-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
I have spent the past two days troubled by an op-ed that ran Tuesday in the New York Times. The author, Kwasi Kwarteng – a British MP of Ghanan decent — penned a provocative obituary of American “Empire” titled “Echoes of the Raj.”
Framing his thoughts of America’s supremacy-slide against the shadows of British imperialism, Kwarteng no doubt enjoys a unique perspective regarding the last gasps of “Great” Britain. After his graduation from Eton, and Cambridge (twice — parting the second time with a DPhil. of History), Mr. Kwarteng has gone on to enjoy success in both political affairs and scholarly letters. In 2010, he was elected Conservative MP for Spelthorne in Surrey, while penning the eminently readable Ghosts of Empire, which reconsiders the travails of global dominion, and the nature of its glory.
With that said, his obvious enthusiasm to chime the death knells of American hegemony rings dully of Schadenfruede — his observations seem rushed with a triumphant gratification at our supposed misfortune.
He opens with the following:
THE Arab Spring, the threat of Iran as an emerging nuclear power, the continuing violence in Syria and the American reluctance to get involved there have all signaled the weakness, if not the end, of America’s role as a world policeman. President Obama himself said in a speech last year: “America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs.”
I would hope that I’m not alone when I say: good. We cannot, should not, and will not use our military whenever and wherever repression occurs. The world is a cruel place — “repression” occurs on a daily basis and it is not in the interest of American national security to pursue a policy of “Infinite War.” Neither did the British at the high-water mark of the so-called Pax Britannica.
But Mr. Kwarteng glibly ignores reasons for our supposed reluctance to engage. Perhaps he missed the two aircraft carrier battle groups operating in waters near the Persian Gulf — delivering a direct message to Iran about an open Strait of Hormuz? Or ignored reluctance to support a shadowy Syrian militancy staffed with rank and file fighters who earned their stripes killing American soldiers in Mosul, Fallujah, and Tikrit? That the Arab Spring happened on our watch, after we decided it was no longer realistic to prop up dubious partners in the Middle East and North Africa, and undoubtedly pulled strings to enjoin Mubarak’s resignation? Perhaps he missed the part where we led the push for the UNSC R2P resolution that amounted to regime change in Libya, before leading a surface and air warfare campaign to that end?
Mr. Kwarteng continues, further along:
During the cold war, America saw itself as the leader of the “free world,” a claim to moral leadership as bold as that of any empire in history. Its dominion relied on the force of alliance, direct assistance and social and economic example, rather than occupation. Only in the last 10 years has America intervened militarily to decide who rules in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This assumption of responsibility as a global policeman was nothing if not the act of an empire. Yet Americans were always reluctant to admit this.
Certainly, to an extent. Our moral suasion proved critical in the battle for hearts and minds against an evil, illiberal and atheistic Soviet Empire. However, armed with a doctorate of history, I would have expected to Mr. Kwarteng might recall some, if not all, of the 70 or more interventions the United States fought during, and after, the Cold War. Our history of military intervention — christened “humanitarian” during the Clinton administration — was not catalyzed by Bush v. Gore. Mr. Kwarteng might consider the circumstances surrounding Manuel Noriega, etc. to the contrary.
Regardless:
The financial crisis and mounting indebtedness have finally led to an end to American imperial behavior. It is unlikely, even if the economy recovers, that the country will enter campaigns with the buoyancy and naïveté of its invasion of Iraq in 2003.
This is laughable. Our annual military expenditures exceed the combined defense budgets of China, South Korea, Russia, India, Germany, France and Great Britain. We maintain a constellation of military installation around the globe — in strategically sensitive theaters and political backwaters — that project the range and power of our interests. Last I checked, our military still compartmentalizes the length and width of the planet by expansive territorial commands, partitioned by hemisphere, patrolled by surface and subsurface forces at sea, and responsible for the maintenance of Asia, Africa the Middle East and South America. This is not to mention our long-range air power from places like Diego Garcia and the good ole CONUS…
Most interestingly, Mr. Kwarteng remarks:
America’s position today reminds me of Britain’s situation in 1945. Deep in debt and committed to building its National Health Service and other accouterments of the welfare state, Britain no longer could afford to run an empire
[…]
Moreover, Britain, which so proudly ruled the waves a generation ago, was tired; it lacked the willpower to pursue its imperial destiny. America’s role as an imperialist is even more fragile, as it never had Britain’s self-confident faith in its own imperial destiny. Americans have always been ambivalent about the role of global hegemon.
