FK on Mar 10, 2008 at 03:15 AM:

Wow, I hope this is a joke. The line 'Hopefully, the American ideals of freedom and justice for all can be used to establish true cosmopolitanism in the world' is what really got me. You're serious? The UNITED STATES DOESN'T EVEN HAVE FREEDOM AND JUSTICE, and if you don't believe me, take a look at the latest poll which says that more Americans are jailed now than at any other time in the past. More than half of these are for drug-related offenses, also known as 'pursuing individual happiness', which I believe was outlined in the Constitution. What your article appears to say is that if the world follows the American model, we can have world peace? And this would probably because everyone would be completely like everyone else, which suggests that the individuality of cultures would have been completely washed away. Meaning of course, that everyone speaks English and wears Ugg boots. I still can't believe that anyone can consider that a good thing. I am in no way endorsing Saddam Hussein in saying this, but you make it sound like all middle eastern countries are these horrible, awful, oppressive places. In some cases you are right, but let's not forget that Hussein for all his faults did allow certain freedoms that other middle eastern rulers did not, such as freedom of religion. In fact, by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq had more or less stabilized in terms of finding a balance of Islamic tradition and the allowance of certain western ideals. Again, I am not endorsing Saddam Hussein, but I'd like to make clear that we, through our greed and desire to make everyone like us, many people have been needlessly slaughtered. It is clear that you love your country, and I respect that, but I don't think you understand the implications of the ideas that you have expressed here. Thinking like this is what allows for dictators to take power. The difference of course is that dictators will normally kill all who disagree with their thinking, something which I am not accusing you of endorsing, but is still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The irony that the U.S. once made a career out of overthrowing democratically elected governments and is now thrusting democracy on others is a pretty good illustration of exactly how little imperialism has changed; the ends are still exactly the same as they have always been, and that is the attainment of power. You appear to be speaking of levelling the playing field, and that is extremely dangerous thinking. The world is a beautiful, wonderful place BECAUSE everyone is different. I will be frank, if every country were to be exactly the same I definitely would not suggest the American model, in which we work more hours than any other industrialized nation, have the highest murder rate on earth, are forced to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a healthcare visit if we do not have insurance, AFTER waiting in an emergency room for hours. There is a reason why people in the middle east are resisting our attempts at conquest, and its because we offer nothing that sounds appealing to them. We definitely do not offer them freedom, as its something that not even American citizens seem to have (please consider the implications of advertising in order to appreciate the more abstract angles of this concept). You forget that both Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were achieved through genocide, displacement of peoples who already owned the land on which they sat, and more importantly, both empires fell rather violently. I do not think that the deaths of millions of people are justified in order to achieve some sort of uniform people, and any time you try to build a real empire, that is exactly what you get. Because after all, if someone disagrees with you, and they resist, more often than not they will react violently and people will die. That is not a fair trade off. Especially not for the American way of life. If we all had to be any one thing, I'd say Canadian. They're not as full of themselves.

FK on Mar 10, 2008 at 03:28 AM:

Wow, I hope this is a joke. The line 'Hopefully, the American ideals of freedom and justice for all can be used to establish true cosmopolitanism in the world' is what really got me. You're serious? The UNITED STATES DOESN'T EVEN HAVE FREEDOM AND JUSTICE, and if you don't believe me, take a look at the latest poll which says that more Americans are jailed now than at any other time in the past. More than half of these are for drug-related offenses, also known as 'pursuing individual happiness', which I believe was outlined in the Constitution. What your article appears to say is that if the world follows the American model, we can have world peace? And this would probably because everyone would be completely like everyone else, which suggests that the individuality of cultures would have been completely washed away. Meaning of course, that everyone speaks English and wears Ugg boots. I still can't believe that anyone can consider that a good thing. I am in no way endorsing Saddam Hussein in saying this, but you make it sound like all middle eastern countries are these horrible, awful, oppressive places. In some cases you are right, but let's not forget that Hussein for all his faults did allow certain freedoms that other middle eastern rulers did not, such as freedom of religion. In fact, by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq had more or less stabilized in terms of finding a balance of Islamic tradition and the allowance of certain western ideals. Again, I am not endorsing Saddam Hussein, but I'd like to make clear that we, through our greed and desire to make everyone like us, many people have been needlessly slaughtered. It is clear that you love your country, and I respect that, but I don't think you understand the implications of the ideas that you have expressed here. Thinking like this is what allows for dictators to take power. The difference of course is that dictators will normally kill all who disagree with their thinking, something which I am not accusing you of endorsing, but is still happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The irony that the U.S. once made a career out of overthrowing democratically elected governments and is now thrusting democracy on others is a pretty good illustration of exactly how little imperialism has changed; the ends are still exactly the same as they have always been, and that is the attainment of power. You appear to be speaking of levelling the playing field, and that is extremely dangerous thinking. The world is a beautiful, wonderful place BECAUSE everyone is different. I will be frank, if every country were to be exactly the same I definitely would not suggest the American model, in which we work more hours than any other industrialized nation, have the highest murder rate on earth, are forced to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a healthcare visit if we do not have insurance, AFTER waiting in an emergency room for hours. There is a reason why people in the middle east are resisting our attempts at conquest, and its because we offer nothing that sounds appealing to them. We definitely do not offer them freedom, as its something that not even American citizens seem to have (please consider the implications of advertising in order to appreciate the more abstract angles of this concept). You forget that both Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were achieved through genocide, displacement of peoples who already owned the land on which they sat, and more importantly, both empires fell rather violently. I do not think that the deaths of millions of people are justified in order to achieve some sort of uniform people, and any time you try to build a real empire, that is exactly what you get. Because after all, if someone disagrees with you, and they resist, more often than not they will react violently and people will die. That is not a fair trade off. Especially not for the American way of life. If we all had to be any one thing, I'd say Canadian. They're not as full of themselves.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 10, 2008 at 11:08 AM:

"Wow, I hope this is a joke."

What? Which part?

The UNITED STATES DOESN'T EVEN HAVE FREEDOM AND "JUSTICE, and if you don't believe me, take a look at the latest poll which says that more Americans are jailed now than at any other time in the past."

No that just means that more justice is being met out not less.

"More than half of these are for drug-related offenses, also known as 'pursuing individual happiness', which I believe was outlined in the Constitution."

No it's the Declaration, but anyway taking drugs is destructive to ones well-being. Little kids think eating candy and chocolates makes them happy but it won't in the long term. So that's not a good analogy. I had a friend who smoked pot on a regular basis and he completely ruined his drive to accomplish anything in his life.

"What your article appears to say is that if the world follows the American model, we can have world peace?"

Well yes. Historically empires have brought about world peace.

"through our greed and desire to make everyone like us, many people have been needlessly slaughtered."

The massive numbers of casualties (a million plus and 655000) are highly suspect especially seeing that they are way out of place when compared to the many other much smaller estimates. The largest reasonable estimate I've seen is around 100000, but I think even that is too high. I would like to point out though that the 655000 estimate was produced by a study secretly funded by George Soros.

"the same as they have always been, and that is the attainment of power."

If you've read Hobbes you'd see that the attainment of power is vital to keep the peace.

"You forget that both Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were achieved through genocide"

Ferguson accounts for all of that. His argument is that even with bad things like these statistically and empirically speaking things were still worse off when these regions were not governed by empires.

Also I would take issue with the use of the term "genocide" here. The British and Romans killed people who opposed them in war but that isn't the same as genocide.

Big Brother on Mar 10, 2008 at 03:45 PM:

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Samuel Sharpe on Mar 10, 2008 at 09:01 PM:

Luckily all of those empires brought peace to black people...or did they bring them to the "New World" to enslave and exploit them?

ok, forget that. The Arawaks will tell you about how great empire is...shit. Columbus wiped them out. ummmm, well, empire has been really good for a lot of white people! Yeah, that's it. Sweet.

George Monbiot on Mar 10, 2008 at 09:27 PM:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/8444

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM:

Luckily all of those empires brought peace to black people..."

Actually this was one of Ferguson's case examples. After the British empire left Africa much of the continent was plunged into the chaos that continues even today. It would have been a far more human thing for them to have stayed.

"or did they bring them to the "New World" to enslave and exploit them?"

Imperialism was going on long after slavery.

"ok, forget that. The Arawaks will tell you about how great empire is...shit. Columbus wiped them out."

Actually Columbus himself was a nice guy. His men were jerks but he was shocked at their behavior after he came back from Spain.

In any case you shouldn't attack Columbus like that. If you've read any Leo Strauss you'd understand that even if these things were propositions were valid they would not be appropriate for the necessities of civil society. In American tradition Columbus was a great explorer. People who hate America are always trying to bash him but then they are usually opposed to civil society.

"ummmm, well, empire has been really good for a lot of white people! Yeah, that's it. Sweet."

It was also good for all of the people here who did not yet have the benefits of western civilization.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM:

To George Monbiot, as for the accusation that the British were somehow exploiting the Africans that is kind of ironic considering the currect economic status of Africa. Though Marxists often like to call capitalism exploitation if "exploitation" means giving people jobs vs. having them starve to death in their current condition I'll take "exploitation."

The second point the author makes is that Imperialism comes with lots of deaths wars etc. From what I understand Ferguson accounts for theses things. If you look at the number of wars and amount of severe political turmoil in some areas of the world it is far less then what people accuse imperialism of causing.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM:

Take a read of "Lies My Teacher Told Me", the treatment of the Arawaks was done under Columbus's orders. Fact checking some of the writer's sources will prove it in case you are one of those people who is disbelieving of such things. And let us bear in mind that Africa was plunged into chaos because the Europeans came and exploited the people, from what I've read the continent was in a state of relative stability when the slave trade began. So, the situation in Africa is a direct result of European presence there. As is the situation in Iraq. And in many parts of South America. This is the "benefit" of Western civilization eh? I'm sure that the native peoples of these regions would have preferred that the Europeans had stayed home. All who gain power will not only exploit it but will also do anything to avoid losing it. That is what happens when you have an empire. The very idea of an American empire disgusts me like few other things. Please read up on your American history, and in particular the papers of Thomas Jefferson. Or, better yet, pull a dollar bill out of your pocket and look at the pyramid with the all seeing eye. See that desert around it? That's Europe. See that eye above the pyramid? That's us, keeping our noses out of the problems of other countries and running our society based on reason. Now, take a look at what is happening as a result of American presence in other nations and explain to me how any of these things have been carried out with reason. An American empire will not only plunge the rest of the world into chaos, it will destroy the United States, which is exactly why the founders wanted the U.S. to stay out of world affairs. Feel free to go on about how the world has changed and modern times call for different strategies. If this is true, then I think that the arguments for abortion and gay marriage have quite a bit of merit, don't you? Isn't legalizing/keeping such things legal a sign of progress towards a more compassionate, reasonable society? Until the U.S. is able to keep its own country clean, I say it has no business sticking its nose or its values into the affairs of other nations. PERIOD.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM:

"the treatment of the Arawaks was done under Columbus's orders."

I looked it up. Your partially right but some of this is greyer than you'd think. It turns out that some of this was caused by a war between Spain and the Arawaks.

In any case Columbus in American tradition has the reputation as a great explorer. Now if you read any Leo Strauss you'd realize that things like this are not for public consumption as they undermine the requirements for a civil society. Injustices in the past stay in the past but they should not be used as a reason to undermine civil society in the present.

"And let us bear in mind that Africa was plunged into chaos because the Europeans came and exploited the people,"

Actually the place was plunged into chaos AFTER the Europeans left. So it would make alot more sense to say that the Europeans were a stabilizing force their. As for "exploitation" the British brought jobs and infrastructure with them, but I can hardly call that "exploitation."

"from what I've read the continent was in a state of relative stability when the slave trade began."

There is no way to know that as their are no written records from much of the region that far back.

"That's us, keeping our noses out of the problems of other countries and running our society based on reason."

Reason is a product of Western civilization it would only be rational to extend this as a gift to other cultures.

"If this is true, then I think that the arguments for abortion and gay marriage have quite a bit of merit, don't you?"

No because those are old vestiges of the post-modern hiccup of the 60's and 70's. Rationally it is in the interests of the state to promote traditional marriage as it facillitates the production of future citizens. As for abortion, people who support that are still stuck in the 60's or perhaps the barbaric stone age (ug ug me progressive me smash up fetal child with big wooden stick) when they didn't have concern for fetal rights.

In any case with the threat of population implosion in many western societies these new threats mean that it is in the interests of the state to choose to not allow it's citizens to collapse the population base through fetal homicide.

"Isn't legalizing/keeping such things legal a sign of progress towards a more compassionate, reasonable society?"

No. Rationally speaking rights to automomy are really petty trifles when compared to fetal rights to life. So no legal abortion is quite irrational. Couples who have to deal with pregnancies shouldn't be set their silly emotional impulses aside and accept their responsibilities.

Even if you take fetal rights out of debate it is not in the rational interests of state to allow the murder of it's future citizens just because some dirty little skanks don't want accept their parental responsibilities.

"Until the U.S. is able to keep its own country clean, I say it has no business sticking its nose or its values into the affairs of other nations. PERIOD."

Well compared to other countries ours has the greatest responsibility to be involved in the affairs of other nations.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM:

"the treatment of the Arawaks was done under Columbus's orders."

I looked it up. Your partially right but some of this is greyer than you'd think. It turns out that some of this was caused by a war between Spain and the Arawaks.

In any case Columbus in American tradition has the reputation as a great explorer. Now if you read any Leo Strauss you'd realize that things like this are not for public consumption as they undermine the requirements for a civil society. Injustices in the past stay in the past but they should not be used as a reason to undermine civil society in the present.

"And let us bear in mind that Africa was plunged into chaos because the Europeans came and exploited the people,"

Actually the place was plunged into chaos AFTER the Europeans left. So it would make alot more sense to say that the Europeans were a stabilizing force their. As for "exploitation" the British brought jobs and infrastructure with them, but I can hardly call that "exploitation."

"from what I've read the continent was in a state of relative stability when the slave trade began."

There is no way to know that as their are no written records from much of the region that far back.

"That's us, keeping our noses out of the problems of other countries and running our society based on reason."

Reason is a product of Western civilization it would only be rational to extend this as a gift to other cultures.

"If this is true, then I think that the arguments for abortion and gay marriage have quite a bit of merit, don't you?"

No because those are old vestiges of the post-modern hiccup of the 60's and 70's. Rationally it is in the interests of the state to promote traditional marriage as it facillitates the production of future citizens. As for abortion, people who support that are still stuck in the 60's or perhaps the barbaric stone age (ug ug me progressive me smash up fetal child with big wooden stick) when they didn't have concern for fetal rights.

In any case with the threat of population implosion in many western societies these new threats mean that it is in the interests of the state to choose to not allow it's citizens to collapse the population base through fetal homicide.

