Liberals are just fine with U.S. global imperialism as long as it's Democrats doing it.

[scarletwoman]

This is what I've learned on DU.

sw

[Doctor_J]

1. hmm...DU has been around only since 2001. Dems haven't been in charge

of ANY foreign policy decisions since 1999 or before.

what the hell are you talking about?

[scarletwoman]

3. Right. Because no Dem Congresspersons voted for the IWR.

To be honest, I'm reacting to a post about what a good choice for S.o.S. Hillary Clinton would be, since Bill Clinton's foreign policy was so wonderful.

My own take on the history I've personally lived through -- being 59 years old -- is that the U.S. has been a terrorist state since the end of WWII. And every apologist for dropping bombs on other countries since the end of WWII, for whatever hyped up reason, makes me sick.

So when "liberals" laud the Clinton adminstration for its foreign policy, it brings home the fact that "liberals" don't fundamentally object to U.S. imperialism, they merely object to it being carried out by Republicans.

sw

[CAG]

19. Equating Clinton's foreign policy to the republicans foreign policy....

wow, hey, did you also discover how to mix water with oil?

[Odin2005]

27. Tell that to the Bosnians. I dare you. n/t.

:puke:

[Whisp]

30. 8 long years of Clinton bombing and sanctions weakened Iraq for

the other Gorge to come take over.

It's so obvious, and hidden.

[Occam Bandage]

34. The Clinton policy did not in any way make it easier for George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

If anything, it ended up making things much worse for Bush, since Iraq was a poorer, angrier country than it otherwise would have been.

[Whisp]

39. nah, bombing water treatment plants, etc.

read The Shock Doctrine, Noami Klein.
how people who are devastated with hardships just aren't very strong. duh.

[Occam Bandage]

46. I have, and Klein is an idiot who believes

she's a genius because she noticed war profiteering about two centuries after everyone else did.

That said, the fact that you look at Iraq and think, "Yes, it sure looks to me like the utter lack of public services has caused this nation to be more stable," leaves me as breathless as it does speechless. A weakened people are far more likely to support radicalism, factionalism, and local militias than they are to support a fledgling central government.

[Odin2005]

48. I agree with you opinion on Naomi Klein.

n/t.

[Whisp]

60. so I take it war profiteering is alrighty with you.. okey dokey.

why not send your check direct to Halliburton, attn: Dick Cheney

[Occam Bandage]

65. I'd offer a substantive reply, but it's pretty clear that you're incapable of parsing

English writing. I mean, just now, you saw the words "war profiteering," saw that I was in some way disagreeing with you, and were only able to come to the conclusion that I was approving of war profiteering, despite that being absolutely and entirely unrelated to anything in my post.

Why bother responding? I could have deeper conversations with an ELIZA program.

[Whisp]

93. have at it then.

[Diamonique]

2. WTF?!

[scarletwoman]

4. Read my post right above yours. If you have further questions, please ask. (nt)

[hulka38]

5. Drawing a sweeping and very wrong conclusion like that from a post on this board is curious.

Unless you're bored and just trying to stir things up.

[scarletwoman]

8. Oh, it's not just from a single post. I've been on DU for over 7 years.

Certain trends become rather obvious after awhile.

I'm not bored. I very rarely start threads -- however, every once in awhile I just find it unbearable not to speak out.

The main reason I start so few threads is that I already know that I'm an outlier here, and I'm not all that interested in starting major arguments with otherwise good-hearted people who simply do not get where I'm coming from.

And once in awhile, I just can't stand it. The crap just gets unbearably (to me) deep and I feel like saying something.

In seven-plus years I've seen a lot of people posting for much less...

sw

[Diamonique]

6. Imperialism?

I see the attempt at it in Bush's Iraq fuck-up. But I don't see it happening ever since WWII. Of course I could just be very lax in my knowledge.

Was VietNam an attempt at imperialism? Was Somalia? I just don't see it the same way you do I guess.

[scarletwoman]

10. Whoaa. If you have to ask about Vietnam... wow. I don't even know what to say.

Sorry.

Peace,
sw

[Odin2005]

32. Vietnam was a fuck-up resulting from a paranoid foriegn policy based on...

...The "domino theory" rubbish.

