I Don’t Want my Country to Be an Empire

[Time for change]

It’s really great that racial prejudice in the United States has diminished so much in recent years that we could elect a black man as President of our country. Until just 45 years ago, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, racial discrimination was virtually officially condoned in the United States. We still have a long way to go. Illegal purging of black voters in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections was a major cause of the election of George W. Bush as president in those years. But nevertheless, the election of a black president was a big step forward.

But it’s not enough. Militant nationalism is as malignant a force as is racism. In fact it’s probably worse, since it is more likely to lead to war. As the United States has evolved into an empire and become the primary source of terrorism in the world, it has spread untold misery throughout the world.

Americans need to better understand how other peoples of the world feel about the imperialistic attitudes and behaviors of their country, as well as the suffering that these behaviors create. These attitudes and behaviors starkly contradict the professed political philosophy of our nation – that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and they destabilize world civilization. If continued much longer they will probably result in the destruction of our country and of world civilization. Given modern weaponry, a nuclear holocaust is much more likely than a lot of people realize.


THE EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES

Americans may think of their country as a democracy. But most of the rest of the world doesn’t see us that way. There was, however, a time when it did.


The beginning of international law

Largely because of the widespread international recognition that the world could ill afford another major war, the United Nations came into existence in October 1945, two months after the surrender of Japanese forces ended World War II. The United States played the leading role in the founding of the United Nations. President Roosevelt deserves most of the credit for conception of the idea, and President Truman led the process of its creation after Roosevelt’s death.

Emphasizing the need to prevent war, the first sentence in the preamble to the United Nations Charter reads:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime brought untold sorrow to mankind…

The Charter goes on to define “Crime against peace” as a war crime, and more specifically as the invasion of one country by another for any purpose other than self-defense. The bottom line is that international law is needed for the very same reason that national laws are needed. In the absence of law, anarchy reigns, and the only principle to guide international relationships is “everyone for himself” and “might makes right”.


The U.S. today as an imperial power and the biggest violator of international law

It is a terrible shame that our nation, which led the world in the formation of international law, is now its biggest violator. Pedro A. Garcia-Bilbao, in an article titled “The Right to Interfere in a Context of Imperial Impunity”, from the book, “International Justice and Impunity – The Case of the United States”, discussed this issue in detail during the Bush administration:

I am going to try to be direct: We have to analyze, expose, and debate specific cases where the protagonist is a specific state, the United States of America. And the reason for this is obvious: it is the state which most repeatedly, and during the longest period of time, has acted both against and outside of the attempts of the international community to subject conflicts between states to the rule of law, in the clearly established goal of avoiding war and protecting rights and human dignity…

International law demands respect for the rules, but those who hold power seek to avoid any form of control. In the United States, the association of economic and political power is severely distorting the democratic order…The international institutions and international law are… an external source of control and limits which the emerging imperial power (the United States) is rejecting and fighting against.

Aggressive war
As the prevention of war was the prime goal of the United Nations, the illegal waging of war is considered the ultimate and worst war crime of all. This is an issue that is rarely voiced in the United States among “mainstream” politicians, journalists, or other “respectable” people. But the rest of the world is well aware of it. Garcia-Bilbao explains:

As informed citizens, we have been witnesses to military attacks (by the United States) in recent years, with an indiscriminate use of force against countries which were far from representing a real threat to world peace. We have seen how these countries were, and still are, subject to the ravaging of military occupation forces, without any excuse and beyond any form of legality…

The example of Iraq is paradigmatic… Action against this state brought war, immense destruction, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of completely innocent women, elderly people and children. This action was taken outside the international legal system created to prevent war… This war still continues today, atrocious crimes are continually committed against the civilian populations, and also against those who fight the occupation. Iraq today is a country which has been destroyed, where the entire population is suffering…

On the alleged reasons for the conflict, the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction, it was soon proved that they were simply an excuse… There were no such arms, “but there could have been”, and this justified the intervention according to (Bush)…

Fascism and hypocrisy
Those who do bad things generally seek to justify them through self-serving and hypocritical means. When Americans point out the fascist aspects of their country they are usually pilloried by their fellow citizens as “unpatriotic” or worse. But we would do well to look at the situation more objectively. Garcia-Balboa points out the clear similarities between our country and the fascists of World War II:

One of the distinctive traits of fascism was that it did not hide its crimes, because they were considered justified and legitimate. Nowadays, when we blitz and kill the civilian population in some countries subjected to an illegal military occupation or to wars of aggression, when we justify and defend the need for torture, when we legalize mercenaries, we are beginning to do it openly. We still use ideas which legitimize, we still preserve the big words (justice, freedom), but we use them in conjunction with ancient horrors such as torture…

Associated characteristics of imperial powers

The defining characteristic of an imperial power is that it dominates, controls, and/or plunders other nations, of whose laws it is not subject to. As it does so, it comes to be defined by secondary characteristics as well. Garcia-Balboa discusses these:

Disappearance of freedom and democracy

When, using the excuse of the fight against international terrorism, we limit the American firefighter’s right to trade union activity… and we threaten the activists of the United States peace movement, this shows that some things, many things, are not right. Without doubt, freedom and democracy are in danger; the main threats do not come from outside the system, but rather from its very heart.

Class war
The American people will be a lot better off when they finally recognize that the wars that their country engages in are generally not waged for their benefit. To the contrary, wars of aggression generally benefit only a specific segment of a nation’s elite, while most of its citizens suffer the price:

The problem is extremely complex because this power (the U.S.) which seeks to escape all control is not exclusively State power, because this State is, first and foremost, a tool in the hands of the social class which holds the economic power… Every day is more clearly serving private interests…

American exceptionalism and arrogance in the extreme

Not long before the fraudulent presidential elections which gave power to George W. Bush, a neo-conservative research center (Project for a New American Century), consisting of people linked to the previous Reagan and Bush administrations, and to the military-industrial pressure groups, produced a series of documents claiming to show the need for the United States to follow an imperial course. Resort to the army and technological superiority… were to be implemented in order to ensure that the 21st century would be “the new American century”. The United States was to follow the clear destiny which made this nation a state elected by God. The shining city on a hill found itself legitimized to impose its view on the entire world.

Impunity and its consequences

Garcia-Balboa repeatedly notes that the worst of the problem is not merely that laws have been broken, crimes committed. Rather, it is the impunity that routinely accompanies the worst crimes, when committed by the militarily most powerful nation on earth:

Impunity

In these first years of the 21st century, we are observing a painful reality. The development of international law relating to humanitarian rights, conventions on war and violence, and attempts to make conflicts less inhumane, is being subjected to harsh attacks… The fact that crimes which are classified as serious under international law are being committed is cause for concern; but repeated impunity is even worse. We live in a time where brute force has become the main source of legitimization, where we face a claim to impose the rights of the strongest, and where barbarity is disguised with words like democracy, freedom and human rights. In order to defend democracy, we are creating special laws and powers immune to all external control; to defend freedom, we are restricting individuals’ rights and denying collective rights; to defend human rights, we are legalizing, or we are claiming to legalize, torture…

It is on the subject of impunity that the Obama administration most merges with the Bush administration. Even if the Obama administration were to stop dead in its tracks all crimes committed by the Bush administration, if it allows them to stand without punishment, and even actively protects them, it will be confirming the principle that the United States is not subject to international law. In essence, it will be thumbing its nose at international law (not to mention its own Constitution). Garcia-Balboa wonders how it is possible for such impunity to coexist with a stable system of international law:

How have we been able to arrive at such a situation, in which a state claims its so-called right to attack and destroy another state as a preventive measure, and moreover where it has been done with impunity? … How is it possible that lies and manipulation can be used as evidence and that nothing happens… and that crimes against humanity continue to take place with complete impunity?

One step away from barbarity

Crimes have always been committed, but today they are openly justified and legitimized, or disguised by appealing to the state of need which arose after September 11. Since then, that power (the United States) publicly states that international law has ceased to count in its present form, that international obligations are only valuable if they serve its own interests, and then acts in full impunity… in such a case we are just a step away from barbarity….

