american imperialism
 

i know a lot of the board is composed of liberals, and some of you are even from other countries

convince me that american imperialism is bad and should be stopped, if that's how you see it. or at least present your case. i won't be rude about it.

cause the way it seems to me, the only smart thing to do at this point is keep using the military to make sure no other power grows strong enough to challenge the united states. from a US perspective, of course. but if it were any other country in a similar position i would imagine they would come to similar conclusions.

so yea, let's hear it people. how is it you think we should change are foreign policy (if you do) and what effects do you foresee coming about as a possible consequence of this change?

How about let's hear your proposal? I'm too old and thick headed to offer anything up that would stimulate the conversation, but would love to hear from a hard leaning conservative like yourself.

And if you even dare try to touch my "entitlements", I will hunt you down and kill you. With a knife.

:laughing: i'm not a hard leaning conservative

i just think they're right about foreign policy/geopolitics

i don't give 2 ****s about cutting 'entitlements'

I'm generally liberal but I swing hawk or dove depending on the situation.

My career unfortunately doesn't give me enough time to get involved in internet debates, but I love politics so I'll try to add my thoughts on (Europe, The Middle East & Asia) when I can.

The Middle East:

Overall I think the United States should be making every effort to become energy independent so they can finally break free from the quagmire that is the Middle East, but in the interim...

(Iraq)

Increase American base camps in Iraq to prop up the current Shia led coalition and begin to look at partitioning the country into three separate states based on ethnic lines. (Sunni , Shia, Kurdish)

Develop the Shia and Kurdish states into fully functioning democracies, with a strong military presence in the Shia state to counteract the influence of Iran.

(If at all possible) In the Sunni state support the Egyptian model of a secular military backed by large amounts of foreign aid and investment in order to help stabilize the fledgling country, I know it's a pipe dream, but I can't think of any other viable solution, and it worked in Turkey.

(Syria)

There is no easy answer here, Bashar Assad and the governing Bath Party are Shia minority governing a Sunni majority that has gone into full rebellion.

Sunni backed states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will continue to fund the Syrian rebels, and Iran and Russia will continue to support Assad. In short, the civil war in Syria will continue whether the US funds the rebels or not, and in the long run I think Assad's days are numbered.

(Iran)

Continue the Obama administration's present course, while supporting peaceful Iranian dissidents.

(Israel)

Use the United Nations as a tool to put pressure on Israel, to cede the majority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to allow for the formation of a Palestinian state.

Next up Europe.

I think generally speaking, a "good" superpower to keep down potential bad ones is a good thing, but rather than having the superpower be one specific nation, it could be a military and/or trade alliance.

i have to work today so i have to keep this brief for now

but i'd like to say keep in mind that i'm not just asking what you think would be a good thing for the whole world

it would be nice if the whole world worked in unison towards its collective interests

but generally speaking, i think geopolitical powers act in a way that is much more based on their own strategic self interest

so my basic stance is that the united states benefits immensely from its current position and thus it only makes sense for the united states to act in a way which is meant to maintain the power and geopolitical leverage that it has acquired

It is, essentially. The UN. US just has the firepower and economical power to have a lot of say.

Yes, and also through NATO. But I realize this is somewhat off-topic in regards to what JWB had in mind.

To JWB, I don't know much about the specifics of what the US benefits from, so how does the US benefit from acting like a super power? The US engages in a lot of warfare in various parts of the world and this may be a requirement if you're gonna be a super power. You can secure interests that way and of course gain a lot of influence globally speaking. At home, wars can be politically stabilizing or used as a political tool to achieve certain things and if you're gonna justify having an army and weapons, it's probably best to use it.

But the reason I am asking how the US benefits from acting like a super power is that there's also a cost here. The US has a lot of debt and keeping the war machinery running is costly business. Is it sustainable over time?

What happens if the US refuses to pay off their debt?

