Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?

By Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash. Posted March 24, 2007.


U.S. military expert Chalmers Johnson argues the catastrophe in Iraq and the staggering cost of running a military that stretches across 130 countries on 737 bases may finally cost America its empire.
Advertisement

I believe that we're close to a tipping point right now. What happened to the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 could easily be happening to us for essentially the same reasons. Imperial overreach, inability to reform, rigid economic ideology. ... The world's balance of power didn't change one iota on September 11, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that's what we did.
-- Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic

Has our "leadership" traded democracy for empire? Have their over-bloated egos convinced them that they are the world's newly crowned colonial kings? Author Chalmers Johnson is certainly not given to wearing rose-colored glasses. As he concludes in his newest book, Nemesis: "... my country is launched on a dangerous path that it must abandon or else face the consequences."

Johnson's well-argued, persuasive argument draws on the economic, military, and political lessons of the past, which may be just what's needed to wake up Americans in time to change course. In this interview, he explained his hopes and fears for contemporary America.

* * *

Mark Karlin: You've written a three-part series of books on the United States as an empire. The first was called Blowback. The second is The Sorrows of the Empire. And, now, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. That's kind of a doomsday declension there.

Chalmers Johnson: I guess you could say that. It's inadvertent. I didn't set out to write three volumes. I don't know whether Gibbons set out to write The Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire. But one led to the other.

The first was written well before 9/11, and it was concerned with what I perceived to be the American public's lack of understanding that most of the foreign policy problems of the 21st century were going to be things left over from the Cold War. Above all, I argue that our numerous clandestine activities, some of which are almost totally disreputable, will come back to haunt us.

The second book followed on the first, in that it was a broad analysis of what I called our military-based empire, an empire of 737 American military bases in over 130 countries around the world. That number is the official Pentagon count. They are genuine military bases. They're very extensive. They are not, as some defenders of the Pentagon like to say, just Marine guards. We haven't got 700 embassies around the world. The Sorrows of Empire was written as we were preparing for our invasion of Iraq, and it was published virtually on the day that we invaded.

Karlin: And now Nemesis is your cataclysmic conclusion. Not long ago, it was considered sort of radical to say that America is a neo-colonial empire. But you embrace that concept in many ways.

Johnson: Right.

Karlin: The perspective in much of the neocon writing, in The Weekly Standard, for instance, is that America is an empire. It's a superpower. It can take whatever it wants. Basically, the rule of thumb becomes, if you challenge the U.S. assertion of military control and dominance, you're an enemy of the United States. You don't have to threaten the United States, but merely oppose the imposition of the military authority.

Johnson: Quite true. The roots of this military empire go back, of course, to World War II, which is when we conquered Germany, Japan, Italy, places of that sort, and did not withdraw after the war was over. We've been in Okinawa, for example, ever since 1945. The people there have been fighting against us ever since 1945, in three major revolts -- they hate it.

But the critical point comes with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Paul Wolfowitz, who was then in the Department of Defense working for Dick Cheney in the first Bush administration, wrote that our policy now is to prevent any nation, or combination of nations, from ever having the kind of power that could challenge us in any way militarily.

This is when we really invite "Nemesis," the goddess of retribution, vengeance, and hubris, into our midst by proclaiming that we "won" the Cold War. It's not at all clear that we've won the Cold War. Probably, we and the U.S.S.R. lost it, but they lost it first and harder because they were always poorer than we were. The assumption was that we were now the global superpower; we were the lone superpower; we were a new Rome. We could do anything we wanted to. We could dominate the world through military force.

This is as clear a statement of imperial intent as I think one could imagine, and it is what leads to such radical ideas as war as a choice, preventive war, wars such as that in Iraq, which was essentially to expand the empire by providing a new stable base for us in the Middle East, having lost Iran in 1979, and having so antagonized the Saudis that they were no longer allowing us to use our bases there the way we like.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: empire, chalmers johnson

Mark Karlin is the editor of buzzflash.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
BLACKWATER, etc.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 24, 2007 12:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
read that book. Whilst I disagree with some of the obvious political/religious views of the author the book is an outstanding detailing of some key issues raised in the GWOT. His idea of a 'Praetorian' Guard fits with, oddly, the same ideas that rightwing types see in the USA society. It is an interesting phenomena because both the right and left seem to see the 'decline and fall' of the USA. (also both could be correct:a popular society satisieted with violence and porn and a mercenary, military society hungering for war.) Support the Troops! Watch Hilton and Brittney's Porn vids!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BLACKWATER, etc. Posted by: Temporary
'Aganist the USA' is equivalent to Ágainst the International Community' in MSM parlance.
Posted by: werewolf on Mar 24, 2007 2:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Basically, the rule of thumb becomes, if you challenge the U.S. assertion of military control and dominance, you're an enemy of the United States.."

If a country is declared an enemy of the United States by the US Administration it is immediately reported by the MSM as that country being against the whole "International Community"implying the rest of the world to decieve all Americans whose IQ rating is below 140 which is 95% of the population. So a feeling is induced in the general populace that the government, being the the only superpower, is only being more pro-active than the rest of the world in trying to subdue that enemy country.

What an advantage the US Administration has for having the MSM on its side! It can get away with anything it declares as true when in fact it may be all lies.

But the most mystifying thing is why the Americans love to believe their President evn after knowing that he plotted a big lie on them, the Iraq WMD. The only thing that comes to my mind is that the character of these Americans are similar to their President. If I am wrong in assuming that please let me know why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: your numbers Posted by: Knowmad
There was no Empire to start with!!!....
Posted by: Zemiti on Mar 24, 2007 2:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you one brain cell moegoes learnt nothing up to this point, huh??!! Shucks, which direction is American propaganda directed & working towards?? Seems to me the US public is the victim of the US government's own nefarious mechanations, how about that?!! There is no US empire, only grand designs on a chess board that are now showing up as having been over-reach all along, and the chips are begining to fall slowly. They will gather momentum soon, wait for that big bang sound! Anything built on a lie requires superhuman effort to sustain it, and that super-effort wanes with time. The US will implode soon solely because of its OWN ill-chosen path (true, similar to USSR), not because of me, Russia, Iran or somebody else. If anything, this is a clear lesson for and indication of the American public being totally alienated from and not in control of its own Government. Rogue state indeed! This is the real ugly side of Capitalism and a clear case of the abuse of Democracy...talk about being victims of your delusions of grandeur. Remember, the US is not the only country with massive and devastating weapons of war and destruction, stop this egocentric diplomacy; the US is part of a World Community, not the boss of the World! Believe your own bullshit, you will drown and go down choking in it! Wait and see...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Okay. Posted by: mercianomad
» RE: Okay. Posted by: Knowmad
Ridiculous
Posted by: ateo on Mar 24, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The costs of OEF/OIF are miniscule.

Is "Iraq" America's "Afghanistan?" Ha, this question makes me laugh.

The simple fact that the average American hardly knows we're even at war in terms of impact on their daily life tells me we are nowhere near stretched to our limit. Let me know when we start up the draft and start rationing war provisions then we'll talk about the "empire" collapsing.

I would be much more concerned about consumer spending, debt, and the foreign trade deficit if I were you. The next to nothing cost (in terms of dollars and soldiers) of these two wars is hardly enough to topple America - in fact, it's hardly noticeable.

Is this site some kind of crazy propaganda site with no regard for the facts, was I redirected to Fox News? If your goal is to convince imbeciles that spending less than 1% of our soldiers and less than 5% of our GDP annually on war is going to topple America then carry on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just be patient! Posted by: werewolf
» Faustian straightjacket Posted by: eddie torres
» If economic collapse means... Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: idiculous Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Some good points Posted by: ateo
End of...?
Posted by: Monitor523 on Mar 24, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks as if the many related processes we lump together as "globalization" are eroding the rationales for nation states in any case. As the most powerful state in the world, the US has been both pulled (by power vacuums) and pushed (by internal expansionist drives core to the economic system, the old frontier attitudes, etc.) into engagement all over the world. Some kind of world system is being created, and the apparent US "Empire" seems to be a result of this country maintaining its identity and integrity in the face of all the contrary pressures, even as many other countries fail to.

What Chalmers Johnson is talking about - and he describes the facts reasonably well - could probably be understood as a collapse of the effort to maintain the US as a separate, sovereign, nation state. Arguably, the "nation state" model was only ever really a good one in Europe to begin with. It's a fairly forced analogy for continental empires like Russia, India, China, America, Brazil, or for the post-colonial entities in Africa, interimperial buffer zones like central and southeast Asia... That a world-system based on this Industrial-Age European political model should turn out to be non-viable doesn't really surprise me. After all, a lot has happened since the Industrial Age, and most of the world isn't much like Europe to begin with.

I would suggest that the US has done fairly well in the 60 or so years it's been the world's dominant state, which is not a natural condition. Especially since states as they have been understood seem to be disappearing. Martin van Creveld, for instance, points out in "The Rise and Decline of the State", that most of the classic functions of the state are being absorbed by other entities. Meaning things like transnational corporations, NGO's, private charities, mercenary firms like Blackwater, supranational entities like the UN, the EU, NATO, NAFTA, etc. The US has been unusual it its resistance to this trend, mainly by placing itself at the center of the new systems of power. The new system, or at least the trends that produce it, will probably continue even if there's a collapse of the arrangement that lets it be seen as an American Empire.

In the current scenario, probably about the best a classic nation-state can hope for from its leaders is that they be dynamic, intelligent, and resourceful enough to keep the state functioning as an integral unit with some reason for continued existence. That is, management of the status quo in a condition of permanent crisis, like a skilled pilot keeping a plane flying on a single engine. Failing that, one could hope for a smooth forced landing: competent leaders who can manage the transition to the post-state world reasonably painlessly. Failing THAT, maybe the best bet would be leaders who aren't so spectacularly incompetent that they manage to destroy several other countries along with their own by their reactions to the crisis.

So far, under Bush, the US is batting 0 for 3 on this score. I don't expect anything better than a smooth forced landing from even the best of the '08 candidates. The worst of them will surely finish destroying America for anything worthwhile for at least a couple of decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nd of...? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: nd of...? Posted by: Monitor523
» RE: nd of...? Posted by: leafsong1
We started downhill by electing a lying coward for president.
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 24, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GW Bush is the first chief executive in U.S. history to go AWOL during wartime and lie about it to get elected. Thus, from January 2001 to the present, America has been governed by a fraud who covers up mistakes with stonewalling, word-spinning, willful deceptions and outright lies.

After infecting his administration with a cancerous core of corruption in 2001, President Bush protected himself by selecting White House staff members and cabinet officials based on loyalty instead of ability, causing the cronyism and incompetence that has become part of his legacy.

Unfortunately, we voters didn't learn about Shrub's dishonest nature because the press didn't do its job during the 2000 presidential campaign. How else can you explain an old fart like me finding a falsified White House biography on the Internet that claimed George W. had flown Air National Guard jets almost SIX years when the actual time was 27 months.

The fabricated text contained other misrepresentations as well -- all intentional, not typos or mistaken dictation.

Of all places, Bush’s bogus bio had been published on a State Department website for the whole world to see. Everyone but the sleepwalking press, that is.

To validate my discovery, I called the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

Unfortunately, the Globe published my scoop on a Saturday and it died that same day when no other newspaper or media outlet carried the story. For that reason, I always end my blog comments the following way:

