Is Bush's foreign policy any different than those of past administrations?

[DerekG]

I keep hearing about how the neocons transformed the way we conduct foreign policy, how unapologetic they are about empire-building. As I understand, Jimmy Carter is aghast (odd thing that, since both he and Reagan bolstered the Salvadorian death squads).

Did I wander into the "Mirror, Mirror" universe of Star Trek lore? Haven't we pursued empire for over a century? Hell, in the past sixty years alone, we've toppled over 40 governments and crushed dozens of leftist/populist movements.

Besides an atypically strident attitude, what did Bush's cadre bring to the table?

Preemptive war? Ever read about the rather suspicious circumstances under which we went to war with Mexico and Spain?

Setting us on a course for perpetual conflict? What on earth was going through Truman's mind when he set in stone the national security apparatus?

Torture? Google OPERATION PHOENIX, and find out what our brave counterinsurgency boys were doing to Vietnamese peasants.

Chemical weapons? My God, that sounds like something Nixon (Indochina) or Clinton (Columbia) would resort to!

Honestly, what's so new about the neocons?

[electropop]

1. They are an anachronism.

America has a lot to answer for in its past. We do not need to resume the hideous ways of yesteryear; we need to begin claiming the moral high ground.

[400Years]

2. The only difference is they don't really try to hide it anymore

other than that its pretty much the same

[wookie294]

3. Agreed

Bush's foreign policy is an extension of past presidents' policies. Google "Operation Cyclone" for info on how Jimmy Carter spent $500 million to establish Islamic terrorist groups to undermine the Soviet Union in Asia. The policy was continued when Reagan came to power.

[obxhead]

4. I see your point, but remind you how Bush PROMISED to

bring honesty, integrity, and transparency to our government. He has failed on all three counts.

[coalition_unwilling]

5. There is a lot of general truth in your post, but

you need to take a look at the U.S. National Security Directive of Sept. 2002, wherein BushCo lay out a new defense "strategy" to be followed, whereby we will act pre-emptively to eliminate threats to our military dominance before the threats even materialize. That's what allowed for all the futzing about on SH, even after we knew there were no WMD there, i.e., Repukes could claim that "he had the intention to acquire them" even if no responsible person would maintain that he had the capacity to acquire them. Thus, SH represented a threat to U.S. military dominance that might materialize at some point in the future and thus was subject to a "demonstration project" of afore-mentioned National Security Directive. (NB: Acting against threats that don't yet exist was part of the charges against the Nazis at Nuremburg. The Nazis claimed they had to attack Poland before it became a threat to thema position decisively rejected by Nuremburg and called, rightly, the worst offense of "aggressive war.")

That directive from Sept. 2002 represents a signal departure from previous administrations' national defense policies.

[DerekG]

7. Oh, I know about the bold language of their national security strategy

I'm simply arguing that it's hard to betray national defense policies of the past, if there never was an emphasis on "defense."

[mzmolly]

6. Mexico and Spain?

:eyes: Why not go back to Mesopotamia and scrounge up some dirt?

[DerekG]

8. I'd prefer to scrounge up all the crimes my country was involved in

Roll your eyes all you want, but the cultural amnesia our populace suffers guarantees that we repeat the same crimes.

[mzmolly]

9. Going back 200 years to justify current neocon policy make me "roil."

One can cherry pick various similarities between the current neanderthals running the country and ancient history if they wish, however it is prudent to examine current events.

If you don't know the difference, poll the rest of the world who feels Bush is more of threat than Osama Bin Laden.

A few recent topics worthy of consideration?

PNAC

PREEMPTIVE WAR ON PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY

NOT ONE SOLDIER LOST IN BATTLE IN CLINTON INITIATED INTERVENTIONS

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS SPENT ON KILLING THE INNOCENT DAILY

911 HAPPENED WITH BUSH AT THE HELM

OVER 5000 AMERICANS LOST DUE TO BUSH'S ARROGANCE/ERROR

COUNTLESS CIVILIANS SLAUGHTERED UNDER BUSH'S DIRECTION

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS UP IN RECRUITING TERRORISTS TO HELP HIS CAUSE

IRAQ HAS BECOME A TERRORIST HAVEN

To name a few.

[DerekG]

10. Not justification. Education.

Maybe if we knew anything about the impetus for each (or any) of the 10+ wars we've found ourselves in, 70 percent of the populace wouldn't have supported this current bloodbath. And I've got news for you: the American people will fall for it again.

I do find it curious that you employed the term "ancient history," as if Polk were Caligula, and McKinley Nero. A century ain't that much, especially if we still live with the fallout.

[mzmolly]

13. Much has changed in 100/200 years.

A certain amount of Americans will always support war regardless, that's not the topic of this thread. Your suggestion that Neocons = Jimmy Carter is.

[DerekG]

15. I never claimed Carter was a disciple of Strauss

But his administration did some very, very naughty things, enough to discredit his title, "The human rights president."

At the very least, Carter should have taken some time out from building houses, to erect a few crosses for Archbishop Oscar Romero and the four American nuns, who all got "special treatment" from his buddies.

[Eugene]

11. Realpolitik may not be new, but previous administrations

practiced it more intelligently and pragmatically
than the neocons at BushCo. They were willing to
play the diplomacy game to advance the national
interest through persuasion, not just force.

The Bushies practice a brand of naked imperialism
not seen since World War II. They are trying
to turn the clock back 100 years.

[mmonk]

12. The neocon strategy is more on a grand scale.

Global economic and military hegemony.

[mmonk]

14. Also, it will fall more under aggressive war

than covert war.

[Postman]

16. Ideological maniacs are in charge who don't recognize reality or law.

Completely inept, militarily, economically, morally and ethically.

What really is different about this administration is their ideological rigidity in not accepting anyone's "truth" but their own.

And the ease they have in lying to the people and the world (and really themselves) when everyone sees the truth except them.

They are dangerous and are making us less safe.

Iraq is a failure and the more innocent people they kill the more dangerous it will become for us innocent Americans.