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POSITION

As I noted, the above description of the United States as an empire was written during the Bush administration, and it applied to Bush administration crimes. So, how is this all changed now that we have a new President? On the one hand, it is great that President Obama signed an executive order banning torture.

The value of his plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay is less clear. Guantanamo Bay is just a place. The problem is not Guantanamo Bay per se, but what our country has done there. Whether or not Guantanamo Bay is shut down, the issue of greatest importance is how we handle our prisoners, not at what geographic location. So, how is the Obama administration planning to change Bush administration policies in that regard?


Obama administration treatment of prisoners

In some respects it is difficult to tell the difference between the policies of the two administrations. A recent case in which the Obama administration is attempting to deny habeas corpus rights to its prisoners is quite worrisome:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement: “Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

The right of habeas corpus – the right of prisoners to challenge state detentions – was first established in western civilization with the Magna Charta in 1215. The Obama administration’s actions in this case violate that principle, our Constitution, and international law. It is difficult for me to find an excuse for it.

Some people have claimed that we should give President Obama more time in office before judging or criticizing him. But it is difficult to see how giving him more time is relevant in a case like this. Most of the criticisms of him from the left are based on his actions or statements, not on a presumed inability to accomplish certain things within a specified period of time. How much time should it take to give our prisoners the rights that are required by our Constitution and International law? Is he waiting for it to become more politically feasible?


State secrets

A different, but related issue, is so-called “state secrets”. The Bush administration used the excuse of “state secrets” to keep from public view any and all documents that it didn’t want the public to see. Now, the Obama administration is continuing to invoke “state secrets” in a number of cases that seek to challenge alleged misconduct of the Bush administration.

One of the most important requirements of a democracy is transparency of government actions. To the extent that citizens are not aware of what their government is does, they cannot hold it accountable for its actions. For that reason, “state secrets” should be invoked to shield citizen knowledge of government action only in extreme instances. This is especially important where the rights of the accused are concerned. It is difficult to understand what information could be so important to our national security that efforts to hold our government accountable for its actions should be obstructed. Russ Feingold, previously one of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, recently commented on this:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program.

In a recent article in The Nation, David Cole criticized the Obama administration for its excessive use of state secrets, as well as for its treatment of its prisoners:

Disturbingly, the Obama administration has continued the Bush administration's attempts to shield illegal exercises of executive authority from judicial review… The bottom line is that executive wrongdoing in connection with the conflict with Al Qaeda should be shielded from judicial scrutiny…. because they involve "state secrets." On this theory, the executive can avoid any judicial review of criminal and unconstitutional wrongdoing simply by declaring its wrongs a secret.

The Obama administration has also adhered to the Bush administration's contention that the right of habeas corpus does not extend to detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan…. Should the executive branch be permitted to avoid accountability for its detentions simply by incarcerating them in Afghanistan rather than in Cuba?

And in a case seeking damages for torture and other abuse at Guantánamo, the Obama administration has argued that Guantánamo detainees have no constitutional rights to due process, so that even if they were tortured, no constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court's ruling last year that the constitutional right of habeas corpus extends to Guantánamo rested on its determination that there is nothing impracticable about extending such rights there. The same reasoning would fully support the extension of due process rights – yet the administration simply says no.

SOME FINAL WORDS ON IMPUNITY AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

Pedro Garcia-Balboa describes the effect of routine impunity on the criminal justice system:

Impunity stimulates a particular effect in a criminal. Crime debases, repeated impunity reinforces the crime, it leads the criminal to believe in his individual right, and it can make him think that the morality and ethics which rule human relationships are made for others, not for him. Repeated impunity leads the criminal to believe himself to be an “exceptional” person, someone for whom the rules which were created for everyone do not apply. In the case of crimes against international law, impunity has similar effects… The danger is not that the unpunished crimes against international law continue. The danger is that we are claiming to re-write international law, and that what is a crime today will become law tomorrow.