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (one reason why Bush won’t let Karl Rove testify under oath in the U.S. attorneys’ firing scandal).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chalmers Johnson an intellectual prat !
Posted by: Jock O' Hazeldene on Mar 24, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is this nonsensical historic reference to the English in Afghanistan?
Where were the Welsh, the Irish, the Scots, not to mention the Sepoys. The Indian army was a British army under a British government not to mention Queen Victoria, Empress of India, thanks to her stout (birthing so many wains would make anyone stout) German heritage.
Had the Indian army been only English I doubt if it would have succeded in butchering 5% of the locals it had actually achieved.
However, enough of my rant, but Chalmers do try to gain some relevant knowledge before you put youself forward as a wiseacre. Then again what can one expect from prat who uses a surname as a forename - chaos is bound to ensue.
N.B. none of the above should be taken too seriously - no insult intended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsensical Hairsplitting Posted by: lessbread
» Blair is a scot actually... Posted by: justaguy
» What makes a Scot a Scot? Posted by: lessbread
Chalmers Johnson did call for an ABOLITION of the CIA back in 2004.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 24, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it's long past time it happened. And let's face it, America has been sliding into decay since Reagan became president in 1980 and neither party will stop middle-fingering the voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Empires come and go, capital is mobile, finance rules
Posted by: rwa on Mar 24, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For an excellent run down on how this has worked through history read: The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times by Giovanni Arrighi.
He explains how financial powers have left shells of empires in there wake through history: Venice, Genoa, Spain, Holland, Brittain etc...

Our economic problems stem from the fact that the elites have chosen to stop employing Americans. A new study projects $100,000,000,000 annual remittances by illegal aliens. That alone is comparable to the cost of the occupations. Add to that the trade deficit that results from NAFTA and the "free trade" policy with China. This business of "breaking" the military might be just another part of the planned ruination of America. The elites will take there capital to another large population nation and impose their domination on the world from their new base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Difficult Decision.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 24, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The political system has failed. We allowed it -- we lost oversight. If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, we have been anything but vigilant.

I believe that the failure goes beyond the military/industrial complex. We have a government totally controlled by the corporate establishment and as Mr. Johnson says it's a failure of both parties. Our elections only decide which party serves the interests of the establishment.

We have a choice. We can continue to have our government run by a corporatocracy, who's interests are usually directly opposite to the people's interests. Or we can be ruled by the majority. We can continue to be ruled by a collection of artificial legal constructs that oppose us or ruled by people who have the same interests as the majority of us.

Why is this a difficult decision? In my opinion it's because of a human failing. The average person, who makes up the majority, is firmly convinced that he/she is "above average". This puts him/her in an elite minority. For this reason the majority doesn't believe in the rule of the majority.

There are only two fundamental choices: rule by the majority or rule by a minority.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Difficult Decision. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Sell the house in San Francisco??
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 24, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this doom and gloom makes me feel I should sell the house (still owned by the bank) in San Francisco and start an off-grid-organic-veggie-commune......

Everything we've been reading lately is so negative but where are the positive solutions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sell the house in San Francisco?? Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» The future is bright and in Mumbai Posted by: eddie torres
» Sorry, but can't resist Posted by: eddie torres
» Where are you going? Posted by: LeftWright
» more peeing in the pants LOL! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Excellent advice Posted by: eddie torres
» Let us know Posted by: jackyD
We are stuck with Bush's Supremes and military bases in Iraq.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 24, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would've every guessed that the stupidity of American voters could have crippled us with those handicaps? There's no going back.

Progressives are twiddling our thumbs if we talk about a mass abandonment of the Shrub's program. Maybe the general population needs to read Johnson to get the notion of successful empire refuted. But simply describing our stupidity is otherwise no help. And the last election showed that Americans want a change.

Too many progressives, for too long, were satisfied pointing out the Shrub as an idiot, because what he said made no sense. Sure. Ha, ha. How easy to write editorials making fun of the jerk.

It's not what he said but what he pulled off, what he persuaded his lackies in the GOP congress to rubber stamp, that we are stuck with. Try convincing the US voter that we should leave those huge military bases in Iraq behind. That's as stupid as Bush. The Supremes are not going to interfere with the military's dominance. We've bought ourselves into a militarized police-state. And we are the world's policeman.

