Why didn’t someone stop and say “You know we might be over reaching just a tad”.
Well, the West Point graduates probably thought of it as job security.
I’ll take a page from Rumsfeld and interview myself.
Did they overreach? Yes. If they had only pinpointed a few places, would they have screwed up any less? Probably not. But is “extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions” a Good Thing™? Of course. Should our reach exceed our grasp? Maybe. Is that what they were thinking at the time? Of course not. Could the group of morons in charge have done any better? They’re pretty incompetent, so probably not.
I think I’ll talk like this from now on.
You think it is about democracy? You wish.
So THAT’S what they’re calling the old smash ‘n’ grab nowadays!
As for what they were smoking, I hear it was a real bitch’s brew composed of two parts hubris, three parts stupidity and four parts stupidity. Mmmm, that’s one stupefying smoke, man!
W didn’t invent this stuff, it’s straight from the long-standing ideology of American neoconservatism – IMO, the same old imperialism in a new bottle. That’s what he was smoking. Bush’s statement could have been taken almost verbatim from PNAC’s Statement of Principles.
Hmm… actually that works pretty well rhetorically!
Stripped of its fancy verbal wrapping paper, neoconservatism is fundamentally the same tactic used by playground bullies everywhere – “I’m bigger than you, so I get to do whatever I want, and I’ll beat up anyone who tries to stop me.”
And yet, when you point to the neocons (and their apologists) about how brutishly juvenile such a philosophy is, they end up dismissing you as a “naive” person with no grasp of “realpolitik”. :rolleyes:
Sorry, the correct answer is - “Does that work pretty well rhetorically? Actually, yes!”
There’s nothing wrong with having a strong military, acting unilaterally if it’s neccesary, or extending democracy, liberty, or security.
It’s not that at all. It’s the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny. We were the first modern liberal democratic republic. We were the first successful revolution in modern times against the idea of monarchy, and for the idea that there were certain universal rights, and that people could govern themselves. We were a rallying cry to the French revolutionaries, to the revolutions of 1848.
Now, did we always live up to that? Of course not. We’ve done a lot of terrible things, both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t change our responsibilities. Like John Winthrop said, we are “a city upon a hill”, and need to be committed to freedom both at home and abroad.
Oh that white man’s burden! 'tis so burdensome!
-Joe
So you believe. I’m not required to share your view, however.
If you notice, I never said anything about race in my post, and, in fact, the two examples I gave both were of American influence on European countries.
[shrug] Same thing in principle. Kipling defended imperialism on the grounds the “white men” knew what was best for the “new-caught, sullen peoples / half devil and half child,” therefore had a duty to impose it on them by force; and all the while the whole idea was a hypocritical justification for economic exploitation. Same with the neocons. Exactly the same.
But of course there…can be.
How strong a military? Do we pour 100% of our budget into it? What if our enemies only have sticks and stones to fight with? Do we need an advanced, nuclear missile defence laser? Giant robots? Should we pool our military with other nations totally, partially, or not at all? Should we buy superior arms from abroad, or use inferior arms if they’re made in the country? Do we focus on many poorly equipped troops, or fewer but better armed troops?
Acting unilaterally if necessary; should we always act by ourselves? What if the enemy is too strong, should we commit ourselves to fighting them alone anyway? How far are we prepared to go unilaterally before we start pissing off other countries; are good diplomatic relations unimportant? And who decides what’s necessary? Is it necessary because we want to? Because we have no other choice? Because we might take a small hit otherwise?
Extending democracy, liberty, and security; Do we set up a republic? A straight democracy? Fiefdoms? Do we convert nations to our way of government, or let them decide? What if they pick a dictatorship? And what about liberty? Do we let others decide that, too? Should we make them count as “free” what we count as free? Gay marriage, no sexual or racial discrimination, the death penalty; do we let them decide, or should we just make them do as we do? How about security? Why not just draft everyone in the country? Should we spend our defence budget on conventional arms, or emergent technologies? Is pre-emptive war good, or bad? Should we just nuke everyone, to make sure?
Having a strong military, acting unilaterally if necessary, and extending democracy, liberty, and security are sentiments just as easily abused as any other. Sure, they can be good sentiments. Is there anything wrong with them? There can be.
This is the kind of bullshit, delusional chest-pounding that puts extremist butts in airplane seats.
“I’ve got time for one more question. Is anyone buying this bullshit? Amazingly, yes.”