What will it take to stop American Imperialism?

[Saeptus]

Lately I've been thinking about what it would take to convince neo-conservatives, conservative Christians, and even liberal and moderate supporters of America's "War On Terror" to abandon our imperialistic policies abroad.

One of the suggestions I have is purely hypothetical.

What if everyone who supported the war and who counts themselves amongst the supporters of the Bush administration joined the Army? What if we shipped them over to Iraq to fight the insurgents? If the cause is so great, maybe everyone who believes in it should be overseas fighting this war on terrorism.

And everyone who has been disenfranchised by Bush's dictatorial presidential style should be brought back home and kept away from the action.

Would this be enough to convince the uninformed Bush supporters that we shouldn't be there?

Aside from that, we need to be thinking long term. The U.S. won't always remain the lone super-power. China is well on its way to dethroning America in that department. Our dollar is no longer what it was; so, at some point we have to assume that our global economic polices (i.e., sanctions) will hurt us someday. Particularly with countries who will remember our economic tactics and will love nothing more than to return the favor.

People need to be educated on these issues. People need to know the political upheavals America has supported in foreign countries that cause alot of this Anti-Americanism. They need to know that we don't respect national and religious institutions of foreign countries, which gives rise to people like Osama bin Laden.

Only an informed citizenry can stop American Imperialism.

[ClaytonM TKW]

War is the single most expensive thing an administration can do, and they won't be able to pay for it forever. Think about how different the world would be if the states used the money they spent in iraq, israel, afghanistan, and war in general to pay off the foreign debts of Africa's poorest nations, or put it into alternative fuel sources (would never happen).
When the money tree shrivels up then there is a hope at peace. But then China becomes the new world police and I don't know which is worse. Both countries have nutbars running them.

[airfall]

i agree with a lot of what's been said. however, i think you also need to think about what would happen if we didn't try to stop terrorism.

[skip tracer]

Originally posted by Saeptus


Only an informed citizenry can stop American Imperialism.

That about sums it up. If people knew the European powers' history of colonialism and imperialism, as well as our own history of intervention from the Spanish-American War on, maybe the next time a president wants to invade a country they'll stop and say, "wait a minute, I've seen this before!"

[Bunnicula]

Originally posted by airfall
i agree with a lot of what's been said. however, i think you also need to think about what would happen if we didn't try to stop terrorism.

What does it mean to stop terrorism?

Is it putting up national security in the airports, etc... or is attacking them in there own country? One could argue that they don't like us because we keep invading their countries, so they inflict terror, and we react to the terror with more wars and interference.

It seems like a vicious cycle to me.

[SFP]

Originally posted by airfall
i agree with a lot of what's been said. however, i think you also need to think about what would happen if we didn't try to stop terrorism.
Well, we need to stop terrorism. We dont need to capture countries. We don't have enough soldiers to hold a country. We have enough soldiers to go into countries, with their permission, and take out the terrorists. That'll leave it so there aren't so many insurgents, so many civilians turned terrorists, and we'll have the country's approval.

Nothing you say, do, or protest will change a Conservative's mind about anything. Bring up any rebuttal and they'll say, " Well, whatever. " They'll dismiss what you have to say. You may as well be arguing with a Christian about his religion. It's a RELIGION. A BELIEF. This isn't about right or wrong. This is about faith in your President. We've put Bush on a pedestal where he can do no wrong. God kills a bunch of people in a tsunami. Bush kills a bunch of civilians in Iraq. BOTH are dismissed because people have faith. :(

[Welladjusted]

i think americans just need to remember that they're not the only people on this planet who matter.

it's absolutely terrifying when attitudes like that are coming from christians. it's an anti-christian message in my opinion

[Saeptus]

Originally posted by airfall
i agree with a lot of what's been said. however, i think you also need to think about what would happen if we didn't try to stop terrorism.

I have thought about it. I think about it everyday. And the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the war cannot be won through modern tactical warfare.