Worst of all, international law, and along with it international order, cannot exist in a system where the most powerful nation on earth is routinely allowed to violate the law, to commit heinous crimes with impunity:

According to the practice of the United States, the only thing which can guarantee that a country does not become the object of an aggression is a unilateral decision from the American government itself. The concept of “preventive war” represents the end of the international order based on maintaining peace as the supreme good, the end, too, of a conception of the international community as an order articulated on the basis of law… Based on one fact, its military power, and on one ideological consideration, its so-called “exceptional” character, it is claiming to reconstruct the international community in step with its national interests….

[baldguy]

1. Too late - by about 100 yrs.

Blame TR.

[Djinn]

10. My thoughts exactly

the deaths of a million Filipinos in that "splendid little war" couldn't be argued as for any other reason than empire.

In fact I tend to take it back to the Monroe Doctrine which makes it even more than 100 years but other than that it was a pretty good OP I thought.

[Time for change]

13. Actually, it was McKinley -- and even Taft -- much more than TR

TR inherited the Philippine War from McKinley, and pulled out after a while. Despite his macho talk, he was much less of a corporatist/war monger than either McKinley or Taft, who used the US marines to assist in corporate takovers in Honduras and Nicaragua.

But the Bush administration expanded the rules of the game and accelerated the process more than any other president in our history. He is without a doubt the worst president in our history, for that and other reasons. The concept of "preventive war" is the worst part of the whole thing. As long as we operate under that policy (which we never have before) with impunity there is no effective international law at all, and we are likely to attempt to expand our empire to the breaking point and throw ourselves and the world into catastrophe.

Anyhow, it's not too late. Nations have peacefully given up their colonial posessions in the past. We don't need 700 + military bases throughout the world. We can reign in our CIA, prohibiting it from doing covert operations and limiting it to intelligence gathering. We can withdraw for Iraq and Afghanistan. We can tremendously reduce our military with no ill effects except to those of the MIC who profit from it. We can give up and denounce the doctrine of preventive war.

I do hope that President Obama sees the light and emphatically denounces that doctrine.

[hootinholler]

15. 100 years? TR?

Maybe, but what about Monroe?

-Hoot

[leftstreet]

2. The American Empire is in the process of failing

So much potential as a member of the global community, but pissed it all away.

South America will rise next. Maybe they can lead the way.

[Time for change]

26. If they do, I hope they'll do a better job than we did

Hopefully they'll learn from our mistakes.

[stillcool]

3. Me neither...but it is what it is...

I would love to know who owns what, what countries are involved, who our military works for, and how big the Defense Department, with all the intelligence agencies really is. How many banks are tied up with Intelligence Agencies? How many embassies, how many bases, how many contractors. Who are the power brokers there? How about NATO? I'm 'hoping' for a kinder gentler empire. More covert ops, than overt ones. The possibility of negotiations to get American Business Interests the rights and contracts they want. I think it's probably too late for that though.

[Time for change]

14. Subject: It is what it is -- but that doesn't mean that it has to continue to be so.

Nations have peacefully given up empire before. The British did it after WW II. Several European nations gave up their colonial possessions in Africa during the 20th Century.

I would like to know all those things that you ask too. But we don't need 700 + military bases throughout the world. We can reign in our CIA, prohibiting it from doing covert operations and limiting it to intelligence gathering. We can withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. We can tremendously reduce our military budget with no ill effects except to those of the MIC who profit from it. We can give up and denounce the doctrine of preventive war. These things can be done -- with beneficial effects to the American people and the rest of the world.

HOW to make them happen is the big question.

[stillcool]

20. I don't think it's possible...

any more. I think it's gone too far, gotten too out of control, with zero oversight, and most importantly no truth, and in many cases no way to determine the truth. With the thirst for blood the people of this country have, and the willingness to be lied to, I don't see any reason for the United States to anything different than what has always been done. But then, I've about given up. Too much negativity and arrogance, results in me wishing for the very worst that could possibly happen. Not something I want to be about.

