[FoRK] US defence budget will equal ROW combined "within 12
fork at bitfurnace.com
Wed May 4 16:26:45 PDT 2005
I see it more as an investment in the capability to dominate any future
struggles for resources (primarily, but not only Oil), as huge portions
of the Third world move into the next stage of their industrial
revolutions. An Imperial goal, certainly, but I dont think Imperium is a
notion that fits with the way the world works today, except as a notion
of who is dominating the geopolitical playing field.
This also ties into the shrill anti-nuclear rhetoric coming out the US -
a nuclear armed state is effectively immune from any posturing vis-a-vis
resources. Not that any threat a small nuclear armed state poses isnt so
much a threat to the US directly, but rather on its freedom to act
(threaten, bully, coerce, etc). The small nuclear armed state might use
nukes tactically in a self-defense situation, without necessarily
inviting annihilation. I wouldnt mention the 'rights of nations' but
such a use of nukes could hardly be seen as anything but understandable.
Still, the ability to out-spend the rest of the world combined is an
incredible situation, not to mention the capability of launching a
world-destroying volley of nuclear missiles.
If this were a game, all the smaller powers would be meeting behind
closed doors deciding on what their strategy was going to be.
As far as manifect destiny goes, the US is not alone is maintaing such a
myth. China, Israel, Japan (once), Germany (once), Britain (once),
Russia (perhaps) and to a lesser extent India, (and a host of smaller
versions thereof, e.g. Serbia), all nuture such xenocidal belief
systems. Theres usually a healthy dose of racism that goes along with
notions of 'specialness' such as manifest destiny. Its an ugly sight
when you run up against it.
What did I read the other day. An Iraqi parlimentarian was stopped at a
US checkpoint, searched and roughed up. His interpreter tells the
soldiers that the guy was a member of parliament, but the soldiers
merely replies "to hell with you - we're americans". Nice.
> This is a natural response for a nation which believes so strongly in
> its own manifest destiny to sit atop the world, and is also witnessing
> the collapse of Globalism. Witness: when you can no longer trap
> nations in your economic and political web through the manipulation of
> "Economic Development" programs which by design build up massive
> national debts, you need to send in the juggernauts.
> For nearly fifty years the US used the IMF and World Bank to spearhead a
> form of imperialism that required more accountants than guns. Instead
> of Marines and tanks, America landed at the beachhead armed with
> economists, engineers, and Bechtel. By building dams, power plants,
> airports, seaports, oil refineries (most of which were unnecessary) and
> by laundering the money from international financial markets directly
> into the coffers of US companies, US policy brought these countries into
> effective control and gave an unnatural boost to the US economy. The
> process was particularly effective in realizing the Monroe Doctrine in
> Latin America. John Perkins wrote an interesting book on the process here:
> ...the problem is that Iraq has demonstrated that such techniques don't
> always work, and countries in the developing world are increasingly
> resisting Globalization. Those that haven't resisted this form of
> imperialism actively are "tapping out" with foreign debt, which causes
> both the money laundering process and the depth of political influence
> to fade. An early sign of this process meeting its end is the decline
> of the Halliburtons, Bechtels, KBRs, etc. I point again to John Ralston
> Saul's article from last year:
> All of this forces the US to become a more traditional imperialist if it
> wishes to maintain its current level of economic growth, which is
> sustained only by continual expansion of its market and by the
> exploitation of resources and peoples around the world. And of course,
> the stock market demands continued growth -- or the U.S. economy, and
> thus the world economy, collapses.
> So if you want your Retirement Savings Plan to grow, kids, I guess
> you've got to fall in line and support the Centurions.
> An interesting essay on the notion of Manifest Destiny, first posited in
> 1839 by John O'Sullivan is below. It's alarming how closely this
> point-of-view matches the Bush doctrine:
> On 4-May-05, at 5:50 AM, Damien Morton wrote:
More information about the FoRK