Let me rewrite this message, as I?m a bit rattled over the first lose of relatives to the Iraq stupidity. Nope it doesn?t, in a classical sense. It does in an economic sense, and therein lays the new imperialism. An example of Neoimperialsim is putting hordes of foreign poor into sweatshop slavery and reaping the benefits of that. Exploiting natural resources and fast as they an be expolited and leaving off any effective planning for predictable coming shortages, so as to reap the profits now, is Neoimperialism. In effect, imperilaism expected profit from seizing the territory of other nations. Neoimperialism expects profits from controlling other nations. Security, since 9/11 has become the ploy to achieve this. The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not make us safer, no matter how many times it gets repeated that it did. Looking down the road, in fact one can say it likely will have the opposite effect. So if it ain't making us safer, what is the point of it? The Grand Strategy is supposed to make the invasion and screwed up occupation make sense, but the Grand Strategy is just Neoimperialism from a bunch of greedy cowards.

Rational discourse ought to depend on the meaning of words. Words have meanings. If Empire has a definition, than it is false to assert the USA is an empire when it does not meet that definition. China is an empire. An empire is not a nation, but a grander thing, a polity in which one people (in China's case the Han) rule over everyone else, by force, for the benefit of the rulers. Further, an empire is never a Republic nor a Democracy. There are never any elections to decide who gets to run things. None of this accurately describes either what the USA is or wishes to become. Preventive war is a term misapplied to US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not popular among US policymakers, as I have discovered trying to launch a real preventive war (re North Korea). And what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq was NOT preventive war. We are already IN the war. Use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations is NOT US policy. It is a proposal, and it is a countroversial proposal that is not likely to become practice. I myself oppose it, and having some clue about how to go about preserving the present policy, which is NOT to use nuclear weapons, I expect to defeat this proposal. I note you state as fact what is not fact. What are you doing - reading discussion and proposals etc and jumping to conclusions? Regime change is indeed our policy. It is very late in coming. If you really oppose the regimes you cite, you hardly should be upset we are going to do them all in, one at a time. We have concluded that these regimes are a major aspect of the real problem. This is the only point you got right about what US policy is - and you seem to imply it is wrong. What is wrong with it? These rebimes should change for the sake of their own peoples, their neighbors, and us. What more do you want?

I do not think you can impose democracy. But since it is not necessary to impose democracy, the question is moot. It is not a hard sell, to any people we have yet met. Just offer them the opportunity and most will take it. There are some Arab militants in Iraq who are very much against the idea of real democracy in Iraq. They hope to force everyone to submit to their terror again. Do you think we should just hand over power to them? Is that better than creating a means for Iraqis to generate a representative government?

You just don't get it Rebrooku. It is an error of AQ to fight in Iraq - a place we choose. It is expending resources and generating a great deal of bad PR for itself in an actual war zone where we have a lot less trouble using force than we would in our country or in any other country. It is one of the more brilliant aspects of the operation that AQ (according to captured documents) has put its prestige on the line. If it fails to win in Iraq, it may well have its psychological back broken as a credible organization. It has failed to launch a single major attack on the USA in 3 years since 911. If it claims it is going to drive us from Iraq and set up a "new caliphite" there - and fails to do either - it may mean much fewer recruits and financing. Further, we have got a fringe benefit - it behaved so badly AQ is now unpopular with Iraqis - and it has had to order most units to withdraw because of this hostility. I think you are using rose colored glasses to see this as bad policy.

I will not do this again: Rebrooku I am informing you that no politician in the present administration is happy about Abu G. It is absolutely clear that such a thing must result in bad reactions in the USA, in Iraq and in other countries. No sane policy maker would advocate such a thing. None did. You are assuming something negative because you want to, not because even one person in the administration was ever consulted in such a matter. Not that all are blameless - I think certain decisions were unfortunate and Abu G was in part a consequence of those decisions. I think the Attorney General, the Defense Secretary and the CIA Director all share in the responsibility for some decisions that contributed to the situation which allowed this to happen. But I know some of the people involded, directly and indirectly, and the word is "if Congress ever investigates, we are in trouble - who will defend us?" They tried really dumb ideas to get information, and got nothing but scandle. This is the kind of thing you get from little people who have little experience. Old hands know better than to play games that (a) cannot work and (b) must come out. I only regret I was not present on the first day of the first sub-incident. It would have been the end of the whole thing.

No I am not. Nothing I said justified an invasion of Somolia, and I have never proposed it. Not even when Clinton did it. But IF you are saying that is NOT your proposal, you are not at ZERO score: NO proposals. We are still waiting for what you think we should do (besides nothing - sort of like ducks in a shooting gallery I guess).

Are you suggesting we should NOT promote what is in our economic, political and security interests? That it would somehow be better? I bet you like the Kerry proposal to TALK to North Korea directly. This is what Clinton did, via Jimmy Carter, resulting in the (failed) Agreed Framework. I have hundreds of articles by academics of all striptes saying how great it was. But there is no point in talking to NK. Anyone who thinks otherwise is technically insane in the clinical sense - ignoring the evidence of reality. Whatever we should do, talking is not meaningful with a regime that does not even pay diplomats (they are required to sell drugs to finance their offices and saleries).

I don't believe you are "interested in discussing what the practical consequences of our actions are." You display no willingness to even admit any good consequences, no matter how great they are. You only say our actions must end in disaster. Well, no disasters yet, unless you count Madrid and its fallout, removing Spains participation in Iraq. We are in a war, and the enemy deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure, not even a legitimate target. We cannot defend worldwide all infrastructure, and I promise, we will lose more before the war is over. But that is not a consequence of our acts, it is a consequence of enemy acts. You are not talking about how to defeat the enemy. Start, or I will ignore you.

You have missed this - I have done it before - so I will give only the short version (a repeat). Imperialism (capital I) was a formal, defined state policy. My own ancestors were victimized by it. It was perfected in the British Isles before it was exported worldwide, in competition with other truly imperial systems (small i) which were not nearly as successful. There is nothing about present US policy that is remotely like Imperialism was (capital or small i). There is no one meeting to plan the exploitation of labor in China, or whereever, as you say. A great deal of what is happening is normal, natural, and completely unrelated to planning. But it is not our plans that put Chinese in sweatshops.

Rebrooku, what have you done that is so heroic that you can call others cowards? Have you volunteered to serve your country in its wars? Have you dared to make even one positive suggestion (that might fail) about how to win the war? It takes moral courage to try to work out policy - something I find no trace of in your posts. And it takes physical courage to volunteer to serve in intelligene, the military, etc. Until you do these sorts of things, please do not call cowards those who have served, and who are trying to work out a policy.