[maryf]

22. HOW to make them happen is the big question.

keep asking it of everyone, the answers are out there, the actions too...the people have to demand the changes needed is one primary step, IMHO

[qwertyMike]

4. It isn't an empire

Hasn't been for a long time.

It has 5% of the world's population, and its economic wealth is in hoc to China/Japan.

[Skip Intro]

5. Doesn't matter the wealth as long as we got the biggest, most fierce military on the planet.

I think that is what it has, or will soon, come down to.

But with a bankrupt nation, even that can't be sustained indefinitely.

[Selatius]

7. Then it is a bankrupt imperium like the Soviet Union on the verge of economic collapse. nt

[qwertyMike]

23. Exactly

But I do't think the USA will collapse and fragment like the USSR, which was really a conglomeration of waiting-to-be countries.

I think it will lose it's prominent significance in the world stage, military might or not.

I sense this thinking happening in the EU and China/asia/japan.

But I'm no seer, just have gut feelings.

Time to reassess maybe?

Obama's trip to Europe wasn't one of 'First Among Equals'. There was a little humility there, and I think the other leaders just saw the USA as one of them. Nothing more.

Mike

[Djinn]

11. so what?

The actual Roman citizens of Rome never were all that proportionally relevant, neither were their economic liabilities.

That's not what makes an empire.

[H2O Man]

16. Correct.

In fact, the population ratio is an important part of what defines an empire. It is the expansive policies of a state with a "minority" of the region/world towards other lands, for means of acquiring and exercising control over resources in the outlying lands, that translates to empire.

[eridani]

33. Really? Name another country with 700+ military bases in most of the world's nations

Britain and Rome made do with fewer than 40, and we call them empires, correct?

[smalll]

43. Ding ding ding - We Have A Winner.

:thumbsup:

[Democracyinkind]

6. great post. Good thing we're here to witness its fall. Let's hope it won't get too violent.

it was so clear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydbROGh5Hg

[Time for change]

29. Thank you

I'm with you on that.

[puebloknot]

8. K&R Bookmarking for later reading.

[The Wizard]

9. The road to empire

is paved with failed republics.

[Djinn]

12. and so it repeats

Class war
The American people will be a lot better off when they finally recognize that the wars that their country engages in are generally not waged for their benefit. To the contrary, wars of aggression generally benefit only a specific segment of a nation’s elite, while most of its citizens suffer the price:

One of the main causes for the peasant rebellions in 1381 in England was an objection to the third poll tax to finance the King's European wars in which the serfs saw little point or benefit to themselves in.

I've always been a bit of a history junkie and from a young age it's always seemed to me that the players and their names changed but the game remains the same. Just swap King for President, courtiers for financiers and serfs for "ordinary" Americans

[NoSheep]

58. Read the above post.

[Time for change]

59. We need a lot more history junkies in our country

People who can put things into perspective.

[rhett o rick]

17. Henry George wrote in "Progress and Poverty" in the 19th century

"..the evils arising from the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth, which are becoming more and more apparent as modern civilization goes on, are not incidents of progress, but tendencies which must bring progress to a halt; that they will not cure themselves, but, on the contrary, must, unless their cause be removed, grow greater and greater, until they sweep us back into barbarism by the road every previous civilization has trod. ....these evils are not imposed by natural laws; that they spring solely from social maladjustments which ignore natural laws...".

[Time for change]

30. I like that quote

[lunatica]

18. It seems every generation gets it's war as if it's the first war ever

It's too easy to manipulate each new generation when they're at just about the right age of 19. Just when they're grown up enough to be considered adults, but just short of enough life experience to have acquired much common sense and wisdom.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Like it's predecessors, America has become dependent on it's colonies.

We have exploited them for their raw materials, their labor, and their aid in fighting our opponents, and come to depend on them for our wealth. Now, they are in revolt and we are forced to "defend" them, usually from their own aspirations. In doing so, we have turned them into enemies that we have to defend ourselves from.

