Serious question for all

[whosinpower]

OK, now we are pretty much assured that the invasion into Iraq was instigated on false premises - that is WMD. If you follow that line of reasoning, you must be assured that Iraq really was no threat to the US. And in terms of resolution 1441, if the US has not found any WMD, then by all appearances, Saddam DID comply, and the US simply refused to believe him.

I can come up with no other reason for the invasion other than geopolitical. US control of one of the worlds richest oilfields. I know, Iraqi's own the oil - sure, but the US controls the spigot. They control who Iraq sells that oil to and at what price. And we must also recognize that freedom, liberty and democracy in Iraq are rather empty words. If the US "vets" every single Iraqi name on the ballot, and has American minders in every single department within the Iraqi government (why else have the largest embassy in the planet) we can hardly state that Iraqi's have their own soveriegnty. (post elections) I think it is time that the Bush administration admit to Americans that Iraq is a client state.

OK - here is my question(took awhile to get to it :-))
Do you support the notion of the USA as an empire?

[skooooo]

1. Hell no.

[whosinpower]

2. Because........

Reasons why not?

[skooooo]

4. Because ...

...empire building is wrong. It's exploitative and counters the notion of democracy and other ideals this country was founded on.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

12. Look at the success of others who tried to build empires

Hitler comes to mind. Also, the Romans. You impoverish your population with taxes and destroy the home economy. Them you crumble from within.

[strategery blunder]

3. Unequivocally, no.

Shoving Florida-style democracy down other countries' throats at the barrel of a gun does not appeal to me. :puke:

[MAlibdem]

5. Depends what you mean.

I support Nation-building and democracy-building.

[freetobegay]

6. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: em·pire
Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion.

Any questions?

[Jacobin]

7. No. They don't work well in the long run, apart from the brutality

involved in conquest and repression.

Pax Americana....I vote NO.

[judy]

8. Absolutely not!

Because History shows that all Empires have fallen, from Alexander to the British Empire, not to forget Napoleon, Julius Caesar and the 3rd Reich.
They all have fallen with disastrous consequences for them and the people they subjugated in the process.

Because there is NO REASON for one people to be termed superior to another, just because they have more weapons. Dreams of Empire deny the basic diversity, uniqueness of human beings, and treat them as commodities. Empires are the result of greed and narrow thinking. Empire, like ill acquired wealth never brings happiness to the conquerors.

On top of it all, in the Empire itself, for the brief moment when the Empire is successful, only the oligarchy in charge really profits from it. The price paid for the maintenance of the Empire is usually blood from the middle and lower middle classes.

Who, in their right minds would possibly want that ???

[demnan]

9. Stick around

once you get to know us you'll be able to ask questions about we might disagree on. ;-)

[MrSlayer]

10. No, not as an Empire.

How about concentrating on our own country before setting out to "fix" others?

[coltman]

11. My thoughts

I think the USA already had empire after WWII(not quit world empire)that we enforced or controled with the almighty dollar.America's thirst for oil/and the oil cartels, combined with Saddem switching to the Euro threatened our assencion to world empire.

[terrya]

13. Of course the United States is an empire.

We stride the world like a colossus. Our military is the most powerful in the history of mankind. We have massive, overwhelming military superiority.

The leadership in the White House and the Pentagon fully believe in the idea of empire building. My God, we've established it as our foreign policy...the "Bush Doctrine", if you will. The right to invade any country...if we think it's in our interest.

This era is similar to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. The United States annexed the Philiipines, Cuba, Hawaii, Panama. We were an empire then. And we're certainly an empire now.

History is cyclical, they say. Empires rise and fall. My question...will we ever see the fall of the American empire? I certainly hope so. With empires comes arrogance. And the biblical injunction holds true...pride goeth before the fall.

Terry

[librechik]

14. every time we turn back the clock

we forget the lessons of history.

Empires are a really bad way to run the globe economy. They're brutal and exploitive, wasteful because so much of the money goes to graft rather than services, the income is distrubuted unfairly, and eventually people get fed up being treated like that and they rise up and kill you. After the fall of the British Empire I really thought we had learned our lesson. The rest of the world lknows not to do that anymore. But we got stuck with a bunch of power mad zealots who could care less how many people they grind under their wheels.

It would be so much more economical and expediant to try and get what we want without imperialism and war. We were almost there, and then the pirates took over the ship.

Damn I wish we would mutinee and get rid of these a holes.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Also: Military basing as "jumping off point" into the rest of the Middle

East.

Also: domestic political advantage--wedge "Republican" issue (war/jingoistic patriotistm) to flog the midterm congressional campaign and pump up shrub's stature going into this fall. Remember, shrub had crappo economy and nothing but corporate scandals in the news when the "WMD threat" suddenly spun out of virtually thin air.

And, NO I do not support the notion of US as empire. Empire goes against the core principles of democracy: transparency, accountability to voters etc. The Bush administration obviously prefers monarchy with democratic window dressing. Empires can order armies of conscripts to fight and die for their territory and gold, with the threat of execution or torture to reinforce against disobedience by the troops. "Democracies" can't do this without shedding every last vestige of a free society (which we are doing quite rapidly, both on the continent and in places like Guantanamo). Bush has taken advantage of the remnants of a free democratic society like the all volunteer military and reserves, and has expended this capital rapidly and ruthlessly.

For the life of me, I don't get why we rarely if ever see the notion of "handoff to Iraqi sovereignty" challenged.

It's really quite simple. If the "sovereign" government is US handpicked, and run from the big new embassy compound, and it has been preordained that it will allow US military bases and whatever military presence we choose, etc., then it is clearly a "puppet" government and no sovereignty at all. That was only one long sentence, not that hard really. I don't know why you never see this discussed on news shows. The "handoff" is clearly a pre (US) election stunt to make it look like shrub is getting us out of Iraq when clearly there is no such intent. It would defeat the whole purpose of going there and securing our chunk of empire in the first place. All the considerable political risk incurred by Bush would be for no gain if the Iraq were just left to the fate chosen by its own people.

The fact that this JUN 30 date is only 2 months away and WHO this government is is unknown makes the "puppet" nature quite clear. It doesn't really matter who we stick in the jobs, it will still be run from the embassy.

Clearly there can be no US military pullout with the puppet government. As it will have no legitimacy it would be overrun and slaughtered immediately without the US military presence. So teenage Americans from Georgia will still have to be the centurions for Bush's empire.

[BeFree]

18. I understand what you are saying

That a puppet regime will be installed.

However, methinks the puppets will turn quickly. They will turn to the Iraqi people's wishes and ask the US to leave.

Whether or not we do follow their wishes will be the telling point. At the very least, when the "exit, please" statement is issued, we, here, will gain in force and with our "bring them home now" voices ringing loud and clear, we may just succeed in ending the occupation.
Peace, what a concept.

[many a good man]

16. Do I support the notion that the sky is blue?

The whole front-page controversy is, in my opinion, not only diversionary but a real tribute to the success of indoctrination. There is a simple point that seems obvious to Iraqis, but is unmentionable here in the mainstream: the conquest of Iraq, if successful, is a tremendous achievement for US power.

Noam Chomsky at April 13, 2004 11:04 AM

[aquart]

17. Incredibly stupid idea based on horribly misinformed history.

The Pax Romana wasn't as pax as the Romans would have you think. And ANYONE can build a good road today.

Now, if you like the idea of subject nations in which we kill anyone who sticks his head up, well, George WANTS YOU.

He won't pay you, but he wants you.

Empire is old. OLD. There are reasons we don't have them anymore.

For one thing, subject nations, like America, learned that nobody knows a land like the people who live there. And all the mercenaries you can afford and then some won't make up for it.

There are no empires now because subject peoples won't sit still for it.

Stay or go, America has been revealed as a paper tiger. We CAN'T fight a war of aggression unless we are willing to scorch the earth. I mean forty million dead in the Middle East. We can do that. But we can't take and hold it on the ground. And we are idiots for trying.

Now everyone on earth knows how to get us. Stay or go. We ain't a superpower anymore.

Thanks, George.

[aquart]

20. Another reason we don't have empires anymore:

A stiff bribe and a sweetheart contract are sooooooo much cheaper.

[doni_georgia]

19. Iraq changed to Euro for oil currency the day before 2000 election

<<<I know, Iraqi's own the oil - sure, but the US controls the spigot. They control who Iraq sells that oil to and at what price.>>>

This was one of the stories that won an award for most censored news stories. First thing we did when we got control of the oil was switch back to the dollar for oil transactions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5949.htm

[T Bone]

21. No to empire, No to installing client states in the ME

Iraq is not a democracy on June 30th. Number 1 reason? NO LEGISLATIVE branch. This is such a joke.

Jr. gets a chance to build a democracy and he builds it WITHOUT a legislature ? So Jrs. wet dream of a democracy is that it doesn't include a legislature ? What a joke. And the most telling sign that it IS a client state he is building.

Now want to hear something really scary? If Kerry is elected I think the Bush Family will still effectively control Iraq. What little control there is to be had there. I think they are setting up a state their now that they can control as corporate/cia/bfee fiefdom.