why don't centrists condemn US imperialism???

[welshTerrier2]

why does it seem that, when discussions about empire and oil and CIA activity inside sovereign nations and assassinations and all the economic exploitation are being debated, it's always the "usual suspects" of DU's "lefties"?

so, question one is whether it is true that centrists don't show much interest in this topic ...

question two is whether moderates or centrists or whatever they prefer to be called think such US policies are unethical and NOT in the national interest ...

do the center and the left agree that unless there is an "imminent threat" to our country by a foreign government, we have no right to intervene inside another sovereign country?

the following article from today's Guardian indicates that the US is ILLEGALLY involved in a civil conflict inside Somalia ... here's an excerpt:

source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1868920,00.html

Dramatic evidence that America is involved in illegal mercenary operations in east Africa has emerged in a string of confidential emails seen by The Observer. The leaked communications between US private military companies suggest the CIA had knowledge of the plans to run covert military operations inside Somalia - against UN rulings - and they hint at involvement of British security firms.

The emails, dated June this year, reveal how US firms have been planning undercover missions in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf's transitional federal government - founded with UN backing in 2004 - against the Supreme Islamic Courts Council - a radical Muslim militia which took control of Mogadishu, the country's capital, also in June promising national unity under Sharia law.

Evidence of foreign involvement in the conflict would not only breach the UN arms embargo but could destabilise the entire region. <skip>

a related excerpt from the widely respected "Africa Confidential" newsletter follows ...

source: http://www.africa-confidential.com/index.aspx?pageid=21

8th September 2006
Mission Mogadishu
An American private security company, Select Armor, has been planning military operations in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf's Transitional Federal Government in Somalia and raising questions about an attack on Mogadishu, according to documents obtained by Africa Confidential. The documents refer to Uganda's willingness to secure arms supplies using its own end-user certificates (in contravention of the UN arms embargo) and makes disparaging remarks about 'the fucks' in the United Nations who have been 'snooping around' Select Armor's personnel.

and finally, one of the security training firms, Florida-based ATS (slogan: wherever you are going, ATS has already been there), referred to in the first article, includes a number of course descriptions in their catalog such as: Urban Sniper, Three Gun Terminator and Close Quarter Combat ... The sniper courses include topics like the following in case you're interested in signing up: Support for entry teams, Sniper initiated entry, Stalking.

Training centers like this one that COULD be used for legal or legitimate purposes may not be, per se, illegal or improper ... when they are acting inside a sovereign nation, as is alleged here, they should be shut down ...

again, is this a left-center-right issue? do DU's centrists agree that this type of intrusion into sovereign states against the will of the UN requires investigation? should this issue be investigated by the Congress if Democrats win the House and/or Senate? should Democrats call for investigations NOW?

[LostInAnomie]

1. One problem is that as far as centrists are concerned...

... America's best interests are inextricably tied to our expanding economic influence. As long as we are not overtly taking over and annexing a country it simply does not register in most peoples' minds that imperialism is going on. The results are still the same though. Why take over a country when you can dismantle their culture and make them your economic slave?

[welshTerrier2]

2. supporting the installation of "democratic" governments

the latest craze, popularized by the PNAC boys, is to "spread democracy" to throughout the Middle East ...

and, while it's more than clear they want those "democratically elected leaders" to be US puppets, i've increasingly come to believe that they really do prefer to hold elections instead of dealing with authoritarian governments ...

the reason for this comes back to which form of government is easier to manipulate ... with a dictator, you might or might not be able to control them ... they often have absolute power over their country's military and can use almost limitless force against any fledgling opposition ...

this is not the case with elected governments ... it seems to me it would be easier to "topple" a foreign leader by spending a little campaign money on the opposition ... you could also put out some negative propaganda to weaken their electoral chances ... a leader like that could be "influenced" much more easily if they wanted to remain in power and win their next election ...

so, i've come to believe that the neocons really do prefer so-called democracies instead of dictatorships ... their reasons have nothing to do with building a "government of the people"; it's all about control and exploitation ...

[LostInAnomie]

3. I would think it would be much easier to control...

... a US appointed dictator. Dictators know that they only can rule as long as they are protected. If they do not serve our will we would simply quit funding them. No US funding, no protection.

As we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, democratically elected officials are not easy to control. Our invasion angered most of the people in those countries and they have elected officials that reflect their anti-American sentiments.

Our imperialism really has little to do with the expansion of our government's control. It is about the expansion of the interests of the rich. Our government is just willing to serve those interests.

[xchrom]

4. ''centrists'' wittingly or unwittingly support u.s. economic primacy.

they BELIEVE in american exceptionalism at their core.

therefore -- in an with nafta, cafta, pnac, unprecedented wealth expansion of the top 2% -- there are no ''centrists''.

[TitanicWreck]

5. American exceptionalism redefines imperialism for many Americans

Many Americans, on the right and left, allow American exceptionalism to distort thier perceptions of American history and politics. In the world of the American exceptinalist, if America engages in torture- its not seen as torture, When America enges in imperialism, its not really imperialism. This is the kind of blind arrogance that lead to the fall of the British Empire, and will lead to the fall of the American empire..

[IndianaGreen]

6. They care more about the value of their stocks

and don't want to know how corporations improve the bottom line, such as by ditching their pension plans.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Because they are perfectly fine with it?

eom

[leesa]

8. Because so-called centrists ARE imperialists.

Might makes right. My guess is that if you think either one of these things is the right thing to do you are an imperialist. Who are we to be inserting troops, private or otherwise into a sovereign nation? How often do we need to find out the evil economic motive behind these actions after some catastrophe?

[tulip]

9. Where have you been?

Don't you folks research before you post? I am not a centrist but am a left leaning moderate and we talk about it all the time. Write about. Blog about it. Scream about it. Some moderate politicians do talk about it. Pay attention.

[welshTerrier2]

10. show me some DU posts to support this ...

you say "we" write about it all the time ... first, i hope that's accurate ...

but i don't hear elected Democrats talking about bush going to war BECAUSE OF oil ... i don't hear Democrats talking about the 2002 coup in Venezuela BECAUSE OF oil ... i don't hear Democrats talking about the strangehold Big Oil has on the US government and how it's totally corrupted our democratic processes ...

where have I been? educate me ... where have you been and what have you heard?

while you're at it, point me to some DU threads where DU's moderates have addressed this issue ... i've made numerous posts on the subject and in my threads, it's always the same old crowd of posters ... if i've missed moderates "talking about it all the time", show me where ...

[RiffRandell]

11. I specIfically remember Al Gore saying, much to your chagrin,

because you love to complain and whine about dems......anyway he said on Larry King after 9/11 that ifg he were prez, he would have used the patriotism to get off foreign oil......what a smart man he is..can't believe people thought there was no difference between him and Dubya......YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!! Al Gore did address this issue.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

17. no, YOU are wrong ... your post is not even responsive

here's why: "getting off of foreign oil" does not speak to imperialism ... it is, instead, a long term energy policy, albeit a good one, that may weaken the grip of Big Oil on American foreign policy but it fails to acknowledge the corruption of our democracy and the failure of our government to have in place the necessary oversight and control systems to ensure that government is acting in the best interests of ALL its citizens rather than a select few ... the issue raised here is NOT just foreign oil but rather good governance leading to sound policy ...

that we have had electric cars in the past and they were abandoned as a technology is exactly the problem we need to address ... saying we need to have electric cars or alternative energy sources that don't burn fossil fuels is a great idea; recognizing that our democratic institutions are controlled by Big Oil and other mega-corporations that direct and control American foreign and domestic policy is an entirely different issue ...

of course, you completely failed to take into account what i actually wrote in my post ... you just toss around the same old personal attacks without actually responding to what i actually wrote ... let's look at it together, shall we:

why does it seem that, when discussions about empire and oil and CIA activity inside sovereign nations and assassinations and all the economic exploitation are being debated, it's always the "usual suspects" of DU's "lefties"?

so, question one is whether it is true that centrists don't show much interest in this topic .

note that the OP made no criticism of Democrats ... it talked about centrists ... and note that in doing so, it "asked", it didn't tell, whether the perception was accurate ... and, of course, you didn't address any of that at all ... you chose not to respond to whether centrists do focus on improper intrusions by the US into sovereign states ... you didn't discuss assassinations ... and you made no mention of economic exploitation ... sort of confirms my hypothesis as far as your own response goes, doesn't it?

and then, in the reply i made to another post to which you responded, i wrote:

but i don't hear elected Democrats talking about bush going to war BECAUSE OF oil ... i don't hear Democrats talking about the 2002 coup in Venezuela BECAUSE OF oil ... i don't hear Democrats talking about the strangehold Big Oil has on the US government and how it's totally corrupted our democratic processes ...

and to this, you chose to focus on what Al Gore said we should "get off foreign oil" ... first, i like Al Gore ... i've watched many of his speeches ... and perhaps he's even addressed the issue i'm raising in this thread; you certainly are NOT, however ...

let's see whether "Al Gore saying we should get off foreign oil" responds to the following points i made (this should determine whether your reply was at all responsive) ...

here was the first point: "bush going to war BECAUSE OF oil" ... does "getting off foreign oil" argue that bush went to war because of oil? i don't think it quite says that, does it?

and the second point: "the 2002 coup in Venezuela BECAUSE OF oil" ... does "getting off foreign oil" argue that Big Oil pushed the US government into deposing Chavez in 2002? ... ummmm, no, it certainly doesn't say that, does it??

and, point three, what about the overall control Big Oil has on our government and how it corrupts our democratic institutions? does "getting off foreign oil" acknowledge that our governmment has been taken over by mega-corporations especially including Big Oil ... well, no, it does NOT ...

since you're not likely to actually respond to any of these details and specifics and i expect little more than your usually non-responsive parade of insults in return, i'll spell this out for you: we, the people, lack control of our own government ... the reason we have been unable to "get off foreign oil", is because we lack power ... to bring about a change in the balance of power between mega-corporations and "just plain folk" we are going to need to awaken many more Americans to this imbalance and the corruption of our government by big money, big corporations and Big Oil ... to achieve this passing along of information to our fellow citizens, we would be far more effective if we had the full support and weight of the Democratic Party behind us ... republicans have always been the party of fat cats but Democrats these days seem afraid to talk about the extent of control big money now holds over our government ... just so you don't misunderstand, i am a major supporter of Al Gore's environmentalism ... it's nothing short of heroic ... but it's very far short of campaigning all out against imperialism and the corruption of our democracy ...

in your "blind loyalty" to the Democratic Party, you seem to see me as an enemy ... i am NOT ... i am a Democrat (even an elected Democrat) who has done many things in support of the Party ... i am also highly critical of many things the party has done and is still doing ... my goal is not to elect republicans, god forbid, and it hopefully is not to elect third party candidates either ... my goal is to fight for change in the Democratic Party ... what you label as "complaining and whining" is nothing short of legitimate criticism ... pardon me for disagreeing ... that's the way it is ...

i think the party, perhaps because of its political loss of power, has failed to honor the traditions of Democrats of the past ... i think we've strayed far away from fighting for workers ... i think we're so worried about being labeled McGovernite peaceniks that we are supporting a runaway military industrial complex ... i think Democrats are so afraid of the "cut and run" label in Iraq that the party has enabled bush's war for year after year after year when it made no sense whatsoever to incur more deaths and injuries and expense ...and still there is tap dancing where they can't even support Kerry's pathetic "one more year of war" exit date ... yeah, i criticize the cowardice and the utter failure to stand up and do the right thing ... Iraq is fucking insane and there is no logical justification for playing politics with it the way i believe Senate Democrats have done ... i see that conduct as disgraceful ...

i look for an envigorated Democratic Party that isn't afraid to make bold, clear statements of our values ... i look for a renewed Democratic Party that seeks to bring about a new American revolution to restore our democracy ... i look for a Democratic Party that ends all this pro-corporate exporting of our jobs and says no to Cafta and Nafta because we don't have ta ... i look for a Democratic Party that is not afraid to say that what has been done to our government by big money is evil ... it's time to put aside all this bullshit collegiality that cowers from telling the American people the truth about their government ... so, yeah, there's a nice big pile of criticism for you ... i want to support a Democratic Party that fights to restore the American dream ... how twisted and misguided is that?????

[CarlVK]

12. Because in the USA, imperialism is centrist.

Sad, but true. We have had this in our national psyches since at least the McKinnley administration. You can thank that asshole and his Phillipines campaign for the birth of American Imperialism.

[The Magistrate]

13. This Is Perhaps Not, Sir, The Best Illustration For Your Purposes

This is an instance of the recognized government of the place seeking assistance against a rebellion. The rebellion is one of a character that is quite clearly inimicable to the larger interests of the United States in the current world climate. Action on the rather mild and minor line presented here would certainly be undertaken by just about any administration in this circumstance. The most distressing element here is the rather poor communications security evidently employed: people who engage in things like this really ought not leave a clear trail, and if they do, it is fair to wonder if they are really up to the task they have been hired for....

"Did you really expect me to believe this was the work of professional builders? People who do it for a living?"

[welshTerrier2]

16. the best illustration?

i would certainly not take issue with your point ... rather, i see it as yet another straw atop the camel ...

and it is piled on top of Iraq ... we already have military operating inside Iran ... that's the same Iran where the CIA assassinated Mossadeq ... and the coup in Venezuela in 2002 ... and so many, many more ... we've seen generations of examples ... this is merely today's news story ...

i posted it for its currency rather than its supremity ...

[JNelson6563]

14. I think it's a case of denial.

As well as a case of willful ignorance.

[Pithy Cherub]

18. A cognitive dissonance issue.

If one is abjectly complicit it takes a supreme effort to overcome the belief system to acknowledge how eveything one stood for previously has been proven false. It's like proving the donut hole has value.