Reply #52: No, you are again wrong.....

[FrenchieCat]

I was talking soft sell vs. hard power. You are talking corruption and greed. We are discussing different issues that merge only at points, although you want to interpret it as a all or nothing proposition.

The virtual empire that Clark envisions (since you don't seem to have a high degree of comprehension) is based on trust, of course economic relationships, but fair ones (think of no relationships at all and you are living in another universe), cultural exchanges, fair treaties, respect for international laws (as he demonstrated by testifying at the Hague).

You act as though America has never had good intentions ever.

Clark's vision is of what our America could represent. That is all of the good intentions that America has, at one time or another demonstrated in our history (think Marshall Plan). He's not talking about maintaining the old status quo as it were, but improving upon it, on the things that went wrong. That would include moving away from Multinational corporations being treated as an extension of our government via no bid contracts and the bigger the better, and having a public and open cabinet level governmental department that promotes and conducts foreign aid in an ethical manner.

For you, on the other hand, it's all or nothing. Your lack of complexity is amazing and makes one wonder if that is the kind of flat vision that Bush's has and why we have the problems that we face. Doh!

THE WORLD
Soft Sell
by Robert Lane Greene
Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.07.03
One of the more surprising proposals of the Democratic primary campaign has so far been one of the least reported. Wesley Clark, criticizing the Bush administration for being too quick to seek military solutions to the world's problems, has proposed increasing American foreign aid and creating a cabinet-level Department of International Assistance to oversee it. For those who say the general has only a resumé and no ideas to help distinguish himself from the Democratic pack, the plan, laid out in his book Winning Modern Wars, should stand as a corrective. Right or wrong, Clark seems to be staking out a position as the candidate who is most likely to turn American foreign policy in a less aggressive direction, focusing both on unruffling allied feathers and on placating those who actively seek to do us ill. ...
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=foreign&s=greene100703

“I Don't think America can lead and influence events around the world if it doesn't pull its weight in the difficult work of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and participation in other international institutions. Leadership is not just about reacting to aggression once it occurs--it's about preventing it where we can, helping others in need and supporting those who share our values. This requires generosity of spirit and a willingness to take risks. I believe America has the character and courage for these requirements of leadership.” -- General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

The peace, prosperity and global leadership enjoyed by Americans today is our inheritance from the sacrifices and investments made by our parents and grandparents. The “Greatest Generation” didn’t just win a world war, they also won the post war world. They did it by investing in worldwide social, political and economic cooperation and progress. Even though America’s economy was still recovering from the Depression and World War II, they invested 3% of GDP--$3 out of every $100 they produced--in the Marshall Plan – foreign aid. The Marshall Plan and subsequent international development programs like the Alliance for Progress restored the world economy and political stability and may well have been the best investment any country ever made.
http://www.colead.org/WP%20Restoring%20America's%20Int'l.html

Read this as well for inovations of what a Foreign Aids Department could do.....it's Clark's baby called SENSE. And keep in mind that he's not for status quo....never has, and never will be...unless it works, like Affirmative Action. Ignoring Genocide has been "Status Quo" since before WWII. It's not one of the issues that he agrees should stay as it always was.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084604/