The Full Wiki

History of United States imperialism: Wikis

Advertisements

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post-Spanish-American War map of "Greater America".

United States overseas expansion follows the expansion of U.S. frontiers on the North American continent (see Mexican-American War, War of 1812, and Territorial acquisitions of the United States), in particular during the "Age of Imperialism", the later part of the nineteenth century and ending with World War I, when all the major powers rapidly expanded their overseas territories.

Contents

Geographical extent

The area that would become Alaska was purchased from the Russian Empire in 1867, as a vital refueling station for ships trading with Asia.

The overseas expansion of the United States into Puerto Rico and the Pacific occurred as a consequence of the Guano Islands Act, the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish American War, the acquisition of American Samoa via the Treaty of Berlin, and the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii at the request of the then president of Hawaii, Sanford Dole.

The U.S. Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917. Only the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (including the Northern Mariana Islands) was gained after World War II.

In the period between the mid-1800s until the beginning of the twentieth century the United States gained a number of overseas islands and territories. The following areas have at one time or another been under the control of the United States of America and have not been fully incorporated into the country as states

U.S. expansion during the Age of Imperialism

Advertisements

Causes

A variety of factors coincided during this period to bring about an accelerated pace of U.S. expansion:

  • The United States had completed its occupation of available contiguous territory within the North American continent.
  • Wars such as the Spanish-American War that led to acquisition of former colonies of foreign states.
  • The industry and agriculture of the United States had grown beyond its need for consumption. Powerful business and political figures such as James G. Blaine believed that foreign markets were essential to further economic growth, promoting a more aggressive foreign policy.
  • The prevalence of racism, notably Ernst Haeckel's "biogenic law," John Fiske's conception of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, and Josiah Strong's call to "civilize and Christianize" - all manifestations of a growing Social Darwinism and racism in some schools of American political thought.[citation needed]
  • The development of the "Frontier Thesis" of Frederick Jackson Turner, which concluded that the American frontier was the wellspring of its creativity and virility as a civilization. As the Western United States was gradually becoming less of a frontier and more of a part of America, many believed that overseas expansion was vital to maintaining the American spirit.
  • The publication of Alfred T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History in 1890, which advocated three factors crucial to The United States' ascension to the position of "world power": the construction of a canal in South America (later influencing the decision for the construction of the Panama Canal), expansion of the U.S. naval power, and the establishment of a trade/military post in the Pacific, so as to stimulate trade with China. This publication had a strong influence on the idea that a strong navy stimulated trade, and influenced policy makers such as Theodore Roosevelt and other proponents of a large navy.
Post Spanish-American War U.S. political cartoon from 1898: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States in 1798.

Alaska

The area that would become Alaska was purchased from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867, for 7.2 million dollars (at 2 cents per acre).[2] The land went through several administrative changes before becoming an organized territory on May 11, 1912 and the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959. The name "Alaska" was already introduced in the Russian colonial time, when it was only used for the peninsula and is derived from the Aleut alaxsxaq, meaning "the mainland," or more literally, "the object towards which the action of the sea is directed."[3] It is also known as Alyeska, the "great land", an Aleut word derived from the same root.

Guano islands

The Guano Islands Act was federal legislation passed by the U.S. Congress on August 18, 1856 enabling citizens of the United States to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. More than 50 islands were eventually claimed. Of those remaining unquestionably under U.S. control due to this act alone are Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, and Johnston Atoll. Other islands could be included, depending on opinion. Some claims have never been relinquished but are not recognized by the US or the party currently claiming control.

In 1959, 94% of Hawaii's residents voted to relinquish all land claims (proposition 2) to the United States and become a state.

Others are no longer considered United States territory. Possession of Navassa Island is currently disputed with Haiti. An even more complicated case probably unresolved until now seems to be the Serranilla Bank and the Bajo Nuevo Bank. In 1971, the U.S. and Honduras signed a treaty recognizing Honduran sovereignty over the Swan Islands.

Hawaii

The Kingdom of Hawaii was long an independent monarchy in the mid-Pacific Ocean. During the 19th century, the first American missionaries and then business interests began to play major roles in the islands. Most notable were the powerful fruit and sugarcane corporations such as the Big Five, which included Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., Amfac and Theo H. Davies & Co..

In January 1893, a group of American and European businessmen organized and carried out a coup d'état backed by the United States military[4][5] which was successful in deposing Hawaiian Queen Lili'uokalani and overthrowing the monarchical system of government. The stated goal of the conspirators was annexation to the United States, both for geostrategic and economic reasons.[5] Although U.S. President Grover Cleveland strongly disapproved the coup – which had been planned by operatives linked to Cleveland's predecessor President Benjamin Harrison – Euro-American business elites maintained political control as the Republic of Hawaii until 1898, when Hawaii President Sanford Dole was offered and agreed to annexation by the United States. The Hawaiian Islands officially became a territory of the U.S. in 1900. Following voter approval of the Admission of Hawaii Act, on August 21, 1959 the Territory of Hawaii became the state of Hawaii and the 50th state of the United States.

Spanish-American War

The Spanish-American War took place in 1898. The Treaty of Paris (1898) ended the Spanish-American war giving the United States possession of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The treaty also made Cuba a U.S. protectorate. After the war, the United States greatly increased its international power.

