I agree with this article 100%... and I think this is also why Trump was striking a chord. People do not like war, but they can get behind it is they are getting something out of it. Iraq might have had support if the result was $.50/gallon gas. Same with Libya. Maybe if these countries that we defend, like Germany, paid us for our labor and materials plus a little margin, we wouldn’t be in such a hole. The fact that we are still funding Germany’s defense should have all of us puking. It has basically allowed them the debt leverege to conquer Europe again.
Don’t know if I agree with it all, but there is a lot to like in this article. We should never go to war without it being in America’s best interest and without a definable goal.
Those deluded fools, like Paul Craig Roberts, who continually want argue this ignorant clown theory simply expose themselves as tin foil hat wearing fools who understand neither what an empire is, nor the current US political system.
Even if you took Roberts deluded ranting seriously and totally zeroed out US military/Foreign aid spending, you would still run around about an $800 billion annual Federal Deficit.
It is our entire Government structure, not just the "military industrial complex and the Israel lobby" that is the problem
This is not entirely accurate. The common feature with all empires is colonization... for loot, dominance, territory, etc...actually for any number of reasons.
The US never had the kind of expansive ‘empire’ like the author suggests (Rome, Britain, etc.)
The wording and logic seem careless in this read.
PCR (the author) sounds like a Buchanan acolyte, or a tin foil hat wearer, take your pick. There are advantages and disadvantages about being in Europe. After WWII, U.S. government leaders recognized that to allow a “free market” in ideology to take place in the world was to invite disaster; see Germany and Japan, and the U.S.S.R. afterwards. A good question to ask is, what would likely change in European foreign policy if we weren’t based there? Or in Japan?