We must first protect our homeland. That means protecting our borders as best we can from those who would try to smuggle arms into our country. We need to secure all chemical and nuclear power plants, particularly those within close proximity to high population densities. If I had it my way, we would be developing alternative fuel sources that could not then be used as terrorist devices. And, I would bar oil corporations and huge energy corporations from creating monopolies on this energy.

Secondly, we need to get better at infiltrating terrorist organizations. The CIA and FBI would be central in this task; or even military intelligence. But, we wouldn't invade countries like Iraq any longer--its not good foreign policy. It excites Muslims and serves to illustrate, in many Muslims' minds, why terrorists are so firmly against US foreign policy. Aside from that, its a monumental waste of tax payer's dollars. Iraq's oil reserves were supposed to fund the reconstruction; but, we haven't seen that yet. Instead, your tax dollars are spent on a war against insurgents that has no end in sight.

Third, which I touched on in my first paragraph, we must develop alternative fuel sources and cut down on oil consumption in the U.S. We are dependent on foreign oil and that is a very real problem: it makes our motives seem suspicious. If it does to an American in Wisconsin, then you can bet that it does to a Saudi or an Iraqii.

Fourth, we need to help build the economies of foreign lands not export American jobs to China or Indonesia, where low salaries abound. These business practices do nothing for the host countries' economies.

Fifth, we need to stop exporting American values and culture at its present rate. It cause a great deal of resentment and anger among foreign peoples.

These are just a few things we can do.

And yes, it is a viscious cycle, but if we make decisions at these fundamental levels, we can stop the cycle. Our current actions only perpetuate it.

[Blue Collar Man]

What will it take to end american imperialism?

Either: The end of the world. Ie: nuclear war, enviromental toxicity, etc.

OR, Americas fall from being the only superpower.

Conservative americans, as a group, are too stupid to realize that the current office is doing un-repairable damage to americas economy, trade relations, enviroment, etc.
As a group, it seems that they are more worried about how much it takes to fill up their SUV, or how to protect their children from the serious threat of a nipple on TV, or keeping 'those damn gays' from marrying.

America needs to grow up and be responsible on a world scale.

[mrpenguin354]

I remember thinking we were idiots after reading about the Spanish-American War in history class year. I suppose it is possible for history to repeat itself.

I think the problem is that America has it's hands in one too many cookie jars right now, and worst yet it's right before dinner (end bad metaphor). The only way for America to take its grubby hands out is to start focusing on internal reform. Bush kind of tried to do this with his No Child Left Behind policy (which is still a load of ass, but an attempt at least), but he can't focus on two things at once. It's not as though every president could do this except for Bush, we just need to readjust our values and what not.

It feels good knowing I studied History for a reason.

::gos back to headbangning nd killing brain cells::

[boyscout]

Originally posted by airfall
i agree with a lot of what's been said. however, i think you also need to think about what would happen if we didn't try to stop terrorism.

Wow.

Let's review:
Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

SO! Terrorism=a tactic essentially.

Personally I like the last part, "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or goverments often for ideological or political reasons."

Conclusion: WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. Look at our so called purpose in Iraq. Look at how we're trying to americanize their culture. Look how we forcefully put down any sort of rebellion against us. The real question is this: how do Iraqi peoples look at our soldiers? Call me crazy, but I don't think it's as their liberators--more likely they look at americans as their new regime leaders.


*definitions courtesy of www.dictionary.com*

[michael-callari]

Originally posted by boyscout
Wow.

Let's review:
Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

SO! Terrorism=a tactic essentially.

Personally I like the last part, "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or goverments often for ideological or political reasons."

Conclusion: WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. Look at our so called purpose in Iraq. Look at how we're trying to americanize their culture. Look how we forcefully put down any sort of rebellion against us. The real question is this: how do Iraqi peoples look at our soldiers? Call me crazy, but I don't think it's as their liberators--more likely they look at americans as their new regime leaders.