The world superpower will discipl- oh wait. But seriously, I think that a lot of people making these decisions (to go to war) actually have good intentions, but are blinded by ideology. Not to say their aren't greedy war racketeers taking advantage of the situation, and sometimes they get a big wedge of power (Rumsfeld, etc.) But ideology has more impact than people think.

ideology certainly has a huge impact on policy decisions

one of the major ideologues that influenced 20th century american foreign policy was henry kissenger. of course he promoted what is known as 'realpolitik', or as wiki describes it 'politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises.'

Realpolitik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit - i'm gonna do a longer response to this thread i'm just being a bit lazy cause i'm moving and ****. hopefully i'll get to it today, but for now i'll just leave you with this, for anyone interested

i'd like to add, this is a good question. one that i don't know the answer to, either. it's sort of irresponsible sounding but i do have to wonder if it really came down to it, who can demand that the US pay their debt and actually enforce that?

everybody talks about the debt like its this monster under the bed that's gonna come get us some day, i dunno man i really don't know anything concrete enough to make me seriously worried. i see people in the US freaking out cause china owns so much of our debt while their economy is growing... meanwhile china is desperately reliant on the continuing stability and prosperity of the united states just for china's own economy to function. their whole strategy is built on exports, so there's really no hope for self sufficiency in the near future for them. the idea that a middle class of consumers in china could sustain their massive production based economy is a dream. they've basically run their environment into the ground with the model they have, and are acting basically as the world's industrial park.

edit - also, if the debt is really the issue, then i'd think a better strategy would be reverting back to say 60's style america where we trim a lot more off from the top earners. they've gotten sort of cocky over the years but worse comes to worse it makes more sense to do that than to give up military dominance.

I also don't know what would happen and economy really isn't something I'm all that interested in, but I assume it would have cascading economic consequences, like probably reducing the value of the dollar and cause a financial disaster and recession. The US would of course be cut off from outside funds. Right now, the US is borrowing money to keep things running, but of course if they refuse to pay their debt, I assume that's a no go.

Trade relations and diplomacy would go sour. I imagine it could be a catastrophy.

i think the lesson we learned in 2008 was if you tank the american economy you basically collapse the whole world's economy with it

so there really isn't that much leverage there imo

ok, here's my basic stance

at the beginning of the 20th century, the major powers of the world were primarily european, with the notable exception of a rising japan. and britain had naval supremacy and most notably, the key to the atlantic. after 2 world wars, the european powers were decimated as was japan. they were war torn and basically occupied by the 2 major surviving powers.. the united states and the soviet union.

britain and japan's naval leverage was transferred to the united states. the us controlled the oceans and was generally a more prosperous and mature society than the soviet union and so inevitably the soviets not only lost the cold war but saw their empire crumble to pieces. after ww2 the US entered the world stage as a major military superpower, after the cold war ended the united states solidified its position as the sole global super power.

this is is the basic foundation of america's prosperity and wealth in the modern world, in combination with the spoils of the previous imperial conquests from coast to coast of the continent, carving out a nation with access to the pacific and atlantic oceans and a massive amount of natural resources and arable land. it's this combination of factors that makes the united states run **** globally today.

how does the US benefit? look at the united states today vs the united states of 1900, 1850, 1800, etc. in controlling the world's oceans the US basically sets the rules on international trade. and by maintaining naval supremacy the US maintains the strategically advantageous postition of being a power that always capable of invading and is never invaded themselves.

this is why the united states went all the way out in the middle of the pacific and conquered the small island of hawaii. it wasn't just to be mean to the poor hula dancing, ancestor worshiping citizens of hawaii. it was to prevent any strategic vulnerabilities coming in from the pacific. alaska has a similar strategic buffer value.

so basically in order to appreciate where i'm coming from you have to look at this strictly from a geopolitical pov, or in other words, think in terms of military strategy. a solitary superpower wants to maintain that position if only because it basically has no serious rivals that can threaten it.

historical trends seem to suggest to me that geopolitical powers will always maneuver and compete for wealth and influence and so if you aren't the major superpower of the world/your region then you will most likely find yourself having to work something out with whoever it is that does hold that position.

Excellent post. Nailed it.

