it did.

    There were no good intentions.

    Roll over again and play dead. NOW!

  • Martin Lav


    Indiana was justed voted the #1 most depressing place on the planet. I guess you’re off your medication again, so writing crap like this is natural.

    As Neil Young sings “we had a chance to change our minds” …. however paranoid delusionals like yourself, OA and others on this site play your reverse all-sweeping cards, just as you claim liberals due, to justify your means. Screw you. No one believes you and it hasn’t worked well yet.

    Vietnam — good intentions
    Iraq — good intentions
    Look what happened when we left Hitler alone.

    Bullshit on your good pre-emptive good cop scenario.

    Do us all a favor and invest your time in the mental health of Hoosiers so your manic mood swings don’t lead us into another trip down your sweet intentioned empire building rose garden.

  • Moonraven, re: your offer of S&M services ie waterboarding

    Depends on what ya look like. I might could go for a little waterboarding. Ya gots a picture of yourself?

  • Clavos

    @# 59:

    Another rambling, incoherent personal attack post by Martin Lav.

    Stay off the sauce, Martin.

  • moonraven

    I don’t give pics of myself to perverts like you.

    You should be locked away forever in a back ward for the criminally insane.

    Or in Guatanamo.

    Whichever is closer to your current rubber basement.

  • Martin Lav

    Sorry, I must have posted to the wrong article.
    I thought Al Barger was from Indiana and I assumed he was writing crap as usual, but after re-reading this article, I actually agree with him to an extent.
    My apologies.
    Indiana was voted #1 however….depression sucks.

  • moonraven

    And for all of you patriots up to your assholes in the “last refuge of scoundrels”, Naoimi Kelin has this advice.

    “You shouldn’t be sure you’ll never end up in a damp, tiny cell in Guantanamo Bay”, said best-selling author Naomi Klein to the NYU students and faculty gathered last night in Hemmerdinger Hall.

    “We think we don’t fit the profile,” she said. “If we feel safe, we are banking on the racism of our government.”

    Keep on banking, patriots.

    Keep on believing you will be among the survivors that will fit into one limo to cruise the streets of Berlin–er, Miami.

  • Howdy Martin. Yeah, I thought I was trying to be pretty moderate in this story. I didn’t INTEND to be raving. But yet I’m still the crazed bloodthirsty one here, as against the likes of Moonraven and her death threats and such.

    By the way, my witty repartee in comment 60 was responding to a rant that the comments editor understandably deleted as a personal attack. But I rather enjoyed the lavish denunciation, and it was the setup to my best line o’ the day, so I quote the deleted comment myself:

    From Name: moonraven
    Comments: Al, I hope you are fucking proud of yourself for knocking Nalle off his despicable perch as the WORST scumbag ever to post here.

    You do not give a fuck about the million Saddam killed, not the 1.2 million YOU killed in Iraq.

    You are the Absolute Zero of Humanity.

    I am personally offering right here to waterboard your fat as from hell to breakfast.

    For fucking free.

  • moonraven

    The offer stands, scumbag.

    Any time you feel lucky….

  • The Obnoxious American


    The point you keep missing, I never disagreed with #45. For the umpteenth time, I only EVER said that the intentions were good. This is in response to your comments blaming 8 million deaths on the US whether we were really responsible or not, and it’s also in response to statements like this:

    “You’re wasting your time trying to re-write Vietnam’s history. And history tells us the US wasn’t the knight in shining armor when it went on a killing spree over there. That’s ‘killing spree’ not rescue mission.”

    Not sure how the canadian educational system is but given your ability to understand some of the ideas being expressed here, you are not a good representative. I’ve NEVER tried to rewrite history, NEVER said we actually did good in Vietnam, or that we didn’t lose, nor to Martin’s point did I ever say that good intentions alone are enough. As an aside, the hitler comparison is a bit ridiculous, Hitler never had good intentions.

    When you call this countries character into question by defining our role in Vietnam as a government sanctioned “Killing Spree” you are actually the one rewriting history. And you better be sure that I will be there to remind everyone else watching just how full of it you are.

