If YOU were president, would you end these imperialist wars or continue them?

[Philosoraptor]

[devilgrrl]

1. I'd end them but that will also lead to my assasination

You can't keep big oil down. Ask JFK.

[HereSince1628]

2. It would depend upon the wishes of my Masters, Grasshopper.

When they say jump, I don't ask how high, but rather at what time I can come down.

[Squatch]

3. Talk about a loaded question.

:eyes:

[pampango]

4. You seem to be implying that you can decipher what the poster's answer to the OP's question is.

:)

In fairness, the OP was limited to ending imperialist wars, not all wars. I suppose one could argue that Afghanistan has no natural resources, unlike Iraq with its oil, that would enrich our economy at the expense of the local citizens, unless the Army is going to take control of the growth, processing and marketing of the Afghan poppy crop.

One can believe that the war there is unwinable and counterproductive or that the Taliban was a better, or at lease more legitimate, government than the current one, without declaring that it is imperialistic. Imperialism implies waging war to guarantee access to natural resources and markets in order to enrich the conquering country. Even in Iraq whatever oil the country exports will be sold at whatever price the world markets dictate which would have happened under Saddam in any case, so it won't do anything for our economy, though it will enrich the international oil companies who seek to control that oil to the extent that they are successful at keeping the Iraqi government from controlling it.

[Greyhound]

9. Afghanistan si not about natural resources per se, but rather a pipeline for them.

The opium is the shiny object to keep us distracted.

[taterguy]

5. Anyone that might end imperialist wars would never be President

I'm pretty sure it's one of the job's requirements.

[KharmaTrain]

6. An Interesting Question...

How do you have imperialism in the age of a global economy? Yes, I know we still exploit resources from poorer countries and the only reason to be in Iraq is for the oil (also why we'll bomb Iran), but the map is a lot different today than it was 60 or 100 years ago.

In many ways it can be said we no longer live in nation-states but in corporate spheres of influence...and it's the corporations that are the true imperialists...but without borders. You can try to shut a corporation down one way, and they'll offshore or set up a subsidiary that gets around the obstruction. It's the "corporate fiduciary responsibility" to give profits to the investors ahead of anything else, including national security. Look how many of our corporates have been in bed with our supposed enemies...or how they've trained their guns on the easiest fishes...us.

[Amonester]

7. Imperialism in the age of global economy is: (IMHO)

"Have More's" and "Have Not's" (GLOBALLY)
1.5% and 98.5%

There are no "Have's" in between these two extremes anymore.

[GreenTea]

8. Oh, by all means continue them!

[Greyhound]

10. Yes, and I would implement General Butler's recommendations for a true

national defense.

Of course this would necessitate a drastic reduction in standing forces and the proportional reduction in the military budget. The enormous surplus this would generate would, in turn, make it feasible to provide the help to the rest of the world that would make a large standing military unnecessary.

[LaPera]

11. Imperialism is great for the rich and corporations so I'm all for imperialistic wars.

the more killing for profit the better!

[question everything]

12. One person's "imperialism" is another's lifeline

Would you have sent our troops to Germany and to Japan in 1941?

How about Kosova?

I wish that we sent our troops to Myanmar to forcefully help the victims of the cyclone.

I wish that we sent our troops to Idi Amin's Uganda and now to Zimbabwe to save the millions of people dying.

And, of course, I wish that we send our troops to Darfur.

There are too many ruthless dictators who kill and starve "their" people for the fun of it.

The Europeans, who were the imperialists in these areas and just left are too chicken to do anything useful.

So we are the only ones left.

Yes, I do think that we should be the "police" of the world. Call it the "Salvation Army" of the world. Because no one else will.

(And this is the folly of Bush's claim that we went to Iraq to "restore democracy." Why are we not in Zimbabwe, or Myanmar, or the Sudan?)

[L0oniX]

13. Yes I would end any wars that the US is in and I would pull out all our bases from everywhere.

I would shrink down the military to defense only. It's not our job to police the world just because we think that no one else will do it. How dare anyone force me into paying for that bull shit. I don't have the freedom to not support the troops or illegal war. I am being forced by government, military and a killer war society mob pressure. The power of pride is the down fall.