But how exactly does the US having control of the oceans allow us to "set the rules on international trade"? And how do these rules benefit us to an extent that they wouldn't if Britain had control? It's not like we demand tribute, or levy taxes on all international trade going on between all nations, regardless of whether the trade has anything to do with America.

Not challenging the idea. I simply don't know.

Well, I figure he's referring to the nations whose economies rely on USA's continued import of their products. What would China do if the US stopped importing child labor-produced sweaters? But I think I know just as little as (and probably a lot less than) you.

No he's talking about our navy.

Skimming is never enough, I guess.

anybody in here ever hear about cuba?

Yeah, that Che Guevara guy was from Cuba, right? Handsome guy, talented too. Do you think he'll release a new album soon?

right right but the thing is, cuba can't trade because the united states says cuba can't trade.. not that they don't find workarounds for that kind of thing but if you ask any cuban they'll probably tell you one of their main issues is the embargo

The point of the embargo wasn't to make the US richer, it was to give an incentive to the ruling class to raise human rights standards and allow civilians democratic acess to politics. Proponents of the embargo argue that if we lifted it, it would only benefit the ruling class anyway.

yea.. but that's a useless strategy if you're trying to get people to comply with human rights... we tried the same strategy with saddam and guess what? dicatators will sooner starve their people than obey a foreign power to go against their own geopolitical self interest

Yes, but now you're changing subjects. Free trade with Cuba would benefit the US. It's mostly on moral (and public image) grounds that we uphold the embargo.

I make no argument of its efficacy. Obama had started to loosen up the embargo a bit, but many are against it on moral grounds (I. E. It would undermine American values to trade with a regime that abuses it's own people).

right i got sidetracked

you say it was a moral issue, i say it's convenient that we have a moral issue with cuba out of all countries who just so happened to have had a socialist revolution, making them a clear potential proxy state/point of geopolitical leverage for the soviet union, and only 90 miles off the coast?

yea i don't dispute that if you listened to politicians at the time speak they'll talk about morality but i'm having a hard time buying that narrative when the historical pattern presents something that makes much more sense to me

but in any case my original point was that the united states holds the most leverage in any sort of embargo/sanction situation. not the fact that we derive our wealth from embargoing cuba. but the fact that if you go against american power those kinds of consequences can occur. so the UN is more like la costra nostra than anything else. europe has historically always been divided/at war after the roman empire fell.

I don't deny that geopolitical incentives are involved, but do you really have difficulty believing that those politicians believed socialism was evil and democracy was good? Socialism had a lot of bad representatives at the time (Castro's regime included).

Maintaining strategic advantages against evil as the good guy is smart, and it's implemented in a variety of ways, and because the US isn't a single entity, there are a lot of different interests involved in US actions. Some are idealistic, some are materialistic. As you'be alluded to in your own post, the goal of many coldwar tactics were to keep socialist (synonymous with totalitarian at the time) interests in check.

There are past examples of US going to war over moral issues. Most historians agree that The American Civil War was almost entirely morally motivated. It was detrimental to the economy and defense of both the North and the South, yielded no strategic advantages, it was essentially two ideologies clashing.

Rumsfeld Era in the US is on the opposite side of the spectrum, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest war racketeering influenced a lot of military decisions. And it's put us in a nasty position, really, fueling anti-western sentiment to the East. I don't think that was a good move strategically for the long-term for the US, despite any perceived short-term gain. Nobody likes us anymore. We aren't the saviors we were in WW1 and WW2.

well, i don't necessarily doubt that people will generally value their own system over the other guy's system. i do think that basically capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive. both are supposed to be implemented on a global scale, where as there's only one globe. but even if russia hadn't been communist, they would've been the natural rivals to the united states, it might have been a bit less fierce, but nonetheless they would have been rivals. sort of like putin's russia today, which isn't communist, yet we're getting some friction there.