    By not actually adhering to the conversation here, and once again trying to put words in my mouth, I am beginning to think of you as the Obnoxious Canadian. Only difference between you and I (aside from nationality) is my being obnoxious is actually intended as a form of sarcasm whereas for you it really does apply.

  • moonraven

    Indistinguishable from what, Jane Mansfield?

    This site is now filled with male (I can give the benefit of the doubt, too) Jewish virgins with visions of Portnoy dancing in their heads like liver…er, sugarplums.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “Excuse me, OA, you have NOT dated at all.”

    Um, ok. The women who have been in relationships with me might disagree with you, but you are free to have your opinions. Or maybe you are just trying to say that I haven’t dated until I’ve dated you. Grrrowrrrrr!

    “…like you can post on rightwing hate sites like this one that YOU are the one with SECRET INFORMATION about the intentions behind that slaughter.”

    First, to be very accurate here, Lapdog and yourself are actually guilty of that behavior when you say we went into Vietnam to commit a Killing Spree. I don’t think a single official document in the government archives talks about the intention of going to vietnam was purely blood lust, so to be totally accurate here, you, not me, are the one “with SECRET INFORMATION about the intentions behind that slaughter.”

    Third, to your last point I will spend the weekend excitedly fantasizing about you and me and some water – I’ll provide the board. I dig big chicks so it’s cool.

  • Martin Lav

    “I dig big chicks so it’s cool.”

    I hope you dig really big chicks and with an ego the size of their hips

  • Baronius

    When did it become acceptable for men to insult women based on their appearances?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Baronius, you are right, and honestly, all of these comments fall into the personal attack category. Apologies to MR for any comments I’ve made not specifically in response to her inane comments.

    That said, MR has made quite a few comments not exactly sticking to the subject matter either – many deleted by the comments editor. I highly doubt an apology for those will be forthcoming.


    Incidentally, I had meant to post this, since it’s kind of related to the article here and actually quite an interesting point with regards to the question of whether the US has the right to police the world. From the mouth of Hans Blix (July 1st, 2003):

    A realist, he [Hans Blix] is sanguine about American’s superpower status. “If you are to have one world policeman bullying the others by its own judgment,” he says, “I could think of many others that would be less pleasant.”

  • moonraven

    OA–I see, all those millions of folks were killed with the best possiblei ntentions by the US government, so it’s okay.

    Why are you not in Rome bribing the pope to canonize Lyndon Johnson for the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication?

    Go back to school–one that isn’t on the back of a cereal box.

    Since when is being a size 12 being a BIG CHICK, fatass?

    The only fat guy I would not kick out of bed is Hugo Chavez.

  • The Obnoxious American


    So you hate America but love Hugo Chavez eh? I think that says it all.

  • The Obnoxious American

    And incidentally, Baronius, While I never actually insulted MR in this thread, and although I’ve tried to take the high road and apologize in case she felt any pain from the collective personal attacks, she’s called me a fatass several times. I can’t say that personal attack hasn’t hurt… I hope your rebuke goes both ways.

    Now excuse me while I voluntarily throw up everything I ate for the last two days. Rice cakes for Dinner YUM…

  • Man– since this turned into The Biggest Loser thread, I feel really skinny. Maybe staying on point keeps you fit.

  • moonraven

    Obnoxious Fatass Gringo:

    I don’t hate America–in fact I live in a country in NORTH America called Mexico.

    And I also find SOUTH and Central America just fine, too.

    Canada is a bit too cold for me, even though half of my family is from there.

    But I sure DO hate the US.

    BTW, I didn’t say I LOVE Chavez–just that I would not kick him out of bed.

    For real women, sex and love are two separate issues: it’s you weak men that mix it all up.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Such a complex and intriguing woman. OK, racist and ignorant too, but still.

    Just FYI, if you hate the US, you hate America. “America the beautiful” wasn’t written about Venezuela or Mexico.

    If you want to be cute and refer to the continents of the western hemisphere, they are referred to as “the Americas” – not America.

    In case you ever try to send international mail, you live on the North American continent (not country silly), in the country of Mexico. South America is also a continent – no country by that name. Central America is actually part of the North American continent. Hope this geography lesson helps…

  • Baronius

    Obnox, I know, I know… and then entire portions of the thread will be deleted, and it won’t make any sense. I sometimes can’t follow conversations in which I played a part, after the editor gets done with them. To be honest, I think if they’re not going to boot Moon altogether, they should leave her comments intact as documentation of how hateful she is. It just concerns me when we’re not obviously better human beings than she is.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Lolll agreed. I guess strife brings everyone down to a level occassionally.

  • moonraven

    I did not refer to South America as a country. I am not one of Nalle’s clones.

    FYI, ignorant fat gringo, here in Latin America we refer to America as the entire hemishere. Not two continents.

    Bolivar said that the US was destined to plague AMERICA with misery in the name of liberty.

    As for America the Beautiful, send me the sheet music and I will wipe my beautiful ass with it.

  • “I don’t hate America … But I sure DO hate the US.”

    Glad you cleared that up.

  • Martin Lav

    “send me the sheet music and I will wipe my beautiful ass with it”

    Better get America the Beautiful, The Star Spangled Banner, My Country Tis of Thee and Ordinary People handle that task….

  • Lapdog

    Obnoxious American #73 (for now)

    “When you call this countries character into question by defining our role in Vietnam as a government sanctioned “Killing Spree” you are actually the one rewriting history. And you better be sure that I will be there to remind everyone else watching just how full of it you are.”

    It’s time you faced the truth, OA.

    If you prefer I’ll use the term Genocidal Invasion instead of Killing Spree to describe US involvement in Vietnam, though both are accurate. They also apply to the current US led invasion of Iraq. Most people think the Brits are more civilized but…

    watch them here.

  • Lapdog

    Some more pretty pictures for our Obnoxious Pollyanna.


  • Sometimes it helps to get a firsthand perspective. I wonder if either OA or Lapdog actually know any Vietnamese or Iraqi people. When you hear their firsthand stories, it puts a whole different color on things.

    You both need to realize we’re neither superheroes or butchers.

  • Baronius

    Lapdog, that doesn’t even make sense. How can something be genocide when there’s no intention of killing off a race or a culture? You want an example of genocide, look at what Baathist Iraq was doing to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.

  • Lapdog

    Ray, what are you suggesting? First hand stories from Germans in the 1930s would enable people to see their actions in the 40s through rose-colored glasses? Or first hand stories from German Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, trade unionists, etc? Which perspective would help?

    Heroics and butchery…one gets you honors, the other gets you a war crimes trial. Or should.

  • Lapdog

    Baronious, have you read the Genocide Convention?

    “The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    “The Convention also declares that there shall be no immunity. Persons committing this crime shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

  • Zedd

    Hmmmmm I always thought it was Moowah ha ha ha ha.

    Perhaps we should call upon Tiny Tot. What say ye Clavos?

  • STM

    What’s wrong with all you wusses?

    As a citizen of a country that still has a Union Jack in the corner of its flag, I say EMPIRE IS GOOD!

    Not only is it good, it’s good for you …

  • Clavos

    “When did it become acceptable for men to insult women based on their appearances?”

    When the woman in question not only describes her appearance for all and sundry, but also proceeds to insult all the men based on their appearance.

    Maybe she shouldn’t stow thrones.

  • troll

    …but is it worth the international deathtoll – ?

  • Block-quotimg doesn’t make your point, Lapdog, You asked what I’m suggesting. Quit simply, I wasn’t auggesting anything. I do find your comment about Germans in the early part of a century fading into oblivionirrelevant to what I mentioned, though.

    What I also see in your comments is that you have no real knowledge. I also see that you’re trying to work all this to impress an on-line Mistress.

  • Lapdog

    Ray, you’re such an oppressor these days!

    Thanks for the critique anyway.

  • me

    please stop saying m’kay before you jinx south park and they break up. Ive seen you use that almost as much as ive seen you pervert the english language with your backwater hillbilly bullshit. Go back to bashing arrested development, its the only thing you do that even comes close to worth reading. And thats just because fools are entertaining.