We have deluded ourselves with the notion that we are the benevolent colonialists and denied that we are colonialists at all. Now, the mask is off. And, the tides of history have turned against us as it has for our predecessors who also fancied themselves a version of the "Shining City on the Hill".

We're like an aging actress plastered with make-up who looks in the mirror and sees a fresh young starlet.

[maryf]

21. K&R

thanks!

[opihimoimoi]

24. Don't worry... be Happy :o) The Sane are in Charge Now

[Overseas]

25. K&R !! //nt

[Karenina]

27. Now I gotta go find my favourite "State Secrets" toon...

DAMSEL IN DISTRESS!! You know the one... Unka Sam & 'Bama standing over a treasure chest labeled "Bush's State Secrets Privilege" with reptile appendages leaking out.
Caption: Are you SURE you want to keep this around?
Cartoonist: P. Jamiol

[mix]

28. Check out: "Empire as a way of life..",

The late great American historian William Appleman Williams wrote it. His thesis is that the US was born of empire and was from its inception essentially an imperial republic. Manifest Destiny confirms this, a period of continental imperial expansion not mentioned in your otherwise wonderful post on America as a global empire.

Simply due to the prior conquests of the North American continent between 1783 and 1853, when the territory of the lower 48 took its definitive shape, the USA will never be able to be a republic without an empire.

Most Native Americans will confirm this.

Peace.

http://criticalculture.blogspot.com/2008/08/empire-as-way-of-life.html

[Time for change]

48. Interesting theory -- and it makes intuitive sense to me

But still, I want to believe that we can change, knowing that we must.

[LWolf]

31. This mirrors a long, and long distance,

call I had from my oldest son this afternoon. We live 1,000 miles apart, so regular phone calls are important. This afternoon, we finished updating each other on all the mundane, and not-so-mundane happenings in our lives, and the conversation drifted off to the state of the economy, and the state of the nation. I made that very statement to him: "I don't want my country to be an empire," and we discussed some of the same things you've linked to.

Thanks for posting.

[Time for change]

50. Cool

Great minds think alike. ;)

[Faryn Balyncd]

32. K & R

[kwenu]

34. How many times did your civics teacher tell you the U.S. is republic not a democracy?

And did you listen?

[tabasco]

35. A republic is a form of democracy.

I hear righties trying to sound smart say that they are different all the time.

[kwenu]

38. Says who?

Righties like to posit ideology as certain fact. There is a definite difference between belief and fact. We should keep that straight.

[Political Heretic]

46. Says the definition of "republic"

lol

Our form of government is officially classified as a representative democracy.

[rhett o rick]

54. According to wiki, "A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary

monarch<1><2> but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)<3> have an impact on its government.<4><5> The word originates from the Latin term res publica." Democracy wasn't mentioned.

I thought we were officially a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. WRONG

rhetto'rick has it correct: A republic is merely a country that doesn't have a monarchy. That's why North Korea is a republic and Norway isn't.

[Time for change]

37. Yes, most of us have heard that, but it's not that simple:

Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly -- through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums... By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.)

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

At least that is the ideal that our country is supposed to be. In actual practice, we have a long way to go, whether we call it a republic or a democracy.

[kwenu]

39. We're a republic. It's not debatable. It's a fact and it doesn't matter how you feel about it.

I'll accept a reference as a democratic republic but of course "democratic" would be a modifier.

[Time for change]

42. Well, it doesn't matter how you feel about it either

In this post I quoted Garcia-Balboa as saying that "freedom and democracy are in danger". What would you say? "freedom and republic are in danger"? This is the common usage of the term. Most people who write about this, including historians, use the term in this way. It doesn't matter what you think.

[Political Heretic]

47. You could say "freedom and representative democacy are in danger" since that is completely accurate,

....but some of us have SHIT TO DO. :P

[Time for change]

49. Yes - Thank you.

[kwenu]

66. Oh well then I guess that settles it.

Common usage obviously trumps any fact.
:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

51. Civics??? How old are you? nm

[kwenu]

63. Old enough to recognize ignorance and a poor education.

It's pretty clear to me now that using belief to argue a fact is not the sole province of right-wingers.

