DISQUS

Buzz · 1 year ago

This is from your own link to "Bush doctrine"

[quote]President Bush decided soon after the 9/11 attacks that the proper response was not just military attacks against Al Qaeda bases, but deposing the Taliban altogether and installing in their place a U.S.-friendly democratic government. This presented a foreign-policy challenge, since it was not the Taliban that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks. In an address to the nation on the evening of September 11, Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."[6][/quote]

This is from free dictionary
[quote]im·pe·ri·al·ism (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.[/quote]

So tell me the difference between "Bush doctrine" and Imperialism, they are both accomplishing the same thing.

Bat One · 1 year ago

Buzz,

Your own cited definition of imperialism is irrelevant to the point you are [i]trying[/i] to make since both Afghanistan and Iraq have held their own free elections and chosen their own governments... something that can not be said of Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Ghaddafi, Syria under either Assad, Egypt under Mubarak, or just about any other majority Islamic country.

If your silly point were to have any sort validity, Mr. Bush and his supporters would very nearly have to seize control of the government of the US, arrest the members of Congress, and declare himself to be president for life... as has been virtually the case in all the examples I've cited. You might just was well declare the US/Allied victory over Hitler's Nazi Germany to have been mere American imperialism.

robert108 · 1 year ago

Back to the subject of this thread:

[quote]"Do more to deal with unnecessary demand?" And who, exactly, gets to decide that demand which is unnecessary? [/quote]

This is the inevitable result of having any other economic system other than "free people making free choices". Socialism always exerts control by limiting supply, in order to starve demand. That is why it generates less prosperity than a free market system.

Erica · 1 year ago

Well, we are facing a global food crisis in the midst of an exploding population. Food waste is not only bad for the individual who throws it away, but it's truly bad for us all on a macro scale.

That said, I'm not sure how this will be implemented or really, how it *could* be implemented in a way that would work.

At the UK considers their impact on the world. Here in the US, we've got a bumbling idiot for a leader who still prescribes to the bigger is better mentality.

robert108 · 1 year ago

[quote]Well, we are facing a global food crisis in the midst of an exploding population.[/quote]

It's only a "crisis" in the sense that belief serves the propaganda purposes of you lefties. It has been artificially produced by Dem energy policies written by enviro extremists that mandate the use of food for energy, when we have stored solar energy in the form of oil, coal and gas readily available, and which don't require using edible items for producing energy. You lefties are truly insane.
The man you refer to as "a bumbling idiot" has consistently outsmarted you for almost eight years; what does that make you?

robert108 · 1 year ago

[quote]...the bigger is better mentality.[/quote]

Actually, it's the "more prosperous is better" mentality. As you are a leftie, I don't expect you to know that.

ollie-B · 1 year ago

No wonder Brown's popularity is lower than Bush's. You've got to be really stupid to see an excess of food for your people as a problem.