*definitions courtesy of www.dictionary.com*

I sort of agree with you, but then again I don't. Who would you rather be lead by: Americans or Saddam Hussein?

[Dan the Man]

American Imperialism will stop when the locals drive us out. It's happened before to other people (no names).

[skip tracer]

Originally posted by michael-callari
I sort of agree with you, but then again I don't. Who would you rather be lead by: Americans or Saddam Hussein?

It's simply not the job of the United States to overthrow dictators and replace them with more friendly forms of government. If that were the case, why don't we start with China? A good portion of the world's population are under the thumb of a corrupt comminust leadership...let's liberate them!

[Bunnicula]

Originally posted by skip tracer
It's simply not the job of the United States to overthrow dictators and replace them with more friendly forms of government. If that were the case, why don't we start with China? A good portion of the world's population are under the thumb of a corrupt comminust leadership...let's liberate them!

Don't be crazy! They loan us money! :D

[Saeptus]

In my opinion, Saudi Arabia would have been the obvious choice for an invasion. They're despotic and they sponsor terrorist organizations--plain and simple.

But, again, we just can't keep invading countries without the world's approval, especially when our military capabilities aren't exactly up to par.

[Welladjusted]

i think in some cases liberation/invasion/kicking out violent dictators is justified. i would have supported an american invasion of sudan. but that was clearly genocide (even if bush didn't call it as such). that's my #1 frustration with bush. he talks about liberation, freedom, and all that good stuff in iraq and afghanistan, while there was a genocide going on in sudan, and he's done next to nothing about it. especially compared to iraq. have rush limbaugh and bill o'rielly said anything to the effect of "maybe instead of iraq, we should have done something about sudan." i would love to hear that

[boyscout]

Originally posted by michael-callari
I sort of agree with you, but then again I don't. Who would you rather be lead by: Americans or Saddam Hussein?

You're missing the point. Cultures are different and the US has no right to americanize the world or play world police.

[ClaytonM TKW]

Originally posted by Welladjusted
i think in some cases liberation/invasion/kicking out violent dictators is justified. i would have supported an american invasion of sudan. but that was clearly genocide (even if bush didn't call it as such). that's my #1 frustration with bush. he talks about liberation, freedom, and all that good stuff in iraq and afghanistan, while there was a genocide going on in sudan, and he's done next to nothing about it. especially compared to iraq. have rush limbaugh and bill o'rielly said anything to the effect of "maybe instead of iraq, we should have done something about sudan." i would love to hear that

America doesn't give two ****s about Africa. That was pretty eveident when they didn't step in when 1,000,000 people were hacked to death in Rwanda. They only pick fights with nations who have something they want.

[sirterrapin]

Superpowers will almost always be corrupt. American imperial aims will fall by the wayside when American power declines or the sway of another power increases to a level at which US dominance is not guaranteed. At this point, it will become too costly to justify world policing or imperialist aims without an ideological war which incenses the population to such a degree that they are willing to go to wars which are clearly detrimental to the economic health of the country. I don't see that happening, as the current ideological enemy, "terrorists" are a loosely-defined group and the most clearly indicated "terrorist allied" states are small in comparison to current and emerging powers. Also, as the US economy shifts increasingly into the service sector, the cost of maintaining a large military force will force an extremely negative balance of trade. I don't see this lunacy continuing on for too much longer, though I think government officials will always be selfishly motivated. Power attracts people who crave power, and that's not really a great thing.

[grayson]

Originally posted by ClaytonM TKW
they didn't step in when 1,000,000 people were hacked to death in Rwanda.

Which, for the record, was a Clinton decision.

There was even a White House memo instructing staff not to use the word 'genocide' in any communications at that time.