"Isn't legalizing/keeping such things legal a sign of progress towards a more compassionate, reasonable society?"

No. Rationally speaking rights to automomy are really petty trifles when compared to fetal rights to life. So no legal abortion is quite irrational. Couples who have to deal with pregnancies shouldn't be set their silly emotional impulses aside and accept their responsibilities.

Even if you take fetal rights out of debate it is not in the rational interests of state to allow the murder of it's future citizens just because some dirty little skanks don't want accept their parental responsibilities.

"Until the U.S. is able to keep its own country clean, I say it has no business sticking its nose or its values into the affairs of other nations. PERIOD."

Well compared to other countries ours has the greatest responsibility to be involved in the affairs of other nations.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 02:36 PM:

First of all, I would not go so far as to say that reason is a product of western civilization. Just about every other culture on earth has, and always has had, forms of philosophy and morality. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that most of our basic concepts were taken from ancient Greek philosophy, much of which was taken from ancient Egyptian philosophy, which would not count as western. I'd like to address the abortion issue first, as I noticed the column written a couple of weeks ago on the issue. You are in essence saying that the rights of a being which is not even fully realized should take precedence over the rights of human beings? This I disagree with, mainly because there were times during the early years of Christianity in which abortion was a completely acceptable and even desirable form of birth control (and I will admit that this is mainly due to the persecution of the Christians during its infant stages, during which time suicide was also deemed as acceptable). In fact abortion was not even considered a sin until just after the Black Plague ended, as Europe was trying to repopulate and the Church felt that women having abortions would undermine the repopulation effort. In addition, the world is horribly overpopulated as it is. Now, back to the main issue here. Once again, your perception of the United States as the penultimate model of what a government should be is subjective, and most of the world does not agree with this view. As for the issue of Africa, you are mistaken, the first Europeans who came to the continent noted that the only real conflicts amongst tribes were over resources, and these were only in areas which were cut off from the main cities. The European presence plunged the continent into chaos because their invasion prompted rebellions and uprisings galore, and their sudden departure without any sort of transitional governments resulted in even more conflict, as it allowed for more corrupt individuals to gain power (this is why I do not support a complete pullout from Iraq). I disagree with you very strongly in your assertation that 'injustices in the past stay in the past'. If this were true, this country would have no race relation problems. In addition, I do not consider learning from the past to be a form of undermining civil society in the present. In fact I think that the only way to create a good future is to learn from the past, and part of the reason why we are even in Iraq is because we had a problem in the 1970's with crude oil, and instead of racing to find new ways to create fuel THEN, 4,000 American troops are dead in Iraq, thousands more are dead in Afghanistan and citizens from both countries are killed every day. Why? We did not learn from our mistakes the first time. The debate over new ways to fuel our way of life should have reached this pitch twenty five years ago.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 02:49 PM:

Civil society operates because the people in said society are civil to one another. Some cultures do not have this, but you must remember that some nations operate on religious doctrine much as our country does. Religious doctrine in other nations has certain prohibitions that I absolutely disagree with, but then again, so does this country. What we are doing is coming into the homes of others, shaking our fingers and telling them that they are wrong, then destroying them. This is not civil, and you must remember that our country's changes were not wrought from outside forces, they were accomplished from within. France did not show up on U.S. soil and say that we are too stupid to be allowed to live (and frankly, I do believe that our culture promotes and even celebrates intellectual laziness), so why do we have that right? We do not. Prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, we asked France to help us by attacking Britain so that its forces would be bisected, making a victory a much easier accomplishment. France said no, it instead told us that if we started a revolution, they would help us on our soil, but they would not create a new war in Europe in order to help people on another continent. The United States would have done well to follow this model in Iraq. If the citizenry wants freedom and wants peace, they will get it, and it will take time, but it will happen. We do not have peace because we do not pursue it. Pro-lifers kill doctors who perform abortions, which makes violence and outrage flourish amongst pro-choicers. Homophobes commit hate crimes against gays and lesbians, this creates distrust and anger amongst the gay community. Everyone is using violence to solve their problems, and the American Empire is following this same model in promoting its way of life to other countries. Moreover, we act like children when we do not get our way. Prior to the Iraqi invasion we were denied permission to invade by the UN security council, and we did it anyway, and to put the cherry on the top, we began a horrendous slander campaign against one of the chief opponents of the Iraq War, France. This is not the act of a civilized nation which bases its actions on reason and sound judgment, this is the act of a child whose parents won't give him that toy they want at the market. It is foolish to think that a country which cannot manage its own affairs on civil public dialogue can hope to keep balance if they run the entire world. Violence begets more violence, and if I remember correctly Jesus Christ, who, while I do not believe he is the son of God, but was a very wise teacher, once said that we must turn the other cheek to our enemies. Maybe this does not work in modern warfare, but the concept should not be discarded entirely.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 03:00 PM:

