Hi, thought I'd quote PNAC:
PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan countered such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire":
"There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism". If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."-from the wikipedia entry for 'Project For A New American Century'.
I must admit I knew nothing about its beginnings and aims regarding regime change in Iraq going and the leglislation passed by the US Congress effectively legalising said regime change going back to the Clinton adminstration in 1998.
"Economic expansion does not equal imperialism" I'm not at all sure exactly how this is possible without well being imperialistic and using force or other forms of coercion. Empires, such as those based on naval power like the United States, have effective territories beyond the home state known as client states
This logic and method WAS used probably by every empire in history, specifically the Roman and later British policy of adopting client kings and using foreigners in their armies. I mean, this continues this day think of the Gurkas and the French Foreign Legion.
"If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein?" But does this mean that the policies of Empires are supported entiredly by thier citizens and allies? This proposition is of course ridiculous but also shows the arrogance of the modern empire planners: "We're right cos no one else is even though not everyone agrees with us...so, you're either with US or you're with the TERRORISTS. You're not a terrorist are you?"
Economic expansion....into an unoccupied area? Well this is really colonialism, and unless the colonists are independent of the home nation this is still imperialism.If any citizen or apoligist of say China granted that nation the sole right to "Economically Expand" into other spheres anyone could say that individual was racist.The very concept of "Manifest Destiny" is itself racist or at least I suppse blasphemous. It certainly denies any religion or creed to believe differently.
Military expansion continues. According to Cynthia Mckinney, Obama is sending 12,00 US troops destined for Lybia to Malta.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/01/491180.html
Regardless of the situation in Lybia, many nations are still occupied: Japan,South Korea, the UK, Afganistan and others.
Why should Russia surrender? Why is this important? Does every nation not have the right to economic sovereignty? Of course, in a globalised world this is impossible and neither is real autarky to be desired either but only China and possibly the EU can exert pressure on the US, and only economic pressure at that.
Does "freedom" only come from American corporations and NGOs? Why does freedom have to be defined by a narrow American conception, a conception bastardised beyond the hopes of even the founding fathers-seperation of church and state, a well-regulated militia and private property being what a private citizen can use by his own hands and means not those of wage slaves.
America is not the goal of freedom. It is a legalised corporate entiity. Any idea of it being a voluntary federation or association of free individuals is kicked out of the water by two word: constitutional republic. That means the dead have authority over the living or at least allows sections of the living to rule on behalf of the dead. The Indians did not volunteer to be exterminated and ethnically cleansed. Blacks did not volunteer to be slaves. Immigrants do not volunteer to live as outlaws and generations of the past did not volunteer for future poverty,anti-union legislation, false flag bombings and federal assassination programmes.Did the current generation choose to be born to allow the imolation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Lybians and Afgans and did the immolated in turn volunteer to be sacrificed for American Power and Economic Expansion?
PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan countered such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire":
"There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism". If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."-from the wikipedia entry for 'Project For A New American Century'.
I must admit I knew nothing about its beginnings and aims regarding regime change in Iraq going and the leglislation passed by the US Congress effectively legalising said regime change going back to the Clinton adminstration in 1998.
"Economic expansion does not equal imperialism" I'm not at all sure exactly how this is possible without well being imperialistic and using force or other forms of coercion. Empires, such as those based on naval power like the United States, have effective territories beyond the home state known as client states
This logic and method WAS used probably by every empire in history, specifically the Roman and later British policy of adopting client kings and using foreigners in their armies. I mean, this continues this day think of the Gurkas and the French Foreign Legion.
"If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein?" But does this mean that the policies of Empires are supported entiredly by thier citizens and allies? This proposition is of course ridiculous but also shows the arrogance of the modern empire planners: "We're right cos no one else is even though not everyone agrees with us...so, you're either with US or you're with the TERRORISTS. You're not a terrorist are you?"
Economic expansion....into an unoccupied area? Well this is really colonialism, and unless the colonists are independent of the home nation this is still imperialism.If any citizen or apoligist of say China granted that nation the sole right to "Economically Expand" into other spheres anyone could say that individual was racist.The very concept of "Manifest Destiny" is itself racist or at least I suppse blasphemous. It certainly denies any religion or creed to believe differently.
Military expansion continues. According to Cynthia Mckinney, Obama is sending 12,00 US troops destined for Lybia to Malta.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/01/491180.html
Regardless of the situation in Lybia, many nations are still occupied: Japan,South Korea, the UK, Afganistan and others.
Why should Russia surrender? Why is this important? Does every nation not have the right to economic sovereignty? Of course, in a globalised world this is impossible and neither is real autarky to be desired either but only China and possibly the EU can exert pressure on the US, and only economic pressure at that.
Does "freedom" only come from American corporations and NGOs? Why does freedom have to be defined by a narrow American conception, a conception bastardised beyond the hopes of even the founding fathers-seperation of church and state, a well-regulated militia and private property being what a private citizen can use by his own hands and means not those of wage slaves.
America is not the goal of freedom. It is a legalised corporate entiity. Any idea of it being a voluntary federation or association of free individuals is kicked out of the water by two word: constitutional republic. That means the dead have authority over the living or at least allows sections of the living to rule on behalf of the dead. The Indians did not volunteer to be exterminated and ethnically cleansed. Blacks did not volunteer to be slaves. Immigrants do not volunteer to live as outlaws and generations of the past did not volunteer for future poverty,anti-union legislation, false flag bombings and federal assassination programmes.Did the current generation choose to be born to allow the imolation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Lybians and Afgans and did the immolated in turn volunteer to be sacrificed for American Power and Economic Expansion?
posted by Legal Smeagol at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home