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.
Okay what is illogical about Leonard Peikoff's criticism of the pacifist wing of the LP?
Everyone will be too stoned to care about anything...Harry is delusional...
Silly, stupid, for starters.
But pretty much every LP party stalwart I've met has been an embarrassing hippy longhair with all the stereotypical habits.
I think you're out of luck on that one. Any form of mysticism, which certainly includes religious as well as secular "faiths" (like socialism), is directly antithetical to Objectivist principle. However, you will never hear of an Objectivist coercing or doing anything other than persuading, although I would wager they'd have a couple of things to say about tax-exempt status for religious organizations while the rest of us are saddled with numerous immoral taxes. But I do think that that is a significantly more acceptable ally to religious folks than treasonous Republican moderates (Abortion is Fun!) or anything that the knee-jerk anti-religion liberals have to offer in that field...
voluntarily altruism
Just out of curiousity, have you read Atlas Shrugged? Just because the Objectivist view of what you call altruism is a lot more nuanced than they are given credit for; personal charity, given freely for the mere satisfaction it provides, is totally acceptable and virtuous (but because it is good for the giver). The problem comes when altruism becomes a mask for dishonestly selfish intentions (like, say, Democrat populism), which is really its most common incarnation, or when "altruism" ends up doing more harm than good to the recipient because of the independence that it inherently takes from them (ie the consequences of welfare-quite apart from the immorality of its source).
Basically, they conclude, quite rationally, I think, that all actions arise from self interest at some level. The different is between those with honest intentions that are open about their motivations, and those that pretend to be working exclusively for the "social good" or any of those other non-words.
I would tend to agree there with the exception that I plan to use the ULC( Universal Life Church) to dodge taxes later in life once I get all the legal angles resolved. Thats right in the future you will address me as reverend weikel.
The "pacifist wing of the LP" is a creation of the neo-cons. There is no such thing that I am aware of.
Any person who wont agree to bomb whoever GW decided into oblivion is a "pacifist" in the minds of the neo-cons.
Thus are the "good intentions" behind religious tax exemption shown to be unsuited to the material consequences of their actions, singlehandedly, by the good reverend weikel... : )
Look, I agree and disagree. If we as a country were simply sitting back, minding our own business, and out of nowhere, we are attacked by another country, then hell yeh, bomb them. But we all know that is not what happened. Years of meddling in the affairs of the middle east pissed off fanatics who otherwise would have just been fanatics running around in the desert killing each other.
My solution? If it is fact that some guys calling themsleves "Al Quaida" attacked us then fine, round them up and kill them. Then, pull our troops out of the middle east, pull out of the UN, forget those freaking countries and make it damn clear that if they mess with us in any way again, we will hold all Islamic countries equally responsible and bomb them all.
What I am totally against is bombing them, and then continuing "business as usual".
Look, I agree and disagree. If we as a country were simply sitting back, minding our own business, and out of nowhere, we are attacked by another country, then hell yeh, bomb them. But we all know that is not what happened. Years of meddling in the affairs of the middle east pissed off fanatics who otherwise would have just been fanatics running around in the desert killing each other.
My solution? If it is fact that some guys calling themsleves "Al Quaida" attacked us then fine, round them up and kill them. Then, pull our troops out of the middle east, pull out of the UN, forget those freaking countries and make it damn clear that if they mess with us in any way again, we will hold all Islamic countries equally responsible and bomb them all.
What I am totally against is bombing them, and then continuing "business as usual".
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.