Posted on 12/06/2002 5:19:32 AM PST by Sparta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 5, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Thoughts on the American empire …
Is it an empire?
Whenever I say that America has become an empire, someone is sure to say I'm being ridiculous.
But what do you call a government that has tried (usually successfully) to force "regime changes" in Panama, Grenada, South Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Rhodesia, South Africa, Iraq (in 1963), the Philippines, Serbia, Afghanistan (twice), Iran and several other countries that don't immediately come to mind?
What do you call a government that has troops stationed in a hundred countries around the world?
What do you call a government whose leader says everyone must play by his rules or risk being attacked?
America the protector?
But then someone is sure to instruct me that "American troops are stationed abroad because those countries asked for them."
Yes, people in foreign countries want American troops there – just about as much as the Poles enjoyed having Soviet troops in Poland.
American troops are in those countries only because the governments of those countries were bribed with your money to allow American troops in.
How would you feel if there were Chinese troops wandering around your city?
Or even German troops?
So how do you think Germans feel about seeing American troops walking their streets – or Korean or Japanese citizens watching American soldiers commit murders and rapes in their countries without facing local prosecution?
World government
America rules the world – by force.
And that's ironic. Because for as long as I can remember, conservatives have been railing against the threat of world government.
But now we actually have a form of world government – a government run by George Bush and enforced by the American military – and most conservatives are all for it.
Our government decides what rules Iraq must live by, and if Iraq breaks those rules it can be bombed or invaded.
Our government decides which governments are legitimate and which must be replaced, which dictatorships are evil and which are "our partners in the War on Terrorism."
North Korea
Some people can't understand why our government is getting ready to attack Iraq, but is ignoring North Korea – which admits to having nuclear weapons and the ability to fire them at Alaska.
The difference between the two countries is simple: North Korea has the means to hurt us, Iraq doesn't.
In the past 50 years, our government has attacked many countries – Panama, Grenada, the Sudan, Afghanistan (twice), Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and others. But it has never attacked a country that had the capability to hurt America.
Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel – all have nuclear weapons. So we participate in "constructive engagement" with those countries.
But Iraq? No threat to us, so we can bomb it and invade it with impunity.
Fighting terrorism
After 9-11, some people said we should try to find the people responsible, capture them and prosecute them. They were largely laughed at as being unrealistic. Only by bombing and devastating Afghanistan could we be sure to get Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. And our president assured us that they would be brought to justice.
Now it's a year later. Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured or killed. Al-Qaida is alive and well. So is anyone concerned?
Of course not. Our attention is directed to Iraq – even though there's no public evidence that Iraq has anything to do with al-Qaida – and a lot of evidence that they're enemies of each other. Suddenly, Osama bin Laden is no longer important.
This doesn't make sense if you think the object is to end terrorism. But it makes perfect sense if the object is to demonstrate the empire's power to intimidate.
Why do they hate us?
For the past year, we've been hearing over and over that the Muslims and others around the world hate us because of our freedoms and our prosperity.
If that's true, the terrorists have won – because we're rapidly giving up our freedoms, and the loss of those freedoms is destroying our ability to prosper.
But, actually, it is only Americans who say that our freedoms and prosperity are the reason foreigners hate us. If you ask the foreigners, they make it clear that it's America's bullying foreign policy they detest.
Liberty and security
We're also told that we must give up some liberty for the sake of security. But that's not true.
For most of our history, Americans enjoyed both liberty and security from foreign threats.
But, as Tim O'Brien has pointed out, while it's possible to have both liberty and security, you can't have an empire as well. Once the American government decided to run the world, Americans were forced to choose between liberty and security – because you can't have all three. Once you become an empire, either liberty or security must go.
Most likely, however, we will lose both liberty and security. We're losing our liberties, but innocent Americans will continue to be hurt by terrorists because of what our government is doing overseas.
Hate America?
Whenever I write on these subjects, I invariably get e-mails accusing me of hating America or "blaming America first."
Quite the contrary. I love America, and I can't stand quietly by while the land of peace and liberty is being destroyed.
I love the America of the Constitution and limited government – not the America of the Patriot Act and the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security.
I love the America that Washington and Jefferson said should be far removed from all the age-old quarrels of Europe and Asia, while trading benevolently with people all over the world – not the America that has troops in a hundred countries while our own government prohibits us from peaceful trading with dozens of countries.
In short, I want my country back.
For example, Browne calls Grenada an American "attack" while conveniently forgetting that a couple hundred American medical students were trapped in the middle of a socialist coup d'etat incited by Cuba. Their lives were in danger.
And though Vietnam turned out badly, the original impetus for our involvement there - protection of the RSVN from the murderer Ho Chi Minh - was correct and proper. Browne (and most of the world) has again forgotten that post-1975, millions of South Vietnamese were killed and/or imprisoned by the communists, and the "domino theory" did indeed come into play in both Laos and Cambodia (where another several million were murdered by the Maoist lunatic Pol Pot).
People like Browne are despicable in their phoney idealism and refusal to admit that evil does often clash with the desire for liberty. They make everything too conveniently neat and tidy, which is not the way life works.
Harry has been smoking way too much of the Libertarian Party's official flower.
Since when do libertarians exalt collectivism.
Your post couldn't be more self-contradictory.
The entire point of libertarianism is to reject the notion of collective responsibility.
According to libertarian philosophy the concept of "society" is an artificial construct invented by collectivists - libertarianism postulates that there is no such thing as society. There are only individuals pursuing their own individual interests in a rational manner.
While smoking as much pot as possible, of course.
Could you please elaborate more on how technology trumps property rights. I'm not as sufficently enlightened with Randian libertarian views as you seem to be. Thank you.
However, I think I would like some clarification on this:
Every society and civilization collapses for the same reason: the people in that society start to place self-interest and partisan interest over the good of the society as a whole.
At first, this sounds like collectivism, but I am not sure after I read the rest:
Political contests become angrier and more contested, and when one group wins, it fells justified in using its new-found power to take revenge on the other.
I'm not so sure that's what we have now. If the Republicans wanted to "take revenge" on the Democrats, then we would not have seen the things passed that have been. Instead, we would have seen investigations into illegal pardons, stolen technology, etc.
I wonder, do you mean "for the good of society" in that we pull our troops out from around the world, forget about those countries, and restore freedom in our country?
How can any of you defend the "campaign finance reform law" that makes it illegal for the NRA to advertise before an election? Now Bush is pushing for one of the greatest gun bans in history ("Our Lady of Peace Act"). And all of you remain silent.
I guess people get the government they deserve.
Well said, I don't know what it's going to take to force these people to wake up but, I'm still waiting and hoping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.