John F. Kennedy was a great leader because he tried to find a balance between violent conflict and negotiation. Had George W. Bush been in office during the Cuban Missle Crisis, World War III would have already occurred. We cannot act like cowboys in a movie, not in matters as serious as the lives of others. Our problem is that we are not willing to negotiate. Saddam Hussein, while a despicable tyrant, did allow investigators in, and when they found nothing, we continued to say that no, the weapons are there, weapons which are still unaccounted for. We will not be riding out into the sunset with a grateful citizenry bidding us fond farewells in this case. Our departure will be celebrated, and the Iraq War alone should teach us that exporting our ideas to other nations cannot work because not everyone thinks alike. This is why an American Century is doomed to failure. Propagating such an awful idea will only lead to more death and violence, and it will escalate. No country or religion on earth has ever been able to find the balance necessary to create unity in peace and still have control, and it won't happen because each and every country and religion is far too self righteous to allow this to happen. The solution? Force it. Just as the Spanish forced Christianity onto the Jews during the inquisition (I believe that they were given the option of converting or being slaughtered, however even after conversion they were still slaughtered), we are forcing democracy, convinced that our cause is the right one. Of course we think that our cause is the right one, we live here. The idea that America is the greatest or worst country on earth is only true in the minds of those who believe that this is so, as it is with any debate. Loving your enemy is the first step to peace, because love in the face of hatred will breed respect, and with respect comes love. Killing all who disagree will only create more hate and more violence. How many more must die in order for us to achieve an aim of ultimate control, an aim which is purely selfish? We do not care about the concerns of those in other nations, if we did then we would be working with their countries to devise solutions on their problems, and we would be taking their advice into consideration and doing likewise. Any marriage counselor will tell you that the key to a good relationship is trust, respect, and being open to the needs and ideas of the other. If we push our ideas, we do not show respect, and therefore we have no hope of peace.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18 PM:

"As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that most of our basic concepts were taken from ancient Greek philosophy, much of which was taken from ancient Egyptian philosophy, which would not count as western."

Well technically ancient Greece would be western and ancient Egypt would be pre-western and proto-western.

"You are in essence saying that the rights of a being which is not even fully realized should take precedence over the rights of human beings?"

No I was arguing that when the rights of one human being contradict those of another human being the greater right should be respected. When weighing life vs autonomy life is clearly more important.

"not even fully realized"

A human being is either realized or is not. You can't have something in between. It doesn't make sense biologically.

"This I disagree with, mainly because there were times during the early years of Christianity in which abortion was a completely acceptable and even desirable form of birth control (and I will admit that this is mainly due to the persecution of the Christians during its infant stages, during which time suicide was also deemed as acceptable)."

That's controversial. Some say that abortion has only been deemed bad only recently. In reality attitudes on abortion have fluctuated over time. As for early Christian attitudes towards it in a letter to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius by a Christian concerning Christianity the individual writing the letter pointed out that Christians were not allowed to commit abortions. In other regards (during pre-Christian times) both the Pythagoreans, and Hippocrates were morally opposed to abortions. Hippocrates was the individual who provided the basis for Western medical tradition, and if doctors were true to the Hippocratic Oath they would not commit fetal homicides.

"Europe was trying to repopulate and the Church felt that women having abortions would undermine the repopulation effort."

Well prenatal justice issues aside, considering the population implosion problems currently facing many Western societies it would be a good idea to implement these same policies for if no other reasons than to provide a safeguard against that here.

"In addition, the world is horribly overpopulated as it is."

That's a very controversial claim. Some studies indicate that the world could manage with twice the number of people. Furthermore it's very likely that much of the hunger problems attributed to overpopulation could actually be solved if biotechnology were allowed to be used, and if communist movements were stopped.

"Once again, your perception of the United States as the penultimate model of what a government should be is subjective,"

How so? It is afterall based on universal principles as found in the Declaration, and in terms of national greatness we definitely top any other society.

"and most of the world does not agree with this view."

Well much of the rest of the world hasn't reached the level we have so they don't really don't have the proper pretext for determining that.

"The European presence plunged the continent into chaos because their invasion prompted rebellions and uprisings galore, and their sudden departure without any sort of transitional governments resulted in even more conflict,"

Well they've had over a century to fix those problems though and they still haven't. What I am saying is that from judging from the current state of affairs in Africa, it would empirically be better off under the British system. If nothing else it would be better in terms of numbers of people getting killed and starving to death.

"(this is why I do not support a complete pullout from Iraq)."

OK that's good.

"If this were true, this country would have no race relation problems."

Those problems are being artificially exacerbated by the identity politics that are supposed to be solving them. The "solution" is it's own problem. Those aren't based in the past those are being kept that way because identity politics causes permanent divisiveness. The problem would be solved by now if identity politics didn't continue to divide people into separate "communities."

"In addition, I do not consider learning from the past to be a form of undermining civil society in the present."

True we should learn from it. It's just that I am accustomed to people who bring the thing up about Columbus to then go on and praise communism and decry America as the worst thing in existence. So I usually believe that concealing their fuel from them is a good policy.

"In fact I think that the only way to create a good future is to learn from the past, and part of the reason why we are even in Iraq is because we had a problem in the 1970's with crude oil, and instead of racing to find new ways to create fuel THEN"

That's a very tricky thing to do. I happen to be a physics major and I know how long it takes to develop things like this. Solar and wind power won't cut it. We could use nuclear power but there tends to be a backlash to that.