when you talk about the us going to war over moral issues you have one good example, the american civil war and then a number of light conflicts that were more like interantional publicity stunts than actual wars. beyond that the US is mostly self interested just like any other power. keep in mind that a civil war is a very different type of war, strategically speaking. look at the other major wars the US has been involved in. the us population adopted a highly isolationist ideology directly following ww1,due to massive amount of lives cost over 'european entanglements' ww1 was a clearly amoral war. there was no good guys or bad guys just an intractable pattern of alliances. then ww2 started, where there was a clear aggressor, an actual precedent for talking about good guys vs bad guys, and americans wanted no part in it. until some planes smashed into some ships in the pacific.

and yet what people remember is that the japs attacked us at pearl harbor out of the blue, sneaky japs. meanwhile roosevelt basically forced their hand by interfering with their naval interests in the south pacific. why?? because clearly somebody would have to dominate the pacific. the us and japan are natural maritime rivals just due to geography.

i mean tbh the idea of the united states as some military moral vanguard is completely laughable to me.... you only have to look at the track record of conflicts and wars that we have been involved in throughout the years. there's no consistency whatsoever. we deal with tyrants when tyrants are receptive to protecting us geopolitical interests. in other cases, where the tyrants become a nuisance for us, we become 'morally outraged' and 'something's gotta be done about this putin guy, huh?'

i dunno it seems to me like your narrative is more affected by ideology than actual US foreign policy is. because it will always sound better to approach it that way, so they'll always use that rhetoric.

Your arguing against a strawman when you say the US is not a moral vanguard. I'm highlighting ideological influence in an effort to demonstrate that the geopolitical narrative is overly narrow, and that there are several factors (some which we can't measure). I don't think any decision to go to war is so simple. But there are checks and balances to make sure more than one personal interest is involved (which is why Bush had to lie about WMD to go to war).

this is gonna be a long one...

sorry it took so long for me to respond but i've just been moving so i had a transition period without internet

ok, tbh i have approached this thread in a sort of half assed and haphazard way because things have been so hectic and i haven't had time to dedicate to really fleshing out exactly what my views are and presenting them in an organized and coherent manner.

instead i've been responding here and there with what i had the time and energy to type out at the moment. as a result i think this argument is getting a bit convoluted, so i'm going to try to clarify some stuff with this post.

i don't necessarily dismiss/ disagree with your point that people often have ideological motivations. in fact in a recent conversation with frownland i made the overt argument that islamic terror is predominately fueled by a certain brand of radical islamic ideology, rather than just being a natural response to american foreign policy and imperialism. not that american imperialism doesn't also factor in, but i think that many/most islamic radicals are reacting just as much to modern liberal values as they are to political instability or poverty/violence/etc.


so with this idea in mind, i agree with you that ideology can be a driving force for an individual's actions. yet i would point out that this application of the emphasis on ideology undermines some of the incentive of the united states not to act as a global superpower out of fear of 'blowback', a CIA term commonly invoked in anti-imperial rhetoric to describe the idea of US foreign policy motivating terror attacks against the united states and causing collateral damage. because if these militants are to be taken at their word, and their ideology is to be taken serious, then presumably there isn't much incentive to resist engaging with them because regardless of our foreign policy we will remain their natural enemies and targets just on purely ideological grounds alone.

now, is that actually the case? i'm not 100% sure. surely people who want to see the islamic caliphate do genuinely believe in their ideology... but maybe they were more inclined towards this ideology because of the reduced geopolitical status of the islamic world in modern times, and thus have a sort of inherent interest in pursuing this type of ideology because it goes hand in hand with what they see as ways to promote their own geopolitical status.


so, this is to say, the 'geopolitical narrative' doesn't necessarily require that world leaders be devoid of ideology. the geopolitical narrative is that other strategic constraints, strengths and goals manifest again and again one way or another, and that these ultimately shape the course of history. if ideology is thrown into the mix then ideology seems to tend to conform with these constraints and goals.

the nazis had an ideology that promoted a german empire that used eastern europe as a bread basket and ultimately drove them to war and eventual self-destruction in the pursuit of making this happen. there were certain ethnic, cultural and political forces at work that were shaping their thoughts and actions, to be sure, but it's not a coincidence that both the germans and the soviet empires had their eyes on the same tract of land to feed and fuel their respective empires and that each had a completely different yet corresponding ideology that drove them to war over this conflict.


