Bush III in 2016?

[ZeletDude]

We were just as imperialist back then if not more, ever heard of what we did in Mexico, and the caribbean nations mostly before ww1 and during the interwar period.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Can you tell me how many Americans died in the Libyan war, which I might add overthrew a ruthless dictator and stopped pointless murder of innocent people.

At least one.

We were just as imperialist back then if not more, ever heard of what we did in Mexico, and the caribbean nations mostly before ww1 and during the interwar period.

First of all, at least back then we confined ourselves to our own continent. We don't do that anymore.

You are right though. In my defense, I said "World War II period" and we were still kind of trying to stay out of other nation's business at that time. True, we had our own "Manifest Destiny" type wars, and I object to them, but its a little different.

 

[Quintillus]

So, this thread seems to have derailed, but on the original subject... whatever happened to Jeb Bush? Simply that he isn't interested? I wouldn't be overly surprised to see him considered as a presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020, but doesn't it seem just a little early for a guy born in '76 to be running for president? Especially if he's only starting to get involved in politics?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think he's running for Gov.

 

[ZeletDude]

No Americans died in Libya as far as I know.

Now regarding imperialism, it's ok if it is our own continent? And why is manifest destiny any different?

 

[GhostWriter16]

No Americans died in Libya as far as I know.

Even if that were so, our tax dollars were still forcibly taken to pay for it.

And we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit right now, which makes it doubly bad. It really, really isn't any of our business when leaders kill their own people. The alternative to accepting this is perpetual war everywhere, and I don't even think a neocon like Lord of Elves would go that far.

Now regarding imperialism, it's ok if it is our own continent? And why is manifest destiny any different?

Its still bad, but it is even worse when it is across the ocean. The further we try to extend our reach the worse it is. But its still bad either way.

I can't change manifest destiny though. I can decry the imperialists of today that would repeat history.

 

[Quintillus]

It really, really isn't any of our business when leaders kill their own people. The alternative to accepting this is perpetual war everywhere

True, if you always take action, you'd have pretty much perpetual war, which isn't going to be better. But I wouldn't go so far as "really, really isn't any of our business" (emphasis added). I think there does come a certain point at which international attention and possibly action is warranted. For example:

• Hitler. I don't think that many people outside of neo-Nazis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inner circles would argue that is was the international community's business to interfere with Hitler's killing (some of) his own people, as well as conquered people.
• Pol Pot. 21% of the Cambodian population dying is significant.
• The Rwandan genocide. A more difficult situation since it was essentially a civil and ethnic war, but again a situation that at least warrants international consideration.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Qadaffi compared with any of these examples, so I can definitely see the imperialistic attitude in the case of Libya. I don't personally disagree with the Libyan action, but it's far from a clear case. However, I wouldn't generalize it that much.

I'm not so sure that imperialism is any less bad when it's not across an ocean. It might be more common then, and perhaps less costly, but the basic principal is the same.

Also, maybe it's because I didn't read all 5 pages, but I still don't see what this has to do with any Bush.

 

[Archbob]

This 8-year stint of Barack Obama is just a short break from the Bush-Clinton empire.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This 8-year stint of Barack Obama is just a short break from the Bush-Clinton empire.

Hah, yeah. I suspect as much as well.

1 or 2 terms of Hilldog might prime the country nicely for one or two terms of Bush the Third.

 

[Arakhor]

We do not need more restrictions on liberty. We need less.

Phrases like that tend to bite you in the arse when you least expect it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Qadaffi compared with any of these examples, so I can definitely see the imperialistic attitude in the case of Libya. I don't personally disagree with the Libyan action, but it's far from a clear case. However, I wouldn't generalize it that much.

He doesn't compare because there aren't as many Libyans to kill of as Cambodians or Jews and because he got stopped by NATO before he really got the chance to try killing off everyone.

 

[GhostWriter16]

True, if you always take action, you'd have pretty much perpetual war, which isn't going to be better. But I wouldn't go so far as "really, really isn't any of our business" (emphasis added). I think there does come a certain point at which international attention and possibly action is warranted. For example:

• Hitler. I don't think that many people outside of neo-Nazis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inner circles would argue that is was the international community's business to interfere with Hitler's killing (some of) his own people, as well as conquered people.

• 
  
  There are some hardcore libertarian minarchists/anarcho-capitalists that would as well. I wouldn't agree, but they do exist. I think Amaedus might argue with you One thing I should note though, we had no idea how many people they were killing, and Stalin was killing even more people (Although less torturously) so I wouldn't have invaded Germany solely because of the Holocaust (Again, realize, we'd be helping STALIN, who also killed a lot of people. Had the entire world been noble and good and Hitler killing six million of his own people with the rest of the world trying to stop him, I'd probably give you a different answer.) But the reason that we really should have dealt with Hitler, they declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. The fact that they were trying to take over Europe is itself a decent, though perhaps debatable, reason. Pearl Habor cemented it. We needed to get involved. This is the last war I think we should have been in.
  

  [*]Pol Pot. 21% of the Cambodian population dying is significant.
  [*]The Rwandan genocide. A more difficult situation since it was essentially a civil and ethnic war, but again a situation that at least warrants international consideration.

I disagree here. If tyrants are killing their own people, or civil wars are occurring, it isn't our job to police the world. We may be strong enough but its a pitiful job and it takes from the taxpayers. See the relevant section of the Laurence Vance article I posted. If you want to help people overseas you should be able to do so but the American taxpayer should not be forcibly complicit in doing so.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Qadaffi compared with any of these examples, so I can definitely see the imperialistic attitude in the case of Libya. I don't personally disagree with the Libyan action, but it's far from a clear case. However, I wouldn't generalize it that much.

What was even more ironic is that Obama was kind of coming in as the anti-imperialist, he wanted to pull our troops out and get involved less and criticized Bush's foreign policy, and then look what he did!

I'm not so sure that imperialism is any less bad when it's not across an ocean. It might be more common then, and perhaps less costly, but the basic principal is the same.

I'm not certain either. But I think trying to rule the world is worse than trying to rule a smaller area

Also, maybe it's because I didn't read all 5 pages, but I still don't see what this has to do with any Bush

Bush's foreign policy perhaps? I have no idea.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I disagree here. If tyrants are killing their own people, or civil wars are occurring, it isn't our job to police the world. We may be strong enough but its a pitiful job and it takes from the taxpayers.

Because this is the most important thing. We may be able to alleviate the suffering of millions of people and advance the quality of life for all mankind, but let's not, because the rich might make less money.

 

[GhostWriter16]

War rarely improves anyone's quality of life.

Did you even read my article?

I'll summarize, if you want to help the people in Libya/whatever country, either send your own money or go over yourself. Stop being an armchair warhawk.

 

[strijder20]

War rarely improves anyone's quality of life.

You're on the internet, using power. Which probably partially comes from nuclear plants, which were invented thanks to the Manhattan Project.
War has some fortunate side effects too.

I'll summarize, if you want to help the people in Libya/whatever country, either send your own money or go over yourself. Stop being an armchair warhawk.

Money usually doesn't help when you've got a crazy dictator murdering his own people. He might deny access to foreign aid or intercept the money (which you definitely don't want).

However, letting the government decide whether intervention is ethical or not has some dangers in it indeed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

but let's not, because the rich might make less money.

Predictable. You of course expect someone else to foot the bill for your adventurism. Not only will you not go serve in the military yourself (I don't care if you did so sometime in the past, you are advocating for these interventions now so you should be on the frontlines) but you also expect other people, "The rich" to pay for it instead of yourself.

Selfishness indeed.

 

[Arakhor]

What were you saying about rhetoric rather than debate, again?

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, what he's suggesting is a pretty blatant case of selfishness. He wants his fellow Americans to suffer and die to help the people in other countries (Or take over their oil so someone else won't, nevermind all the oil we have and aren't drilling) and he wants "The rich" to fund the bill. In other words, he thinks I'm a selfish person for not wanting to use other people's resources to help people.

I'm sorry, but I object to using other people's resources to help people overseas. I can only rightly decide to part with mine own. Lord of Elves doesn't get this, he thinks coercion, sending people to die and having other (More affluent) people foot the bill is OK if its called "Government."

I don't mean any personal disrespect. LOE is a nice guy. But I don't think he understands the logical and moral issues with what he's suggesting.