How right he is. Prevailing assumptions remain that there is a general, global understanding and acceptance that the world wants the United States to lead. Our abdication from power would not only disrupt the contemporary world order but refute a natural birthright of American statecraft.
However, we are ever uncomfortable with suggestions of empire. It makes me cringe to write the word in relation to America’s power project — let alone in response to a British descendant of Her Majesty’s Gold Coast. As the eminent historian and neoconservative Donald Kagan famously remarked: “All comparisons between America’s current place in the world and anything legitimately called an empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any reasonable meaning of the concept of empire, especially the comparison with the Roman Empire.” If not Rome, then what of Kwarteng’s “Echoes of the Raj”?
We are taught from birth that ours is the destiny of a constitutional republic — not the duty of American empire. Now, as the aims, costs and limitations of American military power are tested we must confront our obligations to the future.
The history of the British Empire suggests that any form of empire is misguided. First, empire is too expensive. The rise of China and the emerging world has meant that, even if America rebounds, its economy’s relative size will be smaller. Surely it will not be as preponderant as it was in 1945 and 1989. This alone makes multilateral action more likely than solitary leadership.
Second, as the British discovered, maintaining an empire requires too many calculations and too much knowledge — experience, even — for any one power in today’s world even to attempt it.
Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught America those lessons.
However vigorously one could argue the case for or against American Empire — however uncomfortable the terms of that debate — the fact that most Americans want to reduce our military presence abroad, and provide space for our allies to slip from our collective coattails suggests that this will remain a question to struggle with in the future… but do not doubt for a minute that we will decide the terms.
View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/19/in-response-to-the-end-of-amer
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JP| 4.19.12 @ 5:22PM
If only we had an empire. We had interests, but no empire. And the world will be a more dangerous and poorer place as the result of our own self indulgence.
albert constantine jr.| 4.19.12 @ 5:46PM
As the twentieth century began, we took on many of the obligations that an empire might, but not nearly enough of benefits.
As the British Empire has contracted, many of their obligations are altering the historically British/ English culture.
As America struggles to "right size" its place in the world, I pray for my children that we retain our strength. I have no desire to live in a world dominated in larger part by mild European socialism, sharia or Chinese authoritarianism.
Trinacria| 4.19.12 @ 6:19PM
How lovely to see that Eton and Cambridge, like our own venerable ivy crested institutions of higher learning, have adopted the humane practice of grading on the curve for members of selected groups who would otherwise fail to pass intellectual muster. Through their beneficence, they've managed to elevate those with otherwise pedestrian intellects to prestigious positions in both politics and academic letters. And the results have been, well, about what you'd expect...
Conservative Not Republican| 4.19.12 @ 6:36PM
Actually the economy and our debt is likely to set the terms. We are overextended and decadent, just like the Romans were. Did the Romans set the terms of their collapsing empire? Hardly.
Occam's Tool| 4.19.12 @ 8:24PM
Our country is the size of an empire. And, we are not failing. We will get rid of the POTUS and replace him with a man.
Clint| 4.19.12 @ 10:33PM
" As Ralph Waldo Emerson warned when he wrote, "A nation never falls but by suicide."
The fall of Rome and other dominant civilizations manifest similar pathologies, imperial overreach, runaway spending, erosion of money's purchasing power, personal debauchery."
C Bowen | 4.19.12 @ 8:55PM
"evil, illiberal and atheistic Soviet Empire."
Mr. Smith;
Which country was more pro-natal in policy: the Soviet in the 1970s or the abortion/birth control/sexual revolution America of the 70s?
I'd like to think we are getting old enough for some "tough love" talk and realistic assessment.
Rest of the piece was solid.
Occam's Tool| 4.20.12 @ 12:05PM
America was more pro-life than the Soviets, Bowen. You don't follow demographics well. The average life expectancy of the Russian male is LESS THAN 60 years. Abortion, Hep C, HIV, drug abuse is rampant. WWII tore a demographic chunk out of the Soviets that they never recovered from, and now they are in a death spiral.
Have you ever tried to adopt a kid from the former Soviet Union? My friend did, and I was covering for him at work for call and was heavily involved. Most of the kids at the orphanage they tried to adopt from were very sick or poorly developing.
C Bowen| 4.20.12 @ 3:18PM
Occam;
I really don't get the sense you understand this subject--I was writing on the Soviet of the 70s vs the US of A of the 70s, and suggesting that it was time Mr. Smith advance his rhetoric in an otherwise sober piece. Plenty on the Hard Right observed that the Soviet had become more conservative with age, while the US was getting ever more liberal and radical--more Communist.