[scarletwoman]

35. It was part of a deliberate policy to sabotage any effort to achieve sovereign socialist development

in any region of the globe.

Capitalism brooks no rival economic system, period.

sw

[Odin2005]

43. More like we got stuck with the crap caused by France's colonialist policies.

And we stupidly drove Ho-Chi Minh, who originally liked us, into the hands of the commies because we didn't want to tick off our French allies ("allies" that were yelling paranoid BS about independence movements being communist front groups. :banghead: ).

[Posteritatis]

54. I think that's what Odin said, in slightly different words. ;) (nt)

[Odin2005]

59. Yeah, pretty much, I just prefer to avoid the loaded, Marxist-ish language often used.

Such annoying language muddles things up and oversimplifies complex situations into screeds about "evil Western Capitalists."

[Solon]

11. I don't know if Imperialism is the right word, but a type of dominance through intefering with...

internal politics of nations has been U.S. policy since the end of WWII. Whether it was the ballot stuffing that occurred in Italy soon after WWII, to prevent Communists from winning the election(not to mention the bombings that were blamed on Communists, etc.)

Or it could be examples such as the overthrowing of elected leaders in other nations, funding and arming insurgency groups within nations, and/or invading those nations with our own armed forces. Dozens of nations have fallen victim to this very practice. I don't know if I would call it imperialism in the classic sense, but it is violent and aggressive.

[stillcool]

7. I'm not sure we have to worry about..

U.S. Global Imperialism too much longer. I'd love to see what the chess board looks like these days.

[AtomicKitten]

9. I'm not, however, it doesn't make much sense to react to a policy we haven't seen yet.

I was really interested in the woman on Rachel's show tonight that talked about the possibility of putting bad ideas into the hands of people that know the levers of government. That is of concern. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to wait and see what Obama does. If he uses questionable people as instruments to do what he wants, I could live with that. His foreign policy ideas scare me less than that of the DLC/GOP/PNAC variety.

[scarletwoman]

12. "His foreign policy ideas scare me less than that of the DLC/GOP/PNAC variety." Okay.

The big question is whether he's really going to choose HRC for Sec. of State. Because she IS part of the "DLC/GOP/PNAC" school of foreign policy.

And, no matter what, I have a BIG problem with Obama's oft-professed willingness to bomb "targets" in Pakistan.

sw

[AtomicKitten]

17. I have my concerns, but I think I'll wait until I see his policy before judging it prematurely.

[scarletwoman]

20. I'm with you. But look at all the DUers who are quite thrilled with the prospect.

I like Obama, I really do. But I also know that no matter who is President, the Shadow Government of the military/financial/corporate-globalist interests will do all they can to have their way.

The question is, then, can he resist their pressures? If he picks Clinton, it looks to me like he's already succumbing. It makes me very sad -- but not terribly surprised.

But what I'm talking about in my OP are the ordinary people who aren't the least perturbed by the idea of carrying on the agenda of the Shadow Government, as long as our guy is the front man.

I just happen to think that's fucked up.

Peace,
sw

[AtomicKitten]

31. I hope he is who I think he is.

Junior has further fouled the swamp in D.C. with his distortion of executive power, misuse of government, umbilical cords to lobbyists, and abuse of signing statements and executive orders.

Having read his books, I suspect Obama will carve his own path. Only a new path will do and people should demand that of government. That's what I voted for.

Cheers.

[Occam Bandage]

13. I am OUTRAGED that Obama would even CONSIDER

not completely and totally reversing ninety years of American foreign policy before he even takes office!!! I DEMAND UTTER ISOLATION IMMEDIATELY!!!

[scarletwoman]

16. Give me a break, OB. I'm talking about what the unwashed masses are willing to rationalize

and excuse, as long as it's one their own that does it.

I was never under any illusion that Obama was going to be anything other than an exceptionally competent manager for the Imperium.

