gulage

As John Judis noted in this article, what Bush administration is doing in Iraq is following an amazingly similar courses as McKinley at Philippines and Wilson at Mexico. Even the pictures look the same...http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2582&page=1

Bush could have avoided all the mess if he could have heeded the lesson from past.

Se7eN

Maybe similar, but I still don't think one can label it as imperialism.

For that to be true, economic and political hegemony over other nations would have to occur. Clearly this is not the case, nor will it be.

Praxus

The US has the right to conquer any tyranicle Governmnet it so chooses.

bodybag

You going to have perpetual war if this thinking takes roots in white house.And sadly looks like it does.

Praxus

I should clarify what it says. The war also has to be in our self-interest.

Confed999

He did heed the lessons from the past, Saddam would not coopreate and would do anything to expand his power.

It can't be imperialism if we try not to do it for 12 years and then give the country back as rapidly as possible, like Iraq.
There are a finite number of tyrants, perpetual can't come from finite numbers. I will allways support the removal of tyrants, their removal is allways in my self-intrest.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Praxus

Well said. In a truely free country the removal of enemy tyrants would not require the life of a single citizen. We would simply nuke them.

TopHatter

Praxus, I usually find your posts to be worth a careful reading and informative to boot.
However, please tell me that you are exaggerating when you casually advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Maxcraft

Hitler, 1939 surely?!

And of course America chooses which governments it thinks are tyrannical but dollar-worthy according to its own double standards. Or is that America's divine mission from God?

Maxcraft

My concern too.

Confed999

Aren't you the one that was advocating economic control to create change? What's wrong, doesn't support your argument here?

Main Entry: ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally

You should probably read more of Praxus' posts before you try to attack his religion. I am certain it is every free person's mission to spread liberty to everyone opressed, and yes I do believe in God.

Maxcraft

Economic influence, not economic control and certainly not economic imperialism.


Who said I was attacking Praxus' religion? I would not do that, whatever religion he is!! I was simply referring to something I find quite curious about the U.S.; it's the only Western country I know where many people directly link the actions of the state, or their own actions, be they good or bad, to a divine mission from god simply to avoid having to answer to somebody and to admonish themselves of all responsibility.

I simply cannot see how else Praxus can justify his statement that the US has the right to conquer any tyrannical government it chooses. If the people of a country invite the US to do so, then it is justified, otherwise it is simply imperialism in action. In addition, as TopHatter suggests, it is worrying that Praxus casually advocates the use of nuclear weapons.

Muslims here in Israel use divine justification for their actions. The mullahs of Iran say it. They genuinely believe they are freer than we are in the West and feel it is their duty to spread their liberty to the oppressed (in their eyes), hence the term "jihad" -they truly believe they have found God. The Spanish conquistadors genuinely believed they were fulfilling gods mission too in their time. Even without references to God but with firmly held beliefs The Chinese Communist Party gave their opium-addicted, feudally-suppressed, starving, illiterate people much more liberty in the space of 50 years than a corrupt imperialist regime ever could but in our Western eyes remain a dictatorship.

My point is that "liberty" is subjective, evangelism (Christian, Islamic, communist or other political) remains the greatest threat to peace in our time - so God should not be used as a war justification. I believe in God too.

Confed999

The only way influence would work is if the whole world helped. We couldn't even do that with Saddam and everyone agreed to do it. It's control and then threat of removing control, or it can't work. Tyrants don't understand less.
Must be a different country. I hear tons of people ask for God's blessings, and the phrase "in God we trust", but that's a prayer for back-up, in case we make the wrong decision.
I agree with that statement, find the bad guys and destroy them.
You can call liberation, imperialism if you wish.
I doubt it's casual.
So, if a dictator convinces the people he is not a dictator it's ok?
No way. You either have it, or you don't.
Communist?
Hasn't been used here.

Praxus

I do not believe the use of nuclear weapons should be taken lightly. However it is a moral crime to sacrifice American soldiers in some altruistic crusade. Which it essentially is when we have weapons that allow us to destroy the enemy without forcing our soldiers to go die in some 3rd world country.

I guess by invite, you mean that the majority of the people in said country support the war. If this is the case then what you support is oppression. You are saying that the majority has some intrinsic right to determine the future of a nation.

Say I live in a miniture society and I am by far the most productive citizen. Noticing all my riches they institute a vote, they (the majority of the people in the society) vote to take 80% of my income each year. Consiquently I become less productive, they then vote to force me to work harder. I refuse, they vote again that I should be executed.

Would you find this as bad?

I'm an atheist first off. A Government is either tyrannicle or it isn't. To say it can be both at the same time is to deny Aristotles first principle and in fact deny reality.

Maxcraft

Good point. I suppose we all have to try much harder to engender co-operation.

LOL! Please tell me -what is a prayer for back-up when you make the wrong decision? Divisions of good Christian soldiers from heaven? Absolution from being slack and irresponsible? That is so unbelievably patronising, smug and superior!

As above - it really doesn't bother you, does it?

We have to agree to disagree then. All depends how you define "liberty" and America cannot say it is right and everyone else is wrong.
Communist evangelism -the Soviet Union trying to export its brand of "liberty" by conquering others and imposing regimes on them, very similar to Islam and the U.S. today.