This era also saw the first scattered protests against American imperialism. Noted Americans such as Mark Twain spoke out forcefully against these ventures. Opponents of the war, including Twain and Andrew Carnegie, organized themselves into the American Anti-Imperialist League.

During this same period the American people continued to strongly chastise the European powers for their imperialism. The Second Boer War was especially unpopular in the United States and soured Anglo-American relations. The anti-imperialist press would often draw parallels between America in the Philippines and the British in the Second Boer War.[6]

Cuba

Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, with the island to be occupied by the United States. The United States agreed to assume and discharge the obligations for the protection of life and property so long as such occupation should last. Cuba gained formal independence on 20 May 1902, with the independence leader Tomás Estrada Palma becoming the country's first president. Under the new Cuban constitution, however, the U.S. retained the right to intervene in Cuban affairs and to supervise its finances and foreign relations. Under the Platt Amendment, Cuba also agreed to lease to the U.S. the naval base at Guantánamo Bay. The naval base occupies land which the United States leased from Cuba in 1903 "... for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations." The two governments later agreed that, "So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty."[7][8]

Puerto Rico

On July 25, 1898, during the Spanish–American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States with a landing at Guánica. As an outcome of the war, Jones-Shafroth Act granted all the inhabitants of Puerto Rico U.S. citizenship. In 1917, the U.S. granted Puerto Ricans the right to democratically elect their own governor. In 1950, the Truman Administration allowed for a democratic referendum in Puerto Rico to determine whether Puerto Ricans desired to draft their own local constitution.[9] A local constitution was approved by a Constitutional Convention on February 6, 1952, ratified by the U.S. Congress, approved by President Truman on July 3 of that year, and proclaimed by Gov. Muñoz Marín on July 25, 1952, the anniversary of the 1898 arrival of U.S. troops. Puerto Rico adopted the name of Estado Libre Asociado (literally translated as "Free Associated State"), officially translated into English as Commonwealth, for its body politic.[10][11]

Guam

In Guam, settlement by foreign ethnic groups was small at first. After World War II the strategic value of the island showed, construction of a huge military base began along with a large influx of people from other parts of the world. Guam today has a very mixed population of 164,000. The indigenous Chamorros make up 37% of the population. The rest of the population consists mostly of whites and Filipinos, with smaller groups of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Micronesians, Vietnamese and Indians. Guam today is almost totally Americanized. The situation is somewhat similar to that in Hawaii, but attempts to change Guam's status as an 'unincorporated' U.S. territory have yet to meet with success.

Philippines

The Philippine Revolution against Spain began in April 1896, culminating two years later with a proclamation of independence and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic. However, the 1898 Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American war transferred control of the Philippines from Spain to the United States. This agreement was not recognized by the nascent Philippine Government which, on June 2, 1899, proclaimed a Declaration of War against the United States.[12] The Philippine-American War ensued, officially ending in 1902, though hostilities continued until about 1913.

The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 provided for the establishment of a bicameral legislature composed of an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission (an appointive body having both U.S. and Filipino members) and a popularly elected lower house, the Philippine Assembly. The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) of 1916 officially declared the United States commitment to grant independence to the Philippines, "...as soon as a stable government can be established therein."[13] Partial autonomy (commonwealth status) was granted in 1935, preparatory to a planned full independence from the United States in 1946. Preparation for a fully sovereign state was interrupted by the Japanese occupation of the islands during World War II. The United States suffered a total of 62,514 casualties, including 13,973 deaths in its attempt to liberate the Philippines from Imperial Japanese rule during the hard-fought Philippines campaign from 1944-1945. Full independence came with the recognition of Philippine sovereignty by the U.S. in 1946.

The Philippine-American War (1899 to 1902, with some hostilities continuing until 1913) is often cited as another instance of United States imperialism. While many Filipinos were initially delighted to be rid of the Spanish rule of the Philippines, the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than Spain had allowed. Thus, for the next 15 years, American forces engaged in a war in the jungles of the Philippines against the Filipino resistance. The Philippines became a U.S. colony in the fashion of Europe's New Imperialism, with benevolent colonial practices. English joined Spanish as an official language, and English language education was made compulsory.[14][15] The Philippines remained under U.S. or Japanese rule until after World War II. The Filipinos welcomed the American reconquest from Japan in 1944, and the U.S. recognized their political independence in 1946.

American Samoa

Germany, the United States, and Britain colonized the Samoan Islands. The nations came into conflict in the Second Samoan Civil War and the nations resolved their issues, establishing American Samoa as per the Treaty of Berlin, 1899. The US took control of its allotted region on June 7, 1900 with the Deed of Cession. American Samoa was under the control of the U.S. Navy from 1900 to 1951. From 1951 until 1977, Territorial Governors were appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Immigration of Americans was never as strong as it was, for instance, in Hawaii; indigenous Samoans make up 89% of the population. The islands have been reluctant to separate from the US in any manner.

U.S. Virgin Islands

In 1917, the United States purchased the former Danish colony of St. Croix, St. John and St. Thomas, which is now the U.S. Virgin Islands. The United States purchased these islands because they feared that the islands might be seized as a submarine base during World War I. After a few months of negotiations, a sales price of $25 million was agreed. A referendum held in late 1916 confirmed the decision to sell by a wide margin. The deal was thus ratified and finalized on January 17, 1917, when the United States and Denmark exchanged their respective treaty ratifications. The U.S. took possession of the islands on March 31, 1917. The territory was renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands.[16] U.S. citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of the islands in 1927.