What I find fascinating is how what passes for "the left" in this country can muster such a passionate defense of militarism and agression when it comes from "our" side.

sw

[Occam Bandage]

22. Well, yeah. The normal looks outrageous when your enemies prosper from it,

and heroic when your allies do so. The globalized economy is supported on ever-expanding environmental destruction providing a steady and growing supply of resources, cascading industrial revolutions providing a steady and growing supply of cheap labor, and mass consumption providing a steady and growing supply of demand. That system is protected by the global aegis provided in large part by the United States Armed Forces, who inherited the job from Her Majesty's Royal Navy. People who play along get richer, and people who don't get shot. Ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life goes on.

I don't particularly like it. At the same time, I don't see a realistic alternative. Launching major changes to the global order would be like playing Jenga blindfolded. I'm not going to get horribly upset if Obama doesn't announce that he's single-handedly going to remake the world in his own image; most attempts to do so haven't gone well.

[scarletwoman]

33. I'm with you -- I'm just taking it a bit farther, I think.

I certainly don't expect Obama to "single-handedly going to remake the world in his own image", that's an absurd notion on the face of it.

In order for the "global order" to evolve beyond its current state it will take the collective effort of people of conscience demanding an end to the militarist/dominance paradigm.

What I was trying to say in my OP is that there seems to be far too little questioning of this paradigm now that "our" side is in charge of it.

sw

[Occam Bandage]

42. I admit I was being perhaps a bit unfair to your position there,

though that would depend on what we believe to constitute a single-handed remaking. Still, I fear further discussion of that would spin off into the horrors of semantic bickering, so with your permission, we'll just leave that as a disputed border and move along.

And while I dislike sounding like a bitter old man (heck, I'm barely 1/3 of that), I don't really think that collective demands for the paradigm's ending will solve a whole heck of a lot. I think it's the sort of problem that's too big to fix outright, and too complex to guide. I'd question how much of what you're seeing is approval and how much is simple acceptance.

[scarletwoman]

53. Thank you, not-so-old man. (I'm a cranky 59-year old woman)

See, what you said in your very last sentence is what really bothers me. That "acceptance" thing.

Where is the line between "acceptance" and "acquiesence" and "enabling"? I'm in this place where I find U.S. foreign unacceptable, and at the same time I recognize that there's little I can do about it. The one thing I feel like I CAN do is to keep on insisting that what I find to be "unacceptable" IS unacceptable.

And then post my barely coherent objections to the acceptance of the unacceptable.

Oh well...

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

58. And that's one of the major fault lines in DU nowadays.

We can, I hope, more-or-less all agree on most policy issues. Health care (including abortion) and marriage should be universal rights. The government should support science. Taxes should be progressive. Our energy and economic policies should be sustainable. And we should quit Iraq.

However, most of us recognize that we simply cannot bring all of that to fruition immediately, especially in the middle of an economic downturn/crisis/collapse. And so each of us has to decide to what extent we'll accept deferring dreams, and to what extent we won't--and what acceptance and non-acceptance mean regarding actions taken going forward.

To people who accept on a given issue, the non-acceptors look short-sighted, whiny, purist, and quick to complain. To people who refuse to accept, the acceptors look as if they're shallow cretins happy to betray values and people for political gain.

I imagine the next four to eight years will continue very much as the past two weeks have. Oh well.

Thanks for the thread. It's been good conversations all around. Usually OPs as accusatory as yours devolve into flamewars. I'm proud of DU tonight.

[scarletwoman]

64. Thank you again. "Oh well", indeed.

I didn't set out to start a flamewar, it's really not my thing. But I will admit that I wanted to push people a bit.

I've spent most of my adult life being horrified by the actions of my government when it comes to the rest of the planet. I didn't march against the Vietnam war in the 60s just to give in to the military/corporatist machine 4 decades later.

I don't have answers, just some sense that a different way is possible. What disturbs me is seeing people accepting what is, and stopping there.

What I wish is that everyone who thinks of themselves as "liberal" would apply their creativity and brainpower to finding a way OUT of militarism and imperialism toward a more evolved relationship with the rest of the world -- as opposed to simply "accepting" that this is the way it is.

