によって Jar Foglar 13年前.
286
もっと見る
The initial impulse behind these dispersed maritime empires and those that followed was trade, driven by the new ideas and the capitalism that grew out of the European Renaissance. Agreements were also done to divide the world up between them in 1479, 1493, and 1494.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
For example, because of the Spanish Empire's territories around the globe, it was often said in the 16th century that "the sun never sets on the Spanish Empire." This phrase could have been applied before with the Portuguese Empire [1] but it was eventually re-used later concerning to the Russian Empire and British Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
Empire — continued as the Soviet Union — became the largest contiguous state in the world, and the latter's main successor, Russia, continues to be so to this day. Despite having "lost" its Soviet periphery, Russia has 12 time zones, stretching slightly over half the world's longitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
se.
Subsequent global empires included the French, Dutch, and British empires. The latter, consolidated during the period of British maritime hegemony in the 19th century, became the largest empire in history by virtue of the improved transportation technologies of the time. At its height, the British Empire covered a quarter of the Earth's land area and comprised a quarter of its population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
During its Siglo de Oro, the Spanish Empire had possession of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, most of Italy, parts of Germany, parts of France, and many colonies in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. With the conquest of inland Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines in the 16th century, Spain established overseas dominions on a scale and world distribution that had never been approached by its predecessors (the Mongol Empire had been larger but was restricted to Eurasia). Possessions in Europe, Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, the Americas, the Pacific Ocean, and the Far East qualified the Spanish Empire as attaining a global presence in this sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
Portugal began establishing the first global trade network and empire under the leadership of Henry the Navigator. Portugal would eventually establish colonial domains from Brazil, in South America, to several colonies in Africa (namely Portuguese Guinea, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, Angola and Mozambique), in Portuguese India (most importantly Bombay and Goa), in China (Macau), and Oceania (most importantly Timor, namely East Timor), amongst many other smaller or short-lived possessions (see Evolution of the Portuguese Empire).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
The first global empires were a product of the European Age of Exploration that began with a race of exploration between the then most advanced maritime powers, Portugal and Spain, in the 15th century. The initial impulse behind these dispersed maritime empires and those that followed was trade, driven by the new ideas and the capitalism that grew out of the European Renaissance. Agreements were also done to divide the world up between them in 1479, 1493, and 1494.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
A global empire involves the extension of a state's sovereignty over territories all around the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Empire
NATO použito k nátlaku na Rzsko
The US military has been stellar at creating the illusion of a smaller military then the one that actually exists by using many thousands of contractors. Soldiers now are just to be "trigger pullers," with everything else farmed out. But, beyond this is that the military is trying to expand in some locations, such as Vincenza, Italy. Not reported much in the US media, but 70,000 protestors showed up. Seems they don't like the CIA kidnarpping alleged local "terrorists" for extradition to Egypt and certain torture. But, what is really needed is for these countries to simply throw the empire out, throw the USA out. Time to collapse NATO as well, it simply now is being used as a way for the USA to "pressure Russia" and other countries with military hegemony. Same thing in all the other countries, throw the USA out, throw out the treaties and other relics. It is time for a new future.***diskuse http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
Something that is rarely mentioned regearding the US empire is that our economy is inextricably linked to sustaining an empire. The dominance of petrodollars (for example) sustains a false integrity. If we were to truly withdraw from Iraq and from the Middle East and from all the other places where we keep our weapons locked and loaded, it is likely that these places would diversify there economies, perhaps trading in petroeuros instead, the US would collapse like a deflating balloon. This is why the democrats are such wimps, they are afraid of the potential for a real economic crisis. We should be figuring out how to transition from empire to just another country...***diskuse http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
Sooner or later, the American people must be made to understand that the choice is between noninterventionism and barbarism. Americans are naïve: they believe in the myth of automatic progress, the illusion of history as an ever ascending stairway to higher levels of civilization, but the truth is far grimmer. Empires rise – and fall. Dark ages follow. The kind of degeneracy we are now seeing acted out in Iraq promises a fall that will plumb new depths of darkness."***diskuse http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
In 1997, the neoconservative front organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), began promoting foreign policy initiatives not permitted by the Constitution, such as:
1. Global domination with America's armed forces stationed at enduring installations around the world including permanent bases in Iraq, which the Pentagon has never denied.
