Things are boring around here so I figured this might stir things up. Its a long read entitled "An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World" but some here will enjoy it - and others will be infuriated by it. Fight's on.

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912/news_detail.asp

Second, we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory.
That only leaves a voracious appetite for oil, then. :rolleyes:

'Tis indeed a long read 46, and a good one at that. So long, so detailed, and so well argued in fact, that it could have been written by myself...:D ..but it wasn't, although I don't think my editor would have knocked it back.

Pretty hard to argue against such moderate, researched, fact-based logic; but doubtless, some will attempt a way.

As you allude, Game On!

:ok:

Great piece,thanks 46. Do you read his other essays on Townhall.com?

voracious appetite for oil

Heh,filled the tank today,57 gallons of diesel but that will last me for nearly a month or longer.
I refuse to drive a little electric car or anything requires pig manure.:)

I'll be watching for the wild man BlueWolf.

No doubt Wino and West Coast will be singing his praises here shortly too, though Charles is probably a little pinko for West Coast.

Really people, for those who are firmly, irrevocably and irresistibly entrenched on either side of politics, does it make you feel better to post a link to somebody who echoes your own views but phrases them so much better? "Yeah...what he said!!" Chuck K is an articulate man, and far from the worst extremist on the conservative side, but if I posted a link to Michael Moore, would you bother reading it? Of course not.

Still, as long as you all get that warm feeling by agreeing with each other, I suppose no harm is done. :8

Echo......... Echo......... Echo......... :E

C'mon, chaps - that name (Krauthammer) must be made up!!!!

Bins, posting this probably did make 46driver feel good; nothing wrong with that is there? Who among us posts with masochistic motives? (OK OK, I don't need an answer to that! :) )

I found reading that piece enjoyable; not because I necessarily agree with the arguments put forth, but because MrK argues them well.

Is that not a large part of the appeal of these forums?
Form an opinion, disagree with other peoples opinions, argue, reflect and refine your own thinking in the process?
It is for me anway, so thank you for posting that 46driver.
(right length for a saturday afternoon, thankfully it wasn't a weekday :D )

..... bit suspicious about a chap who uses 'disequilibrate' when he means 'unbalance' but why pick on small stuff? ;)

Thanks mate for that link

I'm doing American Foreign Policy & Politics for two of my university subjects essays. At the mo I'm reading a very interesting book called 'America Rules' by Tom Hanahoe (a bit of an eye opener I can tell you) with about eight more books to follow to get as unbiased final opinion as I can. If I'm not edumacated after all this I don't know when I'll ever be. Who ever said that getting a degree is easy :ugh:

Again thanks for the link, I've done a print out, every little bit helps :ok:

Coco

"but if I posted a link to Michael Moore, would you bother reading it? Of course not. "

Binoculars,

I personally enjoy reading well written opinions from differing points of view. Michael Moore isn't one of them. The garbage he produces is typically of the type the Left eats without any thought about the facts.

I finally saw "Bowling For Columbine" on TV last weekend. Even though my politics differ widely from Moore's, I thought it might be a good show given the lavish praise from many US and European critics as well as winning an Oscar. Boy was I wrong, what a piece of crap it was. Moore's editing could have made Mother Theresa look like the anti-Christ.

If you want to post a link to counter Krauthammer, feel free. Just don't use that fat idiot slob Moore even though it popular to do it over in Europe.

Good Luck on that foreign policy - considering how it changes with each administration, it can be bewildering at times. I might recommend Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"
http://alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

and Peter Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map"
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

We studied both at the Naval War College.

and then for humor (and to show why America is so productive)
www.TerryTate.com You really need to watch the movie clips in sequence (each is only about 3 minutes) - soccer weenies need not apply. :)

46Driver

Thank you for those links

I just read your profile. Whooaahh, way to go man :ok:

Coco

Discussing Krauthammer is like going into the ring with Mike Tyson with one hand tied on the back, due to the board-restrictions of the Great Leader Danny. I have been banned in the past trying to discuss these kinda rantings, so I leave it with following.

Krauthammer (aka the Guardian of Zion (http://www.biu.ac.il/Spokesman/Krauthammer-text.html)) has most certainly the gift of words, however is not entirely without his agenda. He in accepted the American Enterprise Institute’s coveted Irving Kristol award, introduced by none other than Vice President Dick Cheney. So that's where his interests are.

Krauthammer sees the world exclusively through the christian-judean American glasses without even thinking how other people think in their own world, religion.
Second, we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory. I would call the a gotzpe (chutzpah) or at least a very distorted description of the truth... :hmm:

Capt Kaos:

Quite apart from the fact that the British and Dutch empires were not founded on "a thirst for territory" or for reasons of plunder (though some of that did go on in our case) but on trade. India, for example, came to us by way of the East India Company and was almost an accidental addition. It was only much later in the history of the empire that we started collecting bits of the world for the sake of it and could have contributed to the downfall of the empire.

Loki, trade on a very one-sided conditions can be described as plunder (ask Jan Pieterszoon Coen ;) ), or what we call colonialism, even nowadays not uncommon.

Actually the first expeditions to Indie with the purpose of "trade" was already in 1595, 7 years before the VOC was found. The sponsors of the trip were the Compagnie van Verre and it was far from accidental, because all information was gathered by Dutch sailors on Portugese ships. Downfall of the VOC empire was because of the English and French, but now I´m going to much OT ;)

The British Empire was originally about exploration and science, the catalyst being our naval supremacy. As Blake suggests Empires fall when their basis changes to commerce rather than art and science.

There are plenty of ways to argue against Krauthammer, though I doubt whether any of our luvvies are capable. Shame to see that his well researched, and philosophically sound, piece is so clearly flawed due to his participation in the international Zionist conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Personally I find the piece to be a distraction, though I can see the verisimilitude of his arguments. Neo-conservatism is not a shaper of foreign policy, nor is the will to power of a people the prime directing motive behind intervention. What he describes is simply realism with a slightly fluffier exterior.

Even if he were correct with regard to the neo-conservatives he misrepresents Blair on two occasions. He most certainly is conservative and barely mentioned the struggle of the Iraqi people, preferring to focus on headline grabbing spin about WMD. Certainly an interesting insight into the American view of Blair's chimera...