wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] David Stoler from Wanaque, NJ May 22, 2007 - 11:38AM

  Is it possible that the increased giving away of government function (and responsibility) is

  correlated by a decrease in competance of the people moving into government? Consider the present moment as example.

  
  
• [2] Nat Johnson from New York May 22, 2007 - 11:40AM

  American armies moved into Haiti, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Philippines in the early part of the last century. Sounds like the expanison of the country to me. We choose to keep only Puerto Rico.

  But we still control these countries.

  
  
• [3] JoshL May 22, 2007 - 11:45AM

  US as Roman Empire?

  A bit grandiose -- most or all countries think they are the center of the world -- called parochialism.

  If the US gave foreign aid at 1 or 2 percent GDP as do some other civilized countries there might be a bit more to there upon which to reflect.

  It's like when one hears a country/town/city called "Unique."

  
  
• [4] Hernando Gutiérrez from Jackson Heights, NY May 22, 2007 - 12:09PM

  The American Empire is indeed an aggressive militaristic entity.

  1)We have a dismaying 737 army bases stationed in 130 countries around the world. We've got over 90% of the globe covered.

  2)US total military budget is LARGER than that of ALL the world's countries combined.

  3) There has been at least 100 years of international expasionism in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia.

  Are we American DILUSSIONAL MORONS to think that we are so exceptional?

  AL PAN, PAN y al VINO, VINO.

  
  
• [5] Jaime Gonzalez from New York May 22, 2007 - 12:24PM

  For your consideration......

  Empires seek resources through military and political means. In the process, they influence and define the conditions that evolve in those territories.

  In light of the escalating/venomous scapegoating of Latino immigrants, it's appropriate to identify another "inconvenient truth" about empires and immigration.

  The current debate over "comprehensive immigration reform" has covered the enforcement and incentive component of undocumented immigration, but it has ignored the root cause or catalyst for this exodus from Latin America to the "promised land".

  While we are tagged as "illegals" nobody has had the knowledge or courage to speak of the illegal activity that the US has conducted in Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine to acquire and maintain access to cheap natural resources (oil, etc.) and labor.

  The premise and parameters of the current debate over immigration have been artificially and conveniently limited to abstain from shedding light on the role that both parties have played in supporting a foreign policy that has supported repressive regimes in Latin America that have ensured access to resources for US corporations.

  These "friendly" governments have provided access for US interest at the expense of the native workforce.....a workforce which has been exploited through repression, violence and political corruption....a workforce which seeks to escape these conditions much as the black slaves of the US escaped north and south.

  I'm disappointed that neither the progressive mainstream nor the Latino political class has had the knowledge or courage to deflect the venomous attack on Latino immigrants towards the culprits of the conditions that catalyze immigration from Latin America to the US, Latin America repressive regimes and their cronies in the US.

  You've always struck me as someone that had the courage to speak when you had reliable knowledge......there are reliable resources that document the relationship between US interests and repressive governments in Latin America that generate most of the immigrants.

  (Mexico, El Salvador, etc.)

  Should your production team need referrals to these resources...don't hesitate to let me know.

  Jaime Gonzalez,

  PS

  In 1968 (as a 6 year old) I accompanied my father and uncle to a demonstration in Mexico City and witnessed part of the massacre of Tlatelolco when Nixon insisted that the student movement be "dealt with" prior to the Olympics.....

  
  
• [6] Ken Mack from NY May 25, 2007 - 02:00PM

  I listen to your guest and callers talk about rome.first rome did not rule the world.there were other superpowers in the late ancient world at that time.kush in nubia was a superpower in east africa.it was a major african civilization and was more advanced than egypt and rome.

  In fact the two most advanced civilizations in the ancient world was kush(nubia)later ancient nubian kingdoms in ancient times and india.science and tech. know was higher.kush in fact had a more developed writing system.it was the most advanced in the ancient world.scholars on nubia would admit it if you bring them on your show. more research is being done all the time on ancient africa and later africa.

  SOME OTHER CIVILIZATIONS in africa were more advanced than roman civilization.axum in east africa.senner in sudan,darfur,india,and maybe a few others i left out.

  there were later civilizations in africa that were more advanced than ancient nubia before modern times as well.even nubia in the middle ages was more advanced.steel was used in ancient nubia and later.nubian armies were the best in the ancient world. ROME TRIED to conquer kush but failed.THERE were later wars but nubia won the all and even raided roman areas in egypt even further.

  So it is not true that rome had no other places to conquer. they tried to conquer kush and failed.study african history and you will see the facts. thank you.

  P.S. AMERICA IS NOT THE MOST COMPLEX OR MOST ADVANCED CULTURE IN THE WORLD TODAY.

  SOUTH AFRICA IS AT LEAST ON IT'S LEVEL OR MORE ADVANCED.

  
  
• [7] Eric Cato from B'klyn May 30, 2007 - 10:55AM

  The question of whether the US is an empire or not is important, even critical, at this point in our history. How we are perceived around the world is directly impacted by policies that are seen as imperial.

  I find it curious that members of the foreign policy establishment by and large reject the idea that the US is an empire. If defined narrowly, i.e. maintaining overseas colonies, then the US may not be an empire in the classic definition, but is this an accurate definition? While the US has 4% of the world’s population, it is the world's largest consumer of many of the planet’s resources in absolute terms: oil, gas, corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, and many others. It emits almost 25% of all the CO2.

  The US defense budget is approaching 700 billion (not counting nuclear weapons which are in the Energy Dept or the Intelligence budgets which are secret) is larger than the defense budgets of the next 15 country’s combined. The US maintains over 750 military bases overseas.

  According to Steven Kinzer (a NYT reporter), the US has overthrown 14 countries in the last 110-years: (Hawaii [1893], Cuba [1898], Philippines [1898], Puerto Rico, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, South Vietnam [1959-1975], Chile [1972], Grenada [1983], Panama [1990?], Afghanistan [2001], Iraq [2003]). He asserts that there are a number of others that could be added: Iran in 1953. And this does not include meddling in the elections of many countries.

  US history, attitudes, and policies impact how we are perceived around the world; and due to declining in-depth media coverage of other countries, US citizens are generally unaware of how we are perceived by others. Add the doctrine of “preemptive war”; refusal to sign the International Court, Landmine, or Kyoto Conventions; Guantanamo; the backing of repressive authoritarian regimes over the last 60 years; Abu Ghraib; torture policy; indefinite detention; secret CIA prisons; and extraordinary rendition, and it is striking that we are puzzled by suggestions that we are an empire, or wonder “why they hate us?”