2. Regime change of governments hostile to U.S interests.
3. First strikes against countries that appear to be a threat.
4. Preventive war. *** disuse
According to PNAC doctrine published during the Clinton years, to insure that the United States would remain the world's top super power, no other nation would be allowed to reach military parity.
To achieve global domination, PNAC advocated increased defense spending to build an army, air force and navy capable of fighting major land wars in two separate theaters, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not coincidentally, PNAC was founded by the architects of Gulf War 2: Vice President Cheney, Scooter Libby, ex-DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his former assistant turned World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, and the current U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Kahilizad. President Bush is connected to PNAC through his brother, Jeb, one of its founders.***diskuse
Israel, the USA's best friend and co-dependent partner in the Empire are the big bully's in the world. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
_________________________
The Anomaly: Israel in the Imperial System
Israel is clearly a colonialist power, with the fourth or fifth biggest nuclear arsenal and the second biggest arms exporter in the world. Its population size, territorial spread and economy however are puny in comparison with the imperial and newly emerging imperial powers. Despite these limitations Israel exercises supreme power in influencing the direction of United States war policy in the Middle East via a powerful Zionist political apparatus, which permeates the State, the mass media, elite economic sectors and civil society. Through Israel’s direct political influence in making US foreign policy, as well as through its overseas military collaboration with dictatorial imperial client regimes, Israel can be considered part of the imperial power configuration despite its demographic constraints, its near universal pariah diplomatic status, and its externally sustained economy.***diskuse http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
>>
With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it's time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned zplodit a global empire. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
________________________________
It is not easy, however, to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records available to the public on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual inventories from 2002 to 2005 of real property it owns around the world, the Base Structure Report, there has been an immense churning in the numbers of installations.
Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 -- mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets -- almost exactly equals Britain's thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
________________________________
These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails, for instance, to mention any garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which Kosovo is still officially a province) -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
The USA is the Number 1 exporter of weapons of destruction http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
If we are to see a real global body that works, then we will need this impressive American global empire to be handed over to the UN or its replacement. Liberals take note: the US military is the model to follow.*** diskuse http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
The extent of the U.S. global empire is almost incalculable. The latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense states that the Department’s physical assets consist of "more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures, at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres." The exact number of locations is then given as 6,702 – divided into large installations (115), medium installations (115), and small installations/locations (6,472). This classification can be deceiving, however, because installations are only classified as small if they have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of less than $800 million.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html
________________________
Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial "footprint" and the militarism that grows with it.http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/
So what’s wrong with the U.S. global empire? In answer to the above query, I came up with ten things. The responses are not in any particular order, and could certainly be expanded upon further.
1. What’s right about it? This is perhaps the most important response because it puts the question right back where it should be – on those who support the U.S. global empire. If someone is going to advocate some activity, he should be responsible to explain why it is necessary or why it is a positive thing. It should not be left up those who don’t advocate that particular activity to explain what the potential negative effects are. Are there any really positive things that result from the United States having its troops scattered around the globe? I mean things that could never be achieved by some other way. I can’t think of any. This does not mean that no one benefits from the U.S. global empire. The military industrial complex benefits. Nationals contracted by the U.S. military in their country to work on U.S. military installations benefit. Stockholders in companies that serve as defense contractors might benefit. But do the American people as a whole benefit?
2. It is unnatural. It is not natural for the United States (or any country) to have an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe. Why should any U.S. troops ever leave American soil or American territorial waters? Suppose that the countries of Tunisia, Sweden, and Kenya announced that they were going to build military bases in the United States. Or suppose that the countries of Pakistan, Cameroon, and Bolivia announced that they were sending troops to the United States. These would be viewed as acts of aggression. Yet, why is it that the American people think nothing of the United States garrisoning the planet?
