As a good libertarian, I'm pretty skeptical about those "entangling foreign alliances" that George Washington warned against - and the money involved in paying for such things.
More importantly, in recent years and with hopefully a little more maturity in my thinking, I've become more specifically skeptical of our ability to do everything for everybody. We've only got so much money, so many soldiers, and limited US public patience. Thus, I would identify my own qualms about interventionism as reflecting more my conservative practicality rather than my more idealistic libertarian beliefs.
But there's a school of thought in favor of engagement in the world. The world does perhaps need at least a little bit of policing, someone capable of keeping a lid on the worst bad guys, and keeping trading lanes open. To the extent that this has merit - which seems considerable - America is at this point the only possible candidate for the job.
I don't know that we should consider ourselves morally obligated to take action every time there's a problem anywhere in the world. Plus, again, there are the limits of how much we can do. Plus, of course, who died and made us boss? (Answer: a lot of brave US soldiers)
Still, like Gary Johnson in Team America, I don't want the power or responsibility. But if the US doesn't assert itself, then a lot of bad things happen to the rest of the world, and ultimately to US. Hitler and the Japanese weren't our problem until Pearl Harbor - which left millions dead before we got involved, and a much deadlier mess for US than if we'd all smacked Hitler down years sooner.
It's tough knowing what to do in the world, but this consideration just becomes more difficult when ideology takes over the discussion. Thus, when someone invokes the word "empire" in a discussion of US policy, that's pretty much a sign that you needn't bother talking to them. It's like saying that someone is a "racist." You've attached that stupid label, therefore you have proven your case. Quad erat demonstratum. Empire is bad, m'kay? If we have any troops in any other country in the world, then we are building "empire." Therefore, by definition we are cast as moustache-twirling villains.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
"Thus, when someone invokes the word "empire" in a discussion of US policy, that's pretty much a sign that you needn't bother talking to them. It's like saying that someone is a "racist." You've attached that stupid label, therefore you have proven your case. Quad erat demonstratum. Empire is bad, m'kay? If we have any troops in any other country in the world, then we are building "empire." Therefore, by definition we are cast as moustache-twirling villains."
Love that!
Phrases that should automatically let you know you're utterly wasting your time arguing with somebody:
- The United States is the most brutal/bloodthirsty/evil empire in history.
- YOU'RE A RASSISTS!!11!
- JEWS DID 911!!11!
- BUSH IS HITLER!!11!
- My astrologist told me...
- As Noam Chomsky said...
- Hillary Clinton is such a warm person...
Anyone else have others? ;-)
2 - Clavos
The juxtaposition of "wealth" and "obscene?" (Just saw it on another thread)
3 - Al Barger
The use of the word "greed" to describe someone proposing government tax or spending cuts - that's a pretty good sign that you're dealing with envy and malice or just plain cheap demagogic class warfare rhetoric. A classic recent example was, of course, when Mike Huckabee responded to criticisms of his record by the Club for Growth by referring to them as the "Club for Greed." That wasn't even worthy of John Edwards.
4 - troll
hermano - I'd be happy to set 'empire' aside and use whatever word you choose to label the phenomenon
so...give it a name
5 - Dr Dreadful
Anyone else have others? ;-)
"Liberalism is a mental disorder..."
6 - troll
...how about: "be realistic..."
7 - Dr Dreadful
I've got another one:
"Typical naive leftists..."
8 - alessandro
how 'bout 'umpire'? The USA is the greatest umpire in the world.
think the world is a bad place? think of it if the u.s. wasn't around or decided to go isolationist.
ugly indeed. every tin pot land with a name that rhymes with the female anatomy would jump at the chance of taking advantage of an absent America in world affairs.
as i tell any anti-american: be careful what you wish for.
and in any event, what's wrong with a dash of empire anyway?
9 - Dr Dreadful
and in any event, what's wrong with a dash of empire anyway?
Nothing much if you do it the way the Persians and the Romans did it, which was to let the people they conquered pretty much continue to run their own affairs as long as they paid taxes and provided men for military service to the empire when needed.
Since the US doesn't even do that (yet) it's probably not fair to accuse them of global imperialism (yet).
The USA is already an empire though, and has been since the first settlers crossed the Appalachians. We need to remember that.
10 - Moonraven
All of you folks need a good enema, and a few courses in World History--especially the author of this piece.