I hope I'm making sense... a little bit, at least...

sw

[Odin2005]

76. Call me cynical, but based on my understanding of human nature war will always be with us, sadly.

There are only 2 species on earth that engage in what could be called "warfare," chimps and us. When I first read about how chimps basically massacre neighboring troops and take over their territory and resources the similarities with warfare in human societies horrified me and left me depressed. :cry:

[scarletwoman]

81. But how many Beethovens and Ghandis have chimps produced?

Humans are demonstrably capable of functioning at a more enlightened level of perception and interaction. The trick is, how do we move collective human society to the level of development that we already know indivdual humans are capable of?

We DON'T do it by giving in to our baser impulses. Each individual person has a responsibility to raise their own level of consciousness. As a silly idealist, it is my hope that a critical mass of raised-consciousness individuals will eventually make for a more enlightened collective society.

:)

[Odin2005]

86. That is very true.

IMO the problem seems to be that throughout history "national self determination" and geopolitical stability appear to be mutually exclusive, you either have a bunch of states constantly at war with each other (Ancient Greece, Early Modern Europe, Classical China, Classical India, etc) or there is a hegemonic power that maintains geopolitical stability through military force (post-WW2 US, Rome, China most of the time, Babylonia and Assyria, Ancient Persia, the Incan Empire, etc.).

The pacifism of post-WW2 Europe, which I know will be brought up as evidence that humanity is "moving beyond war," only exists because of the post-war "Pax Americana," were it not for the US's position of hegemony over the rest of Western Civilization things in Europe would revert back to "Business as Usual."

I honestly don't know what the answer is besides a global government. *sigh*

[hulka38]

14. The 800 lb gorilla is 500 lbs and shrinking. The soft power is gone along with our credibility.

That was where the real power of this country was post WWII. The economic power is going down the tubes along with this supply side model of capitalism. And military power of this kind can't be sustained for long without the super powered economy.

[L0oniX]

15. Bull shit. I am a liberal and I totally anti American imperialism.

[Odin2005]

18. Since when does Wilsonian Liberal Interventionism automatically equal Imperialism?

:eyes:

I am a Wilsonian and damn god-damn proud of it. If it was up to me we would have NATO troops in Sudan and Congo as well as hauling Robert Mugabe's ass to The Hague.

[scarletwoman]

23. Thank you for making my point.

Obviously, you don't find anything untoward about the U.S. government assuming that it has some sort of right (why? how? granted by whom?) to order the rest of the world to our specifications.

sw

[Odin2005]

25. It's pretty damn obvious, for example, that the folks in Zimbabwe want Mugabe done away with.

If we ask the opposition in Zimbabwe if they want us to help them get rid of the Mugabe regime and they say yes WTF is the problem?

The government of Sudan engages in genocide against it's own people, the international community has a moral duty to stop it. If China uses it's veto on the UNSC to coddle that murderous regime we need to go in ourselves.

[scarletwoman]

37. Who supplies the weapons to these despots?

Answer that.

[Odin2005]

40. In the case of Sudan and, IIRC, Zimbabwe, the answer is spelled C H I N A...

You know the fascist state that keeps using it's veto when the international community tries to use the UN to fix the problem...

[scarletwoman]

41. Yes, our "most favored nation" trading partner.

Committing genocide and cultural genocide in Tibet since 1959.

But the Cuba embargo still stands, and good liberals will curse Castro (and Chavez, for good measure) on cue.

[Occam Bandage]

45. Surely you don't believe that

revoking normal trade relations would induce China's government to act as a responsible world citizen. I think history has shown quite the opposite, actually.

[Occam Bandage]

28. Well, it all depends on where you believe such a right to determination exists.

If you believe it exists inalienably at the level of the state--and that certainly seems to be the default case--then nonintervention is the only correct answer. However, that theory is based on arbitrary and unfair assumptions as well, as it dictates that governments have the de facto right to abuse their people without fear of consequence. Genocides become a sacrosanct internal affair. Occupations and annexations are ipso facto legal.

If you decide that determination exists, then, at the level of a people, then genocide and occupation are back in the "bad thing that needs corrected" category where I (and most people, I think) believe they belong. Unfortunately, we're left with the mess of questions we have in the current world order. When does an ethnic minority in an oppressive government deserve independence? How does it attain that? When a people are oppressed and lack the ability to rebel, who will save them, and when, and how?

