This post is filled with the grossest generalizations salted with a healthy amount of righteous indignation.
"The US has overthrown no less than 13 governments in the past half century, half of whom we're democratically elected."
Is one of those things that gets tossed around on the internet all the time. But it's not nearly as true or as dire as it sounds. The reality, as is usually the case, is more complicated than a platitude like that.
No kidding.... you don't say... Did you expect me to lay out a five hundred page book detailing the abuses of US power? Give me a break. The rest is pure opinion on your part. However, what you didn't address was most telling. It is incredibly well documented that we installed and supported brutal dictators in countries we played a primary role in overthrowing. But, if you want to play a game of cite the source, I'll gladly play.
"We are operating our foreign policy rooted in the Wolfowitz doctrines, regardless of which party is in power."
Since when have we been operating under this doctrine and what is this doctrine? We've had a flurry of Presidents, foreign policy pivots, and security re-assessments since the end of the Cold War and this is a fairly bold position to be staking out. Sure there have been general themes such as support for democracy promotion and safeguarding of US/Democratic power where possible but these are the broadest of possible themes.
So in short, you're clueless and so whitewash with your limited understanding. No, I'm not talking about broad themes, I'm speaking of a very specific roadmap that we have followed nearly to the letter. You accuse me of gross generalizations and then show such a shallow understanding of long range of foreign policy in play since 1976. Yes, there have been changes in presidents, congressional leadership.. but this is nothing but theater, as is the foreign policy "pivots". This can be clearly shown thanks to the memos leaked by Manning, which is just corroboration of other evidences.
"In the entirety of human history, there is not one case of a super power who has waged wars of conquest to gain or maintain dominance at the expense of foreign powers and their people that did not eventually turn on it's own people."
This is exceedingly general. Did Rome 'turn' on its citizens because of it's expansionary wars? Is that why the Republic fell? Or was it because of agricultural friction, populist politics, ingrained patrician rule, and the technological deficiencies of a large organized society in the age of antiquity? For that matter did the British Empire ever 'turn' on its citizens? At the zenith of it's Imperial glory Britain also reached a hey-day of progressivism and democratic reform. If not for two crushing World War's history might have looked very different.
Are you freakin' high? Seriously, what's wrong with you? Who said anything about the FALL OF ROME? Who said anything about the fall of any empire? This earns you a spot on the ignore list. If you cant follow clear context, there is no hope that your criticisms are worth the electrons to display them.
You are saying that in Rome's 800 year history, no ruler ever created a reign of terror amongst his own people? You are truly touched!
As for the British empire.... ROFLMAO... no.... they never turned on their subjects.... btw, welcome to America. As for their advancing democracy... never did the ruling class, ANY ruling class give up power or concede rights to the average man unless pressed to do so by the masses. You really haven't a clue how stupid your post looks, do you?
The list could go on with each case being specific and complicated.
Of course they are complicated... but that doesn't convey benign or honorable intentions. But that's your tact, isn't it... got folks lost in the details, or discourage them from doing further research. However, it's possible to simplify in a way that encompasses all the details. We were principally involved in overthrowing gov'ts, installing brutal dictators and supplying them with arms and aid to keep them in power.
This is not opinion, it's historical fact, historical constant. It hasn't changed in 5000 years because human nature has not changed within that time.
But it is opinion, it's certainly not historical fact.
If human nature hasn't become constrained by social and political order in the past 5,000 years then whence came all of our social reforms (the abolition of slavery, the liberation of women) and how do you account for the drastic reduction in violence, crime, and social ills over the past two or three centuries? 'Human Nature' is contingent upon whatever environment it is thrust into and what tools we give ourselves. This is debatable of course, but it is again more complicated than your generalization.
The constraints were developed to keep human nature in check. Have you ever read ANYTHING from the founders? The constraints are NOT changes in human nature, but a recognition that human nature has not changed and so to protect against the paths of tyranny (ambition, avarice, lust for power, control, etc.) This was the entire premise of the age of reason, the enlightenment and the bill of rights.
I do not have time to waste on such short sighted, knee-jerk, hit piece ignorance as you've displayed here. You will not be responded to again... so have fun with your last word... I'm sure it will be just as lacking as this was.