Since the 30s, the Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet governments, have pursued pro-natal policies to avert as you say, a death spiral. Pro-natal simply means encourage birth--it is unclear you understand what is being discussed.
The West of course is also below replacement rates as well, and thus their governments which promote abortion/contraception/sexual revolution, import the difference from the Third World.
Now, Russia's pro-natal policies may fail, but that is a different matter. As you note, Russia society is still in tatters, and doesn't seem to have coped with the end of the Soviet.
MS| 4.20.12 @ 3:18PM
Sure, it's real "pro-life" to indiscriminately murder women and children all over the globe. Yeah right.
W| 4.19.12 @ 9:37PM
Arab Spring? Did I miss the overthrow of the crazy repressive regimes in the Arab world and their replacement with freely elected governments that allow women to vote, free speech, free assembly?
Not getting involved in Syria is good policy.
As for Iran, we owe them a few well placed bombs, and their nuclear power will be zero.
C Bowen | 4.19.12 @ 10:04PM
It's always funny when alleged conservatives announce their suffragette support.
Clint| 4.19.12 @ 10:18PM
W Needs His Chickenhawk Candidate.
Oldefarte| 4.20.12 @ 11:25AM
'.....Breitbart.com Media Matters' Oliver Willis Wants Pro-Israel Liberals 'Marginalized' by Ben Shapiro 21 hours ago As we revealed yesterday, MJ Rosenberg wasn’t the only anti-Israel extremist working at Media Matters for America: Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert once downplayed genocidal anti-Semitism, routinely suggests that media coverage is too pro-Israel thanks to the intimidation by nefarious forces (hint hint), and defended terrorist professor Sami Al-Arian.Today, we examine Oliver Willis, a research fellow at Media Matters. Just like MJ and Eric, Willis is an anti-Israel extremist with a soft spot for anti-Semitism.Willis once referred to Paul Wolfowitz as “filthy” and Joe Lieberman as “fascistic.” He accused Israel of “Playing Games With American Lives” for building settlements, and wrote that he “can’t wait for the day when we can tell both sides [of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict] to go to hell.” He has stated that “The Democratic Party will be at its best” only once pro-Israel AIPAC-associated liberals like Josh Block are “marginalized.” He has defended via retweet MJ Rosenberg’s use of the white supremacist term “Israel firsters.” He accuses conservatives of attacking “everyone who doesnt march in lockstep with Israel.” And while anti-Israel fanatic Glenn Greenwald accuses me of watering down the term anti-Semitism by pointing out Media Matters’ relentless pattern of providing cover to anti-Semites, he has nothing to say about Willis, who likened one mosque being burned in Tennessee to full-blown Nazi treatment of Jews.Willis isn’t literate on the Israel-Palestinian issue (as with most other issues); his anti-Israel feeling seems to come from groupthink more than from the informed anti-Israel radicalism of MJ Rosenberg or Boehlert. And yet Willis is one of Media Matters’ key in-house policers of right-wing anti-Semitism. Ah, the irony.More to come......'
Clint| 4.21.12 @ 11:13AM
Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Mittens' Kitten, Fartpants.
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor,Michael Scheuer,C.I.A. Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
" On Iran,The President Should,
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
KennesawJack| 4.20.12 @ 11:38AM
Kagan's response to those who would define America's role in the world as "empire" is spot on. I don't know of a single piece of land we've ever conquered in war that we have not returned to the vanquished nation, allowed it to freely associate with the U. S. or delivered it to its own independence. "Empire" my ass. Wasn't it Colin Powell, responding to someone's assertion American imperialism, who said, "The only foreign soil America has ever kept was enough to bury her fallen." ? Likewise, Eisenhower, when informed that the pitiful ingrate mini-man DeGaul demanded all foreign troops leave French soil said, "Well, we'll need a year or two to dig them all up." Like I said, "Empire, my ass."
C Bowen | 4.20.12 @ 6:24PM
I guess we should be thrilled that unlike the British Empire that ran on quasi-capitalist terms, the American internationalist adventures serve no purpose to the citizenry?
Altruism is such a bizarre strain in elite thinking, no wonder y'all are reduced to comment boards.
Do folks like you strive to be a Marxist caricature, or does it come natural?
KennesawJack| 4.21.12 @ 12:33AM
Say what?
Occam's Tool| 4.20.12 @ 12:14PM
DeGaulle was an asshole, and an ungrateful bastard. A perfect Frenchman.
When I look around, I see no one to replace us. India has horrific poverty that chains its superdynamic middle class---they would be best, but they are not there yet. China will grow old before they get rich, Russia is a dead man walking, as is most of the EU. The Muslim countries can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and will NEVER, so long as Sharia reigns, be a significant world intellectual force except for the blackest of nihilism.
In addition, all we need to do is lower tax rates and unchain American ingenuity and we will be in a Reaganesque era again. Liberals are vermin; they need to be marginalized as Ronnie managed to do.
KennesawJack| 4.20.12 @ 2:58PM
Occam, you need to get on over to the article on Mormonism. There's someone you need to talk with. And you're right. DeGaulle was the perfect Frenchman. (Pardon my misspelling of his name in my above post.)
Mike from Wall Street| 4.20.12 @ 12:21PM
Whenever I read these dire predictions of the end of America, I recall von Bismarck's famous saying..."There is a Divine providence that watches over fools, drunks and the United States of America."
KennesawJack| 4.20.12 @ 2:58PM
And Bismarck was absolutely right!
c matt| 4.20.12 @ 5:27PM
And Bismarck was commenting about a very different America. Just sayin'.
KennesawJack| 4.21.12 @ 12:31AM
No he wasn't. At the end of the day, we're the same American. It's just that the left doesn't know it.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.20.12 @ 1:35PM
What an utter garbage, written of course by two lefties, a British socialist MP and an American leftist libertarian. Of course, both of them are dead wrong, and through their laughable screeds, have proven only one thing: how ignorant they both are.
Smith writes:
"Our annual military expenditures exceed the combined defense budgets of China, South Korea, Russia, India, Germany, France and Great Britain."
Actually, that is not true, even if one accepts the woefully understated budget figures for Russia and China (their real military budgets are 2 times larger than what they admit to) and doesn't account for PPP differences (by that standard, China alone has a military budget as large as that of the US). Furthermore, the US is responsible for only 43% of the planet's military spending, and again that's only if if one accepts the woefully understated budget figures for Russia and China (their real military budgets are 2 times larger than what they admit to) and doesn't account for PPP differences.
"We maintain a constellation of military installation around the globe -- in strategically sensitive theaters and political backwaters -- that project the range and power of our interests."
WRONG. The vast majority of America's "military base" around the world are tiny, secondary military installations such as fuel depots, waste dumps, and auxiliary airstrips. Only a few dozen of them are strategically important military bases like Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Aviano, and Kadena. But Reid Smith, like his fellow leftist libertarian Ron Paul, has managed to turn all of those tiny military installations into huge military bases. In his warped view, the US has an entire constellation of huge military bases in foreign countries all over the world.
"Last I checked, our military still compartmentalizes the length and width of the planet by expansive territorial commands, partitioned by hemisphere, patrolled by surface and subsurface forces at sea, and responsible for the maintenance of Asia, Africa the Middle East and South America."
So does France. BTW, the Africa Command and the Southern Command do not have any units permanently assigned to them, last time I checked. Only NORTHCOM (the command for Northern America), CENTCOM (resp. for the ME), PACOM, and EUCOM do.
And here's a note for both Smith and the Ghanan guy: I know both of you hate America and would like to see it collapse. Dream on. You're going to have to wait for very, very long. You may not even be alive to see it. America has seen much worse times than the current period. What is happening now is a mere sad episode that will end on January 20th, 2013. Compared to the Civil War, the Great Depression, WW2, the 1960s, and the 1970s, it's nothing.
Reid Smith| 4.20.12 @ 2:12PM
Furthermore, the US is responsible for only 43% of the planet's military spending"
Emphasis on the "only," I presume?
I'd be happy to have a civil conversation, if you would agree to tone down the vitriol. Saying that I "hate America" doesn't make it true.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.21.12 @ 2:57AM
I'm not interested in a conversation with you. I'm interested in refuting your garbage. :)
Deny it all you want, but it's clear from your writings that you hate America. You claim that it's an empire and that it behaves in an imperialist manner. (In that, you say the same things as the propagandists of the former Soviet Union.) You want the US to completely withdraw its troops from abroad, terminate all of its defense commitments to its allies, and the military to be dramatically cut in terms of size, capabilities, and budget so that you could be sure it could never intervene abroad. You are a fan of Ron "Blame America First" Paul and his brat son, who, in just 15 months, has managed to prove he's just as crazy as his father.
