Has US Imperial strategy changed?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 8:55 AM GMT
    I just want to briefly outline the US imperial strategy since the fall of the USSR, and how imperial strategy has remained a constant from the first Bush administration to the current Obama administration.

    In 1992, Pentagon plans were leaked to the NYTimes regarding US strategy in the wake of the collapse of the USSR. They revealed that, "America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union." They were drawn up by Def. Sec. Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowtiz.

    Further, "The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."

    It stated that, "a substantial American presence in Europe and continued cohesion within the Western alliance remains vital," and that "in the event of a resurgent threat from Russia, "we should plan to defend against such a threat" farther forward on the territories of Eastern Europe ."

    "It suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf. And to help stabilize the economies and democratic development in Eastern Europe, the draft calls of the European Community to offer memberships to Eastern European countries as soon as possible."

    The document stated, "we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia."

    Primarily, the aim was to contain Russia from becoming a regional and global power. To do this, is advocating exerting hegemony over much of the world, especially creating a western presence in the East-Central European states.
    http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

    The Bush administration left, and in came the Clinton administration, which continued the strategy of projecting American force around the world and establishing a large military presence in East-Central Europe. Clinton imposed brutal sanctions on Iraq, leading to the deaths of over one million civilians, of which over 500,000 were under the age of 5, of which Sec. of State Madeline Albright said it was "worth it." The United States played a nefarious role during the Rwandan Civil War and genocide which, through Uganda, established a heavy military presence in the region of Central Africa, allowing it to expand into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and help in instigating the civil war, while American and Canadian corporations plunder the resources.

    In Europe, the US pushed NATO into conflict with Yugoslavia, justified as a "humanitarian war". This justified the existence of NATO following the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, which it was originally intended to counter. The war on Yugoslavia also expanded the US military presence to East Europe, served as a major transport route for pipelines. The US and other NATO countries heavily funded, armed and trained successor states in the former Yugoslavia, all of which committed massive war crimes equal to and greater than those committed by Serbia, including financing the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a terrorist drug trafficking organization linked up closely with Al-Qaeda.
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=370
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/warcrimes.balkans
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3522828.ece
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment/print
    http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA374.htm
    http://www.serbianlinks.freehosting.net/german.htm
    http://charlotte-eagar.com/stories/balkans110595.shtml
    http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/bosnia.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 8:55 AM GMT
    It even stated that, “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” It called for the need for "a new Pearl Harbor" to justify and launch multiple, large-scale wars[page 51]. Which came like a gift to the neo-cons, in the form of 9/11.
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html

    In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, wrote a book called "The Grand Chessboard", outlining a US imperial policy for the years ahead. Brzezinski is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and has also been a board member of Amnesty International, the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy. Currently, he is a trustee and counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US policy think tank.

    “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power.” Further, “how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail African subordination.”

    Continuing the line of US imperial policy outlined in 1992, Brzezinski stated, "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America," and that, “Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them: [and] second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.

    On page 40, he wrote, “To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.

    Page 124: “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” Further, “It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.

    A secret Pentagon document in 1999 reviewed US imperial policy, and stated that, “Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/19/1053196528488.html

    The incoming Bush administration implemented the imperial policies laid out in the PNAC report, drawing much upon the nature of Brzezinski's strategy as well. However, even before the Bush administration took power, in Dec. of 2000, "the Washington Post reported on how the US was beginning to ally itself with Russian authorities in “calling for military action against Afghanistan."
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/AfghanLM.html

    In March of 2001 it was reported that India has joined the US, Russia and Iran in an effort to militarily replace the Afghan Taliban government. Further, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were to be used as bases to launch incursions into Afghanistan against the Taliban.
    http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 8:56 AM GMT
    In the Spring of 2001, the US military envisaged and war gamed the entire scenario of a US attack on Afghanistan, which became the operational plan for the war.
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.html

    In the summer of 2001, the Taliban were leaked information from top secret meetings that the Bush regime was planning to launch a military operation against the Taliban in July to replace the government. A US military contingency plan existed on paper to attack Afghanistan from the north by the end of the summer.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.terrorism4
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

    MSNBC reported in 2002 that, “President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11,” and that, “The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.” It outlined “essentially the same” war plan as was put into action following the 9/11 attacks. The National Security document was also submitted to Condoleezza Rice prior to the attacks, and included plans to attack the Taliban and remove them from power in Afghanistan.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

    The purpose behind the war on Afghanistan had to do with securing control of the nation to build and maintain massive pipelines for Central Asia's natural gas reserves. As well as this, it places a massive US and NATO force presence at the doorstep of Russia.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/21007.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/44521.stm
    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/029.html
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-478705.html
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/1990s/nyt120598.html
    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a96enronbribe#a96enronbribe
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11

    Naturally, the Iraq war was overt imperial ambitions in controlling the oil and setting up bases in the Middle East. The Bush administration was more overt in its imperial ambitions than other administrations.

    Now with the Obama administration, the presence is to remain in Iraq, keeping and maintaining the US military bases to control the oil, which has been given away in contracts to Shell, BP and Exxon. He has and continually is grossly expanding the war in Afghanistan and expanding it into Pakistan, a geopolitical powder keg. Obama is continuing imperial policy in Africa under the newly-created US Africa Command, which was designed to expand the American military presence in Africa to control its resources.

    In East Europe, everyone hailed the "change" in foreign policy by the Obama administration to stop the plans to build the missile shield and radar base in Poland and the Czech Republic, designed to further contain Russia. However, now the US is building permanent bases in Romania and Bulgaria, including the possibility of relocating the missile shield there.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnPsInQCbtn5dEKa5Tnu5GixcNRgD9BGSFJG0
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280671
    http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/10/19/801659_us-to-build-60m-military-base-in-bulgaria-report
    http://ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=53538&cid=87&p=27.10.2009&pn=1



    Does all this seem like a "change" in foreign policy, or is it just continuity in US imperialism?

    It's not time for an alteration in US imperial policy, but to end US imperialism. Not to mention, this would have major benefits to leading the US out of a financial disaster, as the empire is the basis for the massive American debt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:27 PM GMT
    Meh... go figure. Dick and his assclown coming up with something like that. Im not all that surprised. I used to be one that favored helping the world over and having our military out and about but screw that. After 9-11 things changed for me. I say bring our boys home. Let the world solve its own shit. Kick out all their foreign companies. Take care of American's first. Its bullshit that we send aid to places like sudan or any other place where they could give a shit about us and no matter how much we do we will still be seen as evil. I say feed, clothe, house an american first before anyone else. I've given and helped out with organizations that help the homeless in san antonio and i think its BS how many people are homeless in a city like this and more over that the city would make it illegal to be homeless. WTF? Im with you on this... fuck 'em. come back home, save our money, put it somewhere else... if we have to... THEN we go kick someone's ass. Its been done that way before. We can do it again. Least we not forget how WWII happened.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 9:11 PM GMT
    Yeah, well keep in mind that "aid" itself, is not a benevolent, caring, program of action, it is designed to create a dependency on the donor country (the US), with the "vassal state", as Brzezinski would say. it's a form of economic imperialism.

    it is amazing to see how the World Bank giving "food aid" to a country can cause a famine. a country at risk of a famine, experiencing a draught, say like SOmalia or Ethiopia, both actual cases in recent history, may then be a recipient of food aid. so genetically modified grains/food, heavily subsidized in the United States, begins to be delivered to the country in need. However, to receive aid from the World Bank, it needed to sign a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), which is a list of "conditionalities" that the nation must meet to get assistance from either the World Bank or IMF. These conditionalities include privatizing state infrastructure, selling off resources to foreign corporations, (neo-liberal economic policies), dismantling the public state by massively steering money and jobs away from education, health care and the state bureaucracy, a devaluation of the currency, which makes the market more accessibly by foreign capital, and the World Bank and IMF are then in charge of all financial appropriations for the nation in what is called "oversight". In other words, a nation that signs an SAP then becomes an economic colony of the western financial institutions.

    in terms of food aid, the World Bank floods the market with cheap grains. the effect this has is that with so much grain, its prices become cheaper, and it also becomes the number one commodity for the nation. however, in a nation, like many in Africa, which is still largely rural based, the local farmers - being a large percentage of the population, cannot compete with the cheap prices of food aid, and they end up falling into poverty and losing their farms, whose land is sold to western multinationals like Monsanto and Cargill. thus, the country, as a result of the SAPs, enters a deep financial crisis and depression, to the point where no one can even afford the food aid. thus... famine. there have been many cases where nations will simply dump food aid off the docks it arrives at, while a famine is occuring in the nation, in an attempt to stabilize the grain prices, which threaten to destabilize the nation.

    "aid" is not a benevolent act in the global political economy, it is a form of economic imperialism, which can have disastrous effects upon the countries it "aids", let alone creates a system of dependency. no one ever got rich from begging.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 8:00 AM GMT
    The US is expanding its hegemony in Central Africa through its new military command, AFRICOM.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/26/content_12326024.htm

    "The military forces from the five East African countries and the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on Sunday ended the ten-day joint military exercise aimed at strengthening the cooperation among countries during complex humanitarian emergencies."

    "Over 1,200 troops from Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and the United States participated the exercise."

    "it will further develop the capacity of regional defense forces to participate in the resolution of serious defense and security challenges facing the region."

    The US has a very sordid history of military support and training in the region, specifically involving Uganda and Rwanda, and the Civil War in the Congo. AFRICOM is just cementing and expanding this military interaction and activities on the continent, placing Africa within a specific military framework.

    Other imperialist powers in the region of Central Africa include France, Great Britain, China and Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 8:06 AM GMT
    MeOhMy . . . you get it . . . you are an Orwellian in the best sense of the term . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 10:50 AM GMT
    Good to see you have been reading an doing research !

    Yup, for way too many years the US has been throwing it weight around. Stuck its nose in places where it had no business. Sent troops into Latin America, time and time and time again, often to support US commercial interests, not to support oppressed people. Invaded countries on false pretense (can you say IRAQ?).
    But it has also sent its sons and daughters to die to liberate Europe from the Nazis and most of East Asia from the Japanese militarists. It has sent billions overseas to help the poor and has programs like the Peace Corps to help make a better world.
    Yes, much of what you said is true, but you ignore other facts that give a much more balanced picture.
    The US needs to do better in the future and I hope that it will.
    Now, let's talk about Canada and its treatment of Native People. I wonder if the Cree, the Haida, the Athapaskan, Okanagan, the Tlingit, the Obijwa, the Dene, the Nakoda, the Kainai, the Colville, the Slavey, the Tagish, the Anishinaabe, the Innu, the Maliseet, the Mi'kmaq. the Wyandot, the Beothunk - wait, never mind the Beothunk, they were completely exterminated, and the many other First Nation peoples think they are free or are they occupied? Just wondering....
    Don't worry, I know of how horrible the US has been to Native People too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:21 AM GMT
    OutdoorMutt saidGood to see you have been reading an doing research !

    Yup, for way too many years the US has been throwing it weight around. Stuck its nose in places where it had no business. Sent troops into Latin America, time and time and time again, often to support US commercial interests, not to support oppressed people. Invaded countries on false pretense (can you say IRAQ?).
    But it has also sent its sons and daughters to die to liberate Europe from the Nazis and most of East Asia from the Japanese militarists. It has sent billions overseas to help the poor and has programs like the Peace Corps to help make a better world.
    Yes, much of what you said is true, but you ignore other facts that give a much more balanced picture.
    The US needs to do better in the future and I hope that it will.
    Now, let's talk about Canada and its treatment of Native People. I wonder if the Cree, the Haida, the Athapaskan, Okanagan, the Tlingit, the Obijwa, the Dene, the Nakoda, the Kainai, the Colville, the Slavey, the Tagish, the Anishinaabe, the Innu, the Maliseet, the Mi'kmaq. the Wyandot, the Beothunk - wait, never mind the Beothunk, they were completely exterminated, and the many other First Nation peoples think they are free or are they occupied? Just wondering....
    Don't worry, I know of how horrible the US has been to Native People too.


    No, i absolutely agree in terms of Canada's treatment of First Nations peoples. Canada is no bystander in international imperialism either. Canada is complicit in overthrowing the government of Haiti, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, as well as support for and corporate plundering from the civil war in the Congo.

    Your point about liberating Europe and the Pacific is valid. However, the end of World War II marked the emergence of the American empire, as the US left troops in military bases in these countries, expanded military-strategic influence through NATO, expanded its economic influence through the Marshall Plan and supporting the European Movement, as well as through its control of the World Bank and IMF, as well as GATT, later to become the WTO. The end of World War II marked the origins of the American-led political-economic empire, establishing hegemony across the globe. It's imperial policy was justified in terms of "containment" of Communism, serving as the basis for expansionary wars, covert intelligence operations and coups, assassinations, support for brutal dictators and regimes.

    With the fall of the USSR, the justification and strategy for empire had to slightly alter. That's what i was attempting to briefly analyze above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:46 AM GMT
    This is odd. A serious discussion about important issues when no one insults the other person. Wish there was more of that here.
    I am under no illusion about the shameful practices that powerful nations do the less powerful ones.

    England occupied Ireland for 800 years (and I'll the issue of the northern 6 counties out of the discussion for now).
    Russia invaded and occupied numerous bordering countries, both before and after the establishment of the U.S.S.R.
    China invaded Tibet and still occupies the country and is moving tens of thousands of Han Chinese there to insure domination far into the future.
    European countries carve up almost all of Africa for selfish reasons during the 19th century.
    The US ruled the Philippines and Cuba after taking them away from their previous colonial ruler, Spain.
    Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran deny the Kurds their own homeland.
    The U.S. stands out now, because it is the most powerful nation on the planet. No one (country) has clean hands here.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 1:05 PM GMT
    Changed? it seems to be expanding and increasing. With the fall of the USSR, Terrorism and Islamic extremism has replaced Communism as the new evil threat. It looks like Iran will be next..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 1:43 PM GMT
    I wonder how the Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal people) feel about their benign overlords?

    As I said, the powerful oppress the weak. Happens everywhere, and the more powerful a country is, the more they do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 1:56 PM GMT
    Yeah, I agree with OutdoorMutt on his point that no one country has its hands clean... In this climate, it seems that everyone is trying to get their piece of the pie, not just the US. Am I wrong for reading it that way?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 10:10 PM GMT
    SAHEM62896 saidYeah, I agree with OutdoorMutt on his point that no one country has its hands clean... In this climate, it seems that everyone is trying to get their piece of the pie, not just the US. Am I wrong for reading it that way?


    No, you are correct.

    But my point was to focus on the hegemonic power. Yes, every major country has dirty hands in this "new world disorder," however, the fact is that the United States is, since World War II, and especially since the collapse of the USSR, the global hegemonic power. As such, it has replaced the role of Britain in the 19th century. That was truly the century of the British empire, where Britain oversaw the management of the global political economy. Yet, it remained in an era in which there were many empires, it was simply the most powerful with the greatest influence over the global economy, particularly through the pound-sterling.

    The US empire is not simply a military empire, it is an "empire of capital," which actually goes above and beyond the US. The fact is, in a globalized world, nation-states are becoming less and less relevant in terms of understanding them as separate actors on the world stage, and independent of one another or other major forces. In a globalized world, everything is internationalizing, including governance. The US, as the hegemonic power, has led the way into this new world order. The US established the UN, the World Bank/IMF, World Trade Organization, NATO, etc.

    The US was USED as an engine of empire for international finance capital. the empire wasnt beneficial to the vast majority of US citizens, who exist as an evaporating middle class. It was beneficial for a corporate-financial elite that can no longer be described as "national", but is, in fact, transnational. In academia, they are referred to as the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC).

    So while Canada has members of the TCC, so too does Great Britain, the European Union, Russia, China, India, etc. The United States, for now, is still leader of the Global Political Economy, controlling the world reserve currency, the dollar, which is the other major facet of the US empire: the military and the dollar. Thus, the US is the most important nation to control for the TCC, and certainly the best candidate to do their dirty work, with such an immense military force. All that is required is an effective propaganda machine which is able to convince the populace they are not an empire; that they "need" to go to war for whatever reason, a task that is more simple than most would imagine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 10:14 PM GMT
    issacd saidChanged? it seems to be expanding and increasing. With the fall of the USSR, Terrorism and Islamic extremism has replaced Communism as the new evil threat. It looks like Iran will be next..


    Agreed. Terrorism and radical Islam are an ideal enemy because they are border-less and "everywhere", and thus, you can justify a military intervention almost anywhere.

    And in terms of Iran, they already tried their "soft revolution" tactic this summer with the elections, however, they were unsuccessful and so they may be considering the military option once again, which is a scary thought.

    Without a doubt, a war on Iran becomes a war against China and Russia; which implies World War III. Truly any discussion of attacking Iran, let alone nuking Iran, which is actually military contingency plans, is utterly insane.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Oct 30, 2009 10:21 PM GMT
    Chalk me up as "meh." This is not news, not terribly surprising and frankly not particularly ominous. There are in fact some very bad actors out there that will do some very bad things if they are not contained. Especially since the collapse of the USSR, there are loose nukes just rolling around on the ground that need to be controlled...
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 30, 2009 10:26 PM GMT
    darth-vader.jpg


    LEAVE THAT TO ME.

    (suuuucccckkkkkkk....blooooooooowwwwww)


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 10:28 PM GMT
    jarhead5536 saidChalk me up as "meh." This is not news, not terribly surprising and frankly not particularly ominous.]There are in fact some very bad actors out there that will do some very bad things if they are not contained. Especially since the collapse of the USSR, there are loose nukes just rolling around on the ground that need to be controlled...


    For example?
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Oct 30, 2009 10:45 PM GMT
    MeOhMy said
    jarhead5536 saidChalk me up as "meh." This is not news, not terribly surprising and frankly not particularly ominous.]There are in fact some very bad actors out there that will do some very bad things if they are not contained. Especially since the collapse of the USSR, there are loose nukes just rolling around on the ground that need to be controlled...


    For example?


    The Soviets had nuclear silos all over the "stans" and they are presumably still there, for example. The most recent members of the Nuke Club are countries that are less than friendly to us and have less than stellar records with regards to human rights, for example. I would just as soon contain nations that believe stoning women in the street for defiling family honor is an acceptable practice to their own borders, for example.

    The United States has it's flaws, anyone will freely admit. What I won't admit is that our intentions are somehow nefarious and that we seek world domination at the expense of our values. This country was founded on the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, forever enshrined in our Constitution. Though we often fall short, I think we hold dear such notions as the universal brotherhood of man, the supremacy of the law, the instrinsic worth of the individual, equality before the law, and liberty above all else. These are noble, worthy aspirations, which is more than you can say about many (if not most) places on earth...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:03 PM GMT
    jarhead5536 said
    MeOhMy said
    jarhead5536 saidChalk me up as "meh." This is not news, not terribly surprising and frankly not particularly ominous.]There are in fact some very bad actors out there that will do some very bad things if they are not contained. Especially since the collapse of the USSR, there are loose nukes just rolling around on the ground that need to be controlled...


    For example?


    The Soviets had nuclear silos all over the "stans" and they are presumably still there, for example. The most recent members of the Nuke Club are countries that are less than friendly to us and have less than stellar records with regards to human rights, for example. I would just as soon contain nations that believe stoning women in the street for defiling family honor is an acceptable practice to their own borders, for example.

    The United States has it's flaws, anyone will freely admit. What I won't admit is that our intentions are somehow nefarious and that we seek world domination at the expense of our values. This country was founded on the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, forever enshrined in our Constitution. Though we often fall short, I think we hold dear such notions as the universal brotherhood of man, the supremacy of the law, the instrinsic worth of the individual, equality before the law, and liberty above all else. These are noble, worthy aspirations, which is more than you can say about many (if not most) places on earth...


    The United States has come a long way from its original, founding values. It does not operate today based upon any value but that of international currency values. It's morals are merely illusory, and designed to manipulate the public into accepting foreign adventurism. (See: invading Afghanistan to "liberate" women).

