Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
The US government doesn't give a rat's hairy ass if some villager in Afghanistan has the opportunity to vote or enjoy politcal freedom.
We spend billions (trillions) of dollars and our Soldiers blood to create allies and further our national interests. Nothing more and nothing less. The noble sounding ideals of "spreading democracy" are for public consumption to create support for these senseless and ultimately futile wars
The phrase "dangerous nation" comes from a letter that John Quincy Adams wrote to his father. John Quincy Adams was serving as the ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1817. And he reported to his father, John Adams, that all the governments of Europe regarded the United States as likely to become a very dangerous member of the society of nations and that all of Europe was fervently hoping that the United States would break apart and not fulfill what they regarded as this very dangerous destiny.
Arab nationalism was born from the teachings on patriotism by US missionaries in the middle east in the 19th century.
Re-read the declaration. This is the basis of our foreign policy.
Note-the worst stain on Pres. Clinton's record is his failure to intervene in Rwanda.
Note 2-the US built itself, and engaged in nation building following the civil war.
Our foreign policy is based on the needs of the United States.
We have no business interceding into the internal affairs of other countries and wasting money that we don't have for some ridiculous noble gestures.
As far as nation building goes, these have been utter disaters since as a nation we continually fail to anticipate the reactions to our interventions. We continually do ourselves more harm than good, intervening into the business of other countires, not to mention wasting our nations blood and treasure.
In the western hemisphere, where the US has had almost exclusive hegemomny, the state of affairs has been largely peaceful. No wars. No major atrocities (except for Cuba). And except for the occasional socialist dictator, largely free nations.
The Imperialism of the British Empire has, overall, been a benefit to those nations in which it existed.
As for Eastern Europe, other than Bosnia and Kosevo (which are still a mess) we haven't invaded any of those nations, last I checked.
As for South America, it was a proxy war for most of the 70's and 80's for the Cold War with US installed right wing dictators battle communist rebels all through the continant. Che Guevera ring any bells?
Finally, imperialism isn't a benefit other than to the imperialists. Of course coming from folks who back liberal interventionist policies, I can see how they would think imperialism is a great and wonderful thing.
I do find it rather odd and hypocritical that one espousing freedom and liberty would find imperialism palatable.
Where did the US go wrong? At what point can the US pull out and be rest assured that the flowers grown on Afghan soil by the blameless Taliban are not for opium funded terrorism, but for hippies to put behind their ears and dance blissfully for peace?
Simply put, Afghanistan was supposed to be the “just war”. When did it become “unjust”, or should the US have just let 9/11 slide by the wayside and done nothing.
My bad, I thought Karzai had something to do with Afghanistan. But, alas the Iraq arguments are over-tenderized horse meat. Not much to say there.