Wilsonian intervention says that it can and must be done by whoever is able to do so. However, while that works great if the interventionary power is benevolent and just (and its targeted foe is cruel and tyrannical), in practice raises a whole new mess of problems, especially when you stop being a mental child and the world stops being composed of heroes and villains. Bad answers to those questions can give us a foreign policy like the past eight years'.

[Posteritatis]

49. Whether state-level determination is where it's staying is up for debate lately

(Thanks for bringing this up, by the way - thinking about stuff like this has been just at the back of my head out of reach for days. Had that annoying "there's something on my mind and I can't quite place it" feeling, and your post knocked it loose.)

You're seeing more and more countries signing onto ideas like the Responsibility to Protect, for example - which doesn't terribly bother me to say the least - or even agreeing to things like the UN charter or other international organizations in the first place. Sovereignty isn't solely nation-states' prerogative anymore; it's moving both up into the territory of international organizations and, to a lesser extent, down towards the level of the people.

We've been fiddling around with that old Westphalian model at least since the end of the Second World War, and I think it's going to take a very long time to work out all the implications of changing a fairly ancient system by diplomatic standards. There's going to be - there have been - screwups. I definitely like some aspects of it, keeping in mind how it's been almost impossible for any country to annex part or all of another since 1945 and get it recognized (Tibet, Vietnam and a few other places notwithstanding). On the other hand, it really bothers me that, as you said, things like genocide are "sacrosanct internal affairs," or simply not officially recognized because doing so brings in obligations under R2P or standing international law.

On my own take of where the determination should lie, I'm still conflicted. I think people should have as much of it as possible, but I also think there should be at least some international Hey You Asshole Stop Doing That Right Now norms with a bit more teeth than the larval ones we have in place now. I want, or at least I think I want, that sort of intervention in the world system. It needs to happen at times, and is in fact happening now and then at times in the forms of Chapter Seven operations and the like - but I also want to have some faith in such a system, with rights and obligations and laws and precedents and attitudes in place that will make it something worth believing in. That's the far more difficult part, which upsets me. We'd have to have a system in place that would work, and we'd have to have something that could work without simply being reminsicent of the bad-ism-of-the-week. There's a lot of the latter in this thread, and there should be, because the implementation's been mixed at best for awhile.

I dunno. The system as is needs to change, but I don't think it needs to be thrown out. And I don't think we need to reflexively throw out some of the alternatives floating around in both theory and practice either. A lot of the issues coming up here are going to be pretty hard to figure out and apply should they be figured out and applied, and to be honest I think that in and of itself makes them worth thinking about. I seem to recall one or two Democratic presidents, flawed though they were, having the right idea about not taking the easy or simple route.

[Occam Bandage]

63. Great post - and I feel

a kinship based on our Latin social-theory-related-quote signatures, so I'm even more favorably inclined.

The rise of international organizations has been a very positive development, of course, and the concept of the "signatory nation" beholden to a universal order is indeed an important one. Still, I think I'd actually disagree a little bit with you when you say to a lesser extent, down towards the level of the people.

While it might just be the hopeful liberal in me speaking, I think that the rise of independent non-governmental organizations is more likely to have a lasting international effect on the concept of sovereignty than voluntary (FAIAP) nation-state coalitions like the United Nations do. The problem with the international model is that nations can withdraw at will; with power monopolized by nations, a single nation can at will decide to claim sovereignty over an issue, and the rest of the world is stuck wondering whether they allow the bad actor to make a mockery of the international order, or whether an individual nation will enforce its will on the bad actor (and risk making a mockery of the international order in an entirely different way).

NGOs, on the other hand, work in an entirely different way. By focusing on individuals, and by organizing and projecting political power through individuals, they are able to direct attention to the model of individual as holder of sovereignty whether they find themselves needing to operate on the local, national, or international level. They represent political power completely removed from the concept of the state, and as such are driving a shift towards a paradigm in which the state (and the international order created by states) are guardians of sovereignty instead of sources of sovereignty.

[Odin2005]

77. I very much agree with you, excellent post!

IMO the UN Security Council is almost completely worthless.

