Anti-Imperial Riots in Manila

Thousands of Americans died to free the Philipines from the Japanese.

I'm sure even more filipinos died; however, that war is over. The new imperialism is primarily economic in nature, which is much more subtle than gunboat diplomacy and territorial expansion. It is now a question of liberating ourselves from corporate greed.

Thousands of Filipinos have died trying to get the U.S. Imperial Military out of their fucking home, Pat. Quit reading your pro-US history books and shut the fuck up. Quit wasting electrons with your ignorant posts.

The Taliban today, Abu-Sayef soon. Go size your casket, if there are enough bits of you left to fit in one.

When on the internet. In person, Pat is afraid to leave his house.

Thousands of americans died in order that imperial control over the Philipines be handed back to the U.S.

I assume your use of Anti-Imperialist means, "anti-capitalist." How dare these people try to make their lives better by implementing a market economy? Those selfish bastards! No, a much better solution is the central planning of China or North Korea. Wait, that doesn't seem to work, because their governments kill freedom, create food shortages, and thousands of them are left to eat sawdust because they can't access any food. Meanwhile, this capitalist has a whole kitchen full of food.

As for our being imperialist. No capitalist nation has EVER attacked another capitalist nation, nor have they initiated war against any other. They have defended themselves from others. If you want to wave around the term, "Imperialist" look at socialism. Socialism requires war to spread. Communist nations routinely waged war against others, and against other communist nations (e.g. Cambodia vs. Vietnam).

Bob, you have to catch up a little bit. Your attacks on socialist imperialism are nothing compared to a good anarchist indict of the communist empire. Of course, anarchists are opposed to both capitalist and communist imperialism.

And, of course, capitalists are at war with each other all the time. Money and power and resources are the cause of war.

Sorry, Bob, try again.

You are ignorant if you believe no capitalist nation has attacked another: what about WWI and WWII? Weren't France, Germany, and Britain all capitalist? And as for your 'incite' reagarding Viet Nam and Cambodia, once again your ignorance is appalling. Viet Nam attacked Cambodia to drive out the ruthless Khmer Rouge. What they did was an act of compassion. The Khmer Rouge were murdrering anyone with a high school education or above, and hard already killed a million people. The Vietnamese put an end to their rule. And please don't forget that it was U.S. imperialist intervention which initially created the instability in the region which allowed the Khmer Rouge to obtain power. Maybe you should read a little history before you spout off at the mouth.

What about the capitalist Europeans instituting the African Slave Trade!!! Millions and millions became slaves and tens of millions died .. some estimates upwards of 50 million.

How about the genocide of the Native American peoples!! Wake up!! This what the GREED of the Western world has caused! The Europeans colonized most of the world .. with the U.S. taking over, economically, after WWII. Guys like Cecil Rhodes naming a huge section of the African continent after himself ...

The US CONQUERED the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century:

http://www.dnai.com/~soongliu/SavageAndSoldier/articles/asia/IntroPhilipine.html

Over 100,000 died.

The list can go on and on .. I don't have the time.

Bob, get educated buddy .. capitalist GREED has done more killing than anything.

Ignore Pat Kincaid.

I think Bob was referring to REAL wars, not the paranoid fantasies of neo-liberal resentment.

>> capitalists are at war with each other all the time. Money and power and resources are the cause of war.

Would you have any examples, or is this just a Charles Dickens era attack on that Meanie old Scrooge?

Even funnier, "communism is capitalism." Poison is medicine, darkeness IS light.

Bob, I hope you weren't looking for any feedback that required more than five seconds of thought. These people are vapid and petty. Read any post and you will them recycling the same old hackney that sent Jews to their death, Serbs to their death, and Russians to their death. They offer nothing. They want to see Filipinos starve to death, it reinforces their view that man has no right to exist on this earth for his sake.

But allow me to help. World War I. World War II.

Those are two examples of capitalist countries going to war with each other. Two big fucking examples.

Don't you feel dumb? Talk about vapid.

YO Bob O'Link:
Methinks you've gotten your wires crossed. Tomas Friedman, that egregious NY Times flack, made a name for himself a couple years ago claiming that no two countries with McDonalds have ever waged war against one another. He didn't claim that no capitalist countries have ever waged war against one another. Only a complete -- as opposed to almost complete -- ignoramus would make such a claim. The war between Iraq and the US was/is a war between two capitalist states as is the present slaughter. Then, of course, there is WW1 and WW2 and many other smaller conflicts between capitalist states: the UK and Argentina, Honduras and El Salvador, Pakistan and India....
As to Friedman's claim about McDonalds: my understanding is that the state-lets of the former Yugoslavia had Golden Arches and I bet so do Pakistan and India, but Friedman's inane claim was really just a diversion because capitalism is most apt to wage war internally. It's called the class war. You see it whenever the state's forces protect the capitalist's interests during strikes, whenever they drive peasants off the land, whenever the state enforces an eviction, whenever it attempts to smash rebellions. Colleen should take her stupid ass down to the Phillipines to see how respectful the capitalist state is of people's right to live their own lives when it drives the poor off the land, crushes strikes etc.
Many americans have this addled notion of an idyllic capitalism that has never existed replete with sweet invisible hands, suitcase size governments, and free markets. Without the state, capitalism couldn't be imposed or preserved. "Libertarians" who harbor illusions in stateless capitalism would, if successful, usher in an even more dystopian world with thousands of defacto states consisting of private security forces protecting property.
The lynchpin of capitalism consists of driving people off the land and imposing wage labor. It is done through debt, enclosures, and outright expropriation. It ain't pretty. And just because it's done by the state for the benefit of state enterprises -- as under Stalin -- doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally capitalist. The so-called communist countries -- the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea -- can best be understood as state capitalist in that these societies extended wage labor. They adopted techniques of labor discipline straight from the market capitalist countries. The state was the vehicle of capital accumulation. The benefits were parceled out according to ones position within the allegedly communist parties through relatively high wages, perks, and graft as opposed to money profits. Now that "communism" is dead we see that the former managers of state companies have in many instances become the new private capitalist bosses. An easy switcheroo.
When I was in East Berlin in 1988 -- before the wall came down -- people there described it as state capitalist and I think it's the best and most accurate description of those societies. As in America where we are clobbered with propaganda about democracy as a means of covering up the class nature of this society, the elites in the allegedly socialist countries endlessly held forth about socialism
to deflect from the class nature of those societies.

So far, nobody has proven me wrong.
Germany was hardly a capitalist nation during either war, nor is Iraq, or Argentina, India, Pakistan. Capitalism implies specific freedoms that neither country has.

>> The lynchpin of capitalism consists of driving people off the land and imposing wage labor.


Wrong. No capitalist author would make this statement because it represents a dictatorship, the antithesis of capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of the Khmer Rouge and thought they were capitalists? Or is capitalist the code word here for "icky stuff"

:: Viet Nam attacked Cambodia to drive out the ruthless Khmer Rouge. What they did was an act of compassion. ::

Yeah, right! The Viet Cong killed innocent Kampucheans left, right, and center. It's one of those, "you had to be there: kind of things, I guess.