Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
Secession is not conducive to imperialism, no. But I’d ask what’s so important about international prestige and giant armies? What has it gotten us, except ever more and more enemies and more burdens?

I would submit that there will always be a nation on earth that will seek to move things in the direction of their world view.  Hegemony is with us, and always will be.  So the real question is, do we wish to relinquish being the world's hegemon?  And if we do, then are we willing to accept the reality that another nation will take our place?  Is Russia, China, Islam, or a number of other nations or ideologies that will form a federation going to be acceptable to us, as the world's new Hegemon?

Imperialism is an insult that is often levied against the United States, and I can loosely see a reason for it.  In the pure sense, it's a rather flimsey charge to make.  The United States doesn't attack nations who disagree with it's world view, unless they venture outside certain parameters.  Allow your neighbors to live in peace, we won't bother you.  Allow free passage on the oceans, and we won't bother you.  Allow groups within your borders to plot against the United States and carry out attacks on it or it's allies, and sparks will fly.  And they will fly, because we have the ability to respond anywhere on planet earth, and we are not going to allow other nations to prevent our presence anywhere on earth, or threaten us on our home soil.

Right now China is taking a massive bite out of the South China Sea.  It's being so agressive in the region, that it won't even allow unarmed U. S. ships to operate in safety there.

Okay, so what do we do about that?  Do we warn our ships not to traverse those waters?  Do we back down as China makes more and more claims and demands?  Do we simply withdraw from the world stage, and become an isolationist nation?  That's where this all leads.  In short order our citizens can't take world cruises.  Sound like something you want to sign on to?

What has it gotten us?  For the better part of the last century, we have been able to go anywhere on the high seas we wanted to.  We have been relatively safe at home.  Our allies have been assured that we have their back.  We have been seen as the world's preeminent global power.  Yes that made us a target, but it also made us unacceptable as an enemy.  China is now willing to see us as an enemy.  That should tell you something.

Read this article. Red Flag Over the Atlantic - China is Angling to Take Over a U.S. Airbase in the Azores.

China is taking moves on two major oceans, that are directly tied to choking U. S. Naval passage.  With this being the new reality, you still come here to ponder why the U. S. has to be the world's preeminent power.

The answer is, when it isn't the world's imperial power, as you reference it, someone else will be.  And when we don't have the armed forces to stop them, there will be no going back.

That imperial power will dictate to us, and it will truly be an imperial power, willing to dictate to us on matters we never dictated to others about.  Our armed forces once small enough, will not be allowed to rearm.  That will be dictated by someone else.

We live in a very small world these days.  The days of our Founding Fathers are not these days.  A threat on the other side of the planet, is a very real threat at home.

We have only two choices.

1. We are willing to live with a bully on the block who can bloody our nose at will, and we have to go running home to mommy... or...

2. We wake up and restore our Navy to it's full strength, and kick the snot out of any bully that dares raise it's head to challenge us on the global playground.

Those are the facts.

109 posted on 11/13/2012 3:16:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

I submit that hegemony is the rarest of states. The Pax Romana or Pax Americana—which aren’t really paxes, since they are constantly at war to maintain their power—are exceptional. As are binary systems like the Cold War. Much commoner is the scramble for power represented by Europe from the Middle Ages to WWII, or simple anarchy.

“In the pure sense, it’s a rather flimsy charge to make”

If you were to charge the US with neocolonialism aside from the colonies which we officially possess—that us, for instance for building factories in other countries—which people often do, I’d balk. Because that’s lassoing a loaded term for new uses, which is a rhetorical dirty trick. But imperialism? Need I name that argument. First of all land empires are also empires, and you might have noticed we crawled westward after independence. Secondly annexing Hawaii, the Spanish-American War, securing the Panama Canal, and too many foreign adventures to mention were purely imperialistic in the old sense.

We only get to your World Police patrolling parameters by WWI, if then. The whole making the world safe for democracy was BS, of course. But that is when what has been called the Wilsonian vision, which you seem here to espouse, took form. I hardly need remind you it didn’t work, and led directly to another war and decades of warlike peace. As for the keeping people from plotting against us in their countries, that sounds more like regular old defense. Only two things: the more imperialistic we are the more we are plotted against, and we don’t need troops stationed around the world permanently to repel attacks on the homeland.

“when it isn’t the world’s imperial power...someone else will be.”

And what? They’ll invade us? Or they’ll hedge us in, dictate policy, and otherwise deprive us of whatever it is we’re supposed to gave gained from the current arrangement. Well, you know what else there’s “no going back” on? Globalism. That is, the international market order. Jesus wouldn’t sit down to break bread with the Devil, but he could trade with him. That’s the beauty if it. And thus new hegemony, wherever it is, won’t be able to stamp it out, any more than the Soviet Union did. Nor will it be any more self-sufficient than was Nazi Germany.

There’s that, then there’s the corruption if national defense. First it was just that, being able to retain the right of self-determination. And you don’t need an empire to do that. There’s the more porous concept of national security, which I guess is more about how we feel. Then there’s one of the most beloved concepts of the modern superstate: national interest. Suddenly anything that seems not to be ideal for any and all of our citizens’ purposes deemed worthy are defensible in the same manner in which we have a right to defend ourselves from enslavement. Which is perfect when you can’t explain how Iraq or Vietnam have anything to do with defense.

We do not need to project power abroad, much less get involved in wars, big or little, which only concern us through a game of telephone, i.e. because thus guy touched that guy who touched another guy who someday may rub up against me. You only think we need to because you’ve been forcefed myths about the Hun, the Nazis, the Naps, the Commies, etc. bent like supervillians on conquering the world. It may have been true of the commies, at least ideologically. But that could have been taken care of here, not everywhere on the globe.

Let me clue you in on a little known secret: our last war of true self-defense was in 1812, and that’s only ignoring our expansionist territorial ambitions.


112 posted on 11/13/2012 3:54:58 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

China is a parasitic economy living on borrowed time. It’s parasitic in the sense that its economy is almost entirely based on foreign trade. When the rest of the world is no longer able (or willing, when countries start setting up protectionist regimes and bolstering their own industries) to buy China’s goods, China will fold like a cheap suitcase, and will return to its normal state of internal disorder and poverty. If China is foolish enough to try the superpower game, it will burn itself out in short order. As for your other worries, well, China’s military prowess is trumped up by people (mostly of the neocon persuasion) who are nostalgic for the old Cold War and would love for us to have a new Cold War with a real enemy (Islamic fundamentalists don’t quite cut it for them).


118 posted on 11/13/2012 4:06:11 PM PST by teflon9 (Political campaigns should follow Johnny Mercer's advice--Accentuate the positive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson