it's just mugging, with better weapons. participants are criminals, if there were a competent court. but the international criminal court is not competent, because the biggest and most noisome criminal societies refuse to accept judgment, and have the military means to repel sanctions.

america's wars have never been about self-defense, they are always fought on other people's land. even ww2, arguably a just war, was only entered when attempts to limit japan's power were unsuccessful. america intended that there be only one empire in the pacific, their own.

america has been 'defending' itself since 1776, and after each defense, america was larger. if you see glory in this, imagine military patrols cruising through your home town, wearing, for instance, chinese uniforms. how would you feel then about their use of phrases like "free-fire-zone", and "collateral damage"? does the term "robust interrogation" seem as reasonable if americans were the interrogated?

for a people who endlessly claim to be christian, it is strange how little understanding you have about the golden rule.

it comes down to this: get your imperial armies off other people's lands. the money you save will cause a golden age in the american economy, as well as give you a better shot at getting into heaven. stop propping up dictatorships, they only ever benefited a few corporations like united fruit, or halliburton. try doing good in the world, and america will benefit as a whole.

or go on as you have been, sinking ever deeper into militarism, economic collapse, and simple moral depravity. all the sign-posts say: "wrong way, go back", but your leaders have no ideas beyond (if i'm leader, what can be wrong?) more of the same. save yourselves by putting yourselves in charge of your nation: find out what democracy really is, and get it. you don't have much time...

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is knowledge.

Issues are black and white.

People who disagree with you have black hearts and probably eat babies.

Shut up, please.

Kade, if you disagree with the poster you shouldn't tell him/her to "shut up," you should try to disprove his/her arguments. Or offer some arguments of your own.

jpperry:

Kade, if you disagree with the poster you shouldn't tell him/her to "shut up," you should try to disprove his/her arguments. Or offer some arguments of your own.

I'd have to go with Scott Adams' line of thinking on this--the only answer to a stupid argument is another stupid (though intentionally in this case) stupid argument. Kade is pretty much right on here.

On most boards I'd figure the OP was just a troll. Not on Slate, though...

Bullshit. The original poster is entirely correct. Details such as knowledge of how United Fruit was the reason for many S American military interventions indicate a command of history. The responses here indicate a failing education system when "shut up" is considered an erudite refutation of a concise insightful argument. If an argument is "stupid," then it does not follow that it's rebuttal must also be stupid. Or perhaps that is just how you roll.

Agreed. Mr. Loomis isn't wrong yet, not by any argument I've seen in response.

The OP seems to be speaking from somewhere outside the U.S. yet doesn't have the courage to say from where. My guess is that it is a country that we have spilled OUR blood to bail his countrymen's asses out of the fire.

Could it be France or Russia?

My point is that this WORLD is an unsafe place and time and time again, it is the WORLD that asks the U.S. to bail them out. If not by action, then financially.

Do not critisize us if you want us to help you. Otherwize keep you mouth shut or pick up a weapon and stand opposed.

Still doesn't disprove his premise, Steve.

He might be from the US.

The world hasn't "asked" us to help in a while now. When they asked during WW2, we declined, until we had our own interests brought to the forefront by Japan.

If the world asked for us to intervene in Vietnam - well, we came up a bit short there then.

If the OP is a Roosky, how odd that he shares his views with the other police state, Russia - the country we've spent 3 decades in a Cold War with. You can characterize him as ungrateful, but I think that ship has sailed anyways.

We have helped a lot of countries - often times by splitting them up, like parents dealing with feuding children by drawing lines on the floor of their room. It fixes things temporarily, but does little in long-term solutions (see: Eastern Europe, 1993-today).

So, basing your position on a superior stance that went out-of-style and out-of-reason in 1950 doesn't refute the claims made by the OP.

Maybe the OP is from a tryanny-ravaged, genocide-committing African country. Then he really wouldn't have any problem with the US interceding too much.

I dunno, I'm just a simple American guy who likes to look at things objectively and likes to adhere to un-biased reasoning when it comes to the improprieties of our foreign relations.

I also am an American Legion Award winner. So please don't place me in any of your fictitious foreign countries either.

Shoot, I almost forgot....

Al Loomis could be from China or Japan. They are "bailing" out the US financially for this war in Iraq (that no one but independent oil companies asked for) to the percentage of 25% each. And just like our "bailing out" of other foreign countries, they'll be getting it all back from US with hefty interest.

Your assertion that WWII was not about self defense is simply wrong. We only entered WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. An unprovoked attack.

And you act as though our efforts to limit Japanese power in East Asia were somehow not a good idea. Ask the Chinese and Koreans how well they were treated by the Japanese after they were occupied by them.

Your assertion that our armies are "imperial' is also wrong. We don't have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc... because we have made them part of our empire. Most of the governments where we have troops do not want us to leave. And that presently goes for Afghanistan and Iraq too. Considering that America is arguably the most powerful nation in the history of the world, our touch has been pretty light compared to history's other major powers. Believe me, if the US was committed to creating a world empire, you'd know it, and the world would look much different than it does now.

Your comments remind me of accounts of American complaints about British hegemony in the 19th century. We complained bitterly about "Pax Britannica" and the war mongering British Empire. The whole while we benefitted from the stability brought by the British, allowing us to build commercial empires.

The thing is, some of your points are perfectly valid. We (like almost every other nation) have engaged in many wars that were not for self defense. We have "propped up" dictatorships. We've done awful things in our history, we continue to make mistakes.

But we've also done much good in the world, and your post doesn't account for that. I dare say we've done more good in the world than the 20th century's other candidates for global hegemony (Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, etc...) would have done had they come out on top.