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) was a United Nations trust territory in Micronesia (western Pacific) administered by the United States from July 18, 1947, comprising the former League of Nations Mandate administered by Japan and taken by the U.S. in 1944. On October 21, 1986, the U.S. ended its administration of the Marshall Islands district. These islands are now republics that, in 1986, signed a Compact of Free Association with the U.S.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Covenant, CNMI Law Revision Commission, http://www.cnmilaw.org/covenant.htm, retrieved 2008-05-20 
  2. ^ Student Information, Office of Economic Development, State of Alaska, http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/student.htm, retrieved 2009-01-17 
  3. ^ Ransom, J. Ellis. 1940. Derivation of the Word ‘Alaska’. American Anthropologist n.s., 42: pp. 550-551
  4. ^ Hale, C. (2008) "When Hawaii Had a King", Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008, p. 21.
  5. ^ a b Kinzer, Stephen (2006) America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
  6. ^ Miller 1984, p. 163 "... Will Show No Mercy Real Warfare Ahead For Filipino Rebels Kitchener Plan Adopted The Administration Weary of Protracted Hostilities.' The reference to Kitchener made eminently clear MacArthur's intent, as the British general's tactics in South Africa had already earned ..."
  7. ^ "Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations". The Avalon project, Yale Law School. February 23, 1903. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba002.htm. Retrieved 2007-06-20. 
  8. ^ "Treaty Between the United States of America and Cuba". The Avalon project, Yale Law School. May 29, 1934. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba001.htm. Retrieved 2007-06-20. 
  9. ^ Act of July 3, 1950, Ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319.
  10. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - in Spanish (Spanish).
  11. ^ Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - in English (English translation).
  12. ^ Pedro Paterno's Proclamation of War, MSC Schools, Philippines, June 2, 1899, http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/pa990602.html, retrieved 2007-10-17 
  13. ^ ( – Scholar search) Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law), Corpus Juris, August 28, 1916, http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/9-others/72-philippine-autonomy-act-jones-law.html, retrieved 2008-07-07 
  14. ^ "EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 134 PROCLAIMING THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF THE PHILIPPINES BASED ON THE "TAGALOG" LANGUAGE", SPEECH OF His EXCELLENCY MANUEL L. QUEZON PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES ON FILIPINO NATIONAL LANGUAGE, December 30, 1937 .
  15. ^ Andrew Gonzalez, FSC (1998), "The Language Planning Situation in the Philippines" (pdf), Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural development 19 (5&6): 487, doi:10.1080/01434639808666365, http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf, retrieved 2007-11-06  (requoted by www.multilingual-matters.net)
  16. ^ Today in History: March 31 : Virgin Islands, U.S. Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar31.html, retrieved 2009-12-04 .

Bibliography

  • Miller, Stuart Creighton (1984), Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, Yale University Press, ISBN 0300030819 
  • Mellander, Gustavo A.; Nelly Maldonado Mellander (1999). Charles Edward Magoon: The Panama Years. Río Piedras, Puerto Rico: Editorial Plaza Mayor. ISBN 1563281554. OCLC 42970390.
  • Mellander, Gustavo A. (1971). The United States in Panamanian Politics: The Intriguing Formative Years. Danville, Ill.: Interstate Publishers. OCLC 138568.

External links


Quotes

Up to date as of January 14, 2010
(Redirected to American benevolence article)

From Wikiquote

This page contains quotes on whether the United States has benign intentions when she intervenes in other countries.