3. It is very expensive. The money factor cannot be ignored. Even without fighting a war, it costs a lot of money (the American taxpayers’ money) to pay, house, feed, and provide medical care for thousands of American soldiers. Then there are the expenses for weapons, ships, tanks, fuel, etc. Robert Higgs has recently estimated that "the government’s total military-related outlays in fiscal year 2006 will be in the neighborhood of $840 billion – or, approximately a third of the total budget." In Old Right conservative John T. Flynn’s "A Rejected Manuscript," from Forgotten Lessons, a collection of his essays, he explains that "the oldest of all rackets for spending the people’s money is the institution of militarism. It creates a host of jobs – at low wages – in the armed services plus the far better paid and numerous jobs and dividends in the industries which produce the arms, provide the sailors and soldiers with food, clothes, medical care, and, juiciest of all, the weapons of war."
4. It is against the principles of the Founding Fathers. Sending troops overseas, building military bases in foreign countries, and making alliances is foreign interventionism, pure and simple. The Founding Fathers recommended a noninterventionist foreign policy, and for good reason. George Washington warned against "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." He also said: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson stated: "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." John Quincy Adams would certainly not have approved of current U.S. foreign policy since he said that "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy." Were they transported to the twenty-first century, would Washington, Jefferson, and Adams even recognize the American republic today as the same country in which they served as president?
5. It fosters undesirable activity. As I pointed out in my article "Should a Christian Join the Military?" Chalmers Johnson, of the Japan Policy Research Institute, in his seminal work Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, has described the network of bars, strip clubs, whorehouses, and VD clinics that surround U.S. bases overseas. The former U.S. naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines "had no industry nearby except for the ‘entertainment’ business, which supported approximately 55,000 prostitutes and a total of 2,182 registered establishments offering ‘rest and recreation’ to American servicemen." At the annual Cobra Gold joint military exercise in Thailand: "Some three thousand prostitutes wait for sailors and marines at the South Pattaya waterfront, close to Utapao air base." Johnson has also chronicled the excessive crime rates among American servicemen stationed in Okinawa – "the 58-year-long record of sexual assaults, bar brawls, muggings, drug violations, drunken driving accidents, and arson cases all committed by privileged young men who proclaim they are in Okinawa to protect the people from the dangers of political ‘instability’ elsewhere in East Asia."
6. It increases hatred of Americans. One need look no further than the "welcome" our troops have received in Iraq. Of the 1,569 American military deaths in Iraq, 1,102 of them have occurred since the capture of Saddam Hussein. (The actual figures may in fact be higher – which means that more senseless deaths of Americans have occurred since the writing of this article). Why was Osama bin Laden so upset with the United States? He was outraged by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. In 2002, after two U.S. soldiers were acquitted by a U.S. military court in South Korea of negligent homicide in the deaths of two Korean schoolgirls, Koreans demonstrated, burned American flags, chanted anti-American slogans, and demanded that U.S. troops leave the country. Hatred of the United States is not a result of our freedoms and our values, it is a direct result of our intervention into the affairs of other countries and our military presence around the world.
7. It perverts the purpose of the military. The purpose of the U.S. military should be to defend the United States. That’s it. Nothing more. Using the military for any other purpose perverts the purpose of the military. The U.S. military has no business attempting to bring democracy to the world, remove dictators, spread goodwill, fight communism or Islam, guarantee the neutrality of any country, change a regime that is not friendly to the United States, train the armies of other countries, open foreign markets, protect U.S. commercial interests, provide disaster relief, or provide humanitarian aid. The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking them. What are U.S. troops doing overseas when the border between Mexico and the United States is not even secure?
8. It increases the size and scope of the government. There is no way a country can have hundreds of bases and thousands of troops overseas without a substantial and onerous bureaucracy at home. Cold warrior William F. Buckley admitted as much in his 1952 article in The Commonweal, "A Young Republican View": "We have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged given our present government skills except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." Buckley went on to recommend that we support "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington." It is no wonder that the "conservative" Buckley was branded by Murray Rothbard as "a totalitarian socialist," and rightly so, for intervention abroad cannot but follow intervention at home. The practice of "national greatness" conservativism abroad and "leave us alone" conservatism at home, as espoused by Michael Barone, Andrew Sullivan, and assorted neoconservatives, is an impossibility. As Justin Raimondo explains: "It doesn’t work that way. We can’t have an Empire abroad, and a Republic at home (except in name only) for the simple reason that the tax monies it takes to build mighty fleets and bases all around the world, to police the earth and humble the wicked, must be enormous. Furthermore, the sheer power it takes to direct these armies, to say whether there shall be war or peace on a global scale, is necessarily imperial, and cannot be republican in any meaningful sense of the word. For this sort of power, i.e. military power, must be highly centralized in order to be effectively wielded: an interventionist foreign policy necessarily turns the President into an Emperor, as Congress has learned partly to its relief and often to its sorrow."
9. It makes countries dependent on the presence of the U.S. military. This is especially true in countries where U.S. troops have had a presence for decades. Consider the case of Germany. The United States recently sought to punish Germany for leading international opposition to the war in Iraq by withdrawing some U.S. troops from German soil. The planned withdrawal of troops was designed to harm the German economy and make an example of Germany. But even if troop withdrawals are not retaliatory in nature, the fact remains that the local economies in the occupied countries suffer because they become dependent upon the presence of the U.S. military. The threat or even the mention of troop withdrawals causes unnecessary contention between nations.
10. The United States is not the world’s policeman. It’s a dirty job. It’s a thankless job. It’s an impossible job. And no, someone does not really have to do it. Why, then, do we even try? We cannot police the world. We have no right to police the world. It is the height of arrogance to try and remake the world in our image. Most of what happens in the world is none of our concern and certainly none of our business. If the people in a country don’t like their ruler, then they should get rid of him, not look to the United States to intervene. Actually, though, most of the time it is the United States that institutes a regime change. If Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims want to terrorize each other – it is a tragic thing, but nothing the United States should get involved in. If India and Pakistan want to endlessly debate the Kashmir Question, then let them endlessly debate it. Why should we get involved? What would we think if India or Pakistan tried to intervene in a border dispute between the United States and Mexico? If the Hutus and the Tutsis battle it out in Africa – it is a terrible thing but none of our business. If an individual American feels that strongly about either side, he can pray for peace, he can send money to the side he favors, or he can go to Africa and enlist in the Hutu or Tutsi army and fight. If North and South Vietnam have a quarrel – it is not worth the lives of over 58,000 Americans (the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC now lists 58,245 names), the wounding of 304,000 Americans, and the disabling of 75,000 of those wounded (over 23,000 were totally disabled) to intervene. It is not worth the life of one American. It is strange how advocates of U.S. wars, interventions, and militarism consider opponents of these things to be un-patriotic and anti-American when those who are for non-intervention are the ones concerned about the life of even one American being used as cannon fodder for the state. Being the world’s policeman also entails bribing countries with foreign aid – a subject I have explored elsewhere.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
10. The United States is not the world’s policeman. It’s a dirty job. It’s a thankless job. It’s an impossible job. And no, someone does not really have to do it. Why, then, do we even try? We cannot police the world. We have no right to police the world. It is the height of arrogance to try and remake the world in our image. Most of what happens in the world is none of our concern and certainly none of our business. If the people in a country don’t like their ruler, then they should get rid of him, not look to the United States to intervene. Actually, though, most of the time it is the United States that institutes a regime change. If Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims want to terrorize each other – it is a tragic thing, but nothing the United States should get involved in. If India and Pakistan want to endlessly debate the Kashmir Question, then let them endlessly debate it. Why should we get involved? What would we think if India or Pakistan tried to intervene in a border dispute between the United States and Mexico? If the Hutus and the Tutsis battle it out in Africa – it is a terrible thing but none of our business. If an individual American feels that strongly about either side, he can pray for peace, he can send money to the side he favors, or he can go to Africa and enlist in the Hutu or Tutsi army and fight. If North and South Vietnam have a quarrel – it is not worth the lives of over 58,000 Americans (the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC now lists 58,245 names), the wounding of 304,000 Americans, and the disabling of 75,000 of those wounded (over 23,000 were totally disabled) to intervene. It is not worth the life of one American. It is strange how advocates of U.S. wars, interventions, and militarism consider opponents of these things to be un-patriotic and anti-American when those who are for non-intervention are the ones concerned about the life of even one American being used as cannon fodder for the state. Being the world’s policeman also entails bribing countries with foreign aid – a subject I have explored elsewhere.
