What's new

Is it fair to call americans imperialist?


13 Dec 2003
I dont think so, we havent been imperialist for 150 years,yet North Korea calls us that. Its kind of funny:D .
Yeah, but the US does have military bases in over 60 countries at the moment. Plus it has invaded Iraq and set up a puppet government there. Its not that funny.
From Banana Republics (not the clothing line) in South America, to "fighting Communism" in Asia, and "common wealths" in the Caribbean, it'd be very ignorant to believe that America hasn't been imperialistic throughout its history.

Originally posted by senseiman
"the US does have military bases in over 60 countries at the moment. Plus it has invaded Iraq and set up a puppet government there. Its not that funny."
Kudos to senseiman..

What I find really funny is how America (and by America, I mean the govt.) can act like the global police for every country, ignore the UN, invade any country it likes; but when other countries like Iraq and North Korea develop weapons of equal power, it's not ok because "America says so."

But it's that kind of funny that you don't laugh aloud to...
... not even going to wade into this one... well actually why not

I think no matter what the US does its going to get slammed by someone. In the first 6 months of the Bush Presidency the worry was not hyper-imperialism... no it was about US removing itself as a stabilizer in world. Europe wanted the US to be the global policeman. Don't believe that Jian? Read about Kosovo crisis. Clinton wanted nothing to do with it, and yet Chirac and Blair pushed him hard. They were so fearful that something like that might happen again that they started the European Security and Defence Policy as a backup if the US wouldn't intervene.

As for having bases around the world, most would want to have US bases, rather than not want them. And when asked to leave, the US does, look at Saudi Arabia. When Saudi kicked the US out of its bases in its country UAE was elated, since it would be getting most of the buisness. States see the US as a security guarantor, and bases mean US support.

And if you think the world would be a safer place with the proliferation of nuclear weapons you really need to think through your argument. Allowing proliferation to occur is not a good thing no matter what. Yes it is a double standard for the US to have nukes and everybody else doesnt, but it is a double standard that must exist. Im sure the US would renounce its nuclear weapons if other countries did, but I really doubt that Russia or China will do so in the near future.

I have a bad feeling about this, its going to be one of those long boring arguments that invaribly becomes me vs senseiman that doesn't get anywhere except for us to say that we have a difference of opinion.
is the US an imperial power

I would say, yes, the US is an imperialist nation.
Most recently, on Iraq, author Tariq Ali has a book titled "Bush In Babylon The Recolonization of Iraq".
(It was a British colony before remember)
This book is about 200 pages on Verso press and might be worth the read even if you don't agree with it to keep the dialog going and it might give some clues as to why some people see the world the way they do.

On Kosovo I've read 2 books both by Noam Chomsky and I still don't understand that war.
A friend has mentioned "To Kill a Nation, The Attack on Yugoslavia" by Michael Parenti as a really good book on the topic. Again, why would someone hold the view the US is imperialist? Kosovo was under Clinton so this stuff seems to go beyond party lines.

About 100 years ago the US was blatantly imperialist, as were many European nations and Japan was on its way as well. The US fought the Spanish-American war and "freed" Puerto Rico & the Phillipines to become US colonies. Cuba didn't quite make it. At the time some people were very proud to be an imperialist country. The people of the Phillipines weren't so glad. US author Mark Twain was a famous member of an anti-imperialist league. Even US high school history books acknowledge imperialism of this time. It used to be called 'manifest destiny' before it left the continent.

So when did the US cease being an imperial power? When did the US end its colonialization of other countries? Did it ever?

Another view of WW2 was of imperial powers bumping up against one another. Sort of makes sense when one looks at the countries involved. UK, US, France, Russia on one side and Italy, Japan, and Germany on the other. All colonial powers to a lesser or greater extent. The US still had control of its colonies including Hawai'i which at the time, what was it if not a colony? A 'commonwealth'? I don't know. Many Puerto Ricans today consider themselves a colony of the US despite its official label of commonwealth. Where were the Dutch, Portugal, & Spain were other dying colonial powers and they along with France would not give up many of their possessions until 50's, 60's & even the 70's. Vietnam, Indonesia, Timor & Angola, and the Congo in those decades I'm pretty sure. And France kept its former colonies' currencies artificially tied to its - part of what's called neo-colonialism - thou that is not all to that concept.

Today we have such US dominated institutions as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank. These give loans to many lesser developed countries, but on the condition that they liberalize their economies or 'structurally adjust'. That is they sell off publically owned industries, cut social spending, allow banks to be totally bought out by foreign banks, and make national natural resource industries available for sale to foreign corporations, etc... Oh, and treat transnational corporations as if they were local businesses via the tax structure.

What might be wrong with the items on that list?
Ok. Fine. But these are conditions a developing country must abide by, must abide by to get loans. These conditions are mostly shoved down a countries throat and they often have little choice but to implement changes in national policy. This is wrong. People of whichever country should be able to decide for themselves what type of laws they want to have and not have to bow down the wishes of those transnational banking institutions which are dominated by the wealthy G-8 nations and the US in particular. This too, is a form of neo-colonialism.

And then we've got all the sweat shops, slave labor, environmental degredation caused by criminal corporations in poor countries because they can't fight back and the people in the rich nations won't accept it as much.
(read up on Shell Oil Co in Nigeria if you think I'm being anything but literal on the criminal corporation bit).

When did it become fashionable to accept the above? When was the brute force of old fashioned colonialism replaced with the politically correct terms as "free markets/trade" & globalization (which is as old as Marco Polo and "discovering" America)?
Well it didn't and concentrated power merely did what was in its own interests to keep power. That is it changed to keep things the same. Sure imperial powers like France gave up Vietnam and its other colonies in name, but those politically correct terms replaced it and it is shoved down the throats of those who don't accept it.

US cold war foreign policy is loaded with instead of out right invasions (that was no longer politically correct), assassinating leaders we (US gov officials actually) don't like, arming death squads to squash popular rebellions, and using the UN as a tool of foreign policy when it felt it needed to and discarding it when it had to -witness the recent unprovoked first strike invasion of Iraq. During the cold war there were many times in which the US interferred in the affairs of other countries that didn't even have a Soviet threat story involved in it.

As for Japan, the CIA funded the Liberal Democratic Party (is that the correct party) for years and years, helping make Japan a de facto one party state. Funding elections even went on in "civilized" (white - sarcasm) Australia as recently as the 1970's. (read "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum for Australia and a wealth of others)

Back to Iraq and I'll keep this short for now. Fabricated evidence. None of Iraq's neighbors, not even Kuwait or Iran felt threatened by Saddam. So what is to be done in Iraq? Get out. How? By ships and planes - to quote some Vietnam era person. Why? Don't we have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq after a war that has killed between 8 & 10,000 innocent civilians and over 20,000 injured Iraq Body Count ; after 10 years of devastating sanctions that killed 1-2 million half or 500,000 children of otherwise preventable diseases. Don't we have to help democratize Iraq?

Well, no. We don't.
Iraqis seek and deserve genuine self-determination. They are no doubt grateful Saddam Hussein is gone. They do not need the British empire to come and 'civilize' them yesterday, nor a current day US empire to 'democratize' them in its own self-image.
Iraqi civilization has been around for thousands of years and they have doctors and engineers to help themselves rebuild their own country how they see fit.

So there is my rant on "is the US an imperial power?" One does not have to be sympathetic to the North Korean government, nor a 'communist' to hold these views. I am neither.
Yes, it is fair! I'm from Alaska, seeing as we became part of the United States in the 1950's and am a Native American I have zero patriotism.
You bring up some good points, but many are well off the mark, or even complete spinning of the truth. I'm all for people reading more about Foreign policy, but when you read from only one viewpoint your view becomes skewed and often dismembered from the truth. that窶冱 the problem with many people's writings today, its just the usual cut and paste anti US/Israel/International system rhetoric that time and again brings up the same points, but does nothing to contribute to the debate. I'll agree that Noam Chompsky does bring up some good points, but he has never (In my readings) brought a solution to the table for these problems. Just pointing out the problems of world is worthless, if you cannot articulate an alternate solution you are worthless. That is Noam Chompksy to me, for all his intelligent thoughts (some of them are true, while some are very contestable), he has never given Foreign policy practitioners an alternate doctrine to follow. Saying everybody should be nicer doesn't cut it. He also doesn't take into account many of the limitations of foreign policy instruments. Imperfect information is You want a solution? Read my thread here.
The New Face of Foreign Policy (an Essay)

I窶况e read blum窶冱 book and the way he presents the issues doesn窶冲 represent the issues how individuals at the time saw them. I won窶冲 deny that sometimes things don窶冲 go the way that people. For example look at Melvyn Leffler account of Truman Administration Foreign policy A Preponderance of Power. That is an excellent account of what people like Truman Acheson Marshall and others thought during their tenure. They were scared #@#@ of Communism. They didn窶冲 know what to do. Often they made mistakes and compromises. Later administrations said the ends justified the means. Communism no matter how you cut it was an evil empire. I only have to go to my mother to get her experiences of what the Communist party did to the people of Czechoslovakia. People ran away from Eastern Countries to the west, and the USSR did sought to increase its influence from the perspective of American leaders.

Unfortunately people don't want to read the stuff that has the hard answers. They want the easy to read and understand books on Foreign Relations that are in "vogue". If you really want to read an interesting book on foreign policy, read Christopher Hill's The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Palgrave/Macmillan London 2002). Now that is a excellent book on foreign policy and how it operates. It is not however an easy read. Even though it is intended to be an introductory book into foreign policy, it was also intended to be read by Foreign policy practitioners as well. I really recommend it as a book to anyone who is truly interested in foreign policy. It is not right wing or left wing, it attempts to give a critical perspective on the nature of foreign policy today in the world.

A better question I would say today is western states Imperialist, and the answer is yes... but not in the ways you would expect.

I think European states believe that imperialism is the only way that they can bring the third world to a respectable level of development. A major author who believes this is Robert Cooper (former Blair advisor)Why we still need empires | Special reports | The Observer is his famous Observer article... The gist of his article is that many undeveloped states are unable to bring themselves to development therefore Developed states must help them to development. HE reffers to this as cultural imperialism.

Why did the US go into Kosovo? It was actually Blair and Chirac who pushed the hardest for intervention there, Clinton was essentially dragged in to the conflict by these two leaders. The European Union and its member states generally follow what is called the Normative power model of foreign policy, (you can read it here.... https://jref.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5970 ). Essentially Europe believes its moral responsibility is to use all available foreign policy instruments to ensure that states do not breach international norms. The Srebrenica massacre in 1995 pushed European states to even use military force to prevent such an act from occurring again, which is what happened at Kosovo, when Serbia looked like they were going to do it again. European leaders like Chirac and Blair wanted to ensure that ethnic cleansing did not occur and wanted to set a precedent to all other leaders. When Milosovic did not stand down Europe could not go to war without the US, which they did nearly 6 months later.

IT is true that the US was imperialist in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Monroe doctrine is the key piece of legislation. But is it now? Your categorization of Hawaii and Alaska as colonies is a stretch of the truth, no matter how you call it. Both have been scenes of major immigration and integration; consequently they are states in the Union. Is that colonialism? Is there a Free Hawaii resistance movement brewing in Alaska or Hawaii, or any other challenge to the US government. Timsan you may not have allegiance, but your position is very similar to native groups in Canada, I can窶冲 call it colonialism by this point.

Umm the IMF and World Bank are not "US dominated". The IMF is controlled by a European, while the World Bank a American. Yes they make some errors. Structural Adjustment Programs were a failure... but the organizations were never intended to be a "agent of imperialism". They were actually intended to ensure stability within the world system by aiding the development of poorer states, and to prevent reoccurrence of another devastating economic collapse like what occurred in 1929. Furthermore the IMF has been under the attack of a almost slanderous campaign against it. Nations Criticize the IMF because it gives out loans to needy nations during crisis, at times when most other potential sources of credit would not do so, or with very high interest rates.

The IMF gives loans at far lower rates, and in return asks that nations fulfill some requirements. Many of them are criticized, such as Austerity programs, but if your state is in danger of economic collapse, spending more money is completely counter intuitive to saving you economic position... austerity programs are the only recourse at this point. Often it is the crisis' states fault that they get into these situations not the IMF's. Pegging your currency to the US dollar or artificially depreciating it are stupid things to do. Although the IMF was slow to advise Thailand on its looming crisis(it did so a few months before the Asian crisis), Argentina was given full warning and continued the policy into oblivion. The IMF certainly did not advise Thailand to defend the Bhat and even told it to let it slide, which it did not, worsening the government's position.

Many times the states themselves are not capable of handling the crisis therefore the IMF makes these stipulations to ensure that it does recover. Often states will spend the money given to them poorly (like Thailand defending the Bhat) and therefore the IMF wishes to ensure that this does not happen. That is why SOMETIMES there are stringent regulations on loans. Many other times loans are given without any regulation because the loaning states are not in danger of defaulting.

The World Bank offers loans for capital projects that underdeveloped states could not bankroll with their limited resources. These organizations are not agents of imperialism, yes they do have restrictions, but would you rather have states not give money for loans?

If you have ever been to a G-8 meeting and sees what goes on it is not a group of evil men hatching a scheme to take over the world. They discuss things like Development and trade among other issues. In many cases states make grand pronouncements about their activities related to development in the G-8 meetings to impress other leaders, then their aims are not realized or scaled back in domestic arenas. The G-8 as well as the WTO are the best hope for developing states for greater prosperity. If Free trade were actually implemented across the board, then there would be far more wealth distributed. The WTO, like the G-8 and the IMF get a bad rap for being some kind of evil organization that tries to take over the world. Thats not true at all, it too is attempting to enhance the wealth of developed states. States continue to keep high tariffs on secondary and tertiary goods which hampers development of the underdeveloped world. This is changing though. Doha wasn窶冲 a complete failure and when I talked to several representatives at the meeting, they believe that a compromise was close to occurring, but the Chairman of the meeting mishandled negotiation by focusing on the Singapore agenda which sidelined negotiations and ended the hope of a compromise from occurring.

I think a lot of people have completely misconstrued view of what the Iraq war was about. People aren't going to believe me on this, but the invasion of Iraq was actually an Idealist goal of the Bush administration. Start with the premise, Saddam was not cooperative and disruptive to the international system. He never really cooperated with UN weapons inspectors (read Hans Blix's last report... he clearly states that Iraq did not comply fully with the arms inspectors, and when compared to Mohammed el Baradai's report for the IAEA, there was a definite perception that he was maintaining his chem and biological arsenal). The fact is that Iraq had used Chemical weapons on its own people, and it was not forthcoming about the information dealing with its chemical weapons program.

The US knew that sanctions were not going to be indefinitely maintained, and if they were lifted, Saddam would be able to rearm. Bush honestly wants to create a new liberal order in the Middle East. It knows that Islamic terrorism has much to do with the lack of political development in the region. They did not believe that diplomatic instruments can undertake the job. Therefore If there was ever a time to strike, it was this last spring. No matter what Bush did in Iraq they would get criticized. Doing the Status Quo and he would be criticized for starving Iraq. Remove sanctions and nations around Iraq and the American Public would be angry for endangering security. And its final option to utilize force would also illicit a negative response. Your contention that Kuwaitis did not feel secure is not true. The only reason why they would is because the country was transformed into an armed encampment for the US forces. Iran on the other hand, had undergone a brutal war with the Iraq in the 1980s where it was subject to the use of Chemical weapons on its territory. They definitely feared that Iraq would attack again.

And lets clear up some confusion about the UN and Iraq. Legalistically, there was far more UN justification for a war in Iraq than in Kosovo. The last UN resolution, when signed 1441, was said to be sufficient by the French Ambassador to provide for a context for an Invasion. The reversal in the French position was at the behest of Gerhart Schroder because of his election promise to the German Public that he would not support a war. Schroder did not want to be isolated on the issue so he made a deal with Chirac. Chirac needed German support to scupper Franz Fisher窶冱 Commission proposal for the Reformation of the Common Agricultural Policy. They traded support at in the January meeting of the Elysee Treaty anniversary. Two days after France 窶彗nnounced窶 to the EU that they didn窶冲 have enough power for the reforms so why would they push it through.

As for US efforts to help the Iraqis democratize, it is undoubted that the US窶冱 hand is needed to help the Iraqis to democratize. You can窶冲 just turn it over to the Iraqis until the conditions are right. If a constitution is not ready and the civil service not prepared, any turnover will just descend into anarchy and the US will be back to square one. The US is also aware that if it remains too long then the system will just acquiesce to its presence and then the American forces will become institutionalized. This is occurring in Bosnia today, where political development has stagnated. So the US has to walk a tight rope between giving them too much autonomy and making sure that political development continues.
First of all, I don't mean to sound overwhelming to Ghost. There's no reason to take this or any other post at its word.

2nd of all, criticizing the policy foreign or domestic of a particular government anti- that country. One can be against this first-strike, unprovoked invasion of Iraq because you think it is a bad policy - and bad in general - and not be anti-american. Calling it that (not saying noyhauser is, because I didn't finish reading her/his? post yet) is simply a form of neo-McCarthyism. The "you're either with us (our policy) or you are with the enemy (we practically invented)".
That is against everything the United States is supposed to stand for - democracy and open debate; freedom of thought and belief.

So one can be against US illegal occupation of Iraq and not be anti-American. Many Japanese are. People all over the world still love American culture and American ideals.
Likewise one can be against Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, as many Israels themselves are, and not be anti-Israel or anti-Semetic (rascist Jewish hating). Just be against that government's policy.

noyhauser writes:

"but he has never (In my readings) brought a solution to the table for these problems."

That's not what he does. He points out, quite clearly I think, the utter hypocracy of US policy, particularly foreign policy.

Just pointing out the problems of world is worthless,

I disagree. Given the constant stream of false-hoods, half-truths, and lies repeated by the media that is to cheap to do investigative journalism and relying mostly on government and corporate press releases, pointing out the false-hoods could be a full time job. FAIR Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is one such source. They took a look at press US press coverage in 2002 and 1998 regarding the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq. Guess what? Saddam Hussein did not kick them out. At least that's not how the very same media outlets covered it in 1998.

"if you cannot articulate an alternate solution you are worthless."

I'd have to disagree with this statement quite strongly. This is like calling just about everybody worthless or very many people. And besides, it is not up to just one person to come up with a solution. That's why we've got democracy - to debate these things. Not leave them up to a 'special class' of people to decide behind closed doors. While you may not be for leaving decisions up to the few, I'd just like to point it out that the 'special class' thing sounds an aweful lot like Leninism.

How about different foreign policy practitioners for starters - and more of them. Like you said, reading more up on international affairs and studying other languages and cultures IMO is a start.

PS. This is in response to only your first paragraph. Sorry. I'll read more now.
I didn't mean to make it a personal attack on you Sukkotto, when I said you are worthless... I meant it in a general term like as in someone offering me this information. There is so much stuff out there that just criticises but doesn't offer any sort of alternate solution. Its so easy to criticize, its a lot harder to come up with an alternate solution. The solutions haven't changed even in the light of new criticism because we can't find new solutions. Force is necessary in the world. The Groupthink theory and Bureaucratic inertia apply. Even the Ideals of the Civillian power model of the EU had to be compromized because they could not deal with situations like ethnic cleasing.

Things are done by an elite system for everything else in government, foriegn policy is not much different. Its actually more difficult because of the nature of national security. You have to agree that there is information that cannot be given out to the public. And the public itself cannot be fully informed about the issues anyways because many of them are too complex (as in every area of government) The idea that the electorate can be a truly informed entity is impossible. Elites are needed. There isn't a government in the world that is elitist. ITs not lenninism because you can vote out a government if you don't feel their foriegn policy suits your taste.

Saddam didn't throw them out no... but he did make their presence unwelcomed and they decided to pack up and leave. They thought that there was no reason for them to continue working there so they left.
IMF, World Bank, WTO

This is kinda long, if you have time just read the llinked interview with former Chief Economist at the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz.

Regarding Hawai'i, at the time, WW2, it was not a state. Neither was Alaska. Plantation owners, religious people, and the US government all conspired to overthrow the Queen of Hawai'i when the US first took it. Straight up colonialism. So, when they say the US hasn't been attacked since Pearl Harbor, this is false. It hasn't been since the war of 1812 since Hawai'i was then a colony of the US.

Alaska, I think native Alaskans would know who was there and who came and conquered. Certainly more than I. Alaska was not Russia's to sell. btw, there are some sort of independence movements in Hawai'i and Alaska today. Or there were when I heard about them 5 years ago. Neither is an armed resistance and wouldn't it be worth checking out their websites if not just for the 'human interest' stories?

I'm not saying all the people at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and WTO are bad people. Many are sick to death of what their bosses make them do and leak documents to people like investigative journalist Greg Palast, author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy : The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization, And High-Finance Fraudsters"

Palast points passes on
Leaders in developinng countries get bribed into implementing the economic changes in their country that increase poverty and cause riots, just as the IMF expects to happen (the riots that is)

IMF is owned 51% by the US Treasury.
IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization are basically one governance system.
WTO can overrule ANY law of any member country that it (3 minister tribunal, I believe) deems a 'barrier to free trade'.
WTO is anti-democracy.

Here's Greg Palast interviewing the former Chief Economist at the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz.
He no longer supports what they do.


Simple question, if the Alphabet soup of global financial instutions (the 3 above) is the best hope for a prosperous future for people in poorer countries, then why do their economies keep crashing after rules are implemented and standards of living keep dropping; illiteracy goes up, life expectancy goes down.

Many of these countries were able to grow their own food; were sustainable in agricluture before the bank came along. But the bank insists they grow for export to repay loans.

This consistantly happens.
Except for the country of Botswana.
"They told the IMF to go packing."

Also, no developing nation can borrow hard currency from any commecial bank wihtout IMF blessing (except China).
The Bank was stringently opposed to a similar regional Asian banking system independent of the above 3 that they wanted to set up.

Why cannot countries limit imports so they can develop their industries?
THat is exactly how the United States developed. Oh, that and centuries of free labor vai slavery.

Now instead of "Structural Assistance Plans" they call them "Poverty Reduction Strategies". Awefully Orwellian is it not?

Also here is a version of the relevant
chapter from the above book.

The illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq I will have to save for another thread.

I also disagree with your statement that 'force is necessary in the world'. Just because it seeamingly always has been around, doesn't mean it always will be or has to be today, force that is.

Use the force, don't use force.
Originally posted by noyhauser

Saddam didn't throw them out no... but he did make their presence unwelcomed and they decided to pack up and leave. They thought that there was no reason for them to continue working there so they left.

From my understanding of it, the reason Saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspectors at the time was that the head inspector was an American spy who made regular reports to the CIA. I think it was the Washington Post that first broke that story. The work of the inspectors was supposed to be searching for WMD but in addition they were conducting military intelligence for the US, which it later used during the 1998 bombing campaign that was the cause of their being removed.
Well it's been a while since I've check this specific post, but I see I've some critics..

I really couldn't care what Europe wants the US to be. The fact of the matter is that the US has been (repeatedly) Imperialistic towards other countries. That is the question Ghost asked. Sure, I can believe that Europe wants the US as a hegimon, but again that's not the topic of discussion (all though it could be). And unfortunately for Bush it was about imperialism; even before he got into office. He had drawn up plans with Rumsfeld and others long before he got into office about invading Iraq; that's a fact. Check it out; Chicago Post if I'm not mistaken.

Concerning the US bases in other countries, such an assumption may appear correct by your logistics, but one example doesn't prove anything; considering the circumstances are always different from case to case. Sure, Saudi Arabia didn't want US bases in its country, but recently after Saddam was taken out of power, the Iraqis did not want the US in the country any longer. I'm sure you've seen the footage, and endless headlines of it. But like I said, it's a different case with different circumstances. In this instance, it's about destroying the "threat" that dictatorships (often combined with communism) pose to the "free world" (which is the excuse always given). And no matter how "cut and paste" it may seem, it's like that for a reason.

Another assumption was made concerning the Us renouncing its nuclear weapons if other countries did. How can you be so sure? There is a reason why some countries have never been involved in wars with other nations, and it's not because they have a superior arsenal. It's because they haven't gotten into everyone else's business and forcefully made itself the world's judge, jury, and executioner. As you well know, the UN was set in place for a reason. You tell me that a country who defies international policy for it's own ends is justified because it's a double standard that needs to exist, and someone else needs to rethink their argument. States see the US as a security guarantee because they know how confrontational the US during times of "conflicting interests."

I've seen your posts around this particular forum that are usually longwinded and often stray from the original topic of discussion. All though I do enjoy reading your essays, there are clear-cut answers to these kinds of questions. I just have one question you need to answer, and only one: where ARE those WMD? And there were plenty of protests against the war by people who knew what was going to happen wasn't justified. First it starts with Osama, then it goes to Jung, then finally it stops at Saddam. What happens when he runs out scapegoats to rely on? Is that when the US "gladly relinquishes" its nuclear weapons?

Want a solution to the problem? The solution is to have never started such conflicts in the first place; be less selfish (something I know many people have a problem with) and remember that each country has their wants and needs; when a dictator rises into power, let the people overthrow the government. The US thought it was doing Cuba a favor when they sent the military to take Castro out. America thought that everyone would throw roses at the soldiers in celebration of their 窶徑iberation,窶 but we all know it didn窶冲 exactly go that way.

PS. Who decides that countries need, or even want a democracy? Anyone here talk to some of the civilians over there and find out what they really wanted? Speculations and accusations are all fine and well on paper, but not always functional in the real world.


Live in Alaska? Don't like the draft? Support the Libertarians! Right now they are putting together a proposal to have the draft eliminated in Alaska. I doubt it will pass, but what the hell, why not?
Top Bottom