[rhett o rick]

68. I didn't intend offense. I am undoubtedly older that you. Just haven't heard of

civics being taught for about 40 years.

By the way IMO the US is a constitutionally limited democratic republic. I am getting sick of the argument of democracy vs. republic. We know what is meant.

And everything is debatable among friends.

[kwenu]

70. LOL! I don't think everything is debatable among friends...

it's just that your friends still like you despite the fact that you're a nut.

[rhett o rick]

71. Boy you got that right. nm

[rhett o rick]

67. Is that the only thing you found to comment about in the OP? nm

[KoKo]

36. Some of us have been trying to stop it....moving that big boulder up that mountain...

Thanks for the post...gotta keep working. K&R.

[Time for change]

52. Keep on trying -- That's the only way this is ever going to change.

[Dystopian]

40. KandR.

Thank you so much. Another incredible piece.


peace~

[Time for change]

53. You're welcome and thank you

[sendero]

41. Don't worry....

... the bankers running this country are well on their way to bankrupting it.

[mmonk]

44. Excellent. Recommended.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

45. This country has been on the march towards Empire since day one

The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam
by Sidney Lens, foreword by Howard Zinn

Today’s costly and brutal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan do not represent merely the mismanagement of the United States military as the largest military force on the planet, nor a misuse of the nation’s position as the world’s unrivaled superpower. Rather, as Sidney Lens’ unparalleled study demonstrates, these conflicts represent the logical culmination of over a century of empire building.

The Forging of the American Empire tells the story of a nation that has conducted more than 160 wars and other military ventures while insisting that it loves peace.

From Mexico to Lebanon, from China to the Dominican Republic, from Nicaragua to Vietnam, the U.S. has intervened regularly in the affairs of other nations.

Yet the myth that Americans are benevolent, peace-loving people who will fight only to defend the rights of others lingers on.

Excesses and cruelties, though sometimes admitted, usually are regarded as momentary aberrations.

In this comprehensive history of American imperialism, Sidney Lens punctures the myth once and for all by showing how the U.S., from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to dominate other peoples.

This classic text is indispensable, both as an unflinching account of the United States’ legacy of violent conquest and struggle for hegemony, but also as a perspective to clarify and contextualize events unfolding today.



http://www.haymarketbooks.org/product_info.php?products_id=1638

[glowing]

55. Perhaps, Pres. Obama wants the Supreme Court to decide these issues.

Then its not just his magic wand repealing the signing statements of the last admin. If it is a clear mandate from the Supreme Court, then these laws cannot be reversed depending upon who is sitting on the thrown. I read somewhere about this issue needing to go to the Supreme Court and have a ruling issued.. but if Pres. Obama decided to defend these issues, it would look as if he agreed with the egregious offenses. I think ultimately they want to lose to the Supreme Court and set a precedent that cannot be undone by another deranged President or Legislation who tends to react to situations like 9/11 like idiots.

[rhett o rick]

56. I believe that you are in a minority of US citizens. I'm in, as if that matters. nm

[bertman]

57. I don't want it to be an empire either, Time for change, but methinks we're waaay too late

to change it. Given the history of the planet and the many empires from the beginning of recorded history that have flourished, then been defeated from without or have rotted from within, I think it's just part of the dynamic of life on the planet. It's happened on almost every continent. It's been a part of the history of every racial/ethnic/color grouping we humans fall into.

Trite as it may sound, we could be exercising that old saw: do unto others BEFORE they do unto you. Because as history shows, soon after our empire falls, another will rise using the same or similar tactics that we used.

I hate being so pessimistic about this, and I'm still going to fight it with all the energy and determination I can muster at the age of 61, but it's almost like it's the genetic equivalent in populations of humans to the dominance of an alpha male over a herd or pride or pack or whatever of the so-called lower animals.

I think that the idea is to stay on top or to ally yourself with the one who's on top. Right now we think we're on top. And we are militarily. But who knows how long that will last or even if it will become moot in the face of some other national disability that will ultimately afflict Empire America.