[Posteritatis]

79. *snrk* Actually caught me there for a sec

Bastard. ;)

I'm still trying to be optimistic on the international organizations, but it's hard lately, especially when you can readily see how impotent they get if the "right" people refuse to play (*coughICCcough*), or if the "wrong" ones are in certain roles like that often-bandied Horribletyrannistan On The Commission Of Human Rights argument.

That's an interesting point on NGOs though, and I find it kinda neat that I'm reading/discussing that just as I started reading that Global Trends 2025 document, which pretty much up and says they expect NGOs to either gain influence alongside, or take some influence from, nation-states in the next few decades. I wonder if they're harder to "get away from" than the international organizations are; it's certainly easier to ban NATO or the ICC or something from your country than it is than Reporters Sans Frontieres or Wal-Mart.

So you're thinking my lesser extent might actually be a greater extent than the major international organizations, at least in the long run? (That's at least how I'm reading it through my hey-I'm-up-too-late haze; I'm at -2 to all Intelligence rolls right now.) I hadn't considered that; I thought they were significant and was certain they'd be moreso in the future, but thinking of them in the way you're describing is really interesting.

What do you have in mind when you think of the state/international order as "guardians instead of sources" of sovereignty? Did you mean they would (or might, or had better) wind up more in an enforcement/protection role in which they're hopefully actually representing what their people want and/or need? Or are you thinking something more nuanced and I'm missing it due to sleep deprivation? I'd mainly been thinking of multiple sources of sovereignty, either competing with each other or dealing with different elements of it, but it looks like you're suggestion that the state and trans-state level might potentially not be where it comes from anymore. I'd always taken it for granted, or at least hoped, that the notion would gradually move "upwards," but I think I'd pictured a similar end state to what you're describing regardless.

I think I remember reading something a few years back - I think it was in The Parliament of Man - about NGOs really starting to have their influence on the existing system at the international level rather than the national one first. The book suggested that the UN and other major international organizations, which were mostly founded for the fairly real-world purpose of preventing the next war at any cost, started picking up a lot of the development and social-justice aspects they try to have as a result of NGO and activist influence. I'm not sure if that's the case, and you're going to have me re-reading the book tomorrow when I'm sapient again.

Either way, I'm about to start taking a longer look at what NGOs might have done to/with the system over the past, and in the next, few decades, because I'm suddenly realizing I've probably been overlooking them.

*shakes the angryfist* This is all your fault!

[Juche]

38. Why do you assume that is imperalism

The people of Rwanda wanted the international community to set up peacekeepers. They begged to be evacuated and protected. A peacekeeping force in Rwanda, Yugoslavia or Sudan is not the same as the carpet bombing of civilian heavy areas of Cambodia or Vietnam.

[Odin2005]

47. And we are letting it happen again in Darfur and Eastern Congo.

The BS in Congo is being caused by rebels with connections with the people behind the Rwanda Genocide as well as groups that sprout up in reaction to those genocide people. That Congolese rebel general in the news right now is in the latter group and it is claimed he is getting support from the Rwandan government.

[Posteritatis]

52. So what should we do?

Sincere, serious question. My mind's on this topic tonight and I wanna know what people think.

[Odin2005]

56. I'll suggest a NATO peace-keeping operation similar to the one we had in Bosnia.

The people implicated in the Rwandan Genocide hiding in eastern Congo need to be caught, and brought to justice, once that happens Rwanda will have no excuse for encouraging rebel groups in Congo anymore.

[Posteritatis]

62. What's your take on other regional groups (the AU, etc)?

I'd been wondering about those, NATO, etc., as kind of an intermediate step between the countries themselves and the UN. On the one hand the capabilities are way different, but on the other I remember Dallaire speaking utterly glowingly about, say, Tunisian peacekeepers in some of the uglier parts of the Rwanda debacle.

[Odin2005]

74. IMO the African Union is simply not willing to be interventionist enough.

probably because many African leaders don't want to set a precedent that would lead to their often corrupt, authoritarian, nepotistic, pseudo-democratic regimes from being overthrown.