[skip tracer]

Originally posted by Welladjusted
i think in some cases liberation/invasion/kicking out violent dictators is justified. i would have supported an american invasion of sudan. but that was clearly genocide (even if bush didn't call it as such). that's my #1 frustration with bush. he talks about liberation, freedom, and all that good stuff in iraq and afghanistan, while there was a genocide going on in sudan, and he's done next to nothing about it. especially compared to iraq. have rush limbaugh and bill o'rielly said anything to the effect of "maybe instead of iraq, we should have done something about sudan." i would love to hear that

That's what the UN is supposed to be for. But as someone else said, we don't give a **** about Africa. On that note, I wonder if the administration has taken any official position on the coup in Mauritania. The group that overthrew the government said they want to make democratic reforms, but also reduce ties to the US.

Originally posted by grayson
Which, for the record, was a Clinton decision.

There was even a White House memo instructing staff not to use the word 'genocide' in any communications at that time.

Just because someone doesn't agree with Bush's decisions doesn't mean they agreed with all of Clinton's. If you look at his record without knowing who he is, you might come to the conclusion that he was a repbulican: expanded the death penalty, signed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Defense of Marriage Act, Iraq Liberation Act, Taxpayer Relief Act, military interventions in Somalia and Yugoslavia...

[Welladjusted]

Originally posted by ClaytonM TKW
America doesn't give two ****s about Africa. That was pretty eveident when they didn't step in when 1,000,000 people were hacked to death in Rwanda. They only pick fights with nations who have something they want.

you are sadly correct.

[manhole]

This is not a problem that lends itself to the strictures of classical logic. There are no simple answers to complex problems. The problems didn't start with Bush. They didn't start with Clinton. They didn't even start in our lifetimes.

'Liberation' is a vague term. Some people would prefer a local despot to having some foreigners idea of democracy forced on them. Witness the fact that Saddam Hussein was orignally a popularly elected president, and even towards the end of his regime enjoyed the support of a large minority of the people of Iraq. These people supported his regime for the same reason that educated people, who pre-9/11 would have voted Democrat now vote Republican, even though they are not fond of Bush's domestic policy: he offered a defence against the extinguishment of their culture by a hostile power (in this case Shia Islam).

Which brings us to the problem of what exactly are Bush, Blair, and our public louse of a Prime Minister here in Australia doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? There are powers at work more vast than any overhyped terrorist network. In the position of anyone Machiavellian enough to reach the upper echelons of government (don't here make the mistake of here thinking that Bush is anywhere near as stupid as he sometimes comes off), America must position itself to carry its core value system and wealth into a century that looks likely to be as different from the 20th as it was from the 19th. Does this value system deserve to be preserved? That's not a question anyone can answer for you. The forces of history are at work. The world you are used to was a fleeting mirage of a few decades, between the decline of European imperialism and the reawakening of the great empires of the east. If we have any hope of our grandchildren living like we have, or even wanting to live like we do, we are going to have to sit down and think very long and very hard.

[sirterrapin]

Originally posted by manhole
These people supported his regime for the same reason that educated people, who pre-9/11 would have voted Democrat now vote Republican, even though they are not fond of Bush's domestic policy: he offered a defence against the extinguishment of their culture by a hostile power (in this case Shia Islam).


The rest sounds good, but I don't think that US culture is under any threat of extinguishment. Perhaps a percieved threat, but it would take a lot more than a few bombs to erase the effects of American culture on the world, for better or for worse.

[manhole]

Originally posted by sirterrapin
The rest sounds good, but I don't think that US culture is under any threat of extinguishment. Perhaps a percieved threat, but it would take a lot more than a few bombs to erase the effects of American culture on the world, for better or for worse.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I'd also say that American culture as Middle America knows it is probably coming to a close. Also, I'd say that there are substantive interests that desire true (if benevolent) US domination of the world, and to me this now looks incredible.

[Welladjusted]

a lot of american culture could dissapear and everyone would be better for it.

like the bumper stickers. when i was in new jersey, i could tell someones political affiliation, opinion on gun control, opinion on the war in iraq, opinion on church and state, and in some cases sexual orientation from driving behind them. and i think i saw karl rove's car in new york city