If we were truly a democracy or a republic or a democratic republic or a representative democracy I would give us better odds of slowing the empire building, but we are none of those--if we ever truly were. We're a plutocracy or oligarchy or corporatocracy or something like that. The "PEOPLE", that mythical group of citizens who are supposed to give our leaders their direction, are more interested in preserving their creature comforts and enjoying life than they are in educating themselves about or participating in democracy. So, we have ceded our most precious right--to have a say in how we are governed--to those who want to govern us.

If even half of the citizenry were aware and active participants in government I would give us a chance at regaining some power, but the fraction of active participants is probably more like one-sixth or one-seventh. To me, that population group is probably not even as big as the percentage of Americans who have a vested interest in defending the status quo of imperial expansion.

I'm usually not quite this negative about our chances for turning this battleship around, but I'll leave you with the quote (from my future son-in-law) that has made me realize what we're up against. He said to me last night: "All I want is for my 401k to go up and gas prices to go down. I don't care who the President is as long as he can make those two things happen."

[Time for change]

60. I think that we were doing much better in this regard when we led the creation of the United Nations

That was a time when our leaders believed that it was right (and in our interests as well) to become part of the community of nations in an effort to prevent war, genocide, and crimes against humanity, etc. I think that if we were in that position before we can recover our bearings and do it again.

Empires have dissolved peacefully in the past. The British gave up their empire after WW II, and several European countries gave up their African colonial possessions during the 20th century. Notwithstanding your pessimism, if you're "still going to fight it with all the energy and determination you can muster", then nobody could ask any more. If more people did that, we would get rid of our oligarchy. I don't think it's as bleak as you feel right now.

[bertman]

61. Thanks for the reminder that past empires have dissolved themselves. And for the

encouragement.

Didn't those past empires dissolve because the cost of empire was so great? Wasn't it a combination of the unrest in the colonies, plus the high cost of maintaining the imperial armies and navies that motivated Britain and Holland to relinquish their imperial assets? Also, it seems that they had set up a strong network of mercantile relationships that still allowed them to benefit financially from some, if not all, of their former colonies. That mercantile element still exists in many countries today despite the efforts in some nations--Zimbabwe comes to mind--to eliminate the last vestiges of colonial rule that were manifested in the farming enterprises that had been established and handed down for generations to the heirs of colonists. Many of the mineral extraction companies in the former colonies are still owned by companies that were part of the original imperial structure.

Your point about the UN is a good one. That organization has steadily lost favor in the U.S. for many reasons, not the least of which is our right-wing's steady media campaign to denigrate the good work that the UN has done.

[Time for change]

62. Your point about why empires of the past have dissolved probably has a lot of truth to it

I haven't studied that issue in great detail, but what you say rings true to me.

But trying to untangle the reasons for things like that is a tremendously complicated task, complicated especially by the fact that major events generally have numerous causes. I feel pretty sure that anti-colonial sentiment in Europe contributed quite a lot to the dispossession of European colonies -- just as anti-slavery sentiment in our country contributed greatly to the eventual abolishment of slavery.

[dysfunctional press]

64. i'd rather live in an empire than a colony...

anybody speak mandarin?

[LooseWilly]

69. I suggest an Imperial Referendum.

Let the people vote whether or not they want their country to continue Imperialist policies.

Sure, I would hope that it's voted down, though I'm not certain it would be. The important thing, I think, would be for the government to stop with the double speak and admit to the fact that Imperialist policies are in place, and then just let the people vote on whether they like it or not.
It would be the democratic thing to do... and it would be interesting to see American heads exploding as the merits and drawbacks were debated... and all the hawks admitting that there's really no "spreading democracy" interest, just expanding American influence and interests.
And what the hell? If they won the election, then there would be no more reason to call them hypocrites and liars and whatnot... we could all just get on with the business of conquering the world, dictating the terms of peace, and enjoying the (potential) spoils of victory.
And just think of the economic stimulus as all the PR firms in the country start spending the insane monies they'll start collecting...

Ohh, and REC...