[quandarry]

dick cheney's christmas card...

[Brien]

Who the heck cares? Cheney has been hiding in a bunker for 2 years, he's had a dozen heart attacks, and he was an idiot under Bush #1.

[davesimondotcom]

I believe the quote has more to do with recognizing the exisitance of God than to do with an empire.

Just because the word empire is used doesn't make it a conspiracy. After all, did Ben Franklin want an empire when he wrote that?

[osiris]

Originally posted by brien:
Who the heck cares? Cheney has been hiding in a bunker for 2 years, he's had a dozen heart attacks, and he was an idiot under Bush #1.

But at least he uses Hallmark cards, because he really cares.

[moki]

Originally posted by quandarry:
dick cheney's christmas card...

First of all, the quote is from Benjamin Franklin, and I doubt anyone made much of a stink out of it when he originally said it.

The jist of the quote is that God sees and is part of all things great and small. That's it.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this sentiment, it seems a rather silly stretch to claim it has anything whatever to do with Cheney wanting an American Empire.

[Saddam H.]

dumb.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by moki:
First of all, the quote is from Benjamin Franklin, and I doubt anyone made much of a stink out of it when he originally said it.

Well, in between harnessing the lightning and grappling the scullery maids, I seem to remember Franklin had a bout of being a top rebel/conspirator/insurgent. He and his pals made quite a bit of trouble for a certain overseas military power, and I imagine many things the victorious rebels said made a stink over there. It's not a stretch to imagine this quote might have done the same. He was a top journalist after all...

The jist of the quote is that God sees and is part of all things great and small. That's it.

In my opinion, seeing as he said this at the Constitutional Congress, I think it's reasonable to read a certain amount of nation-building context into Franklin's gist.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this sentiment, it seems a rather silly stretch to claim it has anything whatever to do with Cheney wanting an American Empire.

Well, I don't read it that way, but I certainly see how it can read that way. Cheney picked that quote deliberately, and given the present political climate, perhaps it's not the most sensitive or tasteful choice...

[chris v]

Regardles of the context, the Bush administration should err on the side of caution when bandying about the word "empire," at least considering the present global political climate.

Consider, though that Cheney signed this:

Statement of Principals from the Project for a New American Century:

June 3, 1997


American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.


We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.



As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?



We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.



Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:



• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;



• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;



• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;



• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.



Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.


Elliott Abrams __ Gary Bauer __ William J. Bennett __ Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney __ Eliot A. Cohen __ Midge Decter __ Paula Dobriansky __ Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg __ Francis Fukuyama __ Frank Gaffney __ Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan __ Zalmay Khalilzad __ I. Lewis Libby __ Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle __ Peter W. Rodman __ Stephen P. Rosen __ Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld __ Vin Weber __ George Weigel __ Paul Wolfowitz

One can inflect a little imperialism into that document, should one choose to.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
One can inflect a little imperialism into that document, should one choose to.

CV

Or not.

There is no imperialism there except perhaps in the worn-out "everything is imperialism" language of the left. It is a fact that the US is in a position of global leadership. We are the only superpower and the only power with truly global security responsibilities. Admitting that this is so is not saying that you want an empire. If it were, then Madeline "America is the indispensible nation" Albright would also be an imperialist.

One thing to remember about the Project for a New American Century is that you should ask what the old American Century involved. The old American Century is, of course, the 20th Century. That's when the US became a superpower, but did it use that power to become an empire? No it did not.

The other thing to remember is the context in which the letter was written. American security policy was widely perceived to be adrift in 1997. We cut the military back drastically after the end of the Cold War, but the commitments actually increased, not decreased. We cut 8 divisions frm the Army but had troops in the Balkans, and patrolling the skies over Iraq. At the same time, the threat of terrorism was increasing and both people outside of government and in the Clinton Administration were really beginning to take the threat of terrorists armed with WMD seriously. Few American foreign policy experts would conclude that the best way to respond to this would be to become passive. Being concerned about this and thinking ahead to how you avoid it does not make you an imperialist. If it did, then you would have to condemn most Democratic foreign policy experts as well as Republicans.

[chris v]

Um, isn't using your military power to project your values and promote your economic interests pretty much the same thing as imperialism?

There's 2 different ideas here about what a military is for:

1. To protect against foreign military aggression, (including the mutual defense of treaty partners) and to keep the territory and citizenry of a nation intact and free form harm.

2. To project by force the internal economic interests of a nation upon other unwilling nations.

I'll go with #1.

CV

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by chris v:
Um, isn't using your military power to project your values and promote your economic interests pretty much the same thing as imperialism?

If it was, then every nation that is no longer communist is part of the American Empire as is all of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union are no more. Our values have triumphed in all these places. The defeat of these regimes also served our economic interests. The horror!

[chris v]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
If it was, then every nation that is no longer communist is part of the American Empire as is all of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union are no more. Our values have triumphed in all these places. The defeat of these regimes also served our economic interests. The horror!

Read my post again.

