RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : The Anti-Imperialist League and the Battle Against Empire

Wednesday
January 10, 2007

The Anti-Imperialist League and the Battle Against Empire by Thomas E. Woods

In April 1898 the United States went to war with Spain for the stated purpose of liberating Cuba from Spanish control. Several months later, when the war had ended, Cuba had been transformed into an American protectorate, and Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines had become American possessions. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (29 messages)

Post 20

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 8:40am

Link

Edit

It is utterly impossible for us to simply "protect ourselves" and ignore the security in the remainder of the world. This is not the 18th or 19th Century any longer. The international infrastructure needs to be resiliant and disruptions anywhere on the globe can have world wide repercussions. Pretending otherwise is foolish and short-sighted. It works fine if your objective is just to criticize, but in the real world it would be a disaster. Objectivists, unlike Libertarians, should be focused on reality, not some fantasy non-initiation of force principal without any context.

Post 21

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:06am

Link

Edit

It is utterly impossible for us to simply "protect ourselves" and ignore the security in the remainder of the world.

How do you know that? Of course, America has never tried this approach. It actually does work for Switzerland.

The international infrastructure needs to be resiliant and disruptions anywhere on the globe can have world wide repercussions.

This, of course, is a blank check.

Post 22

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 8:56pm

Link

Edit

One problem I have with this topic is when I think about what a future person might write about today's "anti-war" movement. I could easily see some biased writer calling it an "anti-imperialist league", when it's just an anti-American movement. They would stretch "imperialism" from the conventional meaning of border growth for plunder and enslavement, and use it to describe any act of foreign policy. They would take the peace protesters (who arguably protest against peace, and do so violently), and attribute to them high and lofty intellectual positions, when they're nothing more than the same thugs who protested the WTO because they think it represents free-markets.

Are these people principled defenders against empire? No. They don't care about violence or coercion, as long as they think they get to decide how it's used. They side against the US in all confrontations, and white-wash the crimes of violent mass-murderers. They're not for freedom. They're not for moral principles. They're just against the US. There's nothing principled in that position.

Were the anti-imperialist leaguers any better? Or were they just another group of violent youths who wanted to blame everyone else for their pathetic lives? Is this article just a rationalization and an attempt to make something noble out of the ignoble? And is it an attempt to try to make a parallel between the past and the anti-American movement of today, in an attempt to make the current movement seem like it has noble aims?

Post 23

Monday, January 22, 2007 - 8:40am

Link

Edit

They would stretch "imperialism" from the conventional meaning of border growth for plunder and enslavement, and use it to describe any act of foreign policy.

Are there any acts of US foreign policy that aren't about plunder or enslavement?

They would take the peace protesters (who arguably protest against peace, and do so violently), and attribute to them high and lofty intellectual positions, when they're nothing more than the same thugs who protested the WTO because they think it represents free-markets.

What evidence do you have for this? How do people who have served in the militarty like Karen Kwiatkowski and Ron Paul fit into this?

They side against the US in all confrontations, and white-wash the crimes of violent mass-murderers.

What evidence do you have for this?

Was Grover Cleveland "against the US" because he was against the annexation of Hawaii? Go here:

http://www.americanheritage.com/places/articles/web/20070117-hawaii-queen-liliuokalani-sugar-lorrin-thurston-grover-cleveland-committee-for-safety-sanford-dole.shtml

Post 24

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 10:56pm

Link

Edit

Thank you for the excellent example of sheer anti-Americanism, devoid of any thought. This is best embodied by your question "Are there any acts of US foreign policy that aren't about plunder or enslavement?" I could point to the World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea. Or to peace processes in Israel. Or the dealings with North Korea. Or the first Iraq war (or the current). Or Afghanistan. Or NAFTA or the WTO or even the IMF. Or any of the humanitarian missions, transfers of funds, etc. Or countless more mundane acts that the US government is constantly in the middle of but that make up aspects of foreign policy (treaty negotiations, extraditions laws, etc., etc., etc.). The fact that you consider all of this acts of plunder or enslavement shows only a complete and irrational bias against the United States. In fact, typically Objectivists argue that the US practices a policy of self-sacrifice and altruism.

As for evidence of white-washing of every two-bit thug, just go look at the anti-war site (I'm sure you know it). I'm sure we could go through the archives on this site as well. And we could go through the rationalizations of why only the US is morally culpable, while every other country or thug is just "responding". Or how even if they do something evil, it was "caused" by previous US actions. And on and on. The result is pretty clear. They pervert moral theory in order to side against the US (or any semi-free nation) at every opportunity.

Of course not all people who oppose the war are irrational, anti-American brutes. There is room for disagreement on this current Iraq War, especially when it comes to how the war was executed. But there's no reason to believe these nuanced dissenters are the majority. Far larger are the mindless drones who scream that America is evil and had no right overthrow Saddam, or that Bush is evil and this is all for oil, or that the poor terrorists are victims, or that government is evil in general, etc. These aren't principled thinkers trying to apply their ideas in a complex situation, always remembering to keep the context clear. They have their easy answer. Thinking is no longer necessary, except as an exercise of rationalization.

In other words, just because people dissent against a particular foreign policy choice, does not lump them all together. There are many different kinds of reasons for opposing the Iraq war. Some argue it's too altruistic. Some argue it was unnecessary and a distraction. Others argue that we had no right, and Iraq was a sovereign state. Others simply side against America at any opportunity. Trying to define the whole mass by a tiny minority is ridiculous. It's also deceptive and unjust.

Is my concern about this article justified? Certainly you've shown your own willingness to try to equate the anti-war, anti-American movement with the likes of Grover Cleveland in an attempt to elevate them. And that's exactly what I warned against.

Post 25

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 12:39pm

Link

Edit

Thank you for the excellent example of sheer anti-Americanism, devoid of any thought.

I bet you use those labels a lot.

This is best embodied by your question "Are there any acts of US foreign policy that aren't about plunder or enslavement?"

I should probably change the word enslavement to self-aggrandizement. Hubris or arrogance are better words anyway.

I could point to the World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea. Or to peace processes in Israel.

WW1 was about plunder for just about all European nations. For Woodrow Wilson, it was about his own arrogance. It was about his desire to remake the world in his image and kill or imprison anyone who disagreed with him. This was clearly shown in his attitude toward anyone who spoke out against his war. He also supported slavery in the form of a draft. The result of this disaster was the dictatorships of Lenin and Hitler.

WW2, of course, was a complete disaster for just about everyone but Stalin. FDR had more in common with Stalin than he did with Jefferson, so FDR even admitted that he liked Stalin. At home, FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps and declared a draft before Pearl Harbor. The war also grew the federal bureaucracy more than his disastrous New Deal policies.

Korea was also fought with conscripts. In this case, the USA was not attacked by anyone. Billions of dollars have been wasted keeping troops there since the cease fire in 1953. For what purpose?

First, Vietnam was about supporting a Catholic dictator in a Buddhist country. It was another conscript war. It was also highlighted by events like My Lai.

Or the dealings with North Korea. Or the first Iraq war (or the current). Or Afghanistan.

North Korea is a power play for the current administration, plain and simple. It's so backward it could never sustain any type of war.

I could write a long history of Iraq and how the USA had been giving support to Saddam Hussein as far back as 1959. He is just part of a long list of autocrats that the USA gave money and/or weapons, too.

What eventually happened was he did his own thing--he invaded Kuwait. For the crime of disobeying his benefactors, he was killed. It's a shame he never got to write his memoirs. He could have called it: I Was Paid by the US Government. This was probably the main reason for killing him.

Of course, the Taliban was also the recipient of US aid in the name of the "war on drugs." They are reportedly making a comeback. I'm not sure what this is all about. It just seems to be a case of the US beating its chest because it likes to beat its chest.

Or NAFTA or the WTO or even the IMF.

These organizations are mainly about creating international bureaucracies to control world trade. It's not about free trade, by any means. I also think it's an attempt to sucker many people around in the world into expecting the declining American dollar.

In that case, it's not working. They prefer euros or gold.

Or any of the humanitarian missions, transfers of funds, etc.

I didn't know that Randists regarded such missions as virtuous acts. Charity just seems to be an attempt to create dependency. Some people in Africa are saying: "Please stop the aid."

In many respects, it is what I simply call whoredom. It's an attempt to buy goodwill. It's much like the promiscous woman who has lots of sex to win the favor of men.

The fact that you consider all of this acts of plunder or enslavement shows only a complete and irrational bias against the United States.

Sticks and stones may break my bones. But labels will never hurt me.

In fact, typically Objectivists argue that the US practices a policy of self-sacrifice and altruism.

It seems to be a policy practiced by someone who has many conflicting personalities. There is little consistency on the surface. It's the main reason why US foreign policy has no credibility anymore.

As for evidence of white-washing of every two-bit thug, just go look at the anti-war site

There are so many out there with different viewpoints. I naturally wonder which one you are talking about. The increasing numbers of people who are against the war have many different viewpoints and reasons. Some of them are noble, and some are not.

What motivates the war hawks? I don't think I want to know.

government is evil in general, etc.

Most of them throughout history have been evil. I often wonder if the problems of politics is solvable.

Thinking is no longer necessary, except as an exercise of rationalization.

I know plenty of people who have called themselves Objectivists who have done this.

Post 26

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 1:40am

Link

Edit

So to recap, you asked "Are there any acts of US foreign policy that aren't about plunder or enslavement?"

The answer is: Every major act of foreign policy in the last century.

With that kind of empirical data, who could ask such a question seriously unless they were blinded by ideology and hatred? Certainly this is not an example of objectivity.

Post 27

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 7:24am

Link

Edit

With that kind of empirical data, who could ask such a question seriously unless they were blinded by ideology and hatred?

Who could ask a question such as this?

Post 28

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 2:08pm

Link

Edit

"Are there any acts of US foreign policy that aren't about plunder or enslavement?"

When you consider actions against American citizens, your question can boil down to "Are there any acts of US foreign policy that don't involve conscription or coercive funding?" While the answer to that question is clearly and unfortunately no, it's not that interesting of a question.

Far more interesting and complex would be "Are there any acts of US foreign policy not about plundering or enslaving citizens of foreign nations?" - which appears to be a sensible interpretation and how Joe and others are reading it. I'd like to see you address this, rather than just falling back on the trivial fact that everything the government does is somehow funded by aggression against its own people.