Also there is the issue of keeping oil away from rogue states. Resources translate to geopolitical power. So sometimes the objective is more about resource denial than resource control.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 11, 2008 at 03:41 PM:

"Our problem is that we are not willing to negotiate."

We did negotiate.

"Saddam Hussein, while a despicable tyrant, did allow investigators in, and when they found nothing, we continued to say that no, the weapons are there, weapons which are still unaccounted for."

That is because at the time we had reason to believe the weapons were being moved around. Now obviously we screwed our intelligence up at the time be we had no way to tell before hand.

"and the Iraq War alone should teach us that exporting our ideas to other nations cannot work because not everyone thinks alike."

Well Ferguson pointed out in a debate that our incompetence in dealing with the war stemmed largely from the fact that we were not being imperial enough not that we were being too imperial.

"we are forcing democracy, convinced that our cause is the right one."

Well democracy by definition is never imposed. So what we are really doing is showing the Iraqis how to establish a stable democracy and removing impediments to the democracy they have. Once the impediments are gone democracy it the automatic default condition that comes in. It needn't be imposed. All that needs to happen is for the people to be liberated and made secure enough (what we are doing now) and it will come on its own.

"Loving your enemy is the first step to peace, because love in the face of hatred will breed respect, and with respect comes love. Killing all who disagree will only create more hate and more violence."

That's a great idea except for when a nation needs' to defend it's citizens. We need to remake the middle-east or terrorists acts will continue to happen. Terrorism has been flowing out the Middle-East for quite sometime now and it doesn't seem to abate with good favor. We can remove it by introducing them to new forms of governance and western ideals but that is what we are trying to do now.

"How many more must die in order for us to achieve an aim of ultimate control, an aim which is purely selfish?"

It's not purely selfish. America is a propositional nation and as such the national interest encompasses promoting our ideals abroad which transcends selfishness vs selflessness. Our actions if carried out correctly will benefit both ourselves and the Iraqi's.

", if we did then we would be working with their countries to devise solutions on their problems,"

But we are currently.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 03:45 PM:

You appear to have contradicted yourself, as the issue of abortion has ceased to be a moral problem and more of a population problem. Just because a man can fit ten oranges into a paper bag without the bottom coming out does not mean that he should try to add ten more. You must also remember that the United States is not the country that was envisioned by the founders. The founders expressly spoke against income taxes, and we have those. The founders spoke of due process and the right to a fair trial by a jury of the accused's peers, there are many in Cuba right now who are not enjoying such treatment. And again, the claim that we top any other society is subjective. Poverty runs rampant here, many cannot afford medical care, and our education system is a joke. Technically, Africa has had about 60 years to fix these problems, which is still a long time, but please remember that Rome was not built in a day. I do agree that many race problems in this country are made worse by those who make a big deal of them, however this again comes back to a collective push for peace on the part of the populace, something which no one seems to be advocating. I'm aware that it takes a long time to find new ways to create fuel, but those methods, if they existed, have been kept under wraps for 25 years, until we began to realize that we were in SERIOUS trouble. During those 25 years the government could have encouraged its citizens to carpool more.

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48 PM:

I'd like to clarify my point about Cuba a little bit. Many say that because those detained are not all American citizens, they are not entitled to American rights. But, if these concepts are universal, wouldn't that automatically make them eligible for this treatment?

Patrick ONeill on Mar 11, 2008 at 04:55 PM:

Hey this is terrific - White Man's Burden is back :)

Who would have thought they were still teaching the glory of the white race ruling over the unenlightened in our universities ?

Is our chidren learning ?

FK on Mar 11, 2008 at 05:07 PM:

Whoa whoa whoa. No one is saying anything about white burden, we are having a discussion about what appears to be going on in this society.

The Rebel Alliance on Mar 11, 2008 at 10:14 PM:

Raatz, the Roman Empire is a terrible fucking example. Very few of the people under Roman rule were allowed to be citizens, and many of them were slaves.

Your argument, that people are better off under slavery or occupation, is disturbing at best.

You think you are brilliant, but I think that deep down you just have a sick heart.

I sincerely hope that you soon find something more positive to direct your efforts toward.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 12, 2008 at 11:58 AM:

"I'd like to clarify my point about Cuba a little bit. Many say that because those detained are not all American citizens, they are not entitled to American rights. But, if these concepts are universal, wouldn't that automatically make them eligible for this treatment?"

Well first of all because they are enemy combatants, they would naturally be treated differently than regular criminals even under universal cosmopolitan principles.

Secondly because they are opponents of the spread of freedom and democracy, they are inimical to these universal principles and are thus putting themselves outside of the universal principles through their actions.

It's like the concept of an outlaw in early American tradition. Someone who broke the law and refused to meet the subsequent demands of the law was allowed to be but was no longer under the protection of the law. A similar principle applies here.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM:

"I'd like to clarify my point about Cuba a little bit. Many say that because those detained are not all American citizens, they are not entitled to American rights. But, if these concepts are universal, wouldn't that automatically make them eligible for this treatment?"