The time to warn about the consequences of hubris is over. So what do we do now? Can we finally start talking about a direction?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» talking about a direction Posted by: rtdrury
The U.S. is a huge ship and slow to change course
Posted by: ateo on Mar 24, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're already set on our present course for the reasons you state. We have this large investment of economic, military, and political resources in Iraq and the likelihood of abandoning them decreases with every additional dollar spent. We crossed the threshold where we could have changed course in Iraq literally years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long ago, in that Saigon bar...
Posted by: CriminallySane on Mar 24, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a deeply soused Walt Kelly was righter than he could possibly know:

"We have met the enemy, and they is us."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no USA. It is only a marketing campaign made up by the
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 24, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
international bankers and corporations. The USA existed for a short time but even at the beginning the money interests ran the show. There were few examples of politicans who were good guys and contrary to the internationalist's plan but few and far between. The private bank that runs the country, the FED, is owned by private banking interests and is not elected nor a part of the 'USA' government. We have two parties that, essentially, all serve the banking interests. They have set up a clever game in which they force the population into two choices. Both of which serve the same goals. The USA was basically brought into receivership due to debt in the 30's and the FED, a private entity, took ownership of the USA at that time. This was also why they banned individuals holding gold (now rescindid since the system is already all pervasive and NOBODY questions the FED, fiat currency, etc). They want a monopoly on valuations and capital flows so they can manipulate society to serve their goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 Truth is the path to peace
Posted by: LeftWright on Mar 24, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9/11 Truth exposes the corrupt global elites and provides the mechanism for their removal.

When enough people realize the truth of 9/11 and take to the streets the revolution to restore our constitutional republic and regain our place in the global community will be underway.

That day is coming sooner than you think.

We are all brothers and sisters on this big, beautiful blue ball.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

america is dead.
Posted by: greggwyck on Mar 24, 2007 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
america was based on the principel that we all have the freedom to live and the persuit of happyness. not us not veterns i just got a letter. their reactivating me, and i am disabled, going back to iraq.... i didnt want to go in the first place but i went and now i dont have a choice. i have to go back their instowing the back door draft again. here you are in a discution that is fighting to deal with what we have to do to finish the job. why isnt anyone mad that this hole war is only for oil and to spred termiol in the middle east. the more their fighting with themselves no one has to take responsability. but the fact that we are occuping a country that never wanted us their in the first place. we were lied into just like every other skermish. and you all act so suprised that it is allowed to continue. i never thaght i would be sick of my country men and women. but you all make me sick everylast one of you. how can you show such disreguard. because of how much you have reacted to this war, is why it is continueing to happen. if you really give a shit about this country, stop the war. you have the power. you just beleave that you cant. but you can. stop sitting there and do somthing about it. my fellow man has desipointed me again. my country has let me down. but i will go back and fight in a war that you and i dont beleave in. but because it is me and not you or your loved one. you dont give a shit. i never thaught dieing for your counrty would suck so much. it makes me ill that you will let this go on. you all should be ashamed of your self. i am just to angry to make good sence. so fuck off america here i go again. to a war i dont want anything to do with . oh by the way i havent been active duty for 2 years. just when i think i am out... they pull me back in. what are you going to do when they do it to you famley. your neighbor your friend. as long as its not you. you make me sick every last one of you. puke!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: america is dead. Posted by: paschn
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: particle
» dumb ass. Posted by: greggwyck
» RE: dumb ass. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» damn.....what's with the spelling? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: tfj2
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: greggwyck
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: Dboy
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: Blade
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: Blade
» RE: america is dead & greggwyck Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: america is dead. Posted by: djnoll
xtiml
Posted by: xtiml on Mar 24, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
america was never supposed to have an empire. we betrayed our own selves when we started in the philipines, the natives wanted to set up their government based on ours and what did we doo? killed them and instituted colonialism just like good european royalty which is what every president has been related to. the gotha aka queen elizabeths clan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking into account
Posted by: paschn on Mar 24, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our inability to control the whores that rule us, prevent our corporations from visiting their horrors on other nations' people, the tens of millions the "benevolent" nation of drones has murdered across the globe..... I say hooray! and it's about time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Taking into account Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Taking into account Posted by: Blade
How to help end Bush imperialism -- at least, get his attention.
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 24, 2007 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1983, I was a Continental Airlines pilot on stike against the company's tyrannical CEO, Frank Lorenzo. One weekend to publicize our work stoppage, 200 CAL union members got in their cars and drove around and around on the inner access road of Los Angeles International. Pretty soon we had LAX in a giant traffic jam.