so maybe leaders are sometimes machiavellian manipulators pursuing an agenda, and sometimes they are ideologues determined to put their theory to work, and it just so happens that their ideology also happens to conform with/be shaped by the external constraints and goals that are presented by geography and other logistical challenges. or maybe it's some of both. or maybe it's one or the other. or maybe neither.

but regardless, history has a trend where rational, stable states relentlessly maneuver and compete for their strategic best interest, and that trend needs to be accounted for.


as for checks and balances, basically the requirement we have in modern democratic countrries is a popular narrative that conforms with popular morality. so if the masses believe that we engaged in war in vietnam/korea/cambodia/iraq/afganistan, instigated coup detats in iran, south america, etc, support puppet dictators around the world when it is convenient for us and then impose an embargo on cuba for 'human rights', effectively contributing to the starvation and poverty of the cuban lower class, if they think we did all this cause we want to make the world a better and more free and democratic place, then all is good. as far as 'checks and balances' goes. doesn't matter if any of that is true... just as long as people believe it. if leaders themselves believe it too, even better. basically the US has to continue to pursue its own strategic interests while conveying a popular narrative with a bit more heart and soul to it.


but non of that addresses the bottom line that the nation has grown incredibly prosperous over the last 100 years pursuing exactly this model. so how exactly is it that you guys don't see how imperialism benefits us again? or do i have your stance wrong?

I think we both agree that both ideology and strategy guide decisions. To what extent each guides decisions in different power structures and events is immeasurable. A cynic will interpret what little evidence we have differently than an idealist. I'm a cynic, myself, but I think ideology is self-serving. The bottom line is that my ideology aligns with the US more than most of its enemies.

Extremely stimulating read. Seriously. Please keep it going.

alright well i think the previous back and forth is pretty much done with. so i'll just rattle off my thoughts on the topic and wait for anyone to respond.

so i guess i'll start with where i'm coming from in my perspective. basically i was introduced to this debate when i was a late teen/early 20's. i was more or less politically indifferent and mostly into music and doing a lot of irresponsible **** i shouldn't have been doing, so i basically coasted through high school and had no interest in college. i made my way earning money doing **** jobs and some criminal activities. then i started dating this chick that was doing an art/art history degree at university and she introduced me to all these ideas about american imperialism and ****, and that's really where i really started to form a political ideology.

i started reading noam chomsky and that kind of **** and started seeing the united states as a sort of malevolent force in the world. i mean if you read his books and take his narrative of american foreign policy, we're basically the death star and whoever is president is darth vader. and when you read his arguments, it's really hard to argue against them without resorting to some sort of fallacy or just retreating into denial. i mean all he does is spell out the exact ways in which the US has intervened over the 20th century in foreign affairs, in some detail, with of course his own ideological slant shaping the tone and wording of the message.

and the most compelling argument i heard anyone come up with against him was that he only ever focused on what the US does wrong while ignoring what everybody else does wrong. and he would respond that he thinks it is reasonable that we focus on our own behavior, since that's what we can control.

that's a solid counter point. but here's what it misses: when you take on this narrative you get the idea that you can solve imperialism by dismantling the current imperial regime. this ignores the geopolitical perspective which assumes that geopolitical powers will generally act in their strategic best interest.

sort of like how they say that once you start to look at really accomplished chess players going against each other their moves are for the most part predictable, with only the occasional surprise. because the game is strategically oriented, for any given scenario there are good moves and bad moves, and good players generally won't make obviously bad moves.

the actions of nation states are similar to this. because the stakes are so high, basically states that are successful/stable on a long term basis will only do so by strategizing successfully and not making bad moves. bringing the whole 'ideology' debate back for a second... consider the case of modern day iran. in their political rhetoric they come off as belligerent, anti-semitic and warlike. if we were to pay attention to ideology and rhetoric alone, we'd be led to the conclusion that the iranian regime needs to be undermined in every way possible, possibly dismantled, and certainly prevented any access to nuclear technologies. but if you look past the words of leaders and watch for trends in actions... you come to the conclusion that iran is a relatively reasonable entity seeking self-preservation. you recognize that iran is the natural regional superpower for the middle east, and that when the united states failed to make iran a complacent puppet for US interests by putting the shah in power, the united states started to regard iran as an inherent threat to its own interests, and vice versa, and the conflict has continued on these grounds since then.