[Posteritatis]

80. Fair enough; I see it the same way, but I wonder if that may change over time. (nt)

[Binka]

87. You Are A Wilsonian? And Proud? Take Your Act On The Road Buddy It Is Pure Comedy.

Wilsonian Liberal Interventionism is a fucking oxymoron. Wilson was an asshole imperialistic shit. Not liberal, not intervening, just a nasty imperialistic bastard. College is wasted on you if you buy into the nonsense you have posted thus far. Really go grab an apron and ask if we want fries with that, if you believe this shit. My seven year old has more smarts.

[Odin2005]

95. BS. Had Wilson had his way after WW1 there wouldn't have been a 2nd world war.

Yes, I know Wilson wasn't an angel. He was a flawed human being who, like many otherwise good people at the time, was unfortunately, pretty racist. But dammit, he was one of the most intellectually brilliant presidents we ever had; as a professor he pretty much created political science as a discipline in the US.

[lessthanjake1234]

21. Its the US' job to pursue our own interests

In some cases that means acting in an imperial manner. In most cases, though, that creates more diplomatic problems than it's worth.

[Odin2005]

24. Kissinger, is that you?

:puke:

[Posteritatis]

50. Kissinger wouldn't have said that second sentence in his day

Though I get the impression he's become more willing to lately.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Much like Greenspan,

the old warrior seems to be finding his inner ideologue is fallible. Pity that both took around fifty years longer to figure that out than most people do.

[lessthanjake1234]

90. Hahaha why shouldnt we act in our own best interests?

[CreekDog]

26. oh yeah, that's what i said

:wtf:

[boppers]

29. 2nd excuse:

"As long as people don't read the relevant documents on a topic, they're more than qualified to make decisions that kill thousands of people."

I see one silver lining in the SoS debacle: it would get her out of her decision-making ability in the senate, and put her under the thumb of somebody who has better judgment, and is less hawkish.

Maybe there's room in the cabinet for Joe, too. :evilgrin:

[Juche]

36. To a degree you are right

People do get so wrapped up in politics that it replaces our ethics and principles, and I think everyone succumbs to it to some degree or another.

However as far as the IWR, about half the dems in the senate, 2/3 of the dems in the house and Al Gore (who should've been president had Harris not disqualified 50,000 black voters in Florida in 2000) opposed the Iraq war. But again, Hillary did vote for it. So did Biden.

And in Clinton's era I can't think of anything I'd truly label imperialism on the scale of Iraq or Vietnam. Yugoslavia may've been picked because it was a shipping area that connected Europe & the mideast, but it was more about human rights and stability in the area.

[Indenturedebtor]

44. Speak for yourself and put away your broadbrush

Nice flamebait though :eyes:

[scarletwoman]

57. I AM speaking for myself. I'm stating my observations.

Disagreement with consensus opinion does not automatically equate to "flamebait".

[Indenturedebtor]

61. By stating that all Liberals are represented by DU and that we're all pro-Imperialism

you're not speaking for yourself, you're speaking for all Liberals and all of DU.

On top of that you didn't offer any supporting evidence for your broadbrush claim.

Flamebait.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Flamebait, perhaps: but it seems we have some damn fine conversations going on, doesn't it?

[Indenturedebtor]

69. True ;)

[scarletwoman]

70. In my defense, I did not say "all". And I've posted responses throughout this thread.

My OP provoked discussion, but I don't see any bloodshed or singed eyebrows.

:)

[Indenturedebtor]

72. You might not be able to see it but my Arugala garden is on fire

it spontaneously combusted when you made your OP.

Thanks alot.

[scarletwoman]

75. My abject apologies! I shall rush right over to douse it with my latte!

:)

[Indenturedebtor]

78. Careful, if you approach the house in any vehicle but a Volvo my attack poodles

will thrash your loafers.

[scarletwoman]

83. Silly! I'll be on a bicycle! Wearing a hemp backpack.

:rofl:

[Indenturedebtor]

84. Awesome :D n/t

[Posteritatis]

51. Rec'd - inflammatory as the OP is, there's interesting stuff in this thread (nt)

[scarletwoman]

55. Thank you. My OP was impulsive and reactionary, but I'm glad to see it provoking discussion.

I'm generally a very circumspect entity on DU. But every once in awhile I toss a stone into the pond and watch the ripples...

