Interesting. so can i conclude that you, like me don't always agree with American Imperialism? Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidSometimes it has been difficult reconcile the diplomatic interests of the U.S. with its professed moral agenda: it’s called “realpolitik”.
Regardless of how you interpreted those posts, i never said i was completely against American Imperialist actions. Only that in the case of invading Iraq it was wrong and that it was a disaster. At times such action has been correct and in others it has been wrong, as in Iraq. And you misconstrued the purpose of the cartoon i posted from that Wiki article. It was merely to illustrate that American Imperialism has been a long standing controversial subject. Yet you inferred i did not approve of Imperialist actions regarding the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Never said that nor implied it by posting the cartoon. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidIt was your statement: “I agree with Ron Paul, let's look further on the results of ‘American Imperialism’, name me one example where this has actually worked? nowhere i know of . . .” that riled. No harm, no foul. Subsequently, we have provided several examples where American Imperialism has had a positive impact on subjugated states.
“Pacifying” the Philippines was, perhaps, the most naked incident of U.S. imperialism. But once the shooting was over in 1902, the U.S. ruled with benign benevolence compared to other, European and Asian, imperial powers in the early 20th century. Ultimately, the Philippines garnered many of the benefits related to adopting the democratic institutions of the West, and, for the most part, the U.S. is highly regarded among most Filipinos.
I cited Neville Chamberlain in the first place. Ron Paul is not Neville Chamberlain. Just because he thinks that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nuclear arms doesn't mean he is "appeasing" Iran or that he's not capable of taking action, including the use of military force if he felt the situation required it. I think he'd certainly be a stronger leader than Obama. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidWhat’s good for Iran is not necessarily good for the U.S. And just because the U.S. attempts to interdict Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons, doesn’t make it a bad policy for the U.S. to continue to do so. It’s called realpolitik. No U.S. interest is served by allowing a nuclear capable Iran. U.S. Presidents are elected to pursue the self-interests of American citizens . . . not to defer to the interests of Iranian politicians.
