John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> I asked Eric:
>
>>> Would you make a difference between imperialism and
>>> something like the present US occupation of Iraq? If so, what
>>> difference?
>
> Kevin Gowen offered his view:
>
>> The difference is rather obvious. The military occupation is not the
>> annexing of territory. See the SCAP occupation of Japan for a good
>> example of this.
>
> This distinction appears to be lost on many of the inhabitants of the
> occupied territory itself (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/g9qf

Ah, yes. The level-headed views of anti-imperialist.org. I had no idea that
you were a comedian.

> or
> http://www.ahram-eg.com/weekly/2003/645/re15.htm),

Ah, yes. The level-headed views of Al-Ahram Weekly. I had no idea that you
were a comedian.

It least is points out that it is an occupation under a UNSC resolution. I
guess that means that the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY is behind it. So, is this
UN imperialism?

> as well as on
> dissenting minorities in the US
> (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/plun-a08.shtml).

Ah, yes. The level-headed views of the World Socialist Website. I had no
idea that you were a comedian.

> To them,

By "them", I presume you mean the nutjobs you have actually cited to me with
a straight face?

> the jobs for the boys and appropriation of resources look
> depressingly like business as usual in the old game of
> empire-building.

What resources have been appropriated?

> I can quite see that the explanation that it looks like imperialism,
> acts like imperialism but isn't *actually* imperialism because,

Um, how does it look like imperialism? The only way it looks like
imperialism is if you define imperialism as "the USA acting in its
interests".

> no
> matter how it treats people, property and resources,

Please tell me how people, property, and resources are being treated, but
don't waste my time with the World Socialist Website et al.

> it doesn't
> actually annexe the land, is just the kind of thing Kevin with his
> (how can I put this nicely?) precise legal mind would lap up, and of
> course his views on this, as on other matters, are fascinating. ;-)

I likewise find a person who considers anti-imperialist.org to be a
legitimate news source to be quite ludicrous.

> However, I was putting the question to Eric.

Very well. Then why are you talking to me? Remember what Ryan said about a
reply not always being necessary?

> Since he is the one who
> considers all imperialism evil I am interested to know whether, in
> *his* view, that includes recent actions by the United States or
> whether, like Kevin, he buys into the notion that, on the grounds of
> some technicality, such actions cannot be classed as imperialistic.

What's all this talk about technicalities? You've not made a case for your
argument. All you did was cite three websites that would be hilarious if
they weren't so pathetic.

> Once again, though, Kevin, thanks for playing.

Once again, I do not play. People rarely challenge me because I always win.

> As I say, fascinating
> as always!

You seem to be a lover of the word "fascinating". I think that word does not
mean what you think it means, or you are simply an easily fascinated person.

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"The US economy accounts for about one-third of global GDP-greater than
the next four countries combined (Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom
and France)."
- "Advancing the National Interest: Australia's Foreign and Trade
Policy White Paper", Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade