Introducing Your New Imperial Overlords: The U.S.A.
	found on Sunday Herald written by dpvance and luggage, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 18 Sep 5:00pm
		"Glasgow's Sunday Herald draws attention to 'a secret blueprint for US global domination' written in the run-up to the 2000 election by the Project for A New American Century, a right-wing think-tank chaired by the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol. "The (not so secret) report, entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', was commissioned by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Gov. Jeb Bush and Lewis Libbey, Cheney's chief-of-staff. It puts forward a US strategy for 'shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests', to create a 'pax Americana' which ensures that no other world power has the capacity to challenge the USA in the foreseeable future. It also discusses the future potential to develop biological and microbe-based weapons, the role of the Internet in 'new methods of attack', and argues that the existence of such countries as North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran 'justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system' by the USA. The report is so unbelievable it reads like something the editors of The Onion thought up. Crazy stuff." As you might expect, the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland sees such imperial ambition a little differently, as does Gore Vidal. But some conservative pundits, such as Dinesh D'Souza, are quite happy to embrace the notion of an imperial future for the United States.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 136 commentsmost: 20 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  If not us, then who?   by Militant Elvis       at Wed 18 Sep 5:18pm score of 1.5 compelling     I happen to LIKE the Pax Americana. Perhaps it won't be as long lived as the Pax Romania, or even the Pax Brittania, but considering what a total stuffup the Pax Sparta, Pax Germania were, and the total disaster that Pax Mecca would be, I don't think our current rulers are doing all that bad a job. So far at least. Someone is going to be (or try to be) in charge. I'd much rather it be the USA & Co. than anyone else right now. As nasty as our hegemony may be, nobody is envious of Chilean success (just thier awsome apple pie) and last time I checked folks were not risking life and limb to sneak into Burundi in search of a better life. I suspect that you have very little hands-on knowledge of rape. --davidpalter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ratnerstar       at Wed 18 Sep 9:10pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     I agree. America has made its share of mistakes in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. But we still represent -- and often adhere to -- some beautiful ideals. While we may fall short, there is no one else out there who's even trying. Without American hegemony, other nations will step up to fill the power gap. I'm willing to bet they will be less enlightened than us. There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: If not us, then who?   by harzerkatze       at Thu 19 Sep 1:53am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 9     But we still represent -- and often adhere to -- some beautiful ideals. While we may fall short, there is no one else out there who's even trying. Wow, I really hope that was ironic. If you really believe this, your head is so high up in the clouds I guess whatever I want to say to you won't reach that high. But just in case: You do realise that the US is only one of quite a few of free, democratic countries, right? That, apart from being quite large and the most powerful nation in destructive power, it is just another country trying to uphold these ideas with success changing in extend and time? The USA isn't something special. The more it believes itself do be, the more it endangeres itself. The foundation of all ideas of freedom and liberty is the ability to critically question yourself. If a person, or a whole country for the matter, convinces himself that he is special and superior to all others, he endangers all his ideals more that any enemy could. Question authority. Don't ask why. Just do it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: If not us, then who?   by holgate       at Thu 19 Sep 6:33am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 9     But we still represent -- and often adhere to -- some beautiful ideals. Not so often outside your own borders, though. Which may explain a certain wariness towards the notion of a Pax Americana conducted while the same disparity of knowledge and integrity exists between actions at home and and those abroad. At least the Romans got out and about a bit.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 19 Sep 9:34am score of 0.5 witty   in reply to comment 9     While we may fall short, there is no one else out there who's even trying. Yeah, except all of Europe, Canada, Mexico, and just about every other democratic capitalist country. Despite your apparent ignorance of the world around you, the US was not the first, nor will it be the last country to espouse ideals of individual freedom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: If not us, then who?   by eeksypeeksy       at Thu 19 Sep 6:31am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 16     > The USA isn't something special. Except for the cash. When you're that rich, you buy a big army and suddenly you're the boss. Who else can afford to throw aircraft carriers around like that? And all of those people waiting to get into the country are looking to grab some of that money. Take away the money and suddenly there's no giant army, no line of people waiting to get in, etc. Things will change when another country's (or region's) economy eclipses the US economy. China, for instance, or India, could become the world's leading economy. Then they will build the massive air forces and navies, the weapons programs, etc. And if that's where the money is, that's where the immigrants will want to go.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  What are you saying?   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 19 Sep 6:35am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 16     Yes, we're one of a number of free, democratic countries. Freedom and democracy were some of the "beautiful ideals" ratnerstar alluded to. Do you disagree that these ideals are humanity's best hope? You didn't make that clear. And yes, we're "quite large and the most powerful nation in destructive power". Is that a a bad thing? Would you rather China held that distinction? Our economic and military power does make us special, whether you like it or not. There may be other countries that have perfected the ideals of freedom, representative government and the pursuit of happiness better than we have. If so, they probably have a lot to teach us. Our military and economic power helps strengthen democracy worldwide. Compromising that power would only help democracy's enemies.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 19 Sep 7:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     You seem to think that all of that economic prosperity is some kind of accident? That it has nothing to do with the ideals that the US espouses? There are countries with far greater natural and human resources that have done a much poorer job in that department. The only way I see China or India eclipsing the US in buying power is if they become far more like the US in outlook. Then who's to say who "won"? No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: If not us, then who?   by eeksypeeksy       at Thu 19 Sep 8:31am score of 1 incoherent   in reply to comment 38     That it has nothing to do with the ideals that the US espouses? Very little. Many other countries have the same ideals. The US is so disproportionately rich mainly because it is a large empire made up of invaded and conquered nations, and because it has always been remote from the other world powers and so has had no pesky invaders of its own to worry about. It took advantage of a large relative vacuum in world power. If, instead of being made up mainly of rebellious UK colonists, the US had been founded mainly by, for example, rebellious French or German colonists with whatever ideals they might have brought with them, the resulting nation would likely have done equally well. Then who's to say who "won"? It's not a matter of winning and losing -- that's the sort of attitude that causes trouble. It's just a fact. Right now, one country is at the center of much economic power and so has more military power. When the center shifts (and the center always shifts), the power will go with it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: If not us, then who?   by bashibazouk       at Thu 19 Sep 8:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     The problem with this is the modern economic habit of extreme cross investment. Sure the us is down economically but have you looked at the rest of the world? Or at least the heavy foreign investors in america (most of the industrialized world)? Their worse off then we are. America hiccups, the rest of the world pukes. Though this Pax Americana does shed light in to the current administration's strong support of a missile defense. There are three other countries that have enough nukes and advanced delivery systems to have the "mutually assured destruction" thing going on: Russia, Britain and France. And you know Russia and France are not going to be dominated easily. Though at this point one could argue the US has already failed in it's attempt at Pax Americana since the combined EU should rival the US economically and if it were to admit Russia, militarily.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: If not us, then who?   by SerpentSkirt       at Thu 19 Sep 11:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Astute?! No doubt people will be lining up to enter... CHINA. Because it's open and nonrepressive. And because it needs more people. Kind of like India needs more people. There is more to being desirable than having sacks of cash; many countries in Europe don't fling around the moolah like the US does and people aren't fleeing them -- and if they had more open immigration policies they'd probably have a large influx of people. It has little to do with the big guns. -SS   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ratnerstar       at Thu 19 Sep 11:45am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 16     I'm not going to argue that America's domestic policies are better or worse than any other country. Obviously, liberty is not an exclusively American concept. But, as you'll note, this thread is about international issues. Yes, there are many other countries that are committed to freedom and democracy -- for their own citizens. Despite all the efforts of the isolationist wing of the GOP, America remains actively engaged with the rest of the world, something that cannot be said for Europe or any other democracy. European countries especially have become remarkably solipsistic; they have neither the resources nor the will to involve themselves much outside their own borders. Almost nothing happens on the international scene without American leadership. Witness Yugoslavia and Kosovo. And while we have failed in many places -- Somolia, Rwanda -- have you seen any of the other enlightened democracies of this world taking up the slack? Now let me ask you another question: can you show me a historical example of a megapower like America that has behaved better than we have, or even as well? And a follow up: can you name a country that you would rather have as the dominant world power? There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: What are you saying?   by kingraoul3       at Thu 19 Sep 12:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Our military and economic power helps strengthen democracy worldwide. How so? By deposing the democratically elected (and ancient) Iranian parliament in order to put a more pliant leader in place in the Shah? Or perhaps you were referring to Chile, where we destroyed the democratic institutions in order to get rid of an elected leader we didn't like? Oh no, wait, you must be talking about Indonesia, where we offered tacit political support (and concrete military support) for Suharto, who not only destroyed a democratic government, but choked his rivers with dead members of the communist party (at the time the largest such party in the world) and committed the largest act of genocide relative to population since the holocaust in East Timor. This is only a freaking sample. Empire or not, the U.S. has not been a beneficial thing for the vast majority of the world's population.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: What are you saying?   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 12:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Germany. Japan. Italy. Eastern Europe. This, too, is only a freaking sample. Don't try to say that we've only done bad things -- the majority of Americans admit that our government (and by extension, ourselves) has done some pretty awful shit over the years, but we're not quite as evil as you portray us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: What are you saying?   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 19 Sep 12:34pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 68     Empire or not, the U.S. has not been a beneficial thing for the vast majority of the world's population. The vast majority of the world's population live in East Timor, Iran and Chile? Odd that they'd let us push them around like that, then. During the Cold War, if a democratic government seemed on the verge of becoming a socialist satellite of the USSR, we'd definitely rather have a US-friendly dictator instead. Hardly perfect, but in some parts of the world that was the best we could hope for.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Smallest       at Thu 19 Sep 12:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     The US is blessed with a huge chunk of land, with a ton of natural resources, isolated from the rest of the world by two large oceans. Put those much vaunted ideals and freedoms in a geographic region like Afghanistan or and you'd probably see an entirely different outcome. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: If not us, then who?   by slaphappy       at Thu 19 Sep 1:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     You'd have Israel, or 18th Century Prussia under Frederick the Great. Civilization counts for a lot, and as insensitive as it sounds, some cultures and societies have intrinsic advantages over others. A country with a culture based on liberal and liberating ideals will generally smack the hell out of much more powerful and populous authoritarian neighbors militarily. India v. China is another example, as is Chad v. Uganda under Amin. The U.S. fought the American Civil War for humanitarian reasons (look into the history of the Kansas Territory if you doubt it), and the North was able to rebound from one military disaster and incompetent general after another because of the progressive culture of the northern states. Wealth is not always a sign of rapaciousness, it can also be a sign of intelligence and resourcefulness. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: What are you saying?   by execute       at Thu 19 Sep 1:45pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 68     Empire or not, the U.S. has not been a beneficial thing for the vast majority of the world's population. Granted, the US has done bad things. But it has been a beneficial thing for the vast majority of the world's population. The US hasn't fucked up 5 billion people (vast majority). And it has directly helped many millions (if not billions) in aide to India, China, Russia, Europe, South America, etc etc.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: If not us, then who?   by mad_clown       at Thu 19 Sep 2:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     Despite all the efforts of the isolationist wing of the GOP It's not just the GOP that seems hell-bent on keeping the U.S. out of international politics. Please note the reaction of the far left any time the U.S. gets involved in anything whatsoever: accusations of "imperialism," "world domination," and "exploitation" invariably follow. Suggestions that the U.S. "keep its nose out of everyone else's business" are none to scarce either. If this doesn't show a healthy "isolationist" attitude, I don't know what does. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: If not us, then who?   by jhe       at Thu 19 Sep 3:58pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 38     You seem to think that all of that economic prosperity is some kind of accident? That it has nothing to do with the ideals that the US espouses? There are countries with far greater natural and human resources that have done a much poorer job in that department. Three things have marked the upward ascent of the US: A culture of individual risk taking and a strong commercial orientation. Unbelievable amounts of natural resources (oil, timber, coal, minerals, arable land) in quantities far in excess of other developed nations (except Russia). A really good habit of staying out of colonial/imperial adventures up until the late '40s (Latin America was relatively light handed -- we never imposed direct rule except over Texas and California which we flat out took). Europe bankrupted itself in a monumentally pointless war (WW parts I and II) and couldn't afford the net drain of its colonies. The US isn't clean (we have a whole bunch of issues with Native Americans, African Americans and most of Latin America), but it hasn't been on the cutting edge of inappropriate behavior in the way Europe was and the USSR was and China is. Our virtue is relative and increasingly not even that. The EU is still trying to figure out what it is, but given a few years it might show us up. My question is: Why are we scrapping the strategy when it's working? "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ratnerstar       at Thu 19 Sep 4:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 85     Please note the reaction of the far left any time the U.S. gets involved in anything whatsoever: accusations of "imperialism," "world domination," and "exploitation" invariably follow. Suggestions that the U.S. "keep its nose out of everyone else's business" are none to scarce either. If this doesn't show a healthy "isolationist" attitude, I don't know what does. Agreed, the far left is certainly as isolationist as the far right. The difference is, nobody really cares what the far left thinks. There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: If not us, then who?   by mad_clown       at Thu 19 Sep 5:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 97     And given our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq under the GOP (not to mention our second helping in Iraq), it would seem that nobody really cares what the hardcore isolationist wing of the GOP thinks either. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: If not us, then who?   by pattonbt       at Thu 19 Sep 5:17pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 47     "The US is so disproportionately rich mainly because it is a large empire made up of invaded and conquered nations" This has to be about the most idiotic statement I have ever read. You imply that we have colonized every nation in the world (outside of our own continental borders). Name one country we have "conquered" in a territorial sense and remained as the colonizing governmental power, please, one. Do we influence? You bet your ass we do, who doesnt? There is nothing wrong with disliking the US, there are plenty of reasons to no doubt, but to be willfully ignorant about the realities of why the US is as powerful as they are right now is childish. Why did the power vacuum exist in the first place, because we bankrupted our main enemy without firing a significant shot. The vacuum came about because no one can or wants to compete like the US. We dont mind getting our hands dirty and doing whats necessary to get the job done so we come out on top. The US is where it is because of rule of law, trust in government (to a greater extent than most other countrues), geographic isolation which makes it naturally "safe" from invasion or physical threat, powerful competitive drives, progressive though pragmatic behavior, violent and destructive when threatened, homogenous (for the most part) capitalistic ideaology and acceptance, lack of historical adversaries, lack of religious and culturally ingrained ideaology that denies progress and an innate sense of worth. The US was in the right place at the right time with the rightest system possible for the time. We got lucky and are running with it as long as we can. Is there some day the US will fall. Absolutely, some day some country will come up with a system that takes better care of their citizens than we do, and then people will start buying their brand of coffee over ours. Until then the US is driving and I like the looks of where it is going better than in the backseat of China, Iran, Africa, South America or Eastern Europe. Europe, Canada, Asia, and the other first world countries have the luxury of being our conscience while riding our coattails of success. Memo to the rest of the world, if you hate us that much stop sucking at our teat and stand up for what you believe in and take us on head to head. Which is worse a country that has the balls to say "This is how we are and we arent ashamed to admit it" or a country that says "Everything in the world is the US' fault - oh and by the way can we have our check now please". Rant over.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: If not us, then who?   by eeksypeeksy       at Thu 19 Sep 10:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 105     This has to be about the most idiotic statement I have ever read. I'll take that as further evidence that you don't read much. You certainly didn't read my comment very carefully. You imply that we have colonized every nation in the world (outside of our own continental borders). No. You introduced an artificial limit on the argument -- "outside of our own continental borders" -- to avoid the issue. Name one country we have "conquered" in a territorial sense and remained as the colonizing governmental power, please, one. Do any of these names sound familiar to you? Algonquin? Arapaho? Blackfeet? Cherokee? Cheyenne? Chickasaw? Choctaw? I could list many more. Every square inch of the United States is the territory of an invaded and conquered nation. It isn't ancient history; much of it happened not much more than a hundred years ago. They weren't white folk, but I hope that doesn't mean some people think they don't count. And that's the power vacuum I was talking about. When you say "Why did the power vacuum exist in the first place, because we bankrupted our main enemy without firing a significant shot," you show that you think only in terms of the last handful of years and conveniently forget the rest of American history, when shots were fired, many of them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Djerrid       at Thu 19 Sep 10:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     The USA isn't something special. The more it believes itself do be, the more it endangeres itself. The foundation of all ideas of freedom and liberty is the ability to critically question yourself. If a person, or a whole country for the matter, convinces himself that he is special and superior to all others, he endangers all his ideals more that any enemy could. I totally agree. Your comment reminds me of a reason that creationists don't want to be related to the rest of the life forms on this planet. If they are "just another species" then that means that they don't have any inherent superiority or right to dominate all other life and assumes that they are "part of a whole". Assuming you are "above it all" dooms you to be blind to the consequences of your actions. If you are God's chosen people, how can you become extinct? 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: If not us, then who?   by pattonbt       at Fri 20 Sep 12:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 119     There is no question we stole our land from the Indians and in no way could anyone counter that. And yes this period ended within the last hundred years. However, we are dealing with the current US, not the US of one hundred years ago. The US of one hundred years ago and today are completely different. Although one might make the argument that the same principles apply then as now, just on a larger scale, but I think we have changed in our approach. The US of that time was nothing close to the unified country it is today or the global driving force it is now. All we wanted at that time was our unified borders and we were more than happy to keep to ourselves. Our involvement in both world wars was highly controversial and a caused a fundamental shift in where we saw ourselves in the world. Our decimation of the Indians was pure theft and nothing else. However, since our destruction of the Indian nations we have not militarily "conquered" anyone and that is why I drew the distinction. I believe unequivocally we try and "economically" conquer everyone currently. Although I do stick by my comment of your implication. You are just as easy to disregard the current history of the US in order to make the point you wish made. The current is the best indicator of the future not the past. So I would say it still holds that while yes in the past before the US was pulled into the world at large in the early 1900's we conquered by might. Whereas in our recent past, last hundred years, we have not sought to be a colonizing or conquering power. Hopefully that adds some clarification. I do apologize for saying "most idiotic" I got carried away.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ridsel       at Fri 20 Sep 1:12am score of 1 interesting   in reply to comment 66     How about we have no super-power... but a whole bunch of countries that treat each other like equals (despite differences in size and potential power, etc). That'd almost be like democracy, right? And please don't go quoting Kosovo and Somalia as examples of good democracy-spreading behaviour. They were the exact opposite... American power grabs based on inflated pre-texts. Try reading some non-US media sometime. *****   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: If not us, then who?   by eeksypeeksy       at Fri 20 Sep 1:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 66     European countries especially have become remarkably solipsistic; they have neither the resources nor the will to involve themselves much outside their own borders. I believe it is the money much more than the will that determines this. Bill Gates gives much more to charities than I do, but it isn't that I don't want to help others and that Gates is so unusually kind and generous. And gunboat diplomacy is possible only if you have an overwhelming force of expensive gunboats (and aircraft and missiles and so on). can you show me a historical example of a megapower like America that has behaved better than we have, or even as well? For its time and circumstances, the US is not necessarily better or worse than its predecessors. It's just another pituitary giant among regular kids in the school basketball league. And a follow up: can you name a country that you would rather have as the dominant world power? There doesn't have to be, and there shouldn't be, a single dominant world power. I would rather that no country ran the world. It would be very silly to be an American proclaiming the wonders of democracy and freedom -- one man, one vote, and so on -- who at the same time wants to use the overwhelming force of one nation to make the rest of the world act as America tells it to act. The closest thing there is to world democracy is the UN, and the US hates when the UN tells it what to do.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  that's a good list of points...   by Wei Ming Kai       at Fri 20 Sep 6:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 93     ...I like your question at the end too. My question is: Why are we scrapping the strategy when it's working? My attempt to answer: Because the military interventionist strategy will ensconce and enrich the Bush related sphere of power elite currently in control of the US government for many years to come. It becomes a win-win scenario for the Bush-Hawk Cabal no matter what happens as a result of committing to global strong arming: if the US gains greater control (economic/military) over foriegn resources/governments/regions then the Bush-Hawk faction is vindicated for its great vision of leadership and can proceed to win future 'elections' here in the states and perpetuate its lock on power If military adventurism touches off more chaos, terror, and strife in unstable areas of the globe (and here in the US) - then the public fear of this increasingly dark future will insure that 'strong' tough-guy leaders will be elected and the Bush-Hawk faction will remain in control. Al and Ralph are certainly the opposite of 'tough-guys' - and so are thier supporters. Even if fraud, graft, cronyism, and whacko conservative social legislation is flagrantly paraded before voters as being endemic to the current ruling elite sphere, the overwhelming fear of terrorism and foreign threats to the US can be exploited to secure the GOP enough votes. Basically its all about keeping the current elite group in power indefinitely, the plan is likely to work as long as the US is militarily embroiled in solving/creating the problems that will plague us in the future. the intelligent, like the unintelligent, are responsive to propaganda -H.L.Mencken   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: If not us, then who?   by hohesC       at Fri 20 Sep 10:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 105     Memo to the rest of the world, if you hate us that much stop sucking at our teat and stand up for what you believe in and take us on head to head. Which is worse a country that has the balls to say "This is how we are and we arent ashamed to admit it" or a country that says "Everything in the world is the US' fault - oh and by the way can we have our check now please". actually, the german chancellor did that. i don't agree with the stance of the chancellor on iraq, but many people here do. so, germany stood up and said: "we won't be part of this, you must be completely nuts to start a war over there." reaction? georgie was not happy. so, what now? stand up or not? maybe stand up when it isn't about terrorism. oh, i forgot, these days everything is about terorrism. yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  Re: If not us, then who?   by katieo       at Fri 20 Sep 11:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 123     Kosovo and Somalia...(were) American power grabs based on inflated pre-texts Despite the fact that I read the Guardian every day, I still don't see how these were "power grabs". Maybe I'm not reading it carefully enough. What power did we want out of Somalia? What riches were to be had from our intervention in Kosovo? They may not have been good democracy spreading behavior, but they were certainly not "power grabs". Try to avoid parroting the old anti-globalization urban legends sometime. Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   135.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ratnerstar       at Fri 20 Sep 11:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 123     And please don't go quoting Kosovo and Somalia as examples of good democracy-spreading behaviour. They were the exact opposite... American power grabs based on inflated pre-texts. Try reading some non-US media sometime. So, are you saying the widely documented (and not just by "US Media") slaughter in Kosovo never actually happened? Or just that it doesn't warrant anyone intervening? And the famine in Somalia -- was that also invented by evil US media conglomerates? And exactly what power did we seize in those operations? The nation that controls Kosovo controls the world, huh? Yes, it would be very nice if all countries treated each other like equals and nobody ever invaded their neighbors and brutal warlords didn't massacre their own people from time to time. Unfortunately, this is the real world. There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  Re: If not us, then who?   by emperorpenguin       at Fri 20 Sep 2:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 134     Good call. Somalia and Kosovo would be terrible candidates for 'power grabs'. If anything, they were PR campaigns to show that the US is interested in more than realpolitik. Which could be viewed just as cynically, of course, but it would be far more accurate to characterize the actions as a calculated attempt to appeal to the international community than to claim they were 'power grabs'. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  A strawman replies ...   by senseofhistory       at Thu 19 Sep 5:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     ... how about a Pax world government? Foolish strawman! Look at the candidates for world government - the UN? The WTC? They're totally inadequate. That still doesn't mean it isn't the ultimate right answer. No matter how difficult nor how often met with failure, I believe the nations of the world must continue to strive for a legitimate, effective, world government.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: A strawman replies ...   by coil       at Thu 19 Sep 8:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Why are you replying to comment #1, but quoting some other comment? It is really confusing. "This is the real world, muchachos. And you are in it." -B.Traven   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: A strawman replies ...   by execute       at Thu 19 Sep 1:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Will you guys please stop saying "strawman" all the time. Sweet Christ can we have one thread without cries of "strawman strawman"? I'm starting to curse whomever made that post about debating techniques. Lets please save everyone posts about how you were saying "strawman" back when it wasn't cool.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: If not us, then who?   by KOMPRESSOR       at Thu 19 Sep 6:39am score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 1     NOBODY, you moron! That's the whole point, there shouldn't be just one country "responsible" for keeping the rest of the world at "peace". You'll note the ironic quotation marks, since our so-called responsibility for peace is really the right to plunder, 21st century lese-majeste... KOMPRESSOR apple: not just a different way, a better way   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: If not us, then who?   by ratnerstar       at Thu 19 Sep 11:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Yes, and while we're wishing for a world where larger countries don't exert their power over smaller ones, I'd also like 20 gabillion dollars and a supermodel wife. It ain't gonna happen, bub. If America abdicates, or is removed, from its position of global dominance, other powers will quickly move in to take over. This is a fact of life. So why don't we do something constructive, such as working to improve our current, relatively benevolent hegemon? Or, if you want, we have have an Asia controlled by the Chinese and a Middle East controlled by god knows who. That sure sounds like a more attractive situation, huh? There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Stuart       at Thu 19 Sep 12:54pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 67     a Middle East controlled by god knows who. You stupid foolish dumbass (sorry just trying to fit in with the rest of the thread,) it's "ALLAH knows who..." ;) "It is not perfectly clear from your syntax which side of the pony you are trying to ride here." - AI   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: If not us, then who?   by marduk_kur       at Thu 19 Sep 7:17am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 1     What is wrong with the Pax Americana? Nothing if it arrives with a smile and a helping hand. Everything if it comes at the point of a sword. The operative word is pax. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: If not us, then who?   by Militant Elvis       at Thu 19 Sep 7:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Yeah. Worked out real badly for the Germans and Japanese. The US is like a woman in that even if you win a fight, you really lose and she won't ever forget about it. Ask Cuba and Vietnam. I suspect that you have very little hands-on knowledge of rape. --davidpalter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Basic fact checking   by profwhat       at Wed 18 Sep 5:35pm score of 4 informative     The report is here. It lists "Thomas Donnelly" as the principal author. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the others named by the Sunday Herald do not appear as authors; nor does it say anywhere that they commissioned it. Some, like Wolfowitz, are listed as being "project participants," which means they "participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion," but the report says very clearly that "The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions." The Sunday Herald story gives no source for its assertion that this document is in any way associated with current U.S. policy, or even with any of the people it claims "commissioned" it. This shoddy reporting is surprising to see in such an internationally renowned newspaper as the Glasgow Sunday Herald, which we of course have all heard of and read every week.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Basic fact checking   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 18 Sep 8:35pm score of 0.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 2     Well, there's an awful lot of Plasticians who certainly don't let the facts get in the way of their self-righteous AmeriKKKa bashing. You're screaming into a hurricane, man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Basic fact checking   by Djerrid       at Thu 19 Sep 8:11am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 2     This month's Harper's Magazine did a critique of "The Plan". They went over the question of whose plan it is in their first paragraph: Few writers are more ambitious than the writers of government policy papers, and few policy papers are more ambitious than Dick Cheney's masterwork. It has taken several forms over the last decade and is in fact the product of several ghostwriters (notably Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell), but Cheney has been consistent in his dedication to the ideas in the documents that bear his name, and he has maintained a close association with the ideologues behind them. Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, and the series of documents the Plan I particularly like their paragraph-long summation of it: The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming millitary superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and foes alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful. What is that they say about power and corruption? 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Basic fact checking   by profwhat       at Thu 19 Sep 12:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, Let us therefore ask Harper's what the hell it is talking about. I'm curious; did they have any evidence that Dick Cheney, in the middle of participating in a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week presidential campaign, took time to write an enormous think tank paper and get it published in September of 2000? And, if Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (hereinafter "The Evil Secret Cabal") really are the true authors of this thing, where is their motivation in publishing it? Can't they just Xerox a few copies and pass it out at national security council meetings, seeing as how they run the military and all? Were they preparing for the contingency of a Gore victory, and hoping that he would be persuaded by a think tank paper?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Basic fact checking   by Djerrid       at Thu 19 Sep 9:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 75     David Armstrong is the author of the critique. He is the National Security News Service Bureau Chief and "has written extensively on national security and intelligence matters as well as national politics, foreign policy, media, finance, and the environment. He was formerly the editor of the Texas Observer and his work has appeared in a wide variety of publications. Armstrong has a Ph.D. in American Studies and a master's degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin." So he isn't some two-bit hack. "The Plan" actually had its genesis when your "Evil Secret Cabal" learned of U.S.S.R.'s collapse, so it wasn't created out of thin air during the campaign. Armstrong's critique actually covers many versions of it, including drafts of "Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 Fiscal Years" which all came from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; they were published confidentially in 1992 while Cheney was still the Secretary of Defense and subsequently leaked to the NY Times. 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' is just rehashing an old theme. Armstrong states that Cheney synthesized Powell's wish to have a millitary presence "in every corner of the globe" with Wolfowitz's "unilateralist, maximum-force approach" to achieve his own goal, overwhelming millitary superiority through increased millitary spending. Although he doesn't give a picture of Cheney putting pen to paper, Armstrong notes that many of the drafts "bear his name", which, along with the drafts comeing from his office, is proof enough that Cheney had a heavy hand in its construction. I'm curious, who do you think wrote it? 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  Re: Basic fact checking   by katieo       at Fri 20 Sep 12:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 117     My personal experience with Harper's is - to put as nice a spin on it as possible - that it is an opinion journal, and thus not bound to the traditional newspaper-based ethics of journalism. That is to say, they can say basically whatever they want as long as they think it's true - even if they have facts that fly in the face the opinion they would like to write. Here's an example: Cheney synthesized Powell's wish to have a millitary presence "in every corner of the globe" Colin Powell is a man who is such a noted isolationist that he has a doctrine named after him (the Powell Doctrine, natch) which specifically states his desire not to have a military presence in every corner of the globe (part of the reason he's been marginalized building up to war in Iraq, part II), yet Armstrong presents Powell as if he were an inveterate nation-builder. Did he just not do the research, or did he choose to present Powell as such because it worked better with his theory? I'm guessing the latter, but feel free to draw your own conclusions if you want to give Armstrong - and Harper's - the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, I put relatively little stock in the opinions of any author who would make so gross a misstatement, no matter how much experience he supposedly has. Who do I think wrote it? My guess is somewhere along the line Cheney wrote something like this. Then the "Project for A New American Century" came along and played it up for their own purposes - a report "authored" by Cheney carries more weight. And then, Harper's came along and distorted it a little bit more, until it's really outrageous, but unfortunately no longer bears much similarity to the original report. Sorry to put a dose of skepticism on all the foaming at the mouth by either side... Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   138.  Re: Basic fact checking   by profwhat       at Fri 20 Sep 1:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 117     ...which all came from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; they were published confidentially in 1992 while Cheney was still the Secretary of Defense and subsequently leaked to the NY Times. Your link is to the "Baobab Press," which I am sure is a good source, but it is just as light on attribution as the Glasgow paper is. The fact that Cheney participated in fiscal defense planning during his time as defense secretary should not shock anyone. If Cheney actually put into a defense plan that the United States should take over the world, I'd be surprised, and I hope some journalist other than the Baobab Press has evidence to back that up -- perhaps with a quote, or a confirmation from the man himself. Know of any? Two bit hacks or otherwise? To establish that the paper sitting on the web site is, as the Glasgow paper described it, a "secret blueprint" for U.S. foreign policy, you need to show that it has some sort of connection with the people implementing that policy. I don't see what that connection is. The fact that this paper contains views that Harper's can argue are similar to those that Powell and Wolfowitz once expressed just isn't proof that they had any hand in writing it. Hell, some of our fellow Plasticians have said similar things; did they write it? Even if it can be proven that the Evil Secret Cabal did write it (and I'd still like to know when they had the time), there's no proof that it is currently a document that anyone relies on to set U.S. policy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   140.  Re: Basic fact checking   by Djerrid       at Fri 20 Sep 2:09pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 137     I'm afraid I liberally paraphrased in the "every corner of the globe" bit (I swear I saw that phrase in some part of the article, but I may have misattributed it). Anyway, here's the basis for my paraphrasing: To [manage less-well defined regional struggles and unforseen contingencies], the United States would have to project a military "forward presence" around the world; there would be fewer troops but in more places... [Powell] also insisted that the troops levels he proposed were the bare minimum necessary to do so. This concept would come to be known as the "Base Force." (a google link) From your link, the Powell Doctrine isn't described as isolationalist, instead it is the insistence that every potential military engagement requires either overwhelming force or none at all and these engagements are not for "half-baked reasons" like "nation- building" and "humanitarianism." There is a difference and Powell made a distinction between a millitary presence ("Base Force") and millitary engagement (Powell's Doctrine). His views may have changed in response to current events though (Iraq 2.0). I do agree with your assessment of Harper's but only in regards to the editor's own writings. Every month there is at least one major article by the senior editors and I find their logic convoluted at best. But the articles by the freelance journalists et al. that they pick up are usually quite good and well constructed. (Damn, this would be so much easier if Harper's posted their articles.) 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   147.  I can't believe I'm still writing...   by Djerrid       at Sat 21 Sep 12:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 138     If you are questioning whether the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) was leaked to the NY Times, Google could help you out. (I think you would have to pay the Times for their old articles if you want it from the horse's mouth.) If you are wondering what the DPG said, here's some timely quotes that Armstrong gave us: [T]he United States should expect future alliances to be "ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished." It was essential to create "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and essential that America position itself "to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in crisis situations requiring immediate action. Sound familiar? When the DPG was leaked in '92, "critics on both the left and the right attacked it immediately." Delaware Senator Joseph Biden criticized the Plan's vision of a "Pax Americana, a global security system where threats to stability are suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power." What did Cheney say about it? The Pentagon's spokesman dismissed the leaked document as a "low-level draft" and claimed that Cheney had not seen it. Yet a fifteen-page section [in the DPG] opened by proclaiming that it constituted "definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defence." Powell's reaction is different than Cheney's: Powell took a more forthright approach to dealing with the flap: he publicly embraced the DPG's core concept. In a TV interview, he said he believed it was "just fine" that the United States should reign as the world's dominant military power. "I don't think we should apologize for that," he said. Despite bad reviews in the foreign press, Powell insisted that America's allies were "not afraid" of U.S. military might because it was "power that could be trusted" and "will not be misused." You stated: ...you need to show that it has some sort of connection with the people implementing that policy. I don't see what that connection is. I guess it would be fun to find out definitively who was the one that masterminded The Plan. What is more relevent is that it is being carried out to the letter by the same "Evil Cabal" that it's claimed to originate from. The DPG seems to be a checklist for today's foreign policy: "prevent the re-emergence of a new rival", preemptive military action, decreasing other nations nuclear capabilities while "maintaining a substantial U.S. nuclear arsenal", an "early introduction" of a global missile-defense system, retaining access to "Persian Gulf oil", unilateral action and military superiority. These goals are all in-line with the "secret blueprint". No, the written versions of The Plan would not explicitly state "the United States should take over the world". Implicitly, you can take the above goals and infer that the Administration wishes to be such a dominant independent millitary presence as to render all other millitary forces impotent and inconsequential. You are free to come up with your own interpretations. Sadly, the 1992 versions of the DPG are not available on the web. Although, one of the other papers that Armstrong critiqued is. Defense Strategy for the 1990s was released during Cheney's last days as the Sec. of Defence with his name on the cover page. (Apparently they had time to write it while in the White House and it was updated as time went on.) A quote: A future President will need options allowing him to lead and, where the international reaction proves sluggish or inadequate, to act independently to protect our critical interests. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Actually...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 20 Sep 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     ... I think the most telling argument against this having any real impact on policy is the fact that I've met two of the participants. There are more degrees of separation between me & power than that. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Ho Hum.   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 18 Sep 5:36pm score of 2.5 astute     The SECRET document reads like a fairly standard, conservative Republican interpretation of the way things should be in the world. What, did someone expect a document that spoke to our undying friendship with Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Jordan and Iran? At the time the document was drafted (1997) not even Bill Clinton considered any of those countries as friendly. Did anyone expect a global strategy document commissioned by a group of fairly conservative Republicans to actually speculate that we should take a backseat to UN leadership? The rest of the document, with the possible exception of actually enunciating a position in favor of regime change in Beijing are fairly standard stuff and may just as well have been published at the behest of William Cohen's Defense Department or Madeleine Albright's State Department. The U.S. has had a world-wide command and control system in play ever since the end of World War II. And in point of fact, both then and now, the U.S. is the preeminent superpower in the world. It doesn't serve our purposes, or the purposes of the rest of the world, to act like we aren't. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Ignore the Sunday Herald; check out he Guardian   by tylerh       at Wed 18 Sep 6:14pm score of 4.5 compelling     As prof what and others point out, we can safely ignore the main topic of the write-up. However, check out the Jonathan Freedland link. He makes a strong case that the US "empire" is being shaped by many of the same forces that shaped the Roman Empire, and that the US is responding in a similar fashion. Other than the fact that I haven't been invited to any orgies lately, even Jonathan implies "is that so bad?" Empires, like any other technology, are a-moral. It is the use to which they are put that matters. Where America stays true to it Enlightenment ideals, (eg the Peace Corps, which is pretty bald imperialism), I'd say the US hegemony is a good thing. When the US undermines democracies and actively participates in oppression (eg Pinochet in Chile), I'd say it's a bad thing. It's not that the US is a global hyperpower/empire. That's just the way it is at the moment. The relevant question is: is the US using that power to make the world a better place? Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Re: Ignore the Sunday Herald; check out he   by NH4       at Thu 19 Sep 8:54am score of 3.5 helpful   in reply to comment 4     Speaking of "forces that shaped the Roman Empire," Tylerh, there is the matter of the similarity between the U.S.'s struggle against "Islamicists" (a/k/a the "War Against Terrorism") and Rome's struggle against Jewish extremists in the first century BC and the first century AD. The Jews of the day used the same tactics against Roman citizens and Roman interests that Islamicists advocate today. The Romans held back, trying to pacify the Jews, for over 150 years before deciding to wipe the Jews out altogether (in 70 AD). Few people seem to realize that most anti-Semitism had its origins in Roman times, when the Jewish people thought terrorism godly and suicide noble. And very few Arabs seem to realize the enormous favor they are doing Jews everywhere by assuming the mantle of irrationality and violence in the name of God. 2000 years ago, while the Jews were having their self-destructive blow-out with Rome, the Arabs accepted Roman rule with equanimity; today, while the Arabs have their blow-out with the New Rome, the Jews/ Israelis refer to Israel as America's 51st State with a comparable equanimity. * * * Everyone is familiar with the idea of reincarnation, even those who find the idea ridiculous. Is it possible that whole civilizations reincarnate? Is modern America really Rome? The Roman/ American obsessions with indoor plumbing, violent entertainment, naked women, wealth, and representative government are just a few of the factors that might lead one to such speculation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Ignore the Sunday Herald; check out he   by tylerh       at Thu 19 Sep 10:09am score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 49     You raise several excellent points, Mr/Ms. Ammonia. I have to ask: are you familiar with mid-century British historian Arnold Toynbee? His exhaustive "A Study of History" examines questions like this. Your take on the Jewish-Roman, Arab-US metaphor is novel. Toynbee has a different take, but one that is quite similar. To him, there is a 5,000 year historical/cultural continuity from the Sumerians to the Caliphs, with a thousand year "Hellenic intrusion" that started with Alexander's conquests. The Hellenes, with their alien worldview and technology, became the dominant elite over essentially "Asiatic"[1] societies for a thousand years. Islam was the means by which those "Asiastic" culture expelled the foreign elite. Viewed from this viewpoint, the current situation in Palestine takes a darker aspect. It's not so much that the Arabs hate Jews (although many do), it's that Arab culture is heavily imbued with an "expel foreign elites whatever it takes" meme. Toynee doesn't think empires reincarnate so much as there are "cylces of history." This "cycles" idea is often over-simplified and ridiculed by those who don't understand what he meant. He does not mean that there is a "schedule" nor that each civilization proceeds throught the identical developments, but rather that at the largest scales cultures drift between "universal states" (eg the Roman Empire) and Universal Churches (eg the Roman Catholic Church). I think Arnold would have been quite content with the Dawkin's idea of "meme" as expressed through culture. Indeed, much of his analysis, particularly of Universal Churches, cries out for memetic analysis. You've also hit upon my key meme for addressing the problems of the British Mandate. Because of the Islamic "driv'em into the sea" meme, Israel is not safe/viable so long as Western military force is requisite for survival. The Arabs/Muslims will produce their Saladin in time, just as France produced Joan of Arc. To insure their grandchildren's safety, the Israelis have to nourish other memes amongst their Arab neighbors. It can be done -- much progress was made in the Haifa area over the past 50 years, and the Muslims in India and the US manage seem to get by fine without this destrucive meme. But Sharon's policy of naked force, however morally justified or effective, is foredoomed to failure on historical timescales. [1] Toynbee meant Asiatic as a purely descriptive term. In the opening 40 pages he makes the single most devatsting argument I have ever seen that Race doesn't exist and Racism is merely a "pigment of the imagination." Toynbee was no fan of the "white man's burden." Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Ignore the Sunday Herald; check out he   by NH4       at Thu 19 Sep 12:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Although I have not read "A Study of History," Tylerh, it would be hard to be historically literate without having heard of Mr. Toynbee. Based on the arguments you have summarized, Mr. Toynbee clearly deserves his reputation as an original thinker. (In the mid-nineteenth century, a recognition that there really is only one human "race" was particularly original.) I agree with you that Sharon's policies are ill-considered and self-defeating. But then what can you expect from the man who pulled Israel into decades of no-win war in Lebanon?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Ignore the Sunday Herald; check out he   by gordie       at Thu 19 Sep 9:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     the US "empire" is being shaped by many of the same forces that shaped the Roman Empire As we speak, the barbarian hordes from the north are amassing at the border ready to invade at the first sign of weakness. Dead is the drunkest that you can get.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by timnet       at Wed 18 Sep 7:41pm score of 1.5 compelling     Walk into a hotel in Barbados or Bombay and the bellhop is whistling the theme from "Titanic." D'Souza picks an interesting example to trumpet American cultural imperialism, since the "Titanic" love theme was by Celine Dion, a Canadian. The rest of his diatribe smacks too much of social Darwinism and the concept of manifest destiny for my comfort. Those ideals, of course, were widely shared by men of scholarship ... about 100 years ago. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by deeluxx       at Wed 18 Sep 10:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     D'Souza picks an interesting example to trumpet American cultural imperialism, since the "Titanic" love theme was by Celine Dion, a Canadian Well, Celine blathered out the vocals, but James Horner (an American) wrote the song. It's really not a bad song when Los Straitjackets kick it in surfy-loungy style.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue (OT)   by timnet       at Thu 19 Sep 4:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     It's really not a bad song when Los Straitjackets kick it in surfy-loungy style. It goes without saying that Los Straitjackets can probably markedly improve any Celine Dion tune. But thanks for the info. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by Ernest333       at Thu 19 Sep 6:02am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 6     D'Souza picks an interesting example to trumpet American cultural imperialism, since the "Titanic" love theme was by Celine Dion, a Canadian. Yes, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian but so what? His movies, like Dion's music are part of American culture. Or to be more accurate North American culture. While the U.S. and Canada are separate sovereign nations with some notable cultural differences between them, the relationship could be compared roughly to England and Scotland. They each have their own uniqueness, but from the perspective of the average Pakistani, Japanese, Kuwaiti, or Nairobi citizen they are essentially the same cultural entity. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by KOMPRESSOR       at Thu 19 Sep 6:43am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 23     Is that why the 5th plane on 9/11 was headed to the CN Tower? Oh wait, it wasn't...because Canada keeps its nose out of other countries' internal affairs. KOMPRESSOR (a USian) apple: not just a different way, a better way   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by logbass       at Thu 19 Sep 7:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     "because Canada keeps its nose out of other countries' internal affairs." Oh you isolationist bastards! How can you stand by when people are suffering? It's because their brown, isn't it you racist! You can't see past your own power addled nose to the rest of the world. Welcome to the world of you can't win. Who's got the kibble? - Bad Lieutenant: POCNO   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by bitekman       at Thu 19 Sep 7:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Except when it doesn't. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: D'Souza needs a map and a clue   by Ernest333       at Thu 19 Sep 8:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     You are talking about the governmental foreign policy, I am talking about culture, popular and otherwise. Apples and oranges. Regarding foreign policy differences between the two nation, I agree with your sentiment. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  one difference   by gerrymander       at Wed 18 Sep 10:55pm score of 2 astute     One item of note, as a difference between Rome and the US: Rome expected tribute from its client states. The US, in contrast, pays out to the rest of the world, to the tune of $350 billion per year (not counting foreign aid).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: one difference   by jhe       at Thu 19 Sep 5:26am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 13     Rome expected tribute from its client states. The US, in contrast, pays out to the rest of the world Actually, the continuing trade deficit means the exact opposite. We get $350B more in stuff than we send out. In exchange we send dollars, which should decline in value as part of the market mechanism to correct for the trade imbalance (NB: there may be specific details regarding the nature of the imbalance that keep up the appearance of a higher than expected exchange rate for the dollar, e.g., it may be mostly with China and the yuan exchange rate is not widely reported). With regard to Rome, I belive you will find that the net impact on the imperial treasury of conquest was negative. Tax receipts in the provinces tended to not cover the cost of defending them, particularly as those costs rose. The pattern of losing money on imperial ventures is pretty consistent. Some people make money. People directly involved in the India trade made out while the ordinary British tax payer paid to keep up the fleet and army to protect it. The Brits never made money on the American colonies. Currently we effectively subsidize Persian Gulf oil to the tune of two carrier task forces. Someon's making a buck there, but it ain't the ordinary American. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  No Difference   by NH4       at Thu 19 Sep 8:57am score of 2.5 witty   in reply to comment 20     "Meet the new boss" [America] "Same as the old boss" [Britain].   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: one difference   by gerrymander       at Thu 19 Sep 11:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     We get $350B more in stuff than we send out. In exchange we send dollars, which should decline in value as part of the market mechanism to correct for the trade imbalance Sure, the US gets stuff in exchange for money, but the value of the money is constant (or at least, so close as makes no odds -- a decade of inflation in the US almost nothing in comparison to, say, Brazil over the same time frame.) I understand your case for dollar devaluation against other currencies in the market, but I'd expect US dollars to still be more stable and worth more over time than any Third World currency its up against. (If anyone has a link to a relative chain devaluator for indexing inflation plus market fluctuations for currencies, please post it.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: No Difference   by Eric Blair       at Thu 19 Sep 10:58am score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 51     England is more like Greece. Just as Greek culture was exported to Rome and other places, British culture has been exported to much of the world. It is the mother country of many other countries that are all over the globe. The language of much of the educated world is English, English sports (soccer, cricket, etc.) are popular throughout the world, English art (Shakespeare, the Rolling Stones, etc.) is popular throughout the world, the English system of law and government (which the British did not necessarily completely invent, but which they brought to their colonies) is implemented with varying degrees of success throughout much of the world, the British system of education is used in much of the world etc. All this makes England the mother country of much of the world. Now, all this did not stop the British from killing members of native populations, engaging in slavery, economic exploitation, etc. Still, even if your mother is a whore, she is still your mother, no matter what. Britain, like Greece, tried to (and to some extent succeeded) in fading away from dominance of much of the world with grace.       America is now the top world power but, just ar Rome borrowed culture from Greece, America borrowed culture from England. America has eclipsed Britain just as Rome had eclipsed Greece.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: one difference   by jhe       at Thu 19 Sep 12:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Sure, the US gets stuff in exchange for money, but the value of the money is constant I'm viewing money as a medium of exchange, not as a good. If we consistently get more stuff in than we send out we're winning. If other countries take our paper (or credit or whatever Mx we ship them) it's value is limited by what we have available to sell to them. That's all well and good, but if they try to come over on a buying spree all at once with decades of accumulated dollars they're in for a nasty surprise at what that will buy them (at the same time we would be in for a nasty surprise at what imports would suddenly cost).   I understand your case for dollar devaluation against other currencies in the market, but I'd expect US dollars to still be more stable and worth more over time than any Third World currency If the US has a trade deficit with Dirtbagistan and the EU doesn't, there may be specific reasons that keep the one currency constant against the $, but you would expect the euro to rise against the EU. The market clearing mechanism for trade imbalances in a floating exchange rate system is the exchange rate. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: No Difference   by kingraoul3       at Thu 19 Sep 12:38pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 61     yeh I was thinking something similar. A couple of further points in support of your thesis: Roman civilization began as a colony founded by the greeks. Rome considered itself the successor to Hellenic civilization without making fundamental contributions to their discoveries (have we made any huge scientific leaps forward since quantum mechanics and relativity? Or any fundamental contributions to philosophy?). Greek civilization was born out of a bunch of relatively small competeing city states, and European civilization was born out of a bunch of relatively small competeing nation states. Greek military might was destroyed by a trade based democracy (with an empire) going to war with a landlocked autocracy while European military might was destroyed by Britan and France going to war with Germany. I guess I could go on, but the similarities already listed are striking. The implication I imagine would be for us to remember how the Roman republic was corrupted to the point that the lower class rejoiced at Cesar's seizure of power because the believed he would protect them from the tyranny of the rich. And to remember how science was stagnant under Rome. And the Dark Ages. All of this is, I fell somehow at odds with at least the spirit of Dialectical Materialism (near and dear to my heart), which holds that the workers will rise up and seize the means of production.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Trade deficit models   by GodSpiral       at Thu 19 Sep 2:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 71     I'm viewing money as a medium of exchange, not as a good. If we consistently get more stuff in than we send out we're winning. Very interesting way of looking at it. Classically, trade deficits are viewed as harming the national economy, but it does appear to be a simplistic accounting convenience, rather than a genuine model of merit. When you buy a pair of shoes from China for $1, $1 may have gone out of the economy, but you have a pair of shoes. An asset that might otherwise have cost you $5 to make yourself. When you sell China a Britney Spears CD for $10, You've got $10 and free disguised garbage disposal. So the economic models should distinguish between good and bad imports. Overpriced/Underpriced being the criteria. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: No Difference   by slaphappy       at Thu 19 Sep 2:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     Every university and many colleges have a bevy of students scrambling for a doctorate, and in the US, every state has at least one. Massachusetts has to have at least 50 places where you can get a doctorate in the sciences and/or philosophy. So, there's a crapload of new science and philosophy being done, most of it so complicated laymen just wouldn't understand it. All the easy stuff has been figured out, so we're gnawing at the edges of the fundamental sciences. If you want superstar science, look at information technology. The United States, for all intents and purposes, invented computer science. (I'll see your Allen Touring and raise you a Grace Hopper, and my silicon semiconductor beats your vacuum tube Collossus any day of the week.) The US also is fond of astronomy, and willing to shell out huge money on big glass... Palomar, Hubble, Aricebo. Our space program continually pushes the envelope of materials science. As for philosophy, on the super-technical side we've got the superstar example of the Gettier Problems and for the kids and grandmas, we've got the popular favorite, Thoreau. You know, the guy who's responsible for passive resistance and environmentalism? Buckminster Fuller and Tim Leary probably count as well. So we're still a ways off from a new Dark Age. Just because science doesn't produce as many household names as it once did, doesn't mean that science is no longer being done. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Trade deficit models   by jhe       at Thu 19 Sep 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     Classically, trade deficits are viewed as harming the national economy Keep in mind that the dollars out there represent claims against our economy which could be exercised. The result would be inflation which would discount the value of those claims and the value of assets denominated in dollars. This is the logic for expecting trade deficits to result in immediate devaluation in the currency markets. The dollar has been resistant to this kind of logic because we have credibility as inflation fighters and because there is a demand for a widely recognized and usable international currency -- simply put, people need dollars to trade in in other parts of the world. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: No Difference   by kingraoul3       at Thu 19 Sep 4:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Gotta respectfully disagree. Thoreau is not a top-rate philosopher. Seriously, he can't hold a candle to Descartes, Hume, Kant, and some other dead people. Most modern American philosophy is either phenomenological or materialist (of varying stripes), both of which have their roots in European culture. Compare this with Nihilism, Solipsism, Idealism (Berkleyan), and Descartes addition of total skepticism (the foundation from which all modern philosophy has sprung). I also don't agree that we're gnawing at the edges of the fundamental sciences. As evidence I offer that modern quantum theory should be impossible according to our model of the physical world. I bet you the ultimate nature of matter will be discovered to be quite different from our current model. But in one respect you are right: our scientists are taking a filling in the corners approach, and consequently science is advancing more slowly. The only major alteration modern science has made to how we see our world has been chaos theory in my book. That's like since the turn of the century. There are definite technological advances, with this I would never disagree. But such advances are not as fundamental as say, the development of scientific theory and method. I'm not really, really trying to defend this perspective; I'm just trying it on for size. I mean, like I said in my above post, I want the proletariat to rise up and turn the world into a workers paradise. anyway, we'll see.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  The Day I Serve the Magic Kool-Aid   by irritablbowelboy       at Thu 19 Sep 6:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     . . . [L]ike I said in my above post, I want the proletariat to rise up and turn the world into a workers paradise. anyway, we'll see. Yeah, Comrade Lenin and Chairman Mao did such wonderful jobs with the proles. America is strongest when we act in accordance with our ideals.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Not so outrageous   by tinrobot       at Thu 19 Sep 12:15am score of 1.5 nuanced     Seems as though politicians solicit advice from many people. This group simply represents the far right side of a range of opinions. Even though the report is pretty far out there doesn't mean that the administration will follow any of it. It's just advice. That said, it is a bit disconcerting that Cheney and pals are giving people like this money for opinions. It's also a bit bothersome that GW seems to be following through on at least the middle east portion of it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

118.  Re: Not so outrageous   by Djerrid       at Thu 19 Sep 10:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     ...doesn't mean that the administration will follow any of it. It's just advice. The policy presented was the brainchild of the Bush Administration, not just advice from an external source. Here's a summery. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Sigh...   by TheColdKing       at Thu 19 Sep 1:17am score of 2 funny     I guess the rest of us we'll just have to continue enduring American hegemony... as the saying goes " The West is currently the center of economic wealth and political power in the world, so like it or not , we have to learn to live with them"... it wouldn't be so bad if the fun-loving libertines were in control of your society instead of the killjoy fundamentalists who are running the show... TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Re: Sigh...   by ExciteableBoy       at Thu 19 Sep 6:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     What, you don't get invited to the White House anymore?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Decline and Fall?   by luggage       at Thu 19 Sep 3:11am score of 2.5 compelling     Where is this historical "inevitability" that requires an empire to fall? Can it not go from strength to strength? Rome fell when its resources exceeded its grasp, when its people lost their mental/social connection of their contribution to their realm's success. There is no need for America to go the same way. We live in a far different age. Information bombards us from all sides, wealth undreamt of by the Romans is available to the vast majority of people in society, access to different cultures is an everyday occurence. Not only that but the common people have a much greater say in their governance. This is not to say that the mob rules, that would be false in all but culture defining issues. The mob has to be focussed, it has to think now and deftly apply pressure to its representatives. Just shouting and rioting doesn't work anymore (except in France). America has huge power. To an extent that the outside world doesn't seem to realise it is also amazingly restrained in the use of that force. The US is no Nazi Germany, or a Rome. It is not bent on conquest or on subjugation. If the culture seems like such a successful export that needs to be addressed seperately. No-one is forced to eat hamburgers, drink coke, wear baseball caps, speak english etc. They do it for a number of reasons; because they admire the success of the US, because it tastes good?, because they US is successful and they need to be able to sell to that market, all sorts of reasons. What seems to have changed since 9/11 is that the US is a lot more protective of its people. And it is willing now to protect by an offensive defense. It is not now waiting to be attacked, it has had enough of that. The risk now is that it forgets its reputation for democracy and tolerance and casts the "evil" net too wide and too quickly. That might start a spiral of hate and reprisal around the world, sparking the creation of a US that hits out reflexively because it stands alone. The US is not perfect, but the world could do far far worse.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Re: Decline and Fall?   by eeksypeeksy       at Thu 19 Sep 6:38am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 17     Where is this historical "inevitability" that requires an empire to fall? There is no such inevitability, if by that you mean some sort of physical law that cannot be defied, but all empires have eventually crumbled. Nothing but hubris and ignorance would lead anyone to suppose that the US empire will not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Decline and Fall?   by luggage       at Thu 19 Sep 8:06am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 29     I would agree that any entity which makes no effort to change, or reflexively adopts an us against them attitude is doomed in the medium to long term. My argument was more that the US does NOT equal Rome. Rome never reconciled the city and the provinces, the "Roman born" and the "naturalised". The US has a lot more freedom built into its societal structure. Look at the demographics report on the economist a www.economist.com link It depicts a youthful, highly educated and highly mobile society. It is all about change. If the US can a) keep immigrants coming in, b) reduce income inequalities, c) keep looking out on the world and not turn isolationist, d) hold together and not change TOO much. Then the empire will probably thrive for many years to come. It has youth on its side and there are no circuses just yet.....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Decline and Fall! Its already begun   by stuporific       at Thu 19 Sep 7:56am score of 2.5 interesting   in reply to comment 17     Rome fell when its resources exceeded its grasp, when its people lost their mental/social connection of their contribution to their realm's success. I believe you mean its grasp exceeded its resources, so I'll make the assumption. Isn't that already happening here? Witness corporate scandal as a headlining example. Has anyone else noticed that the typical attitude of a citizen is "I've gots ta get mine and screw you if you can't get yours" Worry for the republic because you can have empire or you can have a republic, but you can't have both. Also, genome targeted bio-weapons. WTF, if that ain't Nazi-esqe I do not know what is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Decline and Fall?   by NH4       at Thu 19 Sep 9:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     What is this historical "inevitability" that requires human beings to die, Luggage? If the U.S. can achieve imperial immortality, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to achieve temporal immortality, is there? * * * Empires do last a bit longer than people, though. The Western Roman Empire may have collapsed after only a few hundred years of glory, but the Eastern Roman Empire was going strong until it was conquered by the Ottomans in the 15th century AD. Yes, that means that "Rome"/ Byzantium lasted in excess of 2,000 years. The U.S. should be so lucky.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Skeptical but....   by lapsan       at Thu 19 Sep 6:07am score of 1 disingenuous     The Sunday Herald story gives no source for its assertion that this document is in any way associated with current U.S. policy, or even with any of the people it claims "commissioned" it. Not explicitly listing sources isn't an improper thing for a journalist to do. Not to mention the fact that the report contains (on a quick scan and read) dozens of references and recommendations to things that have happened and been said, some word for word, by the Bush Administration.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Secret?   by Wolfetone       at Thu 19 Sep 7:30am score of 1     Cheney; "Let's create a plan for domination of the Middle East" Jeb; "We can't do that our military is in shambles" Libbey; "That is why we our going to rebuild it first" Wolfowitz; "I think China posses a greater danger to the US than the Middle East" Rumsfeld; "That is why the plan will be for World domination, not just the Middle East or China" GW Bush "That sounds like a right fine idea. And after we're done, we can post the secret plan on the internet thing so we can have easy access to it." Bush may not be the brightest president we ever had, but he is not dumb enough to commission a secret paper from a think tank and than allow that think tank to post the secret paper on the fucking internet. The article claims that the secret report wants America to take military control of the Middle East, but the report never even alludes to such a matter.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  What is so bad about Pax Americana?   by GodSpiral       at Thu 19 Sep 8:19am score of 3.5 interesting     Lets get basic. Security spending is a valueless waste on society. Though some is necessary to protect value, society is advanced by needing as little as possible. American wealth is harmed by megalomaniac military spending. Global society is harmed by forcing to match funds, and a sharp increase of mistrust further hurts society by depressing economic activity, and sowing the seeds for radical hatred. The benefits of hegemony do not flow to American society. No slaves are brought back to fulfill social labour. No treasure pillaged to defer our tax burden. No massacres and dispossession of property to pay for the war effort. Only the great glory and entertainment value of watching the XFL version of foreign policy. The benefits of hegemony flow to private interests, and do not trickle down to broader society. That American oil companies have more of a casual friendliness to American society than Russian oil companies is a weak benefit in that any corporate entity will gladly sell anyone anything, and neither Russian nor American oil companies pay much in US taxes anyway. Glory has emotional value. Glory has political value to those that deliver it. Glory is worthless to you. Those that compel you to glory are trying to kill and defraud you for nothing that is of value to you. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Alternatives to Pax Americana   by GodSpiral       at Thu 19 Sep 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     There is only one "solution" that is an alternative to blind greedy pursuit of what appears as immediate national interests, but before we get to that, let's look at the simple "putzing around" alternative. The aimless alternative to global hegemony is to promote stability whereever it exists, and to prevent other powers from oppressing interests onto the world. Its a "we are here to be your friend" foreign policy. Its an equally valid path, but has 2 big problems. 1. No one believes you are actually attempting to be neutral, fair and friendly, and 2. Its unfair for you to bear the burden of funding the military might used to advance the freedom and ideals of global society. The real alternative to US hegemony is setting up a Global police force. One strong enough to oppress all war and protect all sovereignty simply because it's its mandate to do so. Like any police force, without authority to create laws. Not under the direct authority of any group that does create laws, but those that interpret laws. International laws can continue to be set by treaty. The benefit to the US, is that all member nations would pay for this police force, and so it wouldn't have to bear the financial burden for pretending to promote idealism. World peace is possible. It requires only one law. One law that currently exists nowhere: Rules under which any group can secede from a State including any necessary reparations for national debt, benefits brought by prior membership to that State, or debatably, even good will tribute paid to the former state as thanks for not annihilating the seceding group. Such rules provide a non-violent alternative to every possible political dispute. The right to divorce is necessary for freedom. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  Haven't I heard all this before?   by rmurf62       at Thu 19 Sep 8:24am score of 2.5 interesting     I'd dismiss this as heavy lefty spinning and/or a plant articled from the Onion if I hadn't just read this month's Harper's. (I'd provide a link if they published their damn articles online.) David Armstrong has an essay critiquing long-term planning documents of the Defense Dept (1990 and 2002)., whose content focuses exactly on the same talking points as the above-referenced documents. The major points - importance of U.S. dominance in world affairs, the need to keep anyone else from become a major power player, the need to dominate all fronts (the Mideast, space, cyberspace, the ocean, Britney Spears, etc.) through new technology to maintain global power - have changed very little since the early 1990's. The ghostwriters (Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney) have managed to keep the message remarkably consistent from 1989 to the present. (Powell & Cheney were discussing all these issues during the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990; the first version of this plan was released by Bush I on the same day Iraq invaded Kuwait.) So what does this really mean? Cheney et al. developed a foreign policy plan during Bush I that they kept in mothballs until Bush II. The message has remained very much the same for 12 years. And for better or for worse, they're running the damn country right now. I guess the only spin you can personally exercise in the face of all this saber-rattling is to assert your opinion whether U.S. global domination is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Personally, all this bullying and blustering doesn't worry me - yet. If Bush the Younger decides to, say, invade France, then it might start to worry me. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Ides of March   by mrwarmth       at Thu 19 Sep 8:56am score of 3 scholarly     Who is surprised that Cheney and his cronies would come up with such a maximalist understanding of American power, and the means to achieve it? I'm not. Their stance shows such a huge lack of imagination with respect to how one exercises power - as though the only way you could be taken seriously is to have troops on everyone's borders. This is the thinking of the 19th century, not the 21st. But then, so is the thinking of someone like Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian. The whole attempt to brand the US as an empire is another example of people trapped in 19th century thought categories. So it is interesting to me that both the Left and the Right are stuck way back in about 1870 in their thinking. Freedlands's piece is a rickety house of cards, held up solely by his fervor for his premise. It isn't an argument so much as a bricollage of whatever he thinks he can throw against the wall and make it stick. Many of the realities he points to as evidence that we are the new Rome are not uniquely true of the US, but are just as true of Europe. Take for example his point that the US has a founding myth. Oh no, really? Because we all know that only the Roman Empire had one of those. Certainly not any other country. Certainly not the EU. He also points to the spread of American culture, and how it is seen as "modernity" by those in the Third World. Two problems with this: First, this is exactly how European culture is seen in the Third World as well - does that mean the EU is another Roman Empire? Second, Rome was not known as a cultural power. Even at the height of its power, its high culture was largely Greek, and the Greeks were still looked to as the fonts of culture by others. People looked to the Romans to build roads, not write poetry. There is in fact no parallel between the influence of Roman culture and the massive influence of American pop culture across the world. Friedland's argument falls apart because it neglects the crucial difference between the Roman empire and just about any modern nation state. Roman power was based entirely on a system of tribute from countries it has conquered. The wealth of the US is internally generated by its own economic processes. We aren't demanding 25% of the GDP of the EU as the price of not attacking them. Now history, even ancient history, knows of democratic societies that were empires - Athens is an excellent example. But even in the case of Athens what made it an empire was military conquest and subjugation. That is not at all what American power is based on now. There really is no analogue to American power today. One can think of countries that had massive cultural influence without being a military power - one thinks in this connection of Egypt in the Hellenistic Era and France in the second half of the 20th century. One can think of countries that were militarily dominant but had no cultural power. The Mongol empire is a good example of this, as is Rome or the Russian empire of the 19th century. But I can't really think of a power that was both militarily and culturally dominant worldwide. Not even the British Empire could claim that, since the influence of British culture extended only to its colonies, not to other European powers. I think what this shows is that people need to come up with fresh ideas and categories to understand what is happening now. You can't keep plundering the exhausted and anachronistic categories of 19th century European political thought to explain current realities. That is a sign of intellectual laziness on both the Right and the Left. I think the French are the people to turn to on this point, particularly people like Baudrilliard. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  Not so fast, Niall,   by tylerh       at Thu 19 Sep 3:15pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 50     I agree with parts, but you too are being far to glib. First, I hereby award you, -1 Disingenous for Rome was not known as a cultural power.... People looked to the Romans to build roads, not write poetry. Um, Livy, Juvenal, Horace and a bunch of friends beg to differ. Indeed, Rome's "founding myth" found its most forceful statement in Virgil. If the Romans were so culturally impotent, why does a 1/3rd of Europe and all of South America speak ROMANce languages? An ancient near east studies alumnus should know better. Roman power was based entirely on a system of tribute from countries it has conquered. NO. As other's have argued elsewhere on this thread, the provinces were as often a drain on the imperial treasury as a benefit. Militarily, you couldn't be further from the truth. Caesar had been dead for years before non-Italians began to play a meaningful role in the legions. This why the final Civil war (in which Augustus triumped) was primarily a fight for control of the Italian Peninsula: whoever controlled Italy could raise fresh legions, whoever had Greece/Egypt/whereever had to settle for "auxillaries." But I can't really think of a power that was both militarily and culturally dominant worldwide. I can think of plenty. Middle Kingdom Egypt. Babylon at it's peak. Han China. In addition to being militarily ascendant, the Han rulers were so culturally persuasive that they convinced "China" it was one people, a patently false myth that persists to this day. Athens is an excellent example. But even in the case of Athens what made it an empire was military conquest and subjugation. Well, yes and no. Athens, first and foremost, was a commercial empire. Which came first, the traders or the big navy? So yes, Athens did demand tribute (at times) and slap down islands that pissed it off, but at it's core the Athenian strength was its commercial/intellectual vitality centered on a willingness to allow almost anyone to come join the fun. The Athenians even had a registered class of "green card holders" -- documented foreigners with broad legal rights but not citizenship. If ones applies Freedland's argument in strictly geographical/militaristic terms, I agree one remains trapped in 19th century thinking. But if you view Freedland arguments in a political context, there is something there. Both political elites emerged from a long period of military striving to confront the "what now?" question. Turning inward (ala Ming China) wasn't much of an option, so the problems of Empire management arose. okay, enough nit picking. Could you kindly provide some English-landguage links so I can learn more about Baudrilliard and similar thinkers? I agree that arguing over historical analogies is ultimately sterile and agree fresh thinking is required.. Thanks. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: Not so fast, Niall,   by mrwarmth       at Fri 20 Sep 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 90     Tyler - Let me try to address your issues in order. Rome as a cultural power. Of course ROme produced its own writers, poets and dramatists. So does Canada. That doesn't make Canada a world cultural power. Because that doesn't depend really on how good people are, but on the mystique of cultural superiority surrounding a given culture. This is why Rome remained culturally in the thrall of Greece. Most Roman scultpure consists of copies of Greek sculpture. Their philosophy - such as it is - is entirely derived from Athenian philosophy. Ditto for their standards of rhetoric. The list goes on and on. Uncivilized peoples of course saw Rome as superior to them, if Rome was all they encountered. But civilized people's of the day looked to Greece and Egypt, not Rome, for their cultural models. Roman economics. Why did Rome conquer territory? In order to gain all the forms of wealth that existed in the ancient world: land, slaves, tribute, monopoly and taxation. Rome got all of these in spades from its conquests. The Roman taxation system was quite efficient and ruthlessly administered. Additionally, the granting of royal monopolies on certain types of trade was a huge source of wealth to Rome's aristocracy. The wealth of Roman aristocrats grew a dozen fold as the empire expanded. So it just goes against the evidence to say Rome didn't make money off its conquests. There is no comparison between the modern US. Cultural and military powers simultaneously: I think the Chinese and Egyptians are excellent examples of anti-empires. Both countries spent most of their histories concentrating on themselves, not on conquering other countries. They were both entirely insular cultures that were quite happy to refine their culture - alone, thank you. China's conquests were few and agonizingly slow. It took them centuries to conquer the northwestern provinces, and until modern times never had a firm hold on them. Ditto for Tibet. Egypt, likewise, was not known primarily as a conqueror. Egypt was always concerned to keep Palestine under its control, because that area served as the gateway to Egypt proper. But Egypt's imperial pretensions were easily crushed by the Assyrians and Hittites (the battle of Karkemish put paid to Egypt's ambitions to control Anatolia and Syria). Both Egypt and China were regarded with respect, but primarily as cultural powerhouses and as local potentates - not as empires. There's no comparison with the conquests of Egypt and the conquests of, say, the Mongols. Or the British for that matter. Athens. Tyler, I'm sorry but your'e dead wrong on this issue. Between the defeat of the Persian invasions and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, Athens aggressively acquired a tribute-paying empire in the Aegean. In doing so, it built up so much ill-will, that this ultimatley was one of the causes of the war with Sparta and Persia that led to the destruction of the Athenian empire. Athens was entirely ruthless in acquiring and keeping vassals in line, resorting to genocide and massacre whenever they felt their control threatened. The Athenian fleet was in fact built up from the resources they gained through their empire. Once they lost enough of their empire during the course of the Peloponnesian War, they lost the ability to replenish their fleet, and so ultimately lost the war. Athens was an imperialist power par excellence. As for having a system of legal foreigners - I can't think of a country that didn't have such a system. Indeed, such a system is described in detail in Deuteronomy. This was a measure that every trading country had in place throughout the Middle East. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   133.  Ain't history fun?   by tylerh       at Fri 20 Sep 11:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 130     Thanks for the reply, Niall. I want to point out that on the "Roman Question" we have distracted ourselves. What originally drove the question was "who is culturally hegemonic like the US is now." You state, Uncivilized peoples of course saw Rome as superior to them, if Rome was all they encountered. But civilized people's of the day looked to Greece and Egypt, not Rome, for their cultural models. Substitute "America" for Rome, and "Britain and the EU" at the end, and you've got an arguable starting point for analyzing the modern world. Or are you claiming that since America, from law to language to pop idols, "remain[s] culturally in the thrall of" Britain that America is not culturally hegemonic? For those keeping score, I'll concede Athens, but I claim you have supported rather than countered my Han China example.[1] Whatever. As I stated previously, "arguing over historical analogies is ultimately sterile." Whatever we agree to disagree on, I'd rather move on from this entertaining pissing match and discuss that intriguing French thinker of yours. I am asking again: could you please provide me with a link or two? Here is area where we could make some real progress. Also, I missed the "Green Card" passage in Deuteronony (shame on me), could you also suggest a reference for that? Thanks. -tyler [1]To the Chinese, there was no other other world to culturally conquer: Viet Nam, Korea, Japan, Mongolia and the vast, empty West all looked to China culturally even when military logistics prevented direct domination. They completely dominated their world, to degree the US is only beginning to attain. The Han rulers even convinced the southerners ("Cantonese", if you want to use modern linguistics for an approximation) that they were part of the same nation -- a breathtaking achievement of cultural imperialism. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: Ain't history fun?   by mrwarmth       at Fri 20 Sep 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 133     Since I'm at work, I can't quote you chapter and verse. But Deuteronomy and Leviticus have specific passages discussing the rights of class of person know as a "ger". It is clear from the passages that a "ger" is very much like what we now call a resident alien. The ger was a foreigner who had rights to "sojourn" and do business in Israel unmolested - certain rights and obligations accrued to the status of "ger". This is in contrast to a "nokhri", or someone who is just a foreigner - and there are no special rights or obligations that a nokhri can appeal to. Unfortunately, the distinction is less clear in English translation, since the technical Hebrew terms are not translated consistently. The reason I think people like Baudrillard are useful is that they have thought through at a very deep level how modern communication and culture have changed the nature of power in the world. His books "Simulacra and Simulation (The Body, in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism" and "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" are good starting points. His views are relevant because America's power is more and more the power of the image, and of the power of that image and its communication, rather than directly controlling other countries. This is something Baudrillard has grasped and English leftists haven't. As usual, the French are ahead of everyone in the thought department, while the English just flail their cudgels and the Americans go "Huh?" -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  Pax America   by gilmanpa       at Thu 19 Sep 9:09am score of 1     If our interests are Democracy,peace, and world markets then fine. But, nations have the right to there own government, culture and values. I did not see any mention of human rights in the article and that scares me. If a Pax America means the spread of American economic interests at the expense of human rights and the spread of Democracy then we are in for a hell of a time. The youth of other countries need an economic out let for their energies not hatred.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Woodie Wilson loves you   by sglover910       at Thu 19 Sep 1:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     > nations have the right to there own government, culture and values I heard this sort of logic in my high school American history class, when they were trying to persuade us of how "idealistic", "visionary", that fucking prig Wilson was. Nations are abstractions. People have rights. All talk about American hegemony aside, the industrial democracies are more closely associated with individual liberty than any other society I know of. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Woodie Wilson loves you   by fungrrl       at Thu 19 Sep 8:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 78     the industrial democracies are more closely associated with individual liberty than any other society I know of. your statement is correct if you take the perspective of the top minority of wealth owners. I have amazing news for you. Man is not alone on this planet. -Ishmael   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Woodie Wilson loves you   by sglover910       at Fri 20 Sep 6:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 115     > your statement is correct if you take the perspective of the top minority of wealth owners. Your statement begs the question. Are you honestly saying that folks who aren't at the very pinnacle of the social pyramid don't enjoy substantial freedom? I'm not going to dispute that the distribution of wealth and power in America, Canada, Norway, France, et al (i.e., the industrial democracies) is less than ideal. But in my life, I don't ever recall cringing and scraping when the local millionaire drives through my street. Nor do I recall being beaten for spouting an unpopular opinion. I've never had to check in with the police before I travel to another town. Hey, I've never known hunger -- have you? Of course I still can't levitate or see in the infrared or transmute lead into gold, but I don't think that's because of the malignant hand of the plutocracy. Maybe that just shows what a dupe I am.... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  The first thing...   by greta       at Thu 19 Sep 9:15am score of 1     ...that Ashcroft would do, under a US World Government, is put drapes on all those pesky nude statues in the Louvre. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  A Waste   by MrTripps       at Thu 19 Sep 9:18am score of 1     While I haven't seen anything directly linking this document to the current administration I do believe it reflects their intentions. If that is the case, what is so bad about it? Possibly the fact that it is a tremendous waste of a countries resources. How is it that we can talk about spending $200 billion to invade a country that presents no direct threat, but can't give medicine to sick old people? Our military is hugely over-bloated, but we can't find money to better educate our kids or buy new communication systems for fire and police forces. Our economy is infected with crony capitalism, the trade deficit is ballooning, and the national debt is the 800 lb gorilla no one wants to talk about. Before Bush and Co. push us kicking and screaming into WWIII we should consider cleansing the scum from our own house. On the plus side, all my Bill Hicks CD's are just as funny and timely as they were ten years ago. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  Let's bring back kings while we're at it   by bjrubble       at Thu 19 Sep 11:15am score of 2 astute     If there's a single outstanding contribution the US has made to the human race, it was George Washington declining a kingship or even an open-ended presidency. The Founding Fathers made this a nation of laws, not men, recognizing that however noble and good a ruler may be, a sustainable and just system required strong institutions and limitations on individual power. The US now finds itself in a situation much like Washington did in 1787. Fresh from a great victory, we have nearly unlimited potential power and a future that can be shaped to our designs. And we have a monumental choice. We can follow in the footsteps of history; grab as much power as possible and make ourselves masters of all we survey, and prepare to defend ourselves against those who will surely come seeking to claim our place. Or we can operate from a new vision of the world; invest our influence in institutions and laws, and sharply curb our own power so that when our position inevitably passes to another their capacity to abuse it is limited. One George refused the crown, and for two centuries a nation has lionized him for it. What choice will this George make, and how long do you think it will buy him glory? I guess one person *can* make a difference, but most of the time they probably shouldn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 2:08pm score of 1     I've read most of the comments on this and am stuck by the a somewhat common theme. Americans (I assume only americans would feel positive about this article) always say 'us' and 'we' when refering to who would be ruling the world. Do you really think that US prowesse has anything to do with YOU? The american joe is a peon just like the rest of the world is to the US government. The only ones feeling the power from such a government are a select few on top, and the members of the Skulls fraternity. Try to fight the powers and you will end up in prison like a frightfully many other american peons. There is nothing humble or pious about the US's actions. They are done out of complete and pure captitalism (read: greed) and pure power grabs. Why stop at ruling the US when the world is within reach? I know you Americans love your government and are bred and raised to never think bad thoughts about them, but this is your own blindness that you will have to deal with. To top things off, having one 'government' ruling the world would only work to make the world a worse place as everyone else fights to break free of 'Pax Americana'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  Re: Power not to the People   by logbass       at Thu 19 Sep 2:38pm score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 82     "The only ones feeling the power from such a government are a select few on top, and the members of the Skulls fraternity. Try to fight the powers and you will end up in prison like a frightfully many other american peons." This is rich. Nobody goes to jail for fighting the power unless you are counting people who engage in violent acts. Michael Moore is sitting in a multimillion dollar coop right now, not in jail. The Skulls was a nice touch, though personally I would stick to the richer heritage of "the Freemason's are poisoning the wells." You are right about one thing. Pax Americana benefits most Americans very little. The rational response is to let Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc.. go to hell in a handbasket. Funny, that didn't work so well in pre-WWII Europe. Who's got the kibble? - Bad Lieutenant: POCNO   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 2:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     You are right about one thing. Pax Americana benefits most Americans very little. The rational response is to let Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc.. go to hell in a handbasket. Funny, that didn't work so well in pre-WWII Europe. Wow, you think that Pax Americana is doing the world a favour! Was I wrong saying how americans are born and raised to love their government? Do you not question anything about the US and it's failings? If the US really cared about making the middle east less hellish, it would back the UN and not its own unilateralism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Power not to the People   by ratnerstar       at Thu 19 Sep 4:07pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 88     Wow, you think that Pax Americana is doing the world a favour! Was I wrong saying how americans are born and raised to love their government? Do you not question anything about the US and it's failings? This is blatantly ad hominem. In fact, it's a textbook example of "poisoning the well." What's the point in conversing with you if every pro-American statement is ascribed to some sort of brainwashing? Why don't you try actually refuting the points made rather than engaging in sophistry? I think Michael Moore is an excellent counterexample to your "theory." So is Noam Chomsky. Why aren't they in jail? In fact, can you explain why the radical left is alive and well (if irrelevant) while the prisons are full of predominantly apolitical drug users and violent criminals? Backing the UN is a good idea, as far as it goes. And I'm all for multinationalism. The problem is, the UN is remarkably ineffectual; it never does anything. If you want the US to step aside and wait for the UN to solve anything, you're gonna be waiting a long time. There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Power not to the People   by pattonbt       at Thu 19 Sep 6:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 88     "Was I wrong saying how Americans are born and raised to love their government? Do you not question anything about the US and it's failings?" Quick answers: Yes I question my government and its failings, that's part of the beauty of it. No, I don't believe Americans are raised any more or less patriotic than any other countries children (I've never heard one American refer to their president as their "father" as in many Eastern European countries, or refer to our homeland as anything more than a state of mind than a set of borders). I'll give you my opinion on this as an American citizen. Its a two way street. For the most part the government is looking out for the general (general) well being of its citizens, therefore, the citizens give the government their support in return. I never think of myself as a patriot or a USA Number 1 kind