Supporting views

  • Finally, it should be the earnest wish and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines by assuring them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of free peoples, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of benevolent assimilation substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule.
  • Take up the White Man's burden,
        And reap his old reward—
    The blame of those ye better
        The hate of those ye guard—
  • The struggle must continue til the misguided creatures there shall have their eyes bathed in enough blood to cause their vision to be cleared, and to understand that not only is resistance useless, but that those whom they are now holding as enemies have no purpose toward them except to consecrate them to liberty and to open to them a way to happiness.
  • Whether we like it or not, we must go on slaughtering the natives in English fashion, and taking what muddy glory lies in wholesale killing til they have learned to respect our arms. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow.
  • Today the greatest menace to mankind may well be the American tendency to overrespond to heathen evils abroad, either by attacking them or by condemning them to outer darkness. The study of American foreign missions and their long-continued conditioning influence at home needs no special advocacy in an age when we get our power politics overextended into foreign disasters like Vietnam mainly through an excess of righteousness and disinterested benevolence, under a President who talks like a Baptist preacher and who inherited his disaster from a Secretary of State who was also a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church. Plainly the missionary impulse has contributed both to the American swelled head and to its recent crown of thorns.
  • American post-World War II policy is in this respect devoid of artifice or deception. The American mind set, the minds of our leaders or of the people, was entirely the mind set of an emancipator. In such a mind set, one need not feel or act superior, or believe one is imposing one's ethos or values on others, since one senses naturally that others cannot doubt the emancipator's righteous cause anymore than his capacities. In this respect, the American role as superpower, particularly in the early postwar years, is very analogous to the role that can be attributed to a professor, mentor, or other type of emancipator.
    • Paul Kattenburg, 1980 [6]
  • The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
  • When I came into office, I was determined that our country would go into the 21st century still the world's greatest force for peace and freedom, for democracy and security and prosperity. We have to promote these values just as vigorously as we did in the Cold War.
  • It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.
  • The United States is good. We try to do our best everywhere.
  • America has never been an empire. We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused – preferring greatness to power and justice to glory.
  • The growth of entrepreneurial classes throughout the world is an asset in the promotion of human rights and individual liberty, and it should be understood and used as such. Yet peace is the first and most important condition for continued prosperity and freedom. America's military power must be secure because the United States is the only guarantor of global peace and stability. The current neglect of America's armed forces threatens its ability to maintain peace.
  • ...today we are called upon to stand for democracy under attack in Colombia.
  • Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world.
  • Nevertheless Kosovo is not the only indicator of a change of mood, of the sort of moral interventionist internationalism which has come to be associated particularly with Tony Blair. [...] in fact, after a quarter of a century of doing nothing, the 'international community' in precisely the same year as Kosovo did engineer the independence of East Timor.
    • Adrian Hastings, June 2001 [14]
  • There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. [...] no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents [...] Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.
  • We got off to an unnecessarily bad start. But it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad and it is a moral and strategic imperative that we give it our best shot.
  • There was a time, not so long ago, when the might of our alliances was a driving force in the survival and the success of freedom... America must always be the world's paramount military power, but we can magnify our power through alliances... let there be no doubt, this country is united in its determination to defeat terrorism...
  • Bill O'Reilly: The South Vietnamese didn't fight for their freedom, which is why they don't have it today.
    George W. Bush: Yes. --September 27, 2004 [18]
  • There's a great deal of criticism about the United States, but there is one thing that nobody criticizes the United States. Nobody thinks the United States went to strike against Iraq in order to gain land or water or oil, nobody thinks America has any ambitions about real estate. As it happened in the 20th century, the American boys went to fight in two world wars, many of them lost their lives. The United States won the wars, won the land, but you gave back every piece of it. America didn't keep anything out of her victories for herself. You gave back Japan, an improved Japan, you gave Germany, an improved Germany, you've heard the Marshall Plan. And today, I do not believe there is any serious person on earth who thinks the United States, whether you agree or don't agree with this strike, has any egoistic or material purposes in the war against Iraq. The reason is, for this strike, that you cannot let the world run wild. And people who are coming from different corners of our life, attack and kill women and children and innocent people, just out of the blue. And I think the whole world is lucky that there is a United States that has the will and the power to handle the new danger that has arrived on the 21st century.
  • ...in an Inaugural Address striking for its idealism [George W. Bush] told Americans that spreading liberty around the world was "the calling of our time" and that the nation's "vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
  • I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now that we're there.
  • Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong?
  • It wants to stop being seen as the supporter of Muslim tyrants and instead become the champion of Muslim freedoms. President Bush and his secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, are transforming American policy in this realm, and while some of the implementation has been spotty, the general thrust is clear and laudable.
  • ...we guarantee the security of the world, protect our allies, keep critical sea lanes open and lead the war on terror. China, by contrast, seems to be threatening an invasion of Taiwan and could ignite an arms race that takes Japan, South Korea and Taiwan nuclear. [...] the Pax Americana in Asia, as in Europe, has been conducive to a half-century of growth, peace and prosperity. Things might be different if China were democratic. But for now a line must be drawn: An attack on Taiwan is an attack on all democratic states in the region.
  • Never has America been more alone in spreading democracy's promise. [...] It is the last country with a mission, a mandate and a dream, as old as its founders. All of this may be dangerous, even delusional, but it is also unavoidable. It is impossible to think of America without these properties of self-belief.
  • Mr. President, today, in his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush gave a vivid and, I believe, compelling description of the threat to America and to freedom from radical Islamic fundamentalism. He made, in my view, a powerful case for what is at stake for every American. Simply put, the radical fundamentalists seek to kill our citizens in great numbers, to disrupt our economy, and to reshape the international order. They would take the world backwards, replacing freedom with fear and hope with hatred. If they were to acquire a nuclear weapon, the threat they would pose to America would be literally existential. The President said it well. The President is right that we cannot and will not retreat. We will defend ourselves and defeat the enemies of freedom and progress.
  • Whether you were for it or against it or whatever your opinions of it are to date, every American ought to be pulling for this mission to succeed.
