My arguments with American apologists.
I have decided today not to waste my time rehashing the same arguments with people I call "American apolgists". I define "American apolgists" as Americans who apologize and justify Americas history of oppression and mass murder of millions of non-Americans in Americas history. I am not going to argue with these apologists anymore because their arguments are unoriginal and repetitive.*
Instead, those who disagree with me can read some of my articles and some of my past arugments with American apologists. If after reading my arguments, you can come up with a novel argument which has not been rehased between myself and other apologists, please share it. If it is not suffiecent new, and if I havent heard if a million times before, please forgive me if I completly ignore you.
Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history (Bennett vs. Chomsky)
Argument 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Empire_%28term%29#Nhprman.27s_contibutions
Argument 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreatGatsby#Re:_your_comments_with_TDC
* Why are American apologies so unoriginal and repetitive?
Americans who apologize for their country are unoriginal and repetitive because the idea that "America is the beacon of freedom and democracy" is so contrary to actual America history, that only those Americans who never think outside of the box and never question the ideology they grew up with would have such views. Only those who are accustomed to repeating truisms and not seriously questioning their country would have such beliefs that "America is the beacon of freedom and democracy" in the first place. If there are no questions about American history in the first place, then there are not going to be very many original answers.