of guy. But what it comes down to is that most US citizens look around and see what the rest of the world looks like and says "You know what, we got it pretty good here". So it's a give and take. We can reasonably trust our court system to do the right thing for us. We can reasonably assume our government to have our interests at heart. We can trust our military to be at the beck and call of the government and not vice versa. We can trust that if we work hard we can probably have a good life. We can trust that when the chips are down, there are organizations out there both governmental and private that will help (of course these safety nets aren't perfect). We can reasonably trust that if we voice our disagreement with anyone that we won't be censured or made to disappear. We know there are liars cheaters and thieves who take advantage of us, but we still have our McDonalds, our jobs, our cars, our houses, our safe streets, our mostly friendly cops, our orderly (albeit sometimes cultureless) society. We tend to look at the glass half full. We know we have our failings, but we believe the positives outweigh the negatives. Obviously this applies to the citizenry, not those outside of the umbrella who have to deal with the outward face of the US which is vastly different than its inner face. So whenever I hear the "brainwashing" argument of American blind patriotism I like to clarify why I think it is more give and take than "brainwashing" . We believe we are getting the best deal out there and we want to protect our deal. We also believe, and I believe this of 90% of our citizens, that our system is good for other countries as well. We want them to be as happy, safe, collegial as we like to believe we are internally. Most Americans honestly don't understand that other people can actually see another way of life as anything better than ours. That's our biggest error in judgment in my opinion, the fact that many Americans believe that there is nothing we can learn from the rest of the world. But I like to believe this attitude is changing. I look at my own life and the advantages I have in being born a white male in a upper middle class highly educated family in the US. I won the genetic and geographic lottery and I am thankful for all the opportunities I get to succeed. I think my government, albeit faulted and conservative in many ways, provides the most for me. I think we could learn a lot from Europe and the rest of the world, and I think the US is slowly starting to realize there is a world outside their borders. We've only been at this "superpower"/"International Entity" thing for fifty years. I like to believe we will try and get it right. Just my opinion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  Re: Power not to the People   by sglover910       at Fri 20 Sep 7:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 113     Very well said. I admire your reasoning, and I commend your acknowledgement of how fortunate you are. If there's anything that's going to lead the U.S. down the road to hell, it's the blithe ignorance that many folks have of 1) how good they've got it, and 2) how they managed to get so much handed to them simply by living in America. Anyway, your post makes me wish I was moderating today. Thanks! An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Power not to the People   by mad_clown       at Thu 19 Sep 2:56pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 82     The american joe is a peon just like the rest of the world is to the US government. "The rest of the world" is under the control of the U.S. government? News to me. I know it's chic to make blase, offhand comments claiming that the U.S. controls everything, but such a statement is belied by the facts. Try to fight the powers and you will end up in prison like a frightfully many other american peons. That's not true. If it were, half the people on Plastic would be in prison, San Francisco would be under martial law, Eugene would be a crater, and Seattle would be a ghost-town. There is nothing humble or pious about the US's actions. You're right. All the disaster and hunger relief and medicine we provide to the world is really a function of greed and avarice. I'd like to see how the world would react if we decided to take all of that away. I know you Americans love your government and are bred and raised to never think bad thoughts about them, but this is your own blindness that you will have to deal with. I knew that was coming. I really do feel sorry for you non-Americans who hold so dearly to this ignorant myth that all Americans are unthinking government drones. I'd like to tell you, as an American who knows lots of other Americans, that it simply isn't true. You're seeing what you want to see, I think, not what's really happening. But, judging from the tone of your post and its many glaring falsehoods, I'm guessing that you've never been here, and the most you know about Americans comes from a few bullshit stereotypes propagated by biased media. There's an old saying that I'm quite fond of: if you're looking for a pile of shit, that's exactly what you'll see. Try to get over your one-sided biases, man. You'll start to see that Americans aren't evil, it's not the U.S. vs. the world, and everything simply isn't as bad as you want to think. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 3:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 89     "The rest of the world" is under the control of the U.S. government? News to me. I know it's chic to make blase, offhand comments claiming that the U.S. controls everything, but such a statement is belied by the facts. Didja read the post, or in your head did it just read 'blah blah blah US sucks blah blah blah'? Let me explain it, s l o w l y. The point was that in no way does the US government's big army and big talk make YOU a bigger man. You're the peon just like the population of the rest of the world is. Nothing in there about who ruling who. I'd like to tell you, as an American who knows lots of other Americans... Uh yeah, well Duh! Now if you were an american who knows lots of non-americans, that would be special and unique. And then maybe you could have a non-biased opinion. I'm guessing that you've never been here, and the most you know about Americans comes from a few bullshit stereotypes propagated by biased media I live in the US. Have for years. I was just lucky enough to have not to gone to school here and am able to see past the blinding patriotism. I come from a country where the people debate fiercely and openly about their government, and challenge all of the governments policies. That is a part of democracy sadly lost here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Power not to the People   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 3:58pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 91     And yet, you came here. Hm.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 4:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 94     And yet, you came here. Hm So? If I talk contrary to the 'patriotic', 'the US is only doing good' beliefs, I should leave? Or worse, I should have never come? For such a small and pompous comment, you both showed why americans get a bad name abroad, and why I am right about the american stereotype (blinded by patriotism and taught to 'love the gub'ment').   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Power not to the People   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 4:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     And for such a slightly larger and yet considerably more pompous comment, you both showed why Americans are a little sick of people coming here and bad-mouthing us, and why you in particular are a moron. My intent was to point out that, despite your evident hatred of Americans and America, you still came from somewhere else to get here. Inherent in that was the question, "Why do you hate yourself so much, that you would come to a country that you obviously hate to such an extent, filled with people you hate even more?" But hey, since you've declared yourself to be right about the American stereotype, then it must be true. After all, I'm just a dumb ol' America-educated hillbilly with room for only "Dubya rules!" and "Ever'body else sux!" in my head. I couldn't possibly put together an actual implication.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 4:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 98     ROFL! Dude, where did I say I hated americans? I don't hate anyone. Hate takes too much effort. If I truly didn't care much of americans or world politics, I would be completely apathetic instead. I question a lot of things about the US. Something a lot of americans don't do but should. Perhaps you are equating questioning with hatred? This just leads back to the 'blinding patriotism' you are suffering from. You are taught not to question, so you have no choice but to turn that doubt into fear which [switch to yoda voice] leads to hate. Sad.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Power not to the People   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 4:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 100     Yes, I really feel the not-hate radiating from you when you say things like This just leads back to the 'blinding patriotism' you are suffering from. You are taught not to question, so you have no choice but to turn that doubt into fear which [switch to yoda voice] leads to hate. or There is nothing humble or pious about the US's actions. They are done out of complete and pure captitalism (read: greed) and pure power grabs. Why stop at ruling the US when the world is within reach? I know you Americans love your government and are bred and raised to never think bad thoughts about them, but this is your own blindness that you will have to deal with. or you both showed why americans get a bad name abroad, and why I am right about the american stereotype (blinded by patriotism and taught to 'love the gub'ment'). or Now if you were an american who knows lots of non-americans, that would be special and unique. or I was just lucky enough to have not to gone to school here and am able to see past the blinding patriotism. Yeah, you so obviously don't hate us. And it's a good thing that you don't care, either, because if you did care, you might be forced to post your opinions on the Internet or something.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: Power not to the People   by mad_clown       at Thu 19 Sep 5:01pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 91     Let me explain it, s l o w l y. Way to be a condescending fuck. Now if you were an american who knows lots of non-americans, that would be special and unique. And then maybe you could have a non-biased opinion. Err, what makes you think I don't know a lot of non-Americans? I've known scores of Poles, Russians, and Mexicans, I've dated a Pole and a German, was friends with a Belgian on exchange, and one of my fellow peer advisors is Iranian. I plan on spending a semester in St. Petersburg, Russia after getting my degree this year. Now does my opinion count as "special and unique"? Unfortunately, my experience with foreigners is essentially irrelevant. How does knowing non-Americans affect the basic falseness of the "Americans are sheep who do what they're told" statement? And frankly, given the words you're saying, I think you should be the last person to talk about "non-biased opinions." You've quite clearly made up your mind about all Americans of every stripe and branded them all with the same label. I was just lucky enough to have not to gone to school here and am able to see past the blinding patriotism. If you've never been to schools here, how the hell do you know what's taught there? Do you rely on what other people tell you? Second-hand information, possibly from someone with an axe to grind? As someone who graduated from a small town high school, I can tell you that "blind patriotism" isn't what's served up. We spent more time talking about Japanese internment, slavery, and Native Americans than anything else. WWI and WWII were essentially footnotes that the teacher assumed most people were fairly aware of. I come from a country where the people debate fiercely and openly about their government, and challenge all of the governments policies. That is a part of democracy sadly lost here. What the fuck do you see happening on Plastic? What the fuck do you see pundits doing every single day? What are all the huge protests about? What do Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Christopher Hitchens do for a living? Now, more than ever, I'm convinced you're seeing what you want to see, because your shocking ignorance as to what's happening around you on a daily basis leaves me with no other interpretation. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 5:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     Yes I understand. All those comments you highlighted require self reflection and questioning. Both those things can be very scary. You need a hug.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: Power not to the People   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 5:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 103     No, all those comments I highlighted require the person writing them to be either a troll or the arrogant sort who is entirely convinced that he or she is the only person in the entire nation who sees The Truth. Do you honestly not see the difference between the 'blinding patriotism' you are suffering from and self reflection and questioning?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: Power not to the People   by GodSpiral       at Thu 19 Sep 5:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     I find my views more or less compatible with Punchy's. I wouldn't call Americans retards, but powerless to resist is close to apt. This just leads back to the 'blinding patriotism' you are suffering from. You are taught not to question, so you have no choice but to turn that doubt into fear which [switch to yoda voice] leads to hate. Standing behind the king/President has become a rationale onto itself. I find the lies comming from the administration on Iraq hostilities to be impeachable, but the dudettes empowered with such a duty are too concerned with upcoming elections. There is nothing humble or pious about the US's actions Again, not all that contentious. The US Gvt is not in the pious business. Punchy is having a normal reaction to being lied to. You're having a normal reaction to unfocused outrage. You can tell he's resentful/critical of government power, and you're too loyal to it. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Power not to the People   by Punchy       at Thu 19 Sep 5:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 106     No I don't see the difference. Because those blinded by patriotism WON'T question. I believe those who do question the government are more patriotic since they demonstrating interest and concern for their nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: Power not to the People   by stankow       at Thu 19 Sep 5:45pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 108     I was wondering how long it would take you to get to that facile argument. Blind unquestioning criticism of the government's actions is as bad as blind unquestioning acceptance of them. The former is all you've shown in this thread, plus a dollop of "All Americans suck."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  "Questioning"   by mad_clown       at Thu 19 Sep 5:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 108     And what if you've questioned, pondered, and thought over what you see, and come to the conclusion that you still support it, more or less? Is that not possible? Or are you implying that "questioning" automatically means "opposing," in which case why don't you just come out and say that you only respect people who oppose the government? Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: Power not to the People   by ratnerstar       at Thu 19 Sep 5:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     You're having a normal reaction to unfocused outrage No, I think we're having a normal reaction to unfocused idiocy. There is a respectable if, in my mind, unconvincing argument to be made against American power. But Punchy isn't making it; he obviously has nothing to say. I'd like to see him answer a single point anyone has made against him rather than falling back on "you're all blinded by patriotism." There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  NonAmericans dont hate the average American joe...   by TheColdKing       at Fri 20 Sep 12:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 107     ...it is the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL-MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT that we well and truly despise with every fiber of our collective being and every bit of our collective mind. Most of us couldn't really care less about the ordinary John or Jane Doe , after all you're just normal people like the rest of us , just trying to make it through the day in one piece . No, it is actually nasty big old Uncle Sam who we wish would drop dead and be buried six feet under. Most of the animosity or hostility we may have towards you is primarily a result of your frustatingly continued loyalty to this s.o.b. , which is understandable , considering the fact that you ARE family after all... it's like Spider-man and the Green Goblin , Peter Parker thinks Harry Osborn is generally okay , but his dad Norman is one hell of a bastard, and because Harry stands by his pop no matter what happens, Peter inevitably starts to view Harry as a jerk too, though it can't be helped , since blood is indeed thicker than water ... "During the Cold War, if a democratic government seemed on the verge of becoming a socialist satellite of the USSR, we'd definitely rather have a US-friendly dictator instead. Hardly perfect, but in some parts of the world that was the best we could hope for. " -Really ? Wow, I'd certainly pay a lot of money to see you publicly say a thing like that in my country... TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: NonAmericans dont hate the average American   by logbass       at Fri 20 Sep 9:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 122     "Really ? Wow, I'd certainly pay a lot of money to see you publicly say a thing like that in my country..." Why? Would violence result? Or would their be a vigorous debate on the merits of the statement the way there would be in America if you said the same thing in a mixed crowd? Remember, tolerance does not mean tolerance for what you agree with, true tolerance can only happen in an environment where there is more than one acceptable orthodoxy. Who's got the kibble? - Bad Lieutenant: POCNO   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: NonAmericans dont hate the average American   by mad_clown       at Fri 20 Sep 6:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 122     Wow, I'd certainly pay a lot of money to see you publicly say a thing like that in my country... So you could show us how enlightened you are by beating the shit out of the person with the "offensive" opinion? Sounds like you've got a bit to learn about freedom yourself, chum. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

