From: Adam Flinton 

Mark Hessey wrote:

> "Adam Flinton"  wrote:
There is a term for the
> view you posit & it is usually called "military
expansionism" & it is
> usually a bad thing even for the perpetrator.
>
> Usually it's called "imperialism" but the US hasn't actually
been much of an
> imperialist over the life of the nation (despite loud protests everytime we
> fly a jet over another country that we are), indeed we have only 15
> territories and fairly worthless islands from a current strategic point of
> view at that (and of course the US itself after being ripped away from the
> British Empire) to show for that supposed design on the world.
>

Nope. It's called imperialism if you want an empire. Empires are built on
military expansionism. If it's just "we've got the guns & you'll
do as we say" then it's straightforward military expansionism.

> My position is not one of expansionism or imperialism, rather it is a simple
> one: This is the 21st century, enough already, it is way past time for the
> world to stop looking the other way as these atrocities are committed on
> people anywhere, we will be better off as humans if we put an end to it once
> and for all.
>

Indeed. Ye olde white man's burden. So what happens if the PRC starts
insisting that the US does things (internally within the US) the "PRC
way"?

> Canada won't do it, neither will the UK, nor Finland, nor ______, and most
> certainly not the UN - their human rights declaration isn't worth the paper
> it's printed on. That leaves the US. It is not only our capability, but our
> obligation.
>

Then get thee to Africa & Burma etc.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5