Imagine if 2,000,000 motorists pissed off about Iraq did the same thing this summer in Washington, DC, on July 4th. That would be a hell of statement -- just maybe the beginning of an overdue withdrawal

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, registered Republican and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (one reason why Bush won’t let Karl Rove testify under oath in the U.S. attorneys’ firing scandal).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where have all the flowers gone?
Posted by: mom'z the word on Mar 24, 2007 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article pretty much describes the essence of a military war machine and how it works for empire building. Knowing this how would one describe a peace machine and domestic tranquility? I would like to think or even believe that the preamble to the Constitution best describes the a peace machine in the works. It reads:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This for all intent and purposes seems the opposite of the purpose of a war machine. So, Does anyone have the numbers on how much we spend on maintaining the war machine and then in comparison how much we spend on making peace and establishing domestic tranquility?

My guess is that more money is spent on making war than is spent on making peace and harmony. If this is the case then what can we expect to occur as a result of all the investments to the war effort? We are striving to be the best at what we do. If the numbers are any indication of where our interest lies then what we do best is make war.

I do not want to make war. I want to make peace. Where have all the flowers gone? And how do we get them back?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "...it's just a gawd damn piece of paper", GWB Posted by: common intelligence
MOB RULES @ AMERKIA CORP
Posted by: Hal on Mar 25, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C. Johnson is a thoughtful man with practical field experience on what he addresses. However, he makes a fundamental error as to who and what rules the fascist state that America has been for some time.

When Johnson uses phrases like “our own actions” and “we dominate places militarily” in his interview he fails to describe the vast distinction between rank and file Americans and those that rule a Washington-MSM brothel. A moral cesspit run by cartel for organized corporate crime.

And fiat monopoly traps such as the “Federal Reserve” Corp ( not federal , no reserves) are at the epicenter of command over the economy and political organs of fascism USA . A one-time democratic republic under responsible free market capitalism has neither one where both are grotesque killing slogans worldwide.

What gutted America devastated England and other lands where oligarchs exploited nations as pawns on a chessboard of strategic convenience. All at public cost for private gain.

By definition cartels are run by and for their international private riggers and no one else. Sadly, the rest is just the usual MSM Kool-Aid , disinformation and limited hangout doubletalk.

A prime source of C. Johnson’s analysis followed by words of 3 wartime presidents:

“Washington spoke of the greatest enemy of liberty as being standing armies. He said they were the particular enemy of republican liberties…”


“I believe that [private cartel] banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the [cartel] banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON (a founder of America on private oligarch cartel rule. In a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802. Published 1809)

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON (a founder of America in condemnation of present and future cartel money power. 1743-1826)

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (on oligarch rule in a letter to handler “Colonel” Edward M. House, confidence man for the cartel and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. House also handled President Wilson in the foisting of a private and unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” Corporation sham with its IRS in 1913. FDR speaks of monopolists at cartel centers of New York & London that own the U.S. Government. November 21st, l933)

“History records that money changers [i.e. cartel bankers] have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.”
PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON (the 4th president as acknowledged “father” of the U.S. Constitution on cartel money power. 1751-1836)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MOB RULES @ AMERKIA CORP Posted by: mom'z the word
» RE: MOB RULES @ AMERKIA CORP Posted by: Lincoln fan
Bush and the Middle East: It's ALL about oil, stupid!
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 25, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows George W. and Cheney were oil men. Here are other relevant ties between Middle East politics and the U.S. petroleum industry, starting with our current ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad

I have always been interested in the Bush administration oil connection because my late father, Ed Scott, was a geologist and upper-level executive for Union Oil of California, now Unocal. Ironically, Zalmay Khalilzad was a high-paid Unocal consultant.

A former Chevron board member in addition to his Unocal connection, Khalilzad served in the Reagan State Department where he pushed for high-end weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, for the Soviet-battling Mujahedin fighters in Afghanistan who later became our enemy known as the Taliban.