Well first of all because they are enemy combatants, they would naturally be treated differently than regular criminals even under universal cosmopolitan principles.

Secondly because they are opponents of the spread of freedom and democracy, they are inimical to these universal principles and are thus putting themselves outside of the universal principles through their actions.

It's like the concept of an outlaw in early American tradition. Someone who broke the law and refused to meet the subsequent demands of the law was allowed to be but was no longer under the protection of the law. A similar principle applies here.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM:

"Your argument, that people are better off under slavery or occupation, is disturbing at best."

No I was arguing that they would be better off liberated. In Afghanistan they clearly are better off liberated. Now girls can go to school with out fearing repercussions from the Taliban, and the people there have been introduced to the free market.

If I was arguing that people are better off under slavery then the article would have been entitled "An Empire of Slavery," and not An Empire of Freedom."

FK on Mar 12, 2008 at 02:40 PM:

Now this confuses me. So you're saying that because they are enemy combatants, it's ok to administer torture such as waterboarding to them? Which in turn would mean that Abu Gharaib really wasn't the international nightmare that everyone made it out to be? Hmmmm... I'm looking it over, but I'm not buying it. I don't think it's too much to ask for a jury to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty. I assume that if they are there, then the government should in theory have evidence supporting their incarceration, which would likely end up getting a guilty verdict anyway. By your reasoning then, it is ok for them to kidnap soldiers and execute them? After all, our soldiers are enemy combatants to them, and as far as they are concerned, we're invading their land and trying to convert them to our way of life. Wouldn't you be a little pissed off if someone walked into your house and took over? I do not support the actions that our enemies have taken in any way, however acting like them doesn't exactly make us look any more noble or good willed, it just makes us look like @$$**s. Again, your idea of freedom and democracy is subjective. To you, that means being able to do what you want, when you want, which is a concept that is a bit foreign to people who have been living under governments which actually had restrictions. Yes, many are really messed up, but as they say, you catch more bees with honey than shite. You can't force a democracy on people and then say you're liberating them, it's just a nice way of making yourself feel better for the mess you've made. Before the Iraq War began no one cared about the Iraqi people, it was only after they realized that the weapons weren't there (and I personally think they knew all along) that they said "oh.... wait, we were liberating them! Yeah! That's it!" Come now. If I put an orange in a bowl with a bunch of apples it's still an orange, no matter how buried it is. No matter what, the people in Cuba and Iraq are people who have a certain way of life which they are used to. This is why Imperialism doesn't work, and if you can find me one example of an empire that conquered through good will, please let me know, because every example I can think of was the result of simple egotistic morons who wanted to feel like gods before they died. So it is with us, people like to conquer others so they can feel better about themselves. If our intentions are truly noble, and we truly want to help, then I say we get our house in order first and try talking to other governments instead of wiping them out. THAT is the American Way, not invade and conquer.

Actually on Mar 12, 2008 at 04:59 PM:

There have been wars and uprisings nearly every year for the past 50 years- no American peace.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 12, 2008 at 07:27 PM:

"There have been wars and uprisings nearly every year for the past 50 years- no American peace."

Ok it's not perfect peace. However these are largely petty wars not wars between giant super powers that kill lots more people and destroy lots of infrastructure.

Imperial peaces give relative peace but like everything else they aren't perfect.

AMN on Mar 13, 2008 at 07:45 AM:

It is or it isn't peace. If it's not "perfect peace" it's simply not peace.

There have been plenty of proxy wars substituting our soldiers and Chinese/Russian soldiers during the Cold War. We still killed millions of people in Vietnam, etc.

all of you idiots! on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07 AM:

GO TO FUCKING CLASS AND GET OFF THE INTERNET!!!

all of you idiots! on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07 AM:

GO TO FUCKING CLASS AND GET OFF THE INTERNET!!!

Johanan Raatz on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09 AM:

You have to also remember that Vietnam was still during the Cold war. The Pax Americana really only started after the Cold war in 1989.

jesus christ on Mar 13, 2008 at 06:25 PM:

get a job or something.

AMN on Mar 13, 2008 at 07:15 PM:

Well then look at the proxy wars post-1989. This isn't difficult.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 14, 2008 at 07:29 AM:

"Well then look at the proxy wars post-1989. This isn't difficult."

Well you have to remember it is not a perfect peace. Even during the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica there were some petty wars but these were necessary to maintain the peace.

Still though, there seem to have been far more proxy wars during the Cold war than after it during the Pax Americana.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 14, 2008 at 07:29 AM:

"Well then look at the proxy wars post-1989. This isn't difficult."

Well you have to remember it is not a perfect peace. Even during the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica there were some petty wars but these were necessary to maintain the peace.

Still though, there seem to have been far more proxy wars during the Cold war than after it during the Pax Americana.

Johanan Raatz on Mar 15, 2008 at 08:20 PM:

"By your reasoning then, it is ok for them to kidnap soldiers and execute them?"