9. It makes countries dependent on the presence of the U.S. military. This is especially true in countries where U.S. troops have had a presence for decades. Consider the case of Germany. The United States recently sought to punish Germany for leading international opposition to the war in Iraq by withdrawing some U.S. troops from German soil. The planned withdrawal of troops was designed to harm the German economy and make an example of Germany. But even if troop withdrawals are not retaliatory in nature, the fact remains that the local economies in the occupied countries suffer because they become dependent upon the presence of the U.S. military. The threat or even the mention of troop withdrawals causes unnecessary contention between nations.
-----
Does this U.S. global presence mean that the United States has an empire? It is an empire in everything but name. Supposedly sovereign, free, and independent countries can’t even have an election without the United States intervening. Yes, there is a high probability of fraud in some foreign elections. But not only are foreign elections none of our business, how would we feel if China, Kenya, Belarus, or Botswana sent "observers" to supervise our elections because of the high probability of fraud?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
8. It increases the size and scope of the government. There is no way a country can have hundreds of bases and thousands of troops overseas without a substantial and onerous bureaucracy at home. Cold warrior William F. Buckley admitted as much in his 1952 article in The Commonweal, "A Young Republican View": "We have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged given our present government skills except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." Buckley went on to recommend that we support "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington." It is no wonder that the "conservative" Buckley was branded by Murray Rothbard as "a totalitarian socialist," and rightly so, for intervention abroad cannot but follow intervention at home. The practice of "national greatness" conservativism abroad and "leave us alone" conservatism at home, as espoused by Michael Barone, Andrew Sullivan, and assorted neoconservatives, is an impossibility. As Justin Raimondo explains: "It doesn’t work that way. We can’t have an Empire abroad, and a Republic at home (except in name only) for the simple reason that the tax monies it takes to build mighty fleets and bases all around the world, to police the earth and humble the wicked, must be enormous. Furthermore, the sheer power it takes to direct these armies, to say whether there shall be war or peace on a global scale, is necessarily imperial, and cannot be republican in any meaningful sense of the word. For this sort of power, i.e. military power, must be highly centralized in order to be effectively wielded: an interventionist foreign policy necessarily turns the President into an Emperor, as Congress has learned partly to its relief and often to its sorrow."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
7. It perverts the purpose of the military. The purpose of the U.S. military should be to defend the United States. That’s it. Nothing more. Using the military for any other purpose perverts the purpose of the military. The U.S. military has no business attempting to bring democracy to the world, remove dictators, spread goodwill, fight communism or Islam, guarantee the neutrality of any country, change a regime that is not friendly to the United States, train the armies of other countries, open foreign markets, protect U.S. commercial interests, provide disaster relief, or provide humanitarian aid. The U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking them. What are U.S. troops doing overseas when the border between Mexico and the United States is not even secure?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
6. It increases hatred of Americans. One need look no further than the "welcome" our troops have received in Iraq. Of the 1,569 American military deaths in Iraq, 1,102 of them have occurred since the capture of Saddam Hussein. (The actual figures may in fact be higher – which means that more senseless deaths of Americans have occurred since the writing of this article). Why was Osama bin Laden so upset with the United States? He was outraged by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. In 2002, after two U.S. soldiers were acquitted by a U.S. military court in South Korea of negligent homicide in the deaths of two Korean schoolgirls, Koreans demonstrated, burned American flags, chanted anti-American slogans, and demanded that U.S. troops leave the country. Hatred of the United States is not a result of our freedoms and our values, it is a direct result of our intervention into the affairs of other countries and our military presence around the world.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