When Bush 41 became president, Khalilzad worked for Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon where they started the neoconservative front organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

After Khalilzad left the DOD, he worked for the Rand Corporation, a rightwing think tank that performed research work for all branches of the U.S. military, Defense Department and American intelligence community. Not surprisingly, Unocal was one of its clients.

Khalilzad wrote papers for Rand’s defense division on Central Asia and he put his influential contacts to work for Unocal there. However, Khalilzad wasn’t the only person from the Unocal payroll to figure prominently in Bush Middle East policies.

In 1997, PNAC member Richard Armitage, former Bush 43 Deputy Secretary of State and Valerie Plame leaker, also did contract work for Unocal on Central Asia pipeline interests, when he headed Armitage Associates.

Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal, he was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline.

Halliburton, under PNAC founder Dick Cheney’s corporate leadership, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.

Another Unocal associate was Robert Oakley, American ambassador to Pakistan and later the U.S. special envoy to Somalia.

Back to Zalmay Khalilzad. During the Clinton administration, he conducted risk assessments for Unocal on their proposed 900-mile pipeline project to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan while he was a consultant with Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Even as the Clinton administration began to recognize the Taliban’s repressive nature and its links to Osama bin Laden, Khalilzad called for U.S. engagement with the Taliban.

Beginning in 1997, while working on Unocal projects, Khalilzad participated in talks with the Taliban on oil and gas pipeline infrastructure through the country, attended a delegation of Taliban leaders visiting Texas, and called for U.S. support for their regime.

On December 31, 2001, less than three months after 9/11, he was appointed by George W. as the U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan. That made Khalilzad the highest-ranking U.S. diplomat stationed in Kabul, despite his historic support of the Taliban. Now, five years later in his role of U.S. ambassador to Iraq, he’s working hard in Baghdad on a deal to award lucrative pipeline contracts to U.S. petroleum companies. Surprise!

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (one reason why Bush won’t let Karl Rove testify under oath in the U.S. attorneys’ firing scandal).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USAvsUS.info
Posted by: mite on Mar 25, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is outside the higher educational institutions and propaganda controlled media sources.

Read 'The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America' and 'Americas Secret Establishment'- Both available on the WEB for download.

Then search www.video.google.com- Jordon Maxwell and view presentations. Facts and Truth they 'Don't Want You To Know' people. Then research verify and then ask the Questions: WHY!

Yes we are entering a new age of world fascist control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I need HELP, fellow AlterNet readers.
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 25, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday morning, I head a CNN reporter say that a high-level Iraq government official assert that their army could take over security for the entire country in 18 months, which would match the Dems' deadline.

So far, I have found nothing on the Internet that supports the CNN report. Have any of you guys and gals heard the same thing? If so, where?

I need the information for my website, King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (one reason why Bush won’t let Karl Rove testify under oath in the U.S. attorneys’ firing scandal).

Thanks, Hugh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take your pick of links Posted by: lessbread
» Correction Posted by: lessbread
» Thanks, VZEQICVA Posted by: HughScott
Learn From History
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 25, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- We have never voluntarily left a single country once we have established bases. We only leave when kicked out.

2- Every large empire is destroyed from within- not from without. Show me a successful invader of a major historical empire and I will show you a society that has lost it's way and decayed from within. The invaders just pushed the rotten walls down.

3- Most of the nations that despise America do so with good reasons. Forget the heavily edited, rah-rah history you got in JH & HS and maybe in college. Spend some time in the library or better yet travel and find out for real.

4- America started as the parts of other empires (Spain, Britain, France, Holland, Sweden) and continued as an empire of it's own, pushing the indigenous peoples to the very edge of extinction through a systemic genocide. From that base we have manipulated most of our neighbors in the hemisphere from within and without, supporting a narrow oligarchy that we could 'do business with'.

5- We have spending ourselves into oblivion despite having the most bountiful collection of natural resources any nation has ever had available to it. Instead of using it for good, we have mostly used it for evil, greed and repression.

The stuff listed above may be hard to swallow, but it is all easily verifiable and true. We are sewing the seeds of our own destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -