"In aggregate, there was less death in the world due to these "global police forces."

Rather than letting people live freely? This is the worst argument for empire-building I have ever seen. You're basically saying that oppression helps people. Your logic implies that China, as a police state, should be the perfect example of a peaceful society. It is peaceful yes but only because of vast levels of oppression and brutality.

"I believe the rise of other powers is a natural thing, and power can be a zero-sum game, so as one's power increases, another must decrease. It is a cycle that cannot be stopped."

I guess that's one way to plaigarise Foucualt.

Long live Assad. Long livSyria! Down with Al Qaeda. Down with US imperialism!

"he end of that ridiculous government is the first step in Libya not being awful, as far away as that day is."

Libya was an African paradise before your Al Qaeda friends swept to power. But you've never met an intervention you didn't like.

This is the New Libya, "not being awful". Invictus luvluvs torture.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26/doctors-without-borders-halts-work-in-libyan-city-of-misrata-over-torture-concerns/

"ntervention is needed from international community when a dictator is opressing and KILLING their own citizens. "

And I suppose those anti-Assad suicide bombers aren't killing their own citizens eh? Keep cheering for al Qaeda, you humanitarian you.

Sargmacher, I'd love to give you examples. Persia built the world's longest road and protected those who traveled along it. Greece spread it's knowledge and ideas to other places. Rome spread it's wealth and technology to other places. The Mongols kept bandits off of the trade routes through the Middle East and Central Asia, enabling the spreading of wealth and ideas. The Mughals under Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar ended the feuding among the various Indian states, and spread the freedom of religion and *stopped* the oppression of the Hindu majority in the country. Spain and Britain kept pirates off of the open seas and enacted maritime laws (the only time pirates were allowed and encouraged is when Spain was losing its hegemony and Britain had yet to gain hers). Prussia stopped conflict between the German states by extending it's rule as regional hegemon and absorbing the rest. And now as America has reached hegemony, we have to decide what we do to benefit the world

Oppression =! hegemony. Power and security = hegemony. There are many ways to have power and security other than by oppressing people. Were the British people oppressed by their government? Where the Roman territories oppressed by theirs? Oppression is a means to hegemony, but while there is correlation there is not causation. I am not defending people who oppress others. What I am trying to do is explain that the natural state of the world is anarchy. The absence of a higher power adds instability into the world. I thoroughly believe that one day we will have a world government to oversee us. That is my dream. Until then though, the regional and global hegemons must do what they can to keep peace in the world and help the suffering populations around them.

al Qaeda is for all intensive purposes dead, Putin. When is the last time it's main branch staged an attack?

And I have seen bombings that the anti-Assad forces have done. It's sad that it has devolved to that. All that means is we should have intervened sooner. Civil war means that we have failed to act in time, not that we have the wrong intentions.

"The Mongols kept bandits off of the trade routes through the Middle East and Central Asia, enabling the spreading of wealth and ideas."

Sure, tell that to the people of Baghdad.

"Civil war means that we have failed to act in time, not that we have the wrong intentions."

Where was the civil war in Iraq before our intervention there? How did our intervention in Libya help with the civil war in Libya? It did nothing but prolong it. Libya is a disaster now. Before it was one of the most developed and egalitarian states in the region. Our intervention in Korea has prolonged the civil war on the peninsula for over half a century. If not for our intervention in Vietnam there would have been no bloody decade-long civil war there.

"al Qaeda is for all intensive purposes dead, Putin. When is the last time it's main branch staged an attack?"

That's why al Zawahiri is actively applauding the Syrian opposition. It's always good when the supposed target of the war on terror is thrilled with our actions, bombing secular progressive governments throughout the region and replacing them with Islamist terror states.

"Persia built the world's longest road and protected those who traveled along it. Greece spread it's knowledge and ideas to other places. Rome spread it's wealth and technology to other places. The Mongols kept bandits off of the trade routes through the Middle East and Central Asia [...] Spain and Britain kept pirates off of the open seas and enacted maritime laws (the only time pirates were allowed and encouraged is when Spain was losing its hegemony and Britain had yet to gain hers). Prussia stopped conflict between the German states by extending it's rule as regional hegemon and absorbing the rest."

Goldfinger, you're painting a very distorted glossy picture of these empires and ignoring the very cruel reality of how they prospered. All of these empires extended their power by the sword and not through peace. Whilst they may have brought some levels of prosperity to the ruling classes, the vast majority of people suffered - not only externally but native populations as well.

"Were the British people oppressed by their government? Where the Roman territories oppressed by theirs? Oppression is a means to hegemony, but while there is correlation there is not causation. I am not defending people who oppress others. "

Yes they were and yes you are. You're offering these empires as good examples of socially responsible 'police forces' that 'brought peace' to the world when that is fundamentally incorrect. Yes, the British may have tackled piracy - but only so they could guarantee safe passage for their slave ships. Why gloss over that as if it was an act of peace? Your deliberate distortions are worrisome.

"When is the last time it's main branch staged an attack?"

Tell that to the 44 people killed on Christmas Eve in Damascus.

Say goodbye to Syrian religious tolerance and diversity should the "Free Syrian Army" (Al Qaeda) prevail.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/syria-christians-support-embattled-president-obama-sanctions-al-assad-50294/

The Arab League should dissolve itself as it no longer abides by its own charter. It now simply acts as a puppet for Riyadh, strongarming anybody who dares dissent, like poor Algeria.

when did really america defended or protected anyone ?
freedom is the american way?
dictators all over south america,africa and asia since the 50' were suported or created by the u.s.a its a known fact
it seems like americans are educated to think they are the good guys and every war or intervention is in the name of freedom and "the american way"

Thank you taos. It's people like Goldfinger that really worry me about America.

"And now as America has reached hegemony, we have to decide what we do to benefit the world" -Goldfinger

It is shocking and deeply worrying that his top idea to "benefit the world" is using the American military to defend Islamic extremists in Syria.

"Sure, tell that to the people of Baghdad."

"Goldfinger, you're painting a very distorted glossy picture of these empires and ignoring the very cruel reality of how they prospered. All of these empires extended their power by the sword and not through peace. Whilst they may have brought some levels of prosperity to the ruling classes, the vast majority of people suffered - not only externally but native populations as well."

The Mongols were not yet regional hegemons at the time. What I am trying to say here, and maybe not very clearly, is that I am looking at the time periods where hegemony was clearly established, not the times leading up to them. I will admit that acquiring hegemony is often a bloody, bloody thing. I won't deny that. I'm only ignoring it in this discussion because the United States isn't acquiring hegemony, it has it. It earned it through the deaths of millions of Japanese, Germans, Englishmen, Russians and others followed by 45 years of constantly trying to subvert the only country capable of challenging it. That's a bloody and messy matter. It's a bi-polar world, and a very dangerous one at that. I'm talking about a uni-polar world, what we currently live in. To look at that, we have to study Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, etc. Was Gaul more peaceful during Roman rule or after? How about Italy? The brutal colonization process aside, was India better off before British rule or after? You could argue that one either way, but I would say the social service system put in place as well as the transportation network Britain installed made India arguably a better place.

Now I know I'm leaving out *huge* gaps where atrocities and oppression happened. But my point is that since we aren't at that *moment* in the hegemony cycle, that it isn't relevant to the issue. I don't deny that any of the things you pointed out happened, but it is my opinion that oppression happens when a country's ruler is not sure of his security internally there are elements of anarchy at the national level. (side note, in the international system, there are levels in government. First, it is local. Then the next major level is national, and the next major level is international. Since there is not higher body that sovereigns answer to, there is anarchy in the international system). Since there is anarchy at the national level, a ruler cannot be sure his subjects will follow his rule. So it is a ruler's attempts to reign in anarchy that produces oppression. This can clearly be seen by looking at Iraq now. It is turning into a police state because after years and years of insurgency, the government cannot be sure it's people will follow it's laws, so it has begun to oppress them to ensure that. Once one side has reached hegemony internally at the national level (such as in many western countries) then the country stabilizes and everyone is better off. I do hope that my position is more clear (or at least not more confused) then before

"It is shocking and deeply worrying that his top idea to "benefit the world" is using the American military to defend Islamic extremists in Syria."

I am not defending Islamic extremists. I am defending lives. I don't differentiate between who is in power. If a government is killing its people like this then it has lost its right to govern, and there must be a higher body to hold them accountable.

""When is the last time it's main branch staged an attack?"

Tell that to the 44 people killed on Christmas Eve in Damascus."

Al Qaeda has a tendency to claim responsibility for everything it does. I don't remember them doing that. Another thing, even if Al Qaeda did claim it, my guess would be Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. You'd be naive to think they take orders from what's left of the core group in Pakistan anymore. They fucking hate Zawahiri.

I think the argument that because America has done bad things in the past it shouldn't try and do good things in the future is a ridiculous one. I have no idea why it keeps being brought up.

The only questions worth asking are "is the situation in Syria intolerable?", to which the answer is obviously yes, and "are we able to do anything about it which will significantly improve the situation?" which is less than clear.

We have (or at least should have) gone to huge trouble to elect people specifically for the job of looking into to this in far greater detail than we can. If they come to a conclusion we strongly disagree with then it is our duty to let them know. If not it is our duty to let them get on with it. There is little more we can do.

"The brutal colonization process aside, was India better off before British rule or after?"

Again. Either you are misinformed, an idiot, or you are intentionally glossing over the facts. There is no other choice.

British-rule India was not a brutal place only during the 'colonization process', as you describe it, it was a brutal place throughout the entirety colonial rule.

India was not a better place for any Indian person. That you can argue living under oppression rather than freedom is a "better off" way of life is idiotic and shows how much you take yourself for granted. Go and experience some life outside of your own comfortable one and then see how "better off" people in India are because of colonial Britain.

"Say goodbye to Syrian religious tolerance and diversity should the "Free Syrian Army" (Al Qaeda) prevail.

The Arab League should dissolve itself as it no longer abides by its own charter. It now simply acts as a puppet for Riyadh, strongarming anybody who dares dissent, like poor Algeria. "

Sadly these points are both true. But even if the Free Syrian Army was destroy and Assad remained in power, in the long run diversity is screwed anyways due to this. It'll simmer for years, but explode again until the Alawites own up to what they've done

"Where was the civil war in Iraq before our intervention there? How did our intervention in Libya help with the civil war in Libya? It did nothing but prolong it. Libya is a disaster now. Before it was one of the most developed and egalitarian states in the region. Our intervention in Korea has prolonged the civil war on the peninsula for over half a century. If not for our intervention in Vietnam there would have been no bloody decade-long civil war there."

Iraq was already a powder keg when we got there. We just set off tensions that have been lying dormant for years. Hopefully things will simmer down now, if only the government gets its act together and protects minority rights. Libya is much the same, except tribal tensions instead of religious. Korea I will agree with you, though you could also say it saved millions of Koreans for suffering as those in North Korea currently are (from lack of food and other commodities). And in regards to Vietnam, you could argue that it would've been over quicker if the Soviets didn't supply them with weapons too. One side is not at fault there, as in most cases. I never like putting the blame on one party (except in clear cases like Hitler's invasion in WW2). Even in regards to Japan in WW2, the US could have prevented war there (though if that would have been the right thing to do is another matter)

"If a government is killing its people like this then it has lost its right to govern, and there must be a higher body to hold them accountable."

That higher body would be the electorate. However, the insurgents in Syria do not have popular support. Who are you to tell the Syrian people that they should choose Islamic extremists over the Assad regime?

"British-rule India was not a brutal place only during the 'colonization process', as you describe it, it was a brutal place throughout the entirety colonial rule.

India was not a better place for any Indian person. That you can argue living under oppression rather than freedom is a "better off" way of life is idiotic and shows how much you take yourself for granted. Go and experience some life outside of your own comfortable one and then see how "better off" people in India are because of colonial Britain."

I ask you, how? How was it brutal. The British built infrastructure and established an education system. We're getting side-tracked here, but I'll just tie up my reservations into one question. Is the lack of freedom by default mean that you are oppressed or not better of? In that case, join your anarchist friends and say no to any form of government in the world.

i say this because I'm wondering if you mean Indians would have been better off if they ruled themselves or simply because everyone should be free to do whatever they want with no consequences

"That higher body would be the electorate. However, the insurgents in Syria do not have popular support. Who are you to tell the Syrian people that they should choose Islamic extremists over the Assad regime?"

There was no electorate in Syria though. Not one that held any real power. That's the key for me. I don't want to tell them to choose Islamic extremists over Assad. I want to enable them to choose themselves, as Egypt has done, or Tunisia. That is what I want. My arguments before may have made this stance cloudy, but I want them to be able to choose their government. If they want Islamic extremists, let them vote in Islamic extremists for all I care

No, I am not an anarchist. We are talking about something very specific - your example of imperialism. Yes, India would have been better off without the imperalism of British rule. When you talk about British infrastructure as if it was for the benefit of the Indian people you sound like an idiot. The only reason the British built infrastructure in India was for their own benefit, mostly for production reasons but also to expand the empire and its trade routes beyond the subcontinent.

You are beyond reason on this though and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about it. That you actually believe imperialism and state-led oppression and annexation of others brings prosperity is ludicrous.

"The British built infrastructure and established an education system. We're getting side-tracked here, but I'll just tie up my reservations into one question. Is the lack of freedom by default mean that you are oppressed or not better of?"
the only reason british built infrastucture was for their own needs in order to get their merchandise out of india to sell it in europe,the education sistem was built so you can teach them english and educate them your way so they will economicaly and culturaly depend on britain,and yes the lack of freedom by default means you are oppresed.
i prefer die free man but not live in oppresion

I wonder how dismissive of oppression goldfinger would be if was a wage labourer in some sweatshop in India.

"Our prosperity will trickle down eventually" would sound like such a good mantra then.

...did someone argue that the Mongols were a sterling example of spreading civilization and peace through hegemonic strength?

"I ask you, how? How was it brutal. "

Let's see, how about averaging a famine every 5 years. I mean famines, whether the government's fault or not, are always the reason why you people bash communism every 4 seconds, so why is the British record of horrific famines not brutal?