Japan attacked us on American soil. We did what we had to do. Germany was allied with Japan, and also attacked our Ally, Great Britain.

We never fought a military conflict with the Soviet Union, and 'd argue about them accepting our ideas, anyway-- the jury's still out on that one.

CV

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by chris v:
Read my post again.

Japan attacked us on American soil. We did what we had to do. Germany was allied with Japan, and also attacked our Ally, Great Britain...

So? We still used our military to impose our values on those countries. We did regime change on Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

We never fought a military conflict with the Soviet Union...

Sure we did. It was called the Cold War which involved wars by proxy in places like Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

... and 'd argue about them accepting our ideas, anyway-- the jury's still out on that one.

Not in Eastern Europe.

[chris v]

The PNAC folks are saying, basically, we should use our military to impose our ideals upon any nation that we deem to need them, regardless of whether we are under military attack by them. In my book, that's imperialism. If you use a different word to euphemize what they're espousing, then fine, but it will still seem like an unprovoked invasion to the people whose countries we actually attack and subjugate.


CV

[saab95]

Dick Cheney wants an American Empire.

Absolute nonsense.

[moki]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So? We still used our military to impose our values on those countries. We did regime change on Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan

How can imposing a government that is a representational democracy possibly be imposing our values? Where is the imposition if what is imposed is the freedom for the people to choose what happens in their country?

The values come from the people who vote in said countries. I think you'd annoy more than a few people in Japan, Italy, and Germany if you attempted to state that the people there have "American values"

Or are you claiming that everyone was better off in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, where everything was decided top-down, and rammed down the throats of the populace?

Regardless, next time a president is sworn into office, listen to the vows s/he takes. His/her duty is not to the people of Zambia, it is to the USA. It just so happens that a free, prosperous world is a good thing for the USA -- less chance of unstable/threatening governments, more chance of prosperous countries to trade with.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by moki:
How can imposing a government that is a representational democracy possibly be imposing our values? Where is the imposition if what is imposed is the freedom for the people to choose what happens in their country?

Which brings up the whole "Democracy <> Capitalism" point yet again *sigh*

We've shown in the past with Pinochet's Argentina, Iraq (prior to Gulf War I), Nicaragua, and East Timor that we will readily support tyrannical (and even murderous) regimes that "play ball" with us economically. We currently have allies (Gulf State emirates such as Saudi Arabia for example) that are monarchical, religious theocracies that bear little resemblance to "Democracy". I'm certainly not asserting that every military action the US has taken in the past is based on economics (WWII, Kosovo, et al) but we as citizens should really scrutinize our government any time we use military force and ask if our actions are truly serving the ideals of democracy/freedom/self-rule or if they are aimed at bringing a resource/market rich country into our economic fold.

Originally posted by moki:
It just so happens that a free, prosperous world is a good thing for the USA -- less chance of unstable/threatening governments, more chance of prosperous countries to trade with.

Funny how genocidal regimes like Pol Pot's Cambodia stayed under the radar of our concern for years ( the "evil" communists in Vietnam finally ended his murderous reign) but a defeated, internationally sanctioned (and coincidentally oil rich) country like Iraq poses an "imminent threat" due to WMD and its oppressed people become the cause celebre for being saved from tyranny.

Politics is a complex endeavor that usually involves striking some balance between our national interests and our ideals for freedom and democracy. Bush & Co. have tipped that balance a little too blatantly toward the former for my taste (and for the taste of many other countries in the world ... many of whom we consider allies but have fervently dissented on this issue).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Funny how genocidal regimes like Pol Pot's Cambodia stayed under the radar of our concern for years ( the "evil" communists in Vietnam finally ended his murderous reign) but a defeated, internationally sanctioned (and coincidentally oil rich) country like Iraq poses an "imminent threat" due to WMD and its oppressed people become the cause celebre for being saved from tyranny.

Cambodia under Pol Pot didn't stay under the radar of concern at all. I remember vividly when the news of the Killing Fields first broke and I was only about 8 at the time. The reason why the US wasn't in any position at the time to prevent the Pol Pot regime from taking over was because of the withdrawal from southeast asia following the pullout from Vietnam.

It is, however, true that the Vietnamese invasion was universally condemned at the time. The reason is because of the orthodox view of international law that condemns humanitarian intervention. That was undoubteldly the view in 1979, and many of you still espouse with respect to Iraq. Under that view, it doesn't matter how bad the regime, it's nobody else's business.

There is, however, a revisionist view of the Vietnamese intervention that understands that the invasion did accomplish an end to the worst of the killing, and was justified, notwithstanding the mixed motives that the Vietnamese undoubtedly had. I have heard that revisionist sentiment made by people of the right and the left. The same people also tend to be open to the same argument with respect to Iraq, so there is no inconsistency.

Once again, we come down to the conservativeness of your position. Because people did not support humanitarian intervention in 1979, they may not honestly support it in 2003. But there has been a lot of history since 1979, including the end of the Cold War and a number of successful humanitarian interventions (including one by the UN in Cambodia that could not have happened but for Vietnam's earlier action). We are entitled to learn from that, and in my view, we should learn from that.

