Nathan Newman wrote:
>ANTI-imperialism is exactly the emphasis on negative proceduralism that I'm
>talking about. It says nothing about what people want, only what they
>don't.
-What it says in this case is that the U.S. has no business invading -countries and occupying them.
No that's what any garden variety isolationism says. George Washington to Charles Lindburg probably would have agreed with that.
>As for what people want, we can have no
>idea as long as B-52s and Bradley fighting vehicles are on the scene.
We had no idea before either because Saddam Hussein was brutalizing them.
And the failure of the Left to have a program for bringing democracy and a voice to the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan and Kosovo and etc.) without use of those B-52s is why it lacks the moral authority to stop any of these wars.
And this all assumes that the presence of B-52s is the main element of imperialism. Tens of millions of people are dying in Africa with little US military presence. Does that make it a haven of enlightened US foreign policy?
-- Nathan Newman