>
> I knew I should have left this 36486th Kosovo-like thread alone.
Nevertheless,
> let's answer the questions...
>
up to you.
> I know there's not much use in using a dictionary with such words as
> totalitarian, left, imperialist, etc. but since Mac is attacking me
without saying
> from which perspective, I can use no defense except the generic one...
>
> noun: imperialism
> 1. A policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
> 2. A political orientation that advocates imperial interests
> 3. Any instance of aggressive extension of authority
It might seem like an attack, but Imperialism, the lead role in the global
system that is destroying livability itself, is too important a concept to
simply throw the term about in this fashion. "Any instance of aggressive
extension of authority" could be used on even Osama Bin Laden if one wanted.
Can we stick to the Leninist and/or Nkrumah definition of such? they are
based in reality and draw the distinction between England and Argentina in
the Malvinas, for example.
> Indeed, this looks a bit like a synonym for bad, but it's more like a
subcategory
> in fact.
> So, how does it apply? There was a big country, Indonesia and a small new
> one, East Timor. The big one comes and extends its rule over the small
one.
> Simple enough for me. And definitions 2 and 3 also apply.
> You could say that East Timor was not really a country but an imperial
leftover,
> but so was Indonesia, and so is the USA, and most countries. Are we going
to
> argue that the USA can not be imperialist towards Cuba because both
> countries are colonial leftovers?
>
I *could* say a lot of things, it doesn't mean I will. big vs small means
Iraq vs Israel: Iraq is the imperialist? Come on Julien. This is silly. I
have seen far better from you.
Macdonald
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