  • The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail.
  • And Olmert will be supporting not only anti-Israeli terror, but also the anti-Western revolutionary movement. His radical unilateral process will disrupt the American strategy in the area and will bury U.S. President George W. Bush's dream of stability and democracy in the Middle East.
  • The US has its own national problems - some of them serious - as well as global challenges such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. So what the US wants is a peaceful and prosperous Latin America. This has been the aim of US foreign policy in the last 25 years.
  • The default position of leftists like, say, Michael Moore and many writers at The Nation, is that America is essentially a malignant, imperialistic force in the world and the use of American military power is almost always wrong. Liberals have a more benign, and correct, view of America's role in the world and tend to favor the use of military force if it is exercised judiciously, as a last resort, and in a multilateral context--with U.N. approval or through NATO. The first Gulf War, the overthrow of the Taliban and the Kosovo intervention met these criteria; Bush's Iraq invasion clearly did not.
  • America still fields what is arguably the most disciplined, humane military force in history, a model of restraint compared with ancient armies that wallowed in the spoils of war or even more-modern armies that heedlessly killed civilians and prisoners.
  • You start to see — the more times I have been to Washington, the more times you talk to somebody about, we have got to get money for AIDS orphans, or we have to get money for — whether it be any kind of response to any tragedy, often, the answer is, well, we're at — we are at war right now. A lot of money's going to war right now. We don't have — so — so, you start to look at it in a different way. And, so, whether you're for or against the war, you can certainly see that the amount of money being spent at war and the amount of money we are not spending in countries and dealing with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted, and then cause war. So, you know — so, our priorities are quite strange. So, we're not — we are missing a lot of opportunities to do a lot of the good that America is used to doing, has a history of doing. And we're not able to be as generous. We're not able to be on the forefront of all of these wonderful things as much.
  • For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab Street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others' freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth...
  • We will stand with Israel, because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones. [...] We will support Israel in her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians - to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom - that we will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary.
  • Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. They've been killing us for decades. It's time to stop pretending these terrorist incidents are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger.
  • I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- that there's a level of violence that they tolerate.
  • The unwritten treaty between the United States and Israel is based on a similar world view. Both countries believe in democratic values, respect for human rights, solving conflicts through negotiation using rational and logical arguments, and both would like to see a better, more reasonable world living in peace and prosperity without oppressing people, while providing equal opportunities and exploiting the abilities of each and every person. [...] And anyone who does not want to solve the Middle East conflict because he is unwilling to pay the price of compromise, finds it convenient to hide behind slogans such as a war of religions or a war of cultures, in order to explain that the conflict is insoluble and that no territorial arrangement will satisfy the fighters for religion or culture. The conclusion: It is therefore preferable not to give up anything and to keep what there is, to fortify ourselves for the upcoming Armageddon, and to steal from welfare and education and health so that we can arm ourselves to the teeth.
  • I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.
  • There can be no debate about the rights and wrongs of what is happening in Iraq today. The desire for democracy is good. The attempt to destroy it through terrorism is evil.
  • Barack Obama: We have set ourselves back in terms of the leverage we have in the world, in terms of our ability to persuade other countries to cooperate with us. And so we're gonna have to fix a very difficult situation. But the one thing I always remind people, because they get discouraged, they say, you know, people around the world, they're expressing hatred towards America. You know, people outside of this country are expressing disappointment because they got high expectations for America. And they want America to lead, they want America to lead through our values, and through our ideals and through our example. But they have high expectations of us because, I think, that this country is still the last best hope on earth.
    David Letterman: This is a tremendous suit you have...
    Obama: You like this one?
    Letterman: This is a beautiful...
    Obama: That's a presidential suit.
    Letterman: That is an electable suit, I would vote for that suit. A good looking suit. We'll be right back with Senator Barack Obama. --April 09, 2007 [42]
  • I want to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, the — millions of people lost their life. The Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my concern is there would be a parallel there; that if we didn't help this government get going, stay on its feet, be able to defend itself, the same thing would happen. There would be the slaughter of a lot of innocent life. The difference, of course, is that this time around the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East, they'd follow us here.
  • Look, it's real simple what happened. These people came here and killed us because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women, because they hate us... if you are confused about this, I think you put our country in much greater jeopardy. The reality is, these people are planning to kill us because, and this is hard for people to recognize, I usually hear this on the Democratic side. Don't usually hear it on the Republican side. You have got to face reality. If you can't face reality, you can't lead.
  • We had saved the world from Nazism and fascism. We were wealthy and we were safe. Many thought it was time we went home. But Americans like President Harry Truman and General George Marshall saw the truth: that it would require not only America's military might, but our ingenuity, our allies, and our generosity to rebuild Europe and keep it safe from tyrants who would prey on poverty and resentment. Our leaders resisted the imperial temptation to force our will by virtue of our unmatched strength. Instead, they built bonds of trust founded on restraint, the rule of law, and good faith. They were magnanimous out of strength, not weakness. [...] We saw the power of this relationship during the Cold War, when America deterred the Soviet Union from its quest for world domination. We saw it when we established the United Nations and NATO, which have done so much for peace and human rights. After the Cold War, we saw it in Bosnia, where we helped broker a lasting peace. And we saw it again in Kosovo, where we joined our NATO allies to stop a brutal war criminal from perpetrating another campaign of ethnic cleansing.
  • I didn't come here to be a congressman. I came here to do something. And I think the top of our list is providing for the safety and security of the American people. That's at the top of our list. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them? Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don't do it now, and if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it.
  • The reason we have no moral authority is we’re not acting. I heard the same argument with Milosevic. I went over there, found out there was genocide going on, I came to your husband, I said, "We must act!" Now, look, we acted. Not an American was killed. We saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
  • I see four core American interests in Iraq that cannot be abandoned. There must be no Afghan-like Al Qaeda takeover of wide areas. There must be no genocide (say a Shiite sweep against Sunnis). There must be no regional conflagration (for example, a Turkish invasion). And there must be no return to the old order (murderous Stalinist dictatorship). To ensure this, the United States must keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
