Oh hell Rat, I mentioned this stuff months ago. There have been a number of articles (from the right and left of the spectrum) over here warning Europeans not to expect that much different from Obama, (however I find it rather amusing that Rat chooses someone from the far left Socialist Workers Party to quote) When Obama says things like he wants to make this century another ‘American century’ or when he says he wants to restore American leadership, I and a lot of non-Americans get nervous. I don’t want US leadership and I hell don’t think the US has earned such leadership. Oh the US has done good things but also a hell of a lot of bad ones. The thing is that when America ‘takes’ leadership it pursues it own interests (or what it believes are its best interests). In the last ‘American century’ we saw what that meant from the Monroe Doctrine to the Iraq invasion. I don’t think the world needs or wants more ‘American leadership’ what the world needs is a willing partner someone that listens and takes decisions that might not be in its own short term interests but that are in the world’s long term interests. What we need is more multi-national co-operation and international agreements that better serve the interests of all the people of the globe and not just those of the United States of America. ** Anyway Rat I’ve put forward my own rational reasons for wanting a change in US foreign policy and what I believe would be a better direction. Can you please explain your own ideas on this subject? What goals would you seek and why - I mean Richard Seymour is a member of the Socialist Workers Party and this is from the SWP’s website - So his views and the goals behind his article are probably in ways similar to my own. So have you now the same goals as me and Richard?
Unlike you, Balbus, I don't base everything around what a person's politcal affiliations (or lack thereof) are. I knew when I posted the article that the author was an extreme socialist, but I don't care since everything he said in this article was, for the most part, on the money. I can actually agree with some people on some things, but be in total disagreement on other things. I am not like you, who judges people on what idiotic label they place on themselves. I think socialists are wrong on pretty much everything, except their views on war and imperialism, which I can agree with. Any more nit-picking you want to do, Balbus?
Rat The problem with your reply is that as I pointed out (and you ignored) the socialist views on imperialism and war are very deeply rooted in their views on internationalism they cannot be rationally separated. They believe that imperialism and war can ONLY be genuinely tackled through internationalism To quote the Socialist Workers Party website So to say that you agree with the socialist viewpoint on imperialism and war would mean that you would have to agree with their internationalist ideas because they grew out of the other. And the big problem here is that you seem to be totally against internationalism. It is fine to say you are against imperialism and war but you need to explain what that is rooted in other than internationalism and how you believe they can be tackled other than through internationalism? This isn’t nit picking it is the very essence of politics it is the difference between those that genuinely are interested in politics and those that are not. If someone doesn’t know why they are pushing certain view or ideas how do people know if they genuinely hold those views?
I said I agree with the premise of the article. The article makes no reference to supporting internationalism to combat imperialism. See, you don't get it. Wars are deliberately created by the internationalists to trigger the desired reaction in people that the only solution to end war is a world government. If you cannot grasp that, what more can I say? Obviously if you want to promote global governance, you need to convince people of a reason to get behind it. The idea that a world government would end all wars is a product of the very same globalists who are creating and funding wars to manipulate people into accepting their desired outcome. People who embrace socialism do not understand the concept of controlled opposition. They don't even know about the Hegelian dialectic and how it's used to control both sides.
"Wars are deliberately created by the internationalists" All wars anywhere and whenever? What internationalists are you talking about?
All MAJOR wars of the past 100 years -- at the very least -- have been deliberately contrived and orchestrated by people with an internationalist/globalist agenda. This includes World Wars I & II. This is why every war brings us closer to world government. They needed the first two world wars to establish an international body under the guise of maintaining peace. After the first World War we saw the League of Nations. This was destined to fail from the beginning as there was not enough popular support for it. Therefore, the globalists knew a SECOND world war would be needed to trigger the reaction needed to offer the solution of an international body found in the world governmental trojan horse of the UNITED NATIONS. All internationalists are really one and the same. Now I realize most people who call themselves socialists are decent, well-meaning people. But they have bought into propaganda designed to actually get them behind the elite's globalist agenda, dressed up in idealism about world peace, eliminating hunger and child labor, etc. These all sound like good things, but the agenda of the people promoting this at the top is far different than what those at the bottom believe.
Also, what you said contradicts inself. You said imperialism and war can only be defeated through internationalism. Well, that makes no sense as imperialism and war IS internationalism.
This is a perfect example of the way conspiracy theory stifles or ends any rational political debate. It is possible to argue for or against the merits of a socialist approach to solving the worlds problems it is impossible to have a rational and reasonable discussion with someone who is totally convinced that socialism is an invention and tool of an evil generation spanning conspiracy to take over the world and therefore socialisms merits don’t count, if you’re a socialist you are a tool of the conspiracy, full stop end of political discussion. A socialist can explain the aims of socialism And the conspiracy theorist just replies – socialism is an evil tool of the conspiracy A socialist can talk of financial reform And the conspiracy theorist just replies – socialism is an evil tool of the conspiracy A socialist can explain there ideas on education and employment And the conspiracy theorist just replies – socialism is an evil tool of the conspiracy All real political debate has died. You could argue about the merits of the conspiracy theory – but that isn’t a political debate that is a conspiracy debate and that should take place in the conspiracy forum. Which is where this clearly belongs.
