Why American World Domination is good for you

[Edric O]

You think all the talk about the "American Empire" is just paranoid nonsense, right? You think that no one in his right mind would be openly advocating a worldwide empire with the US President as dictator of the world, right? You think the US government might be a trigger-happy bunch, but they'd never actually go for total world domination, right?

Think again.

Take a look around this website:

THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

Ah, but this is probably just a bunch of lunatics that nobody cares about, right?

Think again.

Read their statement of principles, and pay attention to the signatures:

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

- we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

- we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Signed:

Elliott Abrams

Gary Bauer

William J. Bennett

Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney

Eliot A. Cohen

Midge Decter

Paula Dobriansky

Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg

Francis Fukuyama

Frank Gaffney

Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad

I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle

Peter W. Rodman

Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld

Vin Weber

George Weigel

Paul Wolfowitz

[GUNWOUNDS]

You forgot to highlight many other names in there...

Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush, and Dan Quayle

they are pretty well known too....

[GUNWOUNDS]

I can understand why this would upset many Europeans and Middle-easterners... but as an american this does look pretty exciting and one would have to be proud of Global Unification. 

Romans were proud of Rome ... why should Americans be made to feel guilty?

  :P

[Edric O]

Oh, I don't know, maybe because this is an example of utter hypocrisy and goes against every single one of the ideals America is supposed to defend?

Maybe because a global empire under the command of one nation, with all the oppression and injustice it involves, is not much different from the goal of the 3rd Reich?

(P.S. - I highlighted those other names you suggested)

[Mihail]

Really,I think Edric is absolutley correct.And Gunwounds,remember your example with the Roman Empire?Remember what HAPPENED to the Roman Empire?Uh-huh.Civil war,invasion and rebellion by conquered peoples and barabaric tribes and finally,the fall of it.

OR!If that didn't happen,it would tunr out like this:

America:Darth Vader

Rest of the World:Luke

OR!China,Russia and NK all launch their nukes at America.BOOM! ;D

[GUNWOUNDS]

is not much different from the goal of the 3rd Reich?

Paul Wolfowitz ( one of the names highlighted) works in Bush's Administration and he lost many family members in the Holocaust ..... comparing his aspirations to that of the Nazis seems a bit disrespectful.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds,remember your example with the Roman Empire?Remember what HAPPENED to the Roman Empire?Uh-huh.

The Romans didnt have Tomahawk Missiles, laser-guided weapons, night vision, and Atomic Bombs.

;)

[Mihail]

Yeah,but the World has numbers.America has how big of a pop. right now?400 million?(Not sure,but America is just going to be overwhelmed by other countries in terms of numbers)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yeah,but the World has numbers.America has how big of a pop. right now?400 million?(Not sure,but America is just going to be overwhelmed by other countries in terms of numbers)

Quality over quantity

[Mihail]

Fine...launch your 2567864587923465 bajillion super uber l337 h4x0rz nukes.But I GUARANTEE there won't be much of a world to rule after that  ;)

[Cyborg]

If America can get their Starwars Project done, they can just laugh at nukes...

[thomas]

yeah remember little ol missle defence? without a doubt america has become the new British empire.

[Wolf]

First of all, I am not advocating American global domination, but I have two statements to make. As empires go, I think humanity could do a little worse than America, okay? I mean, its not like genocide and mass destruction are their goals; they'd rather up the standard of living in counquered nations, as evidenced by the 30% increase in the Iraqi economy this year.

Second of all, what makes you think America hasn't already conquered the world already? While all nations have their own sovereign power and the ability to govern themselves, is not 50% of the world so economically engaged with the United States that either a cessation of relations with the US, or a disaster within the US, would cripple them? Furthermore, did we not see in 9/11 a ripple effect, impacting other nations' economies? Secondly, Europe is, and for the last 40 years has been, intertwined with America militarily. American bases dot Europe like so many mushrooms after a summer rain. Japan is an even better example, they are nearly completely dependent on America for military defense, as the JDF is more a glorified police force. The same holds true for Israel, who, I tend to think, really wouldn't mind a US-dominated world officially or unofficially. China is one of the United States' most favored trading partners, and cannot risk a loss in US trade, lest their national economy begin to go the way of the USSR. The Russians are still receiving humanitarian aid from the United States, aid they do not wish to lose. Latin America is equally as economically dependent on the United States, perhaps even more so. Over 60 nations in the world store their reserves of gold in the Federal Reserve of New York City

Nearly every nation in the world has positive relations with the United States in some form, be it trade, defense, or political support. As it appears to me, the United States has already conquered the world for the last 10 years, and up until Iraq, that wasn't such a bad thing. And even after Iraq, if America gets a grip on reality and decides to make nice, it still might not be such a bad thing. Consider the appeal to the non-American world; you get a reliable source of trade, you get defense, provided you play ball politically, and you can always depend on some economic aid when you're in a crunch. And, as an added bonus, you get all of this without even giving up your local sovereignty. You get to still govern yourselves while America handles all the dirty work of the world. Personally, I think that Americans would rather not be the world leader, as they have all the responsibility, all the dirty work, and none of the credit. No wonder I have my isolationist urges.

[emprworm]

sounds great to me!

after all, the US is not a race of people....we are germans, dutch, french, africans, chinese, romanians, cherokee, mexicans, spanish, canadians, australians, tawianese, east indians, japanese.....

America is merely a melting pot of all races on the planet from all nations on the planet.  How many guatemalans would you find living in Romania?  Thought so.

[GUNWOUNDS]

First of all, I am not advocating American global domination, but I have two statements to make. As empires go, I think humanity could do a little worse than America, okay? I mean, its not like genocide and mass destruction are their goals; they'd rather up the standard of living in counquered nations, as evidenced by the 30% increase in the Iraqi economy this year.

Second of all, what makes you think America hasn't already conquered the world already? While all nations have their own sovereign power and the ability to govern themselves, is not 50% of the world so economically engaged with the United States that either a cessation of relations with the US, or a disaster within the US, would cripple them? Furthermore, did we not see in 9/11 a ripple effect, impacting other nations' economies? Secondly, Europe is, and for the last 40 years has been, intertwined with America militarily. American bases dot Europe like so many mushrooms after a summer rain. Japan is an even better example, they are nearly completely dependent on America for military defense, as the JDF is more a glorified police force. The same holds true for Israel, who, I tend to think, really wouldn't mind a US-dominated world officially or unofficially. China is one of the United States' most favored trading partners, and cannot risk a loss in US trade, lest their national economy begin to go the way of the USSR. The Russians are still receiving humanitarian aid from the United States, aid they do not wish to lose. Latin America is equally as economically dependent on the United States, perhaps even more so. Over 60 nations in the world store their reserves of gold in the Federal Reserve of New York City

Nearly every nation in the world has positive relations with the United States in some form, be it trade, defense, or political support. As it appears to me, the United States has already conquered the world for the last 10 years, and up until Iraq, that wasn't such a bad thing. And even after Iraq, if America gets a grip on reality and decides to make nice, it still might not be such a bad thing. Consider the appeal to the non-American world; you get a reliable source of trade, you get defense, provided you play ball politically, and you can always depend on some economic aid when you're in a crunch. And, as an added bonus, you get all of this without even giving up your local sovereignty. You get to still govern yourselves while America handles all the dirty work of the world. Personally, I think that Americans would rather not be the world leader, as they have all the responsibility, all the dirty work, and none of the credit. No wonder I have my isolationist urges.

Wow awesome wolf... i never thought of it like that......

Edrico is a little too late.... America ALREADY rules the world and we never even realized it hehe.... wow now that was sneaky wasnt it ? LOL

*Gunwounds waves to the American Empire that has always existed*

  ;)

[Mihail]

Yes,thats all good and fine,but I doubt you'd find many nations who want for America to rule and govern them ;)

[Warskum]

Well US hasnt taken the world, becuz the world can destroy US wennever they want, if all countries would stop trading with US, US would starve to death, US is just like all countries depended to other countries resources. It cannot live long without other coutry resources.

[Egeides]

sounds great to me!

after all, the US is not a race of people....we are germans, dutch, french, africans, chinese, romanians, cherokee, mexicans, spanish, canadians, australians, tawianese, east indians, japanese.....

America is merely a melting pot of all races on the planet from all nations on the planet.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well US hasnt taken the world, becuz the world can destroy US wennever they want, if all countries would stop trading with US, US would starve to death, US is just like all countries depended to other countries resources. It cannot live long without other coutry resources.

that can never happen...  America is so intertwined with all the other countries they would all perish... 

Think of America as an inoperable benign brain tumor....you cant live without us.

  :D

[GUNWOUNDS]

And this gives a given group of people to take decisions on others' juridiction? I recall that Americans were initially coming from Great Britain.

and all australians were originally british convicts... so what is your point?

[Warskum]

that can never happen...

[GUNWOUNDS]

i think that wenn the world wants, they can easily make all the trade nessecary without the US, they just need a bit time to organize stuff a bit and they will do just fine, believe me can live without the US, all i need is food(wich i am getting out other cuntries and not US), house(wich i can let a few builders build), computer to talk to you ;)(wich japan has enough technology for), oil(wich we get from arabs), cars(wich we get from germany, france, japan etc etc) well i can keep this up but its kinda pointless, what i am saying is the world just needs to make new trade agreements and its done.

You ignored these ..

1.) American bases dot Europe like so many mushrooms after a summer rain.

2.) Japan is completely dependent on America for military defense

3.) China is one of the United States' most favored trading partners, and cannot risk a loss in US trade, lest their national economy begin to go the way of the USSR

4.) The Russians are still receiving humanitarian aid from the United States

5.) Over 60 nations in the world store their reserves of gold in the Federal Reserve of New York City

and just curious ... WHAT country are you from warskum??

???

[Warskum]

You ignored these ..

1.) American bases dot Europe like so many mushrooms after a summer rain.

2.) Japan is completely dependent on America for military defense

3.) China is one of the United States' most favored trading partners, and cannot risk a loss in US trade, lest their national economy begin to go the way of the USSR

4.) The Russians are still receiving humanitarian aid from the United States

5.) Over 60 nations in the world store their reserves of gold in the Federal Reserve of New York City

and just curious ... WHAT country are you from warskum??

???

Armenia, but I live in Holland now.

[Wolf]

But it won't; economically, I think its cheaper to get things from the US. Furthermore, what do you get from the US? Airplanes, automobiles, ships, and pharmeceuticals. You get modes of transportation and medicine from America. America has the best hospitals in the world, and before 9/11, Saudi Arabians would visit the US for the sole purpose of using these facilities.

In response to AK 47; countries in the world don't want America to rule for them, that's right, and America doesn't. That's whats so interesting about this whole setup, America is de facto world ruler, without ever having to be officially involved in the way a country is run, it lets those countries governments handle all that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

But it won't; economically, I think its cheaper to get things from the US. Furthermore, what do you get from the US? Airplanes, automobiles, ships, and pharmeceuticals. You get modes of transportation and medicine from America. America has the best hospitals in the world, and before 9/11, Saudi Arabians would visit the US for the sole purpose of using these facilities.

In response to AK 47; countries in the world don't want America to rule for them, that's right, and America doesn't. That's whats so interesting about this whole setup, America is de facto world ruler, without ever having to be officially involved in the way a country is run, it lets those countries governments handle all that.

kinda how the USA itself is set up ... one central leader.. but 50 different governors ... so would be logical that USA would rule the world in the same fashion.... you could say other world leaders act as "governors".