Yes, interresting. However, in Dutch, French and German we only know the Crusades as that period in the Middle Ages. It has do to with semantics one again. It’s like a “war against poverty”, which I hope doesn’t mean we use tanks to crush the homeless :D. Bush or the ones who prepare his speech should know this and that in Europe they look totally different upon it. It’s maybe a misunderstanding, but with many consequences.

I’m really getting into the field of semantics. Should read some Wittgenstein and other philosophers. It think it’s a science underestimated. However, I think it could be of a huge importance.

Now, on my to do list.

1. Rewrite “messy conclusions” (ie define “crusades”)
2. arthur’s comments on the suez crisis : the last time the US did not intervene.
3. crazy’s comments on the monroe-doctrine
4. spelling
5. Filter out the sarcasm 😉

Yes, it is the answer I was looking for. That’s the problem with the whole neo-conservative idea, they want to bring in “common values” like anti-abortion, prohibition on gay marriages … I’m not saying all Americans are leftists, but if you want to keep such a huge country together you must be liberal, not in the “left vs right” meaning of the word, but a neutral definition. Adding values, wheter they be right or leftwing, are necessairy on the level of your own community, your family etc, but should not be controlled by a gov’t.

You should sepperate negative rights with values. The fact that you have the right to live means nobody may kill you. Negative rights, Political Rights and even social rights are necessairy! However, seems like these neo-cons care more about values than rights.

A state which puts too much pressure on values will always collapse. Look at the Third Reich. Especially for a multi-ethnical state like the US liberalism is the fundament of society. I don’t think the US will collapse though, I think (and hope) those neo-cons will simply lose support. They put, as hamburgerguy said, too much pressure on the Republican Party. The Republicans are not only right wing gun waving NRA lunatics. For christ’s sake, they were the ones who abolished slavery. What gives the neo-cons the right to call the republican party “conservative” and Democrats “liberals”. That’s BS. From my experience with Americans, they are not so different from Europeans. As much as you are not all low IQ cowboys, we are no stinking surrender monkees either. The political system is slightly different, but I think we both believe in “liberalism”.
And here’s one principle I do share with neo-cons: all countries should have the right to have a democratically elected gov’t, and that includes for example China. I would find it racist to think China can never be democratic just because of historical reasons. I was inspired for this expression by my American promotor, for whom I have great respect, eventhough he doesn’t share most of my other ideas. I can’t accept the way these neo-cons want to achieve this, by military actions or even by supporting rebels through military aid. Germany and Japan showed us countries can get democratic if handled the right way.

Ben,

good luck tmrw

Ben

OK soc i though you said US was plural, sorry. 🙂

For starters, here’s a few grammatical errors.

“During the nineteenth century and even at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States were not even considered to be a state of any influence.”

Should be …was not considered to be…, not were. United States, when used as the name of the nation, is singular.

“Due the Monroe-doctrine, the US and Europe tried to stay out of each other’s business.”

Should be: Due to the…

“And the Monroe-doctrine and I quote, said”

Try this: The Monroe Doctrine states… Writing in the first person is usually frowned upon in school, at least that’s been my experience.

“Not only popular among the military, also politicians were intrigued by it.”

Not only was it a popular work among the military, but politicians were also intrigued by it.

“George Lucas didn’t lose a cent due a boycott of the European public.”

Should be …due to a…

If you want me to give it a really thorough grammatical going-over, feel free to e-mail it to me. Due to the length it’ll be easier to comment on it that way, I can send it back with corrections and comments in red so you can see them (and ignore them if you want 😀 ).

And I agree with nirav, I vote for Vodka as well :diablo:

Thanks SOC, but Colonial Bird is already doing the grammar and spelling stuff. But as expected, long constructions are a bit more difficult. However, I can’t really write 12 pages using sentences of only 6 words 🙂

Glad you like it Captain McAllistair :diablo: On the Monroe-doctrine. I heard that the RN seized US ships and the crew had to work on RN vessels. Is that true? Even after 1776 and formal US independence? Some kind of modern slavery.

The US never really set foot on China, did they? (correct me if I’m wrong). I only know the treaty of Portsmouth after the Russian japanese war of 1904-5. And John Hay’s open door policy, which meant all countries should have equal trading rights concerning China.

I am going to check out the Barbie coast stuff. But I don’t want to exceed my 12 pages. The full book will be on sale next year via this website :diablo: (20 dollar’s extra for a version with an autograph).

Ohh and one more thing, SOC. Now this can be BS, but somewhere I heard the “United States” is singular! Yes, sounds stupid to me, but it had to do with the fact that after the Civil War the united STATES became the “United States”, one country. BS? And I know GWB is not the best speller, but doesn’t he always say: the US is … instead of are? Yarggg

Thanks Arthur. You’re right on some aspects ofcourse.

1. On the democracy-thing. It was not my intention to analyse democracy itself, that would probably take years and years. I want to see where the “rhetoric” use of this word is originated, back in WWI and II. Why aren’t Balkenende or Verhofstad using the same words.

2. You’re right on the issue of nation-building. I am going to change that because your arguments is more correct. Again, you’re right on the Monroe-Docrine, it was the RN who made this possible. Should I add to this the “free-riding” the US made use of? (to rely on British naval power).

3. Right again on Portuguese and Spanish de-colonisation. I knew that but didn’t want to get into details because I have a maximum of 12 pages!

I found out I should read again my conclusions because they are sometimes messy. I came up with the right info and than my lazyness overwon my ability to write a clear conclusion.

4. With the Soviet Intervention, do you mean the one at the end of WWI?

5. Your opinion of Suez-crisis is interresting, and refreshing. What you say is true, however, I will refrain from using the word “neo-colonialism”, because that would place me in a rather difficult position, as I have tried to prove US politics was not about colonialism (but “nation-building”).

6. The crusades. Well, the fact that it disgusts you backs my argument. I probably didn’t write it down that well, but what I wanted to say is the different meaning of the word in Eur and US, it’s about semantics! We think a crusade for democracy is disgusting, because we immediatelly make a connection with the middle ages.

Generally I found out my knowledge on 20th century American politics is really ****e. My field is more pre-WWI imperialism in Europe. I’m no political scientist either. I should have read more when I had the time, but you know the saying : men is jong en men wilt wat (or men is wild en jongt wat :diablo: )

Ohh the professor is named Arthur Waldron btw. He wrote several books on Chinese history. he’s a professor at the naval war college and university of pennsylvania. He’s a neo-conservative too 😀 at least that’s what I read after typing his name on google.

about that it was updated. The holy roman empire doesn’t exist anymore, it’s germany now! 😀