    Your notion of the "nuke club" is fairly dubious. Why is the US allowed to give Israel 200 nuclear weapons, a state with the proven militaristic nature it has, and no other states are allowed to have nukes? And who are the "recent" members of the nuke club? You wouldn't be referring to Iran, would you? Because they don't have a nuke, it's called propaganda, and even the US intelligence community doesn't support those unsubstantiated claims.

    The US does not act according to the principles of enlightenment. As nice as it would be to believe that, it is nothing but a pure fantasy. The sooner this fantasy is torn away, the sooner the citizenry can alter the government to act in ways that make an illusion become a reality. The important thing there, is that you have to eliminate the empire. It is too easy to simply say that because the US was "founded" on such principles, and the constitution enshrines these, that it somehow follows them. Presidents dont pay attention to the constitution, it's become nothing but a piece of paper. The founding fathers were adamant about the US not being an empire, and rebelled AGAINST empire. The Democratic Party platform in 1900 was opposition to empire, stating that imperialism abroad always leads to despotism at home.

    Not only would i argue that the imperial intentions are nefarious, but the means are malevolent. The US has supported ever tyrant, dictator, brutal regime imaginable. It has supported genocides, terrorism, mass murders, and protected the criminals behind them. It is only when a state challenges the US or becomes too autonomous that it is demonized and the US ventures on another "humanitarian" mission.

    The sooner you disperse of this utopian vision of an America coming to the rescue of the rest of the world and spreading its "values", the better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:06 PM GMT
    I would just like to add, to be clear, that I really do hold in high regard the values and principles upon which the United States was founded. And i am adamant in my position that the US Constitution is one of the most important and truly great documents ever produced. I have respect for the founding fathers of the United States and the things they stood for.

    However, that is WHY i am so critical of the United States' policies: Because it has strayed so far from its founding principles. Rome was once a Republic, and then it became an Empire, with a useless Senate.

    History repeats itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:09 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saiddarth-vader.jpg


    LEAVE THAT TO ME.

    (suuuucccckkkkkkk....blooooooooowwwwww)





    That just made my night, we were talking about Star Wars at the station too rofl
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:25 PM GMT
    I am proud of the work I did overseas and I always found it refreshing when I'd run into people who appreciate America and know its sacrificed a lot.

    I get pissed seeing all of the problems we have in our own country we should handle, and seeing assholes in other countries disrespect us while we risk and spend much to help them. Which also helps others including ourselves in the end.

    It makes me sick when I see other countries going through hard times, or being threatened, and other countries don't really care or are too cowardly to get up so then they look to us to handle it. Then ridicule us when we do.

    I think we're a noble country, not perfect and have made mistakes. Its pretty damn cool when others see that.

    We do have some bad people in charge in our country who don't care about anything but power and themselves.

    I wonder how the world would be if some of these other leaders had the power and influence America does.. Well had I maybe should say because it seems like we're being weakened.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Oct 30, 2009 11:34 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidI would just like to add, to be clear, that I really do hold in high regard the values and principles upon which the United States was founded. And i am adamant in my position that the US Constitution is one of the most important and truly great documents ever produced. I have respect for the founding fathers of the United States and the things they stood for.

    However, that is WHY i am so critical of the United States' policies: Because it has strayed so far from its founding principles. Rome was once a Republic, and then it became an Empire, with a useless Senate.

    History repeats itself.


    I am the first person to admit that we have messed up a lot of things. There are those however that seem all to willing to lay every single thing wrong in the world today at the feet of the United States, as though we have invaded and defiled a pristine, benevolent utopia or something. These folks I refer to as the "Blame America First" crowd. We get lots of stuff wrong, but I won't fault us for trying...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2009 11:35 PM GMT
    I would like to believe that America was noble, but reason does not allow me.

    The reality is, America does not "stand up for" or "intervene" in any country which it does not have a strategic or economic interest. It IS an empire, and one that is far more malevolent than benevolent.

    I'm sorry, but i cannot knowingly dupe myself into believing that America, after supporting countless terrorist organizations, dictators, wars, and genocides, is a "humanitarian" or "noble" empire. It just does not compute.