  • Boy, America has had a lot of shitty presidents. Just take a stroll down repressed memory land and look at that police line-up from November 22, 1963 through January 1992... What no one is saying is the one overarching reason [George W. Bush]'s the worst: the Bush administration is the first that doesn't even mean well.
  • The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government, which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people.
  • I understand the bombings brought the war to its end. I think it was something that couldn't be helped. [...] Luckily Hokkaidō was not occupied. In the worst case, Hokkaido could have been taken by the Soviet Union. [...] I don't hold a grudge against the United States.
  • Bill O'Reilly: Talking Points believes America, Britain and our allies that tried to do a noble thing in Iraq. We despise those who are rooting against the effort. But we understand the frustration that good Americans feel over a country that may not want to be free despite the president's opposite belief.
    Tony Snow: ...The Iraqi people when posed with a choice between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government they've chosen the Iraqi government. Think about Anbar Province. Last November written off. Everybody said it's wholly owned and operated by al Qaeda. But when it became clear we were putting more forces in, what happened? The local tribal leaders said, thank God you're here, they're killing our people. They're invaders, they're desecrating Islam. They are humiliating our people. Help us out. What's happened now? They've put al Qaeda to route and all of a sudden Anbar is something that we're pointing to as a success story. Markets are opening, people have political rights. And you know what they're saying to Americans? They're saying thank you. Same thing is starting to go on in Diyala Province, similarly in neighborhoods in Baghdad. Same pattern. ... what they need is a sense you are there to stay, you are in there to fight and you are in there to win. Just told you about Anbar. I told you about Diyala. There is safety in the north, there is safety in the south. --July 12, 2007 [52]
  • ...there are Islamic extremists who do want to destroy America... we have Osama bin Laden on the run, and there's no question that Americans are for justice.
  • Think of it like this. When Burger King, if it closes down in the neighborhood, the McDonald's makes a lot more money because there's no competition. Without America competing for the sanity and safety of the Middle East, the terrorist threat will spread like a cancer, and those cancer cells are all throughout the region... We need to stop listening to the clowns in Washington. Dig deep for the courage and conviction to do the hard work that lies ahead so our kids don't have to. This is like winning this war in Iraq. We as a nation can do anything that we set our minds to. Why? Because we're Americans. We're winners. Because we're on the side of what is right and what is just.
  • This country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other nations in the history of the world combined, and I'm tired of people feeling like they've got to apologize for America.
  • ...freedom is never granted. It is earned by each generation... in the face of tyranny, cruelty, oppression, extremism, sometimes there is only one choice. When the world looks to America, America looks to you, and you never let her down... I have never lost faith in America's essential goodness and greatness... I have 35 years of experience, fighting for real change... the American people and our American military cannot want freedom and stability for the Iraqis more than they want it for themselves... we should have stayed focused on wiping out the Taliban and finding, killing, capturing bin Laden and his chief lieutenants... I also made a full commitment to martial American power, resources and values in the global fight against these terrorists. That begins with ensuring that America does have the world's strongest and smartest military force. We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working... We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war... We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world. I propose increasing the size of our Army by 80,000 soldiers, balancing the legacy systems with newer programs to help us keep our technological edge... I'm fighting for a Cold War medal for everyone who served our country during the Cold War, because you were on the front lines of battling communism. Well, now we're on the front lines of battling terrorism, extremism, and we have to win. Our commitment to freedom, to tolerance, to economic opportunity has inspired people around the world... American values are not just about America, but they speak to the human dignity, the God-given spark that resides in each and every person across the world... We are a good and great nation.
  • Had I won the Nobel Peace Prize, what I would have done is awarded it to either the Bush administration for successfully disarming the nuclear program of North Korea and working diligently to do the same thing in Iran, or I would have awarded it to General Petraeus and the United States military. If there has ever been an engine for peace in the world, it is the United States military.
  • Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. [...] Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
  • ...in a little place called El Salvador, a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, provided that little shield around that government, while they stood up and had free elections and brought freedom to El Salvador... that lady in El Salvador who stood there in the line for the elections... she had a bullet hole in her arm and she was asked, do you want to go to the aid station, and she said, yes, but first, I vote.
  • ...the people who are dying right now, who come back and say that they feel proud because they have been part of something special. Yes, that's absolutely right, absolutely goddamn right. When they come back, they say that the thing that they find is, they're part of building something special that Iraqis have never had before.
  • The entire South American continent has long chafed under the benign neglect of one U.S. administration after another.
  • I think, suggesting that America is somehow responsible for 9/11 is... Reverend Wright did suggest...
  • ...we went into Iraq at the invitation of the government, not as an invasion.
  • You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans ... America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001.
  • I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace.
  • In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?
  • We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
  • Building a democracy, especially in this part of the world, which we did not know any form of democratic government, is very difficult. But we are making progress, and we are moving along, thanks to the help of this wonderful U.S. military who have come from a far to help us and give us a chance to build a decent nation here. [...] Seriously, this is no pandering, these people have saved us from tyranny, from genocide.
  • I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet. You know what, when everybody else apologizes for all the crap they've done then we can apologize for our crap too. Boo-hoo, cry me a river.
  • It’s now a long, confused history. [...] the price of defending our nation cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a way of life they don’t want.
  • ...it's a different situation. The Afghan people by and large like America. They like us. They hated the Russians. But they fear the Taliban because they don't have security. [...] I submit we give it one more shot. We give McChrystal the 40,000 he needs and we see what happens.
  • [The United States has] certainly at a high level, gone to extremes to protect innocent civilians. Where they've made mistakes, and mistakes have been made, in Kosovo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, apologies have followed. The United States, in general, has accepted and tried its best, with the assistance of military lawyers, has tried its best to avoid violating international humanitarian law.
  • Al-Qaeda was embedded in Afghan society, it was given safe haven by Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership. And they were given a chance to turn over al-Qaeda and Bin Laden before we attacked them, and they refused.