We haven't been executing soldiers.

"Wouldn't you be a little pissed off if someone walked into your house and took over? "

Well yeah but thats just a reality of war.

"Again, your idea of freedom and democracy is subjective. To you, that means being able to do what you want, when you want, which is a concept that is a bit foreign to people who have been living under governments which actually had restrictions."

Except restrictions are empirical facts not subjective realities. Once you remove these restrictions you make the place empirically freer than it was before.

"(and I personally think they knew all along)"

Well look up the Silbermann-Robb report on factcheck.org because it debunks the conspiracy theories surrounding the lack of WMD's.

"You can't force a democracy on people and then say you're liberating them,"

By definition there isn't any such thing as a forced democracy so we are not forcing democracy on them. We are giving it to them by fighting those who would keep it from them.

"This is why Imperialism doesn't work, and if you can find me one example of an empire that conquered through good will, please let me know,"

It doesn't always have to for it to be beneficial. In hegemonic stability theory the people benefit from it simply because of the structural advantages it has. What I was also saying is that because our empire is good-willing this makes it better than many past empires (although the British empire was often good-willing as well).

Johanan Raatz on Mar 15, 2008 at 08:41 PM:

"You appear to have contradicted yourself, as the issue of abortion has ceased to be a moral problem and more of a population problem."

Well it still remains a serious issue of prenatal justice. When I was bringing up the population problem I was pointing out that there were other problems that would be fixed by banning fetal homicide so even if someone is blatantly ageist against fetal children there are still reasons to ban abortion.

"Just because a man can fit ten oranges into a paper bag without the bottom coming out does not mean that he should try to add ten more."

Well our problem now is not that we have too much population our problem is that we risk going in the other direction like many other western states into a population implosion. A population implosion would be bad for the economy and it would destroy the basis of many social programs.

"And again, the claim that we top any other society is subjective."

Well China's government has developed an empirical index for who has the greatest society, and we are still on top empirically. (China developed this because they want to be on top and wants to find out when they are.)

"Poverty runs rampant here,"

But even compared to societies in Western Europe our unemployment levels are pretty low. So I wouldn't say that poverty is a huge problem here.

"many cannot afford medical care,"

That's not as serious as it seems. Many who can not afford it are college age students who don't really need much medical care. I was in this situation last semester and a few other times in the past, and it really didn't affect me.

"and our education system is a joke."

Well yes we do need to fix that.

"Technically, Africa has had about 60 years to fix these problems, which is still a long time, but please remember that Rome was not built in a day."

Well it's not like we are expecting them to build a great civilization over night just that they've been given lot's of time to solve problems but they only seem to have gotten worse not better. Seeing whereas this is the case it is not a difficult bet to say that they would just have been better off under the Pax Brittanica.

"I do agree that many race problems in this country are made worse by those who make a big deal of them, however this again comes back to a collective push for peace on the part of the populace, something which no one seems to be advocating."

? Race issues are not related to peace issues.

"I'm aware that it takes a long time to find new ways to create fuel, but those methods, if they existed, have been kept under wraps for 25 years, until we began to realize that we were in SERIOUS trouble."

If that is the case then there are most likely political problems at the root of it that will likely be even harder to change than will inventing new power sources. I'm not saying that this is a good thing just that things like this are political realities.

"During those 25 years the government could have encouraged its citizens to carpool more."

Maybe but you have to be realistic with this. There's only so much in their lifestyle that people will change.

FK on Mar 16, 2008 at 10:27 AM:

You are mistaken, race issues play a very large part in how well a society functions. So long as people continue to view themselves as different from other segments of society, there is no chance for cooperative movements. The problem in this country, which is not only a racial one, is that everyone is out for themselves and only themselves, and this I believe is why so many are suddenly in love with the idea of an American empire. Another interesting point is that China does not covet our society, China covets our power. This empirical report, first off, is written from the perspective of a nation that is after power, not after a better society. Please make a note of that, as it sheds this report in a much, much different light. As per your point about the carpool, people were pretty willing to get worried about fuel when it became very, very clear that it wouldn't last forever. I should think that if the U.S. had made more an effort to illustrate this point long ago, things would be much different now. I think that your idea of a population implosion, with due respect, is not completely based in the reality of the situation now, I believe that you are thinking far into the future and operating under the assumption that every single woman who ends up unexpectedly pregnant will run out and get an abortion. Of course this isn't true, the abortion rate is pretty small, in fact, compared to the number of women who actually carry the pregnancy to full term. I doubt you have very much to worry about in terms of a population implosion, especially due to abortion. You are again seeming to miss the point, no one asked us to help Iraq become a democracy, we decided. This is called a hostile invasion in a historical context, and may I please remind you that even George W. Bush has admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq. It is common knowledge, to debate the point is to waste your time and mine. Since this little argument will soon fade to the oblivion of the internet, I would again like to say that all empires are doomed to fail. All of them. Every one of them has. Personally I do not wish such horrible fates on our people, especially if its instead meted out as punishment for being presumptuous enough to believe that just because we are Americans, we are better.