so bringing this back to the noam chomsky response, that it's reasonable to only focus on our actions since we can only control our actions, the reason this line of rhetoric is misleading is because other powers will continue to act in their strategic best interest even if you voluntarily decide to abstain from doing so. you might wipe your hands clean of any dirt, but beyond that you don't accomplish anything regarding getting rid of imperialism as a strategic tool. and what's worse, by abstaining in this way you open up an opportunity for others to exploit to their strategic best interest and then you end up cow towing to them instead of the other way around.

this is why political philosophies based on a moral imperative tend to fail. see: libertarianism, anarchism, communism, etc. you can come up with all the arguments for why 'force' is wrong that you want. until you render force ineffective, you can do nothing to undermine it. the same holds true for imperialism. and since imperialism is and has historically been economically and strategically beneficial to the conquerors, it will remain a strategical tool on the table until something forcefully renders it obsolete or ineffective, if that is even at all possible.

imo.

I'm so bored I care about politics, sigh.

Whether one is for or against a sort of forced, crass American hegemony is not an indicator of broader ideology; there are Liberals and Conservatives for it (see, for example, neoconservatives), and Liberals and Conservatives against it (Paleoconservatives, for example)...

If you want a great example of some archconservatives who are against this crass Hegemony, look up the American Conservative, Pat Buchanan, etc...

WW2 did not have a clear aggressor in the European Theater. Britain and France made a promise to defend Polish Sovereignty; when Poland was invaded by the USSR and NSDAP, they only declared war on one of those countries for a reason.

As to the notion that Roosevelt some how "egged on" Japan; that's bull****. Banning oil exports to Japan was not provocative in design or execution. It was, at worst, benign realpolitik; that Japan responded to a goddamned oil embargo with a military assault just revealed their idiotic, Fascistic agenda.

The notion that geopolitical powers act in their own self interest is not, at all, in conflict with the notion that the USA is overextended, over-involved, and over-invested in a seemingly never ending list of countries that are of little to no geopolitical significance.

Further, when considering that opinion, it is imperative you keep in mind that Democracies are not a singularity but a plurality. Whereas Dictatorships are able to, somewhat, focus their foreign policy agenda, the foreign policies of Democracies are almost inevitably piecemeal and contradictory. This is because of the reality of the mobility, organized efficiency, and plurality of various special interest groups - which includes groups who have as their focus environmental, cultural, foreign policy, and economic concerns. Consequently, we get cluster****s such as, say, the current MidEast policy (or lack thereof).

MidEast aside (as that's too easy), I'll give you an easy example of how this forced Hegemony is both counterproductive and harmful to the States' real interest - Korea. Economically, it makes no sense to both subsidize South Korea's military/government and provide a guarantee to their independence when they are directly competing with the USA in several key markets (see Automotive and the ****boxes that country is pumping out) while their main rival, North Korea, is economically and military irrelevant from an American perspective.

The real realpolitik perspective on Korea (and Japan, the RoC vs PRC debacle, etc.) isn't the ludicrous extension of post-cold war subsidies to these governments; it's recognizing that if Seoul got nuked by Pyongyang, the practical effects on the USA would be negligible at worst and actually beneficial to the States' economy if you want to be practical about it.

Unfortunately, various special interest groups have discovered that it's actually possible to get the USA to act against it's interests in this area. Why? Because Senators are cheap, and the American cultural acceptance of foreign entanglements as beneficial. Some groups sell these entanglements as beneficial to human rights to liberals; some groups sell these entanglements as better for america's naked interest.