Opposing views

  • We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations.
    • Thomas Jefferson, cited by Mexican historian José Fuentes Mares in Cecil Robinson, ed. and trans., The View from Chapultepec: Mexican Writers on the Mexican-American War (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989): p. 160.
  • We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.
  • The guns of Dewey in Manilla Bay were heard across Asia and Africa, they echoed through the palace at Peking and brought to the Oriental mind a new and potent force among western nations. We, in common with the countries of Europe, are striving to enter the limitless markets of the east [...] These people respect nothing but power. I believe the Philippines will be enormous markets and sources of wealth.
  • And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one - our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.
  • In its advocacy of the Monroe Doctrine the United States considers its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an incident, not an end. While this may seem based on selfishness alone, the author of the Doctrine had no higher or more generous motive in its declaration. To assert for it a nobler purpose is to proclaim a new doctrine.
  • You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.
  • We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock. We've done it before, so why all the shock?
  • If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there -- those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps.
  • Hence in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "White Man's Burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.
  • Everything which the Arab reality offers that is generous, open and creative is crushed by regimes whose only anxiety is to perpetuate their own power and self-serving interest. And what is often worse is to see that the West remains insensitive to the daily tragedy while at the same time accommodating, not to say supporting, the ruling classes who strangle the free will and aspirations of their people.
    • Abdellatif Laabi (Moroccan writer), Jeune Afrique magazine, September 5, 1990, cited by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander in "Unholy Babylon, The Secret History of Saddam's War" (Victor Gollenz Ltd London 1991): p. 71
  • When the United States leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interest to do so, we will do so. When it does not suit our interests, we will not.
  • I never criticized United States planners for mistakes in Vietnam. True, they made some mistakes, but my criticism was always aimed at what they aimed to do and largely achieved. The Russians doubtless made mistakes in Afghanistan, but my condemnation of their aggression and atrocities never mentioned those mistakes, which are irrelevant to the matter — though not for the commissars. Within our ideological system, it is impossible to perceive that anyone might criticize anything but "mistakes" (I suspect that totalitarian Russia was more open in that regard).
  • Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or "disappeared", at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.
  • Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today. [...] American idols and icons are shaping the world from Katmandu to Kinshasa, from Cairo to Caracas. Globalization wears a 'Made in USA' label. [...] The Americans are acting, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, as if they own a blank check in their 'McWorld.' Strengthened by the end of communism and an economic boom, Washington seems to have abandoned its self-doubts from the Vietnam trauma. America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating.
  • It's threatening enough when government uses force in America, but the really big guns come out when government intervenes overseas. The Cold War may be over, but since then we've still sent soldiers to Somalia, Panama, Bosnia, and a hundred other countries in the name of "keeping the peace". Sometimes we seem to bomb first and ask questions later. We bombed this factory in Sudan... Our interventions may even make America less safe, more vulnerable to terrorism, because they tend to make us new enemies.
  • We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
  • The CIA, in its present state, is viewed by its Capitol Hill overseers as incapable of targeting Osama bin Laden. That leads to an irresistible impulse to satisfy Americans by pulverizing Afghanistan, a desire heightened by Friday's refusal of the country's Taliban rulers to give up bin Laden.
  • Fundamentally I don't see how the government of my country has done anything whatsoever to address and correct the root causes of international terrorism. Quite the contrary; every action I can see seems almost designed to have the opposite effect — as if orchestrated to maximize the finances of those who make armaments, by maximizing the number of people who now hate me personally for actions that I do not personally condone. How can I be a proud citizen of a country that unilaterally pulls out of widely accepted treaties, that refuses to accept a world court, that flouts fair trade with shameful policies regarding steel and agriculture, and that almost blindly supports Israel's increasingly unjustifiable occupation? And worst of all, I find that my leaders, including you, are calling for war against a sovereign nation that we suspect to be corrupt, thereby (even if our suspicions are correct) undermining all precedents against unilateral action by other countries who might in future decide that our own policies are wrong. If we peremptorily strike country X, why shouldn't country X have a right to do the same to us, and to our children and grandchildren in future years?
  • We haven't [helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers]. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?
  • Regime change, substituting one tyrant for another tyrant, with the biggest tyrant pulling the puppet strings of all the tyrants, does not make for peace... When we turn right around and say that our God condones the killing of innocent civilians as a necessary means to an end. We say that God understands collateral damage... We say that God will bless the shock and awe as we take over unilaterally another country... making a preemptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem...
  • ...I think the more the West supports Musharraf, the stronger the extremist forces grow and the moderate forces are being marginalized, that's not good for Pakistan... There is rising anti-Americanism for different reasons. One of them is that Musharraf is a dictator and people feel angry that the West talks about freedom but turns a blind eye to the empowerment of Pakistanis. The second reason is that we have a very large Pakhtun population and the bombing in Afghanistan led to many civilian deaths and people knew each other across the border, so there is that grief...
  • The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.