Al, your thinking needs to mature a whole lot more.
At which point you will understand why the rest of the world hates the US: THE US is the WORST of the bad guys on the planet.
Talk about the Fox guarding the Henhouse....
11 - handyguy
But it seems like we have to consider things carefully on a case by case basis of facts on the ground, rather just making broad categorical statements based on abstracted ideological sentiments not based on reality
If Al B, RJ and several others actually followed this sensible precept in the comments section of Blogcritics, nearly all of their most annoying posts would vanish, and the world would become a better place.
I'm not holding my breath.
12 - Lapdog
Oh say can you see?
No! I was blinded by a US bomb and my wife and children were killed.
"A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." Shocking and horrifying."
Thank you Larry Mosqueda.
BTW those are old figures from 2110.
13 - Lapdog
That should be 2001. In another hundred odd years???
14 - The Obnoxious American
Great article, I agree with your points entirely.
I think there is a fine line, and I think, despite impassioned claims to the contrary by the left wing nutjobs, we've towed the line well. War for oil? I don't think so.
Lapdog, bad boy. SIT!
8 million people eh? Do you include dead Iraqi civillians since 2003 in that number? I'm sure you do. Because Saddam, Al Qaeda, Iran and Baathists have absolutely nothing to do with those deaths right? Our presence there excuses everyone else from any responsibility right? With math like that, who needs science?
15 - Al Barger
Lapdog, I don't know where you get the 8,000,000 figure. That sounds way off - unless you're counting WWII as part of it.
Still, the US has killed a bunch of people over time. No doubt some of that has been - to a large extent unavoidably - mistaken. Innocent folk get killed in the crossfire, or by accident or misjudgment or bad intel in all kinds of tricky situations.
But generally, from what I've seen, the big majority of people we've killed needed killing, and some of them needed it really, really badly.
Alessandro, I like that word "umpire." That'd be a lot closer to the mark generally than empire.
16 - Lapdog
Roll over and play dead, Obnoxious. Just play dead, M'Kay. No bleeding now!
Remember, Saddam got hanged for his crimes against humanity. You do the math.
17 - troll
*big majority...needed killing* - ?
come on now - the vast majority have been bystanders guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time
18 - Al Barger
Yes Lapdog, Hussein got hanged - and obviously deserved it very much. I'd be happy to have you count that as an American kill, though of course it was Iraqis that tried and executed him.
However, I'll be proud to claim for our kill column, among many others, the Hussein sons and a buttload of nasty Ba'athists and Al Qaeda.
19 - The Obnoxious American
Lapdog,
You might want to lay off the scooby snacks, my friend. Yes, Saddam was hung. But before he died, he led an army to war against the US. Some of those soldiers died, and some of those soldiers killed Iraqis and Americans. I wonder how you count those deaths. Then again, I don't wonder, you pin it all on the US because when you are tripping on dog food, everything is the fault of the US.
20 - Lapdog
Al, if you want numbers go to the link in #12.
The 8,000,000 doesn't include WW11.
Sure Al, the Iraqis hanged Hussein....whilst under the control of the US. Which is where they remain.
It's not about oil though...nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Lapdog,
I'm shocked and horrified that you'd actually cite this crap. He basically blames every non-medical death on the US since 1948. Here is one quote:
"Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation."
Oh please, can't even dignify this drivel with a response.
22 - Lapdog
Obnoxious, if I swallowed the crap you've been fed I'd be hallucinating right alongside you.
BTW when Saddam "...led an army to war against the US." which beach did he land on?
Clavos, was it Miami?
23 - The Obnoxious American
And btw, the only people who still think Iraq was a war for oil don't drive. 3 bucks a gallon buddy.
24 - The Obnoxious American
Good point Lapdog, Saddam really did try his best not to go to war, despite having resolutions in the teens and 6 months advance warning... He didn't physically lead them to a beach to have war, he led his country into war with the US by not dealing properly with the international community. Please don't waste any of our time arguing that point.
25 - Moonraven
Al,
You have managed to topple Nalle from his King of the Hill position as The Most Despicable Person Posting on Blogcritics.
All those millions of people NEEDED KILLING?
My ancestors NEEDED KILLING?
1.2 MILLION IRAQUIS NEEDED KILLING?
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]