John Wilkes Booth

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?

Chula Vista

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.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

John Wilkes Booth

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'

William_the_Bloody

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.

Guybrush

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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

John Wilkes Booth

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

Xurtio

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

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Guybrush

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?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Isbjørn

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

__________________

Xurtio

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.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