  • Every time you talk about Vietnam, it's always — the Vietnam war is summarized this way, "58,000 American killed and anywhere between 2 and 3 million Vietnamese." There is a distinction between 2 and 3 million, but that's okay. I used to joke all the time — racism in America, is so endemic and so hard to see, but I was always — I used to joke that I was very proud of Bill Clinton because he was the first president, in Kosovo, the former Yugoslavia, since World War II to actually bomb white people.
  • ...the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq. I would like to hear that. But that's one of the things that concerns Iraqi people. And when I meet with Arab leaders around the world they all have noticed this. They're the ones that have brought it to my attention and I think it's an accurate statement.
  • We are not going to see any more US troops come home in body bags at Dover for the sake of some Cheney affiliate grabbing the petroleum in Iran's Ahvaz fields.
  • So, what about the inevitable next step - a defensive military force paid for directly by the corporations that would most benefit from its protection? If, for example, an insurrection in Nigeria threatens that nation's ability to export oil (and it does), why not have Chevron or Exxon Mobil underwrite the dispatch of a battalion or two of mercenaries?
  • Whatever the motives of George W Bush, for Tony Blair, the war against Saddam was supposed to be another demonstration that military force could be applied to produce good outcomes by removing one of the worst tyrannies on the planet.
  • He is a war criminal. He brought about the war against Iraq deliberately, with lies and falsehoods.
  • The one who put the bomb to kill the occupier is different from the one who put a bomb to kill an innocent human being. What can we say to the American forces who killed 100,000 Iraqis?
  • Eyes are shedding tears, and the heart feels pain and sadness for our people in Lebanon due to the bombing, terror and clear aggression that the Zionist enemy conducts and that is shielded by a number of countries, including the United States.
  • The scale of the tragedy that has befallen Lebanon is a result of the continuous Israeli attacks, which have reached the point where patience can no longer bear. It is not possible to stand with folded hands before them. The international community must take the intitiative to impose an immediate ceasefire and to halt this horrific tragedy. The Muslim world and all peace-loving people will not excuse the parties that put obstacles in the way of this.
  • [The execution of Saddam Hussein] was an opportunity to set the world a good example of civilized behaviour in dealing with a barbarically uncivilized man... If Bush and Blair are eventually put on trial for war crimes, I shall not be among those pressing for them to be hanged... Uniquely privileged evidence on the American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam before they switched loyalties is now snuffed out at the tug of a rope (no doubt to the relief of Donald Rumsfeld and other guilty parties -- it is surely no accident that the trial of Saddam neglected those of his crimes that might -- no, would -- have implicated them).
  • In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism. The blame should fall on us, the leaders of the Arab nation, with our ongoing differences, our refusal to walk the path of unity. All that has made the nation lose its confidence in us.
  • Of course I am an absolute, pure democrat. But you know the problem? It's not even a problem, it's a real tragedy. The thing is that I am the only one, there just aren't any others in the world. Let's look what happens in North America -- sheer horror: torture, the homeless, Guantanamo, keeping people in custody without trial or investigation.
  • The war is an immoral abomination that we'll pay for for decades to come. We're paying for it now at the rate of 100 kids a month while Bush plays politics with it. [...] I've always thought that they were bad people with evil intent - and all that, it's playing out now.
  • ...most of my fellow Democratic presidential candidates want you to think the world is divided between good and evil and they are on 'the side of angels.'
  • Republicans sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.
  • An even more appalling measure of Western arrogance - also speaking volumes about "us" when confronted with the incomprehensible "other" - is the diatribe with which the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, chose to "greet" his guest, a head of state. Bollinger, supposedly an academic, spoke about confronting "the mind of evil". His crass behavior got him 15 minutes of fame. Were President Bush to be greeted in the same manner in any university in the developing world - and motives would abound also to qualify him as a "cruel, petty dictator" - the Pentagon would have instantly switched to let's-bomb-them-with-democracy mode.
  • The Americans were caught with their pants down after 9/11. They are committing unspeakable acts. I think that the human rights violations there are unacceptable and that they will be sorry for it and pay reparations for it. We are not like that. Because our High Court has prepared the tools to deal with the reality that isn't only 9/11, unfortunately. We have prepared tools to defend human rights in times of peace as well as in times of war.
  • We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
  • We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the [U.S.] planes, if we could, if I could ... we would stop them and bring them down.
  • I was always on Darth Vader's side, even when I saw the movie. And I'm sticking with him.
  • Writes a soldier: "I’m a Christian and a soldier. I take offense from your writings. I believe in freedom of speech, but that comes with the responsibilty of tempering it as well. You make it sound like soldiers are evil murderers. Who do you think protects your right to free speach? Who do you think lays their lives on the line every day for people like you who don’t appreciate the sacrifice that soldiers make for you and your family. You may not agree with the War in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean you have to treat soldiers like they are evil. I hope that one day you rot in Hell." I replied: Sir, do you really think that Bush or Obama can give you the right, and absolve you of the sin, of killing innocent people? That category includes not just civilians, by the way, but also soldiers defending their country from foreign invaders. I hope that one day you go to Heaven.
  • The problem is the American tax code is fundamentally anti-growth, we double-tax savings and investment... Don't bully Switzerland into undermining, emasculating, a very good human rights policy. I thought after Bush spent 8 years irritating the rest of the world, America might have a different attitude, and instead now Obama is going, throwing around the weight of the world like a 800-pound gorilla.

See Also


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message