[Robeson]

67. Don't confuse Liberals with Democrats. Many Liberals vote Democrat....

...because it is a Sophie's Choice. Imperialism is U.S. policy regardless of party, and has been since WWII. Some would argue it goes back to Democratic President Polk deciding he wanted half of Mexico.

It was under our party that the Cold War started, that really rocketed imperial interest throughout the world, as a knock-down-drag-out fight with the Soviet Union. It's not so much a Democratic or Republican battle for imperialism, but it has become American policy to protect what is considered "national interest". And the first president who went against those interest would probably find his/her self - as Gore Vidal said - six feet under in Arlington Cemetery.

[Odin2005]

82. IMO the results of WW2 pretty much thrust us into that position against our will.

To quote an interesting book comparing the US and the Roman Republic Ive recently read called Empires of Trust, we "got stuck with an empire we never wanted." It seems that fate forced us on that tiger that you don't dare try to dismount...

[Robeson]

85. I don't disagree. People forget the obligations we had as the victor...

...in that war as the main supporter/protector of post-war Western Europe, and the obligations therein.

[Odin2005]

88. The scary thing is that Rome had it's own M-I Complex problem, the Marian Reforms...

...which eventually lead to military dictatorship and the end of the Republic.

Sulla and Caesar were like if Blackwater overthrow the US Government.

[Robeson]

92. Those are some good points...

...given that up to 50% of our tax dollar goes towards the military, one could argue that they already dictate our policy. But unlike Rome, which was elementary in economics, our situation is much more complex, and in hyper-speed. Rome lasted for 10's of centuries. I think our economics will eventually reign in our military, for the simple fact that we will be broke, and it will happen not in centuries, but in decades. The economic reality is that we have an unsustainable system in a modern world.

We really need to be looking at a policy of disengagement, such as previous modern empires like Britain had to do. We simply can't afford our empire.

[Posteritatis]

94. The Roman period Odin refers to...

Actually only lasted about 150 years, from the Second Punic War up to Octavian taking control of the whole show. It's an uncomfortably familiar length of time I thought. Things moved surprisingly quickly over that period compared to the generations before or after (the frontier notwithstanding). Of course, for the late Republic comparisons to fully work we'd need Bush to be a multitrillionaire, and thank goodness that isn't the case. ;)

You're right about the military getting reined in, though. The military itself is suggesting that; a Pentagon board was telling (well, begging) Obama that the Pentagon needed some huge budget cuts Right Now about a week and a half ago.

[Robeson]

96. I know the time frame he was referring to....

...But that wasn't my point.

[Odin2005]

97. Heh. my high school history teacher liked to equate JFK and RFK with the Gracchi brothers.

[Robeson]

98. LOL. We must have had the same one....

...mine did, too!

[Odin2005]

99. LOL, doubt it, but the coincidence is hilarous!

:rofl:

[Posteritatis]

100. Guh; one of mine too, and two professors to boot (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

68. Its pretty much the capitalisim talking when we rattle our sabers

Our military actions are primarily focused on making people play ball and protecting the oil. Dial back the growth machine and get off the carbon crack, and I'm certain you'll see less imperialism and even inclination towards it. Cheap, renewable energy destroys the paradigm and as such every conceivable obstacle is thrown into the mix to keep us off the path to independence and certainly less in the way of resource squabbles.

[Odin2005]

91. I mostly agree though it's a bit more complicated then that.

Another thing was that the Cold War caused policy-makers to become needlessly paranoid when it came to anti-colonial movements. All too often those movements were assumed to be tools of the USSR when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact this paranoia actually drove many aanti-colonialists into the hands of the commies, the most disastrous example was Ho-Chi Minh after the French pressured us into snubbing him. Of course US business interests played this paranoia like a fiddle in order to scare the US government into crushing labor movements in the 3rd World

[crimsonblue]

73. yup

some of us still enjoy a little greed from now to then.

[Binka]

89. Count Me Out. Greed Is Fucking Ugly.

Really UGLY. Odious indeed.

[EFerrari]

101. Now you've done it. Now you've made a clean spot.

:)

[fujiyama]

102. Maybe we should wait until he's actually taken the oath of offiice first

before concluding anything just yet.