SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (64454)1/5/2003 2:49:01 PM
From: paul_philp  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
The problem is simply with the word 'Imperialism'. To separate imperialism from the idea of colonialism or territorial control stretches the word beyond practical use. The use of the word imperial provides no useful insight into American motivations or intentions.

tell me what you would call replacing a regime in a region critical for the global economy if you would not call it the action of an imperial power.

If you are talking about Iraq in this sentence, your characterization of the situation is so incomplete that there is no point responding. Unlike Ignatieff, you are not bothering to make an accurate assessment of the situation. I won't be trapped by this particular strawman.

It's time now to argue whether it's wise or not, moral or not, produces, in the net, good consequences or bad, for whom.
Here is where the word imperial gets us into trouble. Once you assert that America is being imperial you no longer need to add the American perspective to the analysis you suggest above. What is the American worldview shaping its foreign policy? What are the American goals? What risks does America perceive to its security and world stability? How do it come to pass that America is so powerful and successful?
Your arguments are so reflexively anti-American (note: anti- and un- are not the same prefix) that they don't even imagine that there is a valid American perspective or that American interest is worthwhile at all. The fact that people or countries agree or disagree with American policy means nothing on it's face. We need to understand their motivations. France and Russia are competing with the US for access to Iraq's oil. They are using their UNSC veto as leverage. They are no more or less Machiavellian then the US. They just have much less power and so have fewer opportunities to use it.
In your previous post you mentioned the importance of an Israel/Palestine settlement. I agree that this is a critical next step. You mentioned a contiguous state of Palestine. I understand the need for a contiguous West Bank but connecting Gaza and the West Bank is impractical. Israel will never and should never accept a discontinuous state of Israel.
It is beyond my wisdom to understand how the question of Jerusalem can be resolved but I do think the question of Gaza, the West Bank and settlements can be resolved - if there is the political will on both sides to resolve it. One reason that Saddam must be removed is that he is a major supplier of money and weapons to the Palestinians and Saddam has no interest in peace with Israel. While he signs the checks, he calls the tune.
Paul
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News