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
How can imposing a government that is a representational democracy possibly be imposing our values?

This is the nub. Imposing your values on others is wrong. Even when those values appear to you to be blameless and impeccable. Those same values, in this case, being 'representational democracy'. A nation for whom oligarchy is the preferred form of government does not want 'representational democracy', and imposing one on them is imposing your values.

We had a similar (obviously unresolved) discussion about attitudes to women under Islam, in that in your western eyes Islam discriminates against women, so Muslims should be forced to treat women in a more 'western' way.

Western views are not always 'right'. Even when they are backed by irresistible force.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
We had a similar (obviously unresolved) discussion about attitudes to women under Islam, in that in your western eyes Islam discriminates against women, so Muslims should be forced to treat women in a more 'western' way.

Western views are not always 'right'. Even when they are backed by irresistible force.

This is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equal rights regardless of gender is not a western imposition, it is a universal, non-derogable, human rights norm.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equal rights regardless of gender is not a western imposition, it is a universal, non-derogable, human rights norm.

What's your point?

What specifically is 'inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What's your point?

What specifically is 'inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'?

Christ's point that women's rights is an example of a western value that is not applicable in the Middle East. That's wrong, it is universally applicable.

The Convenant of Civil and Political Rights is (one of) the international instruments that so says. The point is that there are certain fundamental human rights that are universal regardless of what local governments (like, say, the Taliban) say. It is not all relative.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The point is that there are certain fundamental human rights that are universal regardless of what local governments (like, say, the Taliban) say. It is not all relative.

Hold that thought.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Hold that thought.

No problem at all. It's part of a great and noble tradition. "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . " And fortunately, the idea has spread.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No problem at all. It's part of a great and noble tradition. "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . " And fortunately, the idea has spread.

But, when inconvenient, they don't apply to non-Americans.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equal rights regardless of gender is not a western imposition, it is a universal, non-derogable, human rights norm.

What is equal?

The point is that different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes equal, and in some that does not include treating women as if they were men, or vice versa.

I don't fundamentally disagree with the concepts that you express, it is the way that they have to be judged by western measures and mores that grates with me.

What does 'derogable' mean in this context?

(By the way - it is a great plan to use the Taliban for your example, that is nice and neutral, and shows that you completely fail to understand the point - it is either 'US republicanism' (good) or 'Taliban' (bad) to you, isn't it?)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
But, when inconvenient, they don't apply to non-Americans.

Fundamental human rights are universal. They do apply to non-Americans. They apply to all humanity. That's what it means to be a universal norm.

It's you who said that they don't my friend, not me. You are the one who condemned those rights as being western-imposed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
What is equal?

The point is that different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes equal, and in some that does not include treating women as if they were men, or vice versa.

I don't fundamentally disagree with the concepts that you express, it is the way that they have to be judged by western measures and mores that grates with me.

What does 'derogable' mean in this context?

(By the way - it is a great plan to use the Taliban for your example, that is nice and neutral, and shows that you completely fail to understand the point - it is either 'US republicanism' (good) or 'Taliban' (bad) to you, isn't it?)

Non-derogable means that the right can't be derogated from. I.e. it is non-optional. Fundamental rights (a fairly short list) are in that category. For example, the right to be free from torture is non-derogable. A country cannot say that their local custom is to torture people.

Where I think you are misunderstanding is that fundemental rights are absolute, but the implementation is subject to considerable local variation. Self-government is a good example. There re fundamental rights to self-determination, freedom of speech, freedom of association, conscience, worship, and so on. But nobody would suggest that the particular forms these rights take in the US, Europe, Sussex, or any other locality are the only way to do it.

Fundamental norms are the basic minimum. How you implement them is up for grabs. The international standards are generally somewhat below those enjoyed in most First World countries, such as your and mine. But you can't go below those standards. The Taliban's treatment of women is a perfectly clear example. So is the practice of torture in Saddam's Iraq. But the US republican form of government certainly isn't required any more than the Westminster model would be.

[lurkalot]

Chris v
"Japan attacked us on American soil."

Hawaii and the Philippines?

"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."
Dick Cheney, Cato Institute June 23,1998.
(Taken just a bit out of context but the context was interesting in itself) Link

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."
Dick Cheney, Cato Institute June 23,1998.
(Taken just a bit out of context but the context was interesting in itself) Link

it's called realpolitik. Deal with it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
How can imposing a government that is a representational democracy possibly be imposing our values? Where is the imposition if what is imposed is the freedom for the people to choose what happens in their country?

The values come from the people who vote in said countries. I think you'd annoy more than a few people in Japan, Italy, and Germany if you attempted to state that the people there have "American values"

Or are you claiming that everyone was better off in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, where everything was decided top-down, and rammed down the throats of the populace?

the answer is contained in the question.