5. It fosters undesirable activity. As I pointed out in my article "Should a Christian Join the Military?" Chalmers Johnson, of the Japan Policy Research Institute, in his seminal work Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, has described the network of bars, strip clubs, whorehouses, and VD clinics that surround U.S. bases overseas. The former U.S. naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines "had no industry nearby except for the ‘entertainment’ business, which supported approximately 55,000 prostitutes and a total of 2,182 registered establishments offering ‘rest and recreation’ to American servicemen." At the annual Cobra Gold joint military exercise in Thailand: "Some three thousand prostitutes wait for sailors and marines at the South Pattaya waterfront, close to Utapao air base." Johnson has also chronicled the excessive crime rates among American servicemen stationed in Okinawa – "the 58-year-long record of sexual assaults, bar brawls, muggings, drug violations, drunken driving accidents, and arson cases all committed by privileged young men who proclaim they are in Okinawa to protect the people from the dangers of political ‘instability’ elsewhere in East Asia."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
4. It is against the principles of the Founding Fathers. Sending troops overseas, building military bases in foreign countries, and making alliances is foreign interventionism, pure and simple. The Founding Fathers recommended a noninterventionist foreign policy, and for good reason. George Washington warned against "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." He also said: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson stated: "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." John Quincy Adams would certainly not have approved of current U.S. foreign policy since he said that "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy." Were they transported to the twenty-first century, would Washington, Jefferson, and Adams even recognize the American republic today as the same country in which they served as president?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
3. It is very expensive. The money factor cannot be ignored. Even without fighting a war, it costs a lot of money (the American taxpayers’ money) to pay, house, feed, and provide medical care for thousands of American soldiers. Then there are the expenses for weapons, ships, tanks, fuel, etc. Robert Higgs has recently estimated that "the government’s total military-related outlays in fiscal year 2006 will be in the neighborhood of $840 billion – or, approximately a third of the total budget." In Old Right conservative John T. Flynn’s "A Rejected Manuscript," from Forgotten Lessons, a collection of his essays, he explains that "the oldest of all rackets for spending the people’s money is the institution of militarism. It creates a host of jobs – at low wages – in the armed services plus the far better paid and numerous jobs and dividends in the industries which produce the arms, provide the sailors and soldiers with food, clothes, medical care, and, juiciest of all, the weapons of war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
2. It is unnatural. It is not natural for the United States (or any country) to have an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe. Why should any U.S. troops ever leave American soil or American territorial waters? Suppose that the countries of Tunisia, Sweden, and Kenya announced that they were going to build military bases in the United States. Or suppose that the countries of Pakistan, Cameroon, and Bolivia announced that they were sending troops to the United States. These would be viewed as acts of aggression. Yet, why is it that the American people think nothing of the United States garrisoning the planet?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
1. What’s right about it? This is perhaps the most important response because it puts the question right back where it should be – on those who support the U.S. global empire. If someone is going to advocate some activity, he should be responsible to explain why it is necessary or why it is a positive thing. It should not be left up those who don’t advocate that particular activity to explain what the potential negative effects are. Are there any really positive things that result from the United States having its troops scattered around the globe? I mean things that could never be achieved by some other way. I can’t think of any. This does not mean that no one benefits from the U.S. global empire. The military industrial complex benefits. Nationals contracted by the U.S. military in their country to work on U.S. military installations benefit. Stockholders in companies that serve as defense contractors might benefit. But do the American people as a whole benefit?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
Nothing, however, compares to the U.S. global empire. What makes U.S. hegemony unique is that it consists, not of control over great land masses or population centers, but of a global presence unlike that of any other country in history.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html
____________________
recently received the above question, which is apparently a belated response to my articles last year on the U.S. global empire: "The U.S. Global Empire," "The Bases of Empire," and "Guarding the Empire." There I documented that the U.S. has an empire of troops and bases the world over and explained that what makes U.S. hegemony unique is that it consists, not of control over great land masses or population centers, but of a global presence unlike that of any other country in history.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance41.html
________