So you can issue pious denials all day. It doesn't matter. :)
Oh, and regarding military spending, the emphasis is on China's and Russia's understatements and the PPP differences between them and the US. My full sentence was, to reiterate:
"Furthermore, the US is responsible for only 43% of the planet's military spending, and again that's only if if one accepts the woefully understated budget figures for Russia and China (their real military budgets are 2 times larger than what they admit to) and doesn't account for PPP differences."
Clint| 4.21.12 @ 11:21AM
Budget for 2010
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Departmentof spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.84 billion.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate."
Clint| 4.21.12 @ 11:25AM
"The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).
The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."
Clint| 4.21.12 @ 11:30AM
In 2010, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength estimated the actual 2009 Chinese military spending at US$150 billion.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.21.12 @ 4:09PM
Yep, in 2009. That was 3 years ago. Since then, China has been increasing its military budget by double digits. Some estimates say that its FY2012 military budget is $185 bn.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.21.12 @ 4:08PM
FY2010 was 2 years ago, in case you haven't noticed, Clint. The CURRENT fiscal year is FY2012, and the DOD's budget (incl. war spending and funding for the DOE's defense-related programs) for it is $645 bn per the FY2012 NDAA, or $633 bn per the FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act. That is less than 19% of the total federal budget.
And even using FY2010 numbers (which the SIPRI has also used in the past), the US still accounted then, and would still account today, for only 43% of the world's military spending (and that is ONLY if you blindly accept the woefully understated figures for Russia and China), a far cry from its over-50% share during the Cold War.
Reid Smith| 4.21.12 @ 11:55AM
In that case, I'm happy you've found this comment section to issue straw-men and "refute my garbage."
Carry on!
Reid Smith| 4.20.12 @ 2:14PM
Also, the British MP in question is a Conservative, not a socialist. Again, assigning labels indiscriminately doesn't help your case.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.21.12 @ 2:51AM
I know what his party affiliation is. But it doesn't matter. He's a leftist and an anti-American socialist. The fact that the party that he belongs to calls itself "conservative" (but ceased to be really conservative when Cameron took it over) is irrelevant. He's hardly the only socialist in the ranks of the Tory Party, I might add.
Pat| 4.20.12 @ 6:02PM
Reid Smith: “I would hope that I am not alone when I say: good”. No, you are not alone and I read each of your points with appreciation and some vigorous head nodding. Looking back on our so-called American Empire, a student of history would be forced to conclude: “what in the world were our Washington leaders thinking?”. At the end of WWII, America had done what no other country could boast of. We had fought a war within three global theatres: Europe, the Pacific islands and China/Southeast Asia – and we had won. We never claimed we won the war entirely on our own but our efforts during WWII remain a singular accomplishment to this day.
But then the mental rot crept in, our leaders gradually lost touch with reality. We couldn’t save Eastern Europe from Stalin – but many came to insist we should have tried . At the end of WWII, the well seasoned Red Army had over 200 combat divisions within Europe or as reserves stationed in western Russia, while America along with our British Commonwealth and French allies had a total of 90 divisions and a war to finish against Japan. The Hungarians and Rumanians had fought alongside Hitler against Russia but we wept over their supposed enslavement by Stalin – we should have saved them from the Red Army we later told ourselves. But at the cost of hundreds of thousands American lives? Our erstwhile ally China vigorously milked us for supplies and money and then fought a desultory, unenthusiastic war against the Japanese – but we couldn’t let them go communist. And despite Pearl Buck’s feel good stories of noble Chinese peasants, the Chinese wanted no part of us or our naive concepts of “good government”.
We won the war but somehow that wasn’t good enough. Many said we should have eradicated communism in the process – like that was ever a possibility. We foolishly vowed not to be “isolationists” again but Pearl Harbor resulted from the manifest and many stupidities of our government employees, not from our citizenry’s concept of a well-reasoned foreign policy.
Thinking it was our duty to intervene wherever we liked was initially challenged by rational detractors but that kind of knee jerk rationalizing would became slowly ingrained in our national myth of “Superpower”. Our mediocre European theatre commander, General Eisenhower, even warned us of the Military/Industrial complex and their determination to involve us in wars for financial profit. Sure, like our young soldiers wanted to die in Asia or Africa so their parents or wives could claim the insurance settlement. So much foolishness by so many Americans created this so-called American Empire.
We’re not cut out to be a Superpower, no one is. I applaud your efforts to re-educate Americans, to challenge long held habits of thought. Down with the American Empire, let the wogs defend themselves from their brothers and, like the post war Japanese of today, let’s not encourage our young folks to die for the glory of their Emperor.