Talk:Empire of Liberty
This page is ridiculous. It's a liberal term used to bash the United States, and every single contributor is an infinitely banned vandal except Andy, who just reverted vandalism, and WesleyS, who appears to have been a confessed liberal who has retired in protest from this site. I don't see any reason for Conservapedia to have this article. JacobB 05:00, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- well it has problems but I think it's an oimportant topic and will try to repair it. RJJensen 05:39, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- Jacob makes a superb point. We have an open mind here but this entry seems utterly baseless and disprovable by countless American statements, positions, and actions. In just 30 seconds disproof by Washington's Farewell Address and Monroe Doctrine come to mind.--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- I listened to an old debate between Buckley and Chomsky, and Chomsky kept repeating his claim that every international use of force has always been for the benefit of the intervening country at the expense of the invaded country. He uses this as a bludgeon, to make the point that the US is "imperialist" in the sense of seeking empire more for its own benefit than for possessions or colonies.
- Somewhere in this encyclopedia I'd like to see a list of American military interventions which resulted in more good for the invaded country than for us - or at least an equal benefit.
- The irony is that leftists like Chomsky use this "anti-imperialist" argument only against the United States, while tolerating or even lauding so-called "liberation" movements like the NLF and their foreign supporters like the Soviet Union. Typical liberal hypocrisy. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 24 December 2009 (EST)