I propose, alternatively, that these entanglements benefit a small subsection of American society, and that these entanglements represent the most visible, harmful, and accepted sort of corruption in our these united states. It takes some bizarre logic to compute how it makes sense for a GM Employee in, say, Flint Michigan is best served having taxes taken out of his paycheck to subsidize the governments of Japan, Korea, etc....

***


TL:DR - how on earth is it in line with realpolitik to give your citizens money to a foreign nation, to help that nation buy and build a military and economy which competes with your own?

cool... someone to help me keep this thread alive

i work this weekend and my shifts are very long, leaving me little free time and so i'll probably be too lazy to respond to you before monday.. but after that hopefully i will have some spare time to dedicate to looking into and responding to your counter arguments.

Ya same here.

I think a lot of bunny hop's argument is similar to mine (but more detailed and informed).

i realize this, and if this were a board full of ron paul supporters or some **** like that then i would've geared it towards them more. but my perception of this board is that leftist ideology tends to dominate here so i geared it towards that audience.



well, i didn't actually say ww2 had a clear aggressor, my point was more that based on modern liberal values, it's pretty easy to justify using the military to dismantle the fascist regimes of germany, italy and japan. you might say there's some moral dilemma in not targeting the soviets, but i guess that's where you have to apply a bit of realism and make due with the fact that a moral imperative with no pragmatic chance of being acted upon is on its own, pretty much meaningless.

here we'll just have to disagree. because the embargo basically left japan in an untenable position which, if you are being both intellectually honest and on-the-ball with regard to anticipating a rival's strategic response, you would expect that warfare would start to look like the most promising way forward. it's not like japan didn't make diplomatic attempts to get on better terms with the united states. those attempts were rejected. basically you gave them the choice of abandoning their basic strategic ambitions vs going to war. if that's not provocative, when dealing with imperial powers, then i really don't know what is, other than launching an outright attack.



well, tbh i think the way you're framing it, it sounds like you think i'm saying the united states govt is just dedicated to providing the best lifestyle for their citizens, which is clearly not the case. i mean just look at the way our country is run domestically.

now i won't lie, i don't know enough about the global economy to sit here and debate with you the pros and cons of subsidizing the korean economy from an ecnonomic pov, and i'm not even doubting that their are inefficiencies as a result of personal favors between certain powerful personalities etc. but all i see from what you're describing is the US basically sacrificing some domestic ambitions in trying to maintain military hegemony in a key part of the globe. which, as a military super power, is probably not a bad strategy.

basically what i'm saying is if you say we don't need to maintain this dominance and just let powers manifest as they will, then you are more likely to run into some actual rivals that can challenge your position. so from a strategic pov, it's better to maintain that hegemony. not that it will be better for every american or anything like that. to me thats just not the way the world works. people move and act on self interest. and since the military is basically the foundation on which a civilization is built, i think military strategy always a relevant consideration for any civilization.

edit - to expand a bit on the nuking of sk scenario... keep in mind what sk and nk represent... basically strategic relics of the cold war, when the US had an actual (almost) rival. so that situation manifested in that context, but now at this point there's no hope of diplomatic unity with nk so basically they have to continue to manage this little belligerent troll they helped create. but also they always want to have some decent leverage with japan and china. because those two countries, left on their own, each have some potential to become a strategic rival. so really the whole globalization of the economy, that interdependence that the united states, europe, and asia have with each other is decent platform for relative stability. and since ww2 i honestly think the nation states of the world have done a good job of providing just that, under US hegemonic/imperialistic rule. but let there come a situation where there is a serious military rival with conflicting interests that can't seem to be resolved diplomatically... and then we'll see how meaningful the UN actually is imo.

I think most people on MB are left of center, not hard left antiglobalists who view American imperialism as doing the bidding of multinational corporations. In short smarter than that.

I am a leftie in that I think the Scandinavian welfare state is the best model for the life expectancy of the middle and working class, as global statistics show it to me, albeit not the best model for global economic growth.

I basically view United States imperialism as a necessary burden, it will be needed to stabilize Iraq and check growing autocratic powers like China who do not value or respect the rule of law and habeaus corpus.