114.  False dichotomy   by Hiro Agonistes       at Thu 19 Sep 8:20pm score of 1     Some of the foregoing has been of the form, "If not the U.S. for World Overlord, who?" A really good answer (beside 'J.R. "Bob" Dobbs', who's also running for County Clerk) would be, "No-one." I don't trust any nation with opposition-free hegemony... Power you-know-whats, and when a system has no Outside, it's very easy to forget that it's a created system that probably has a great deal in it of the Arbitrary, the Capricious, and the Was-a-Great-Idea-at-the-Time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

116.  We're just a kid...   by madgoat42       at Thu 19 Sep 9:04pm score of 1     "What are we gonna do tonight Cheney?" "Tonight, Bushy, We're gonna try to take over the world!" erm, right. Now that's a good idea. I mean, come on, our nation is, comparatively, a kid in this world. America considers itself to be an independent nation for, what, 226 years. Most european nations clock over a thousand years. So, considering them adults in their, say 20's, 30's. America is, at best, 10 years old. Damn it people, we don't let our kids drive till their about 15, vote till their 18, drink till their 21. and the world is gonna let us grab the steering wheel? The rest of the world needs to get into gear and smack our bottom like responsible parents! quit drinking your beer, ogling the pretty fjords of your neighbor, and put us in our place. We're just a kid, we just want attention. hehe, but seriously...to argue that, in the case of D'Souza..."America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever." is just an exercise in naivete. Sure we've been 'nice' to some people, but as we haven't just yet assumed to mantle of imperialism, we can't say that our current benevolent actions will continue. Remember, the Nazi's thought they were doing the world a favor with ridding the world of 'undesirables,' the only thing that made them wrong was they lost the war. Wake up people, democracy means nothing in conflict. Our ideals of 'pursuit of happiness' and 'justice' and 'freedom' can go out the window during times of war. America's expansion into the role of an empire does not necessarily mean that America will uphold those ideals. "All's fair in love and war..." and coffee. Anyways, this actually brings into focus on why Bush was so adamant in pursuit of a missile defense system....so he can cover his ass from retaliation. As an American, I'm bothered. Sure we're powerful now, but nothing guarantees us that we'll be on top forever, or even in the near future. We're just a kid, and we can't yet see over the steering wheel. baaaaah   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

146.  Re: We're just a kid...   by mad_clown       at Fri 20 Sep 6:34pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 116     Most european nations clock over a thousand years. That's bullshit. The Germany of today resembles in almost no way the Germany of 1870, 1914, or even 1933. The same can be said of Russia, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Turkey, the Balkans, Poland, and scores of other countries. The only country that can make a truly legitimate claim like that is probably England. France comes pretty close too. Were there people living in "Germany" before unification? Yes. But there was no "Germany" before 1860, just as there was no "Italy" until 1861. Don't forget how many countries emerged from the collapses of the old German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires. Just because people lived there doesn't necessarily mean that the nations themselves go back that far, unless you want to make the absurd claim that Athens and modern Greece or Rome and modern Italy are essentially the same thing. The rest of the world needs to get into gear and smack our bottom like responsible parents Right, because Europe has proved how responsible it is over the past century. If we look back even a hundred years futher, Europe's record gets even better, right? Remember, the Nazi's thought they were doing the world a favor with ridding the world of 'undesirables,' the only thing that made them wrong was they lost the war. Not true. The Nazis thought they were making the world better for Germans and Aryans. If they were truly convinced they were doing something good for the world at large, I don't think that they would have advocated the whole notion of Lebensraum which entailed stealing massive portions of the Soviet Union and appropriating it for Germany. Also clear is that their sympathies didn't extend to Jews, Gypsies, Slavs of all stripes, or anyone else who was deemed "impure." Not to mention the Nazis didn't send billions of dollars worth of aid to countries around the globe, on top of millions of tons of food and medicine. Nor, as far as I'm aware, is the United States persuing any genocidal policies aimed at wiping out any ethnic groups. The comparison is disingenuous at best and slanderous at worst. America's expansion into the role of an empire does not necessarily mean that America will uphold those ideals. And by the same token, just because someone decided, for political reasons, to brand the United States an "empire" does not necessarily mean that it is true. Sure, it's chic to say so, and it makes you sound like a rebel at parties and in political discussions, but it's really not backed up by the facts. If we decided to incorporate Afghanistan and Iraq into the U.S., I'd change my tune, but as it stands, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are no more "imperial" than sending troops to Kosovo or Rwanda (which the U.S. has been roundly criticized in certain circles for not doing). Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   151.  Re: We're just a kid...   by madgoat42       at Sat 21 Sep 3:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 146     And you have justly proved me wrong...thank you. The same can be said of Russia, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Turkey, the Balkans, Poland, and scores of other countries. and the United States, of course. Our political system now is NOTHING compared to that of 1776, but we all know that. So it's also bullshit to say that the U.S. has had the same structure for 226 years. Another point against my previous argument. My youth argument is, obviously, flawed and biased. It brings into account no worthwhile data and assumptions, there was no accurate point of that rant... but why should Americans trust OUR government to be responsible enough to create a world-wide 'command and control system?' I just wanted to bring up that I just don't understand that people CAN think that America is a good choice for 'world domination' or anything similar. I believe there is no good choice. The Nazis thought they were making the world better for Germans and Aryans True, I should have said they were doing "their" world a favor. Which is exactly what America is doing in pursuing 'pre-emptive' strikes against Iraq. America is pursuing their own interests, as did Germany in the 30's and early 40's. You missed my point, though, with the Nazi comparison. I did not want to compare U.S. actions with the atrocities of the Third Reich, just the fact that, by the old cliche, "History is written by the victors." D'Souza's assumption that "America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever." is bunk by the fact that America is a large voice in defining the rhetoric of the age. What is 'good' or 'bad' can best be defined in retrospect, when all the facts are in. And by the same token, just because someone decided, for political reasons, to brand the United States an "empire" does not necessarily mean that it is true And I agree with you. I was only saying that if someone wanted to call America an 'empire' for political reasons, furthermore a 'just' and 'benevolent' empire, is judging before all the facts are in. You can't call America the most 'magnanimous' empire ever when we haven't definitively aspired to the role of being an empire. I'm with you, we're are not an empire, yet, and may never be. In this day and age, only history can tell when and if pax-Americana took place, and whether it was "magnanimous" or not. baaaaah   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   152.  Re: We're just a kid...   by mad_clown       at Sat 21 Sep 10:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 151     So it's also bullshit to say that the U.S. has had the same structure for 226 years. Not really. Our government has evolved and expanded, but we're still operating under the same framework, with the same core documents. It's disingenuous to compare changes in the U.S. political system to, say, the Russian Revolution, the collapse of the Ottoman, German, or Austro-Hungarian Empires, or the French Revolution. I believe there is no good choice. Nor do I, frankly. However, I also don't believe that "world domination," as such, is what the United States intends. Puffy rhetoric talking about "empires" and the like is just that: puffy rhetoric, in my opinion. Which is exactly what America is doing in pursuing 'pre-emptive' strikes against Iraq. Except, to date, the U.S. has not engaged in any "pre-emptive strikes" against Iraq. We, along with the U.N., seem to be engaged in "pre-emptive action" in the form of resumed weapons inspections, this time with teeth. It's historically flawed to draw comparisons between that and, say, Case White. "History is written by the victors." I find that statement to be overly simplistic, to the point of being facile. A more accurate statement would be "history is written by historians," and historians are clearly not of one mind when it comes to interpreting the facts surrounding most events. I was only saying that if someone wanted to call America an 'empire' for political reasons, furthermore a 'just' and 'benevolent' empire, is judging before all the facts are in. You can't call America the most 'magnanimous' empire ever when we haven't definitively aspired to the role of being an empire. Absolutely. I honestly didn't see that in your other post, but if that's what you were trying to convey, my apologies for missing it. We're in total agreement on that point. Calling the United States an "empire," whether evil or benevolent is irrelevant since, as you state, "the facts aren't all in." Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

131.  ah luv murrica   by strumbucket       at Fri 20 Sep 10:36am score of 1     what the fuck are you all on? "well it's better than being run by chiner" makes serving cheney et al acceptable? we are free in america. ok, so we have some political freedom. the state doesn't step in and tell us what to do (unless you're name has al or el in the middle and you're on asskroft's list). the real powers in the country run your life by making sure you better have "real job" in case you get sick, you better have a mortgage to get a little relief from the regressive tax system (so then the bank can tell you what you need to do for the next 30 years), you wear a tie, drive an suv becuase of all those poor people on the transit system, and complain about gummint, everything you do is just to make sure you don't end up behind the register at 7-11. Yes, you have freedom: mcdonald's or burger king. We will all get what we deserve: the bunch in control now would rather be millionaires among paupers than billionaires in an affluent society, it's all about pecking order and power, not just their bank balances. If we are willing to rationalize the biggus dickus empire that is being constructed, I personally am headed for someplace civilized like Phnom Penh. got bodybags?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

139.  "Not so secret" redefines understatement..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 20 Sep 1:41pm score of 1     I didn't think this was really news, but for any of you laboring under any crippling delusions on this issue: this boat has sailed. You missed it a half-century ago. And to be honest, the U.S. has been pursuing a coherent, consistent imperial policy since 1898 at the latest: a globalized system of free trade, backed by muscle when necessary. Before we get all preachy though... This is clearly not an ideal system, as its ostensible benefits to the economically less well-off have frequently gone missing while the rich continue to get richer. That being said, what are the alternatives and what are their advantages? European-style imperialism? The Japanese militarists' regional autarky? Soviet "communism"? While it's all well and good to expose the dislocations and hypocrisies in capitalist globalism, constructing an alternative is more challenging. Economic justice won't come for free. For instance, 20 percent of the Earth's population lives in the industrialized nations, but consumes 70 percent of the world's energy. Either we're somehow going to have to figure out a way to expand global productivity so the other 8/10ths of the world's people can also burn up resources like the industrialized world, or the industrialized world is going to have to give something up. Maybe you're comfortable with that prospect--but the fact that you have time to sit around burning up electricity and foodstuffs reading Plastic suggests that you might have some adjusting to do close to home. It's not that I'm entirely comfortable with the global status quo, but neither am I all that keen to move to Mogadishu. In the meantime, the global order the US constructed over the course of the 20th century basically serves the interests of the industrialized world. Although Western Europe and Japan didn't really have a choice about accepting American leadership back in 1945, the hard evidence suggests that they've come to appreciate its advantages. If the US legions weren't stationed across the globe ready to enforce the rules of the game should the have-nots get too restive, other industrialized nations would just have to figure out for themselves how to do the job. I feel pretty certain the "job" would get done, in any event. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

143.  Re: "Not so secret" redefines understatement..   by jhe       at Fri 20 Sep 2:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 139     I agree that we picked up the job the Brits took on in the 19th C. The difference is that in 1945 we made a commitment to work through international institutions, not because we were weak, but because we recognized that eventually the whole system would only work if everyone had a stake, a say and a responsibility -- in other words, Democracy. This policy had the advantage of letting us off the hook eventually as other countries took up their share of the work and bought in to the principles. It seems that some time in the late 70s early 80s we decided that instead of encouraging the rule of law. I date it to Reagan's overt mining of Nicaraguan harbors. At least before that we paid lip service to international law by doing our dirty work covertly. I would argue that the system we overtly pursued in the 40s and 50s was the ideal one and the current one is a huge step backwards. Also, I think that it did result in huge productivity gains in Asia. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   144.  I dunno..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 20 Sep 3:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 143     I would argue that the system we overtly pursued in the 40s and 50s was the ideal one and the current one is a huge step backwards. Try that line of argument in Iran or Guatemala. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   148.  Re: I dunno..   by jhe       at Sat 21 Sep 7:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 144     You're right, but... in many ways the 50s was a transitional period from a doctrine of internationalism to containment. The Iranian and Guatemalan adventures were roughly contemporaneous with us cutting the legs out from under the Brits, French and Israelis in Suez. Those actions had the rationale (whether or not it was the reason is another subject) of being part of a large scale geopolitical struggle which became the larger priority. I would also consider this to be a case of useful hypocrisy: we publicly opposed international adventures while secretly pursued national interest. This strategy broke down when we failed to disguise our involvement with the local right wing thugs (see also: Nicaragua, Chile) except, of course, from the American voters. The biggest disconnect in our political system is that we tend to blithely assume that our government is out promoting the values we consider correct only to find out time and again that, oops, some of our best buddies are real pricks. My frustration with the current crowd in charge is that they don't seem to recognize that there is no global geopolitical threat out there so we don't have to be friends with the pricks anymore. There's a big difference in overthrowing Mossadegh because you're in the middle of a big scary global struggle and supporting the Saudis to keep the oil cheap. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   149.  Well..   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Sat 21 Sep 10:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 148     Arguably the motivation for the big global struggle with the Communists was more or less the same as the one for supporting the Saudis & keeping the oil cheap--supporting a basically free-trade-oriented world economy centered on the U.S. I appreciate the distinctions, but there's something to be gained by diverging from the 1945-centrist viewpoint and examining the continuities in a century of American foreign policy. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   150.  Competition for depletable resources   by GodSpiral       at Sat 21 Sep 11:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 139     For instance, 20 percent of the Earth's population lives in the industrialized nations, but consumes 70 percent of the world's energy. Either we're somehow going to have to figure out a way to expand global productivity so the other 8/10ths of the world's people can also burn up resources like the industrialized world, or the industrialized world is going to have to give something up. That's indeed very relevant, and in fact makes for a compelling case for an us vs them attitude in a competition for resources. But there is also a not so challenging option of alternative energy and transportation research, that already comfortably promises to accomodate future industrialization. Promissing enough that it could even be the main policy track. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]