AMERICA’S MYTHICAL“MISSION” TO REMAKE THE WORLD



The recent passing of our first Hollywood President, Ronald Reagan, brought to the fore a recurring theme that both politicians and their media allies are fond of touting. It is this arrogant and increasingly dangerous idea that America has been given a divine mandate to remake the world in its own image. America is oft described as a “city upon a hill”, acting as a beacon for all of humanity to emulate and follow. Ronald Reagan is remembered, even revered by many, for his frequent use of this expression. In this way he is given credit for boosting the national morale and resurrecting the confidence of many whose naïve faith in this mythical self-concept had been shaken by the failures in Vietnam and Iran, and the scandals and embarrassments of Watergate and the Carter Presidency. Coming in the waning days of Soviet belligerence and the subsequent implosion of their collectivist economy, Reagan’s militarism and talk of “Evil Empires” to sally forth and slay appealed to many people. This “mission”, carried on today by his imitators, was never a part of the political philosophy of our ruling class. The original Republic, made up of, by, and for, the sovereign States in a voluntary Union, openly rejected such thinking. That old Republic, along with its central tenets of federalism and republicanism are long gone, replaced by an imperial power that knows no limits to its authority, or to a claim over the wealth, or lives, of its subjects.



Thoughtful readers might wonder at the origin of this religious-like faith in America’s divine “mission”, and the universality of our supposed “democratic values”. Where did this idea come from that suggests we have been, somehow, “set apart” by God to liberate the world, peacefully if we can but forcefully if we must? No doubt the remnant of the freedoms we can still claim as a legacy from the revolutionary liberalism of our eighteenth century Republic, along with a small remnant of the laissez-faire capitalism that planted the seeds for our economic prosperity, has helped to foster the idea that we are especially “blessed”. Then there are those who like to fantasize that America is a Christian Nation because we have a record that some great men like Patrick Henry said so. What these people refuse to recognize is that the America they are recalling in their minds is no more. It died on the fields of Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Appomattox. It was sacrificed on the road to empire and imperialism. Nobody in a position of national authority in this country today would make such a claim. America, we are told, must celebrate its diversity in religion, ethnicity, and culture. In fact, we go to great lengths today to make sure we are increasingly “diverse”. The “city on a hill” that Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and Bush II make reference to had a much different meaning when it was first used in 1629. In that year, the future governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, John Winthrop, like Moses and the Israelites before him, were entering into a new covenant with God. This covenant stipulated that so long as they conformed their lives to God’s standards, they would become “as a City upon a Hill”, a beacon for all of mankind to follow. The subsequent history of this colony and the apostasy they fell prey to should quickly dispel any allusions to claims of having established a New Jerusalem upon their shores.



The vast difference between what Winthrop and his followers meant and what our modern day Presidents mean was described in a musical analogy by University of South Carolina History professor, Dr. Clyde Wilson as the difference between the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” and the latest Rock/Rap video”. As Wilson says, “piety and exclusiveness” were Winthrop’s’ focus, while today’s vision is purely secular. Worse than that, today’s version has been universalized to mean that the American empire has a moral right and duty to bring their humanistic (pagan) faith in their own moral righteousness to the rest of humanity. The tenets of the Welfare/warfare State we live under today justify everything else.



The leaders in both the Republican and Democrat Party’s have not been averse to the use of propaganda, political intrigue, bribery, economic sanction, or even assassination to gain control over, or coerce “evil” or “wayward” Nations. We’ve now added “preemptive war” to our list. Nothing short of invasion and subjugation is now the order of the day if other sovereign States don’t “play ball” and follow orders. Under the guise of “world opinion” we can almost always get the U.N. or some compliant “allies” to join us in whatever venture the military/industrial complex wants. There is never any doubt who is really running the show though is there?



In our determination to “nation build” we aren’t supposed to notice when untold thousands of these newly “liberated” peoples are killed, maimed, or otherwise sacrificed. Our compliant media simply ignores these people’s suffering and pain. We aren’t supposed to notice when the politically connected financial elite are subsequently given the insanely lucrative, tax-financed billion dollar contracts to rebuild these devastated nations. No, the obvious corruption in our own government must be overlooked because they package their murder and theft in the moralistic platitudes of fighting wars for “democracy”. Few seem to notice here at home that the sovereign voices and will of the American people are frequently ignored by our ruling elites. The question of who serves who seems to escape public consciousness. No, we are expected to be good little pawns and dupes who believe their lies, run up a flag, and keep silent lest we somehow undermine the morale of those sent to insure that America’s “mission” is fulfilled.



Of course those who dare to dissent are quickly smeared as unpatriotic, un-American, or Liberal. I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I am not defined by their alien standards and I refuse to be intimidated by their resort to name-calling. Their standard is as alien to me as it is to the founding fathers of this country. May I suggest that we stop listening to the talking heads at Fox News or CNN and pick up a copy of the Constitution, and then study it? It is to this document, and NOT the psuedo-Federal government, that patriotic Americans owe their allegiance. I welcome comments at csa@i-plus.net

Let's see. America re-made the New World from a monarchy colony to the longest lasting democracy/republic in history, spawning similar revolutions throughout the world.

We re-made the European continent from devastion to liberated around 1918.

We re-made Nazi over-run Europe to liberated in 1945, etc., etc.

We are probably largely responsible for the existence of 90% of the world's free democracies.

Americans love freedom, and they'll darn well impose it on the rest of the oppressed world. I can live with that.

Americans love freedom, and they'll darn well impose it on the rest of the oppressed world. I can live with that.And if they don't like it, Americans will annihilate them, "terrorists", women and children alike. You can live with that too, as we have seen.

Back in the real world, you can not impose freedom.

Americans love freedom, and they'll darn well impose it on the rest of the oppressed world. I can live with that.

'Impose,' that is. Very liberal! You must be one of the closeted ones.

'Impose,' that is. Very liberal! You must be one of the closeted ones.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.

That's why we have the IRS, to impose freedom on us.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.

would resent American 'imposing" freedom on me. Of course I can. You're being too liberal. You know best for me.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.

Your running on all eight cylinders of jingoism. Rev the engine, hop up the spoiler and lets impose some New England style freedom on the world!!!!

Of course your forgetting that their are millions practicing any numbers of religions who freely give up freedoms. Giving up their freedom by choice was considered freedom to them. I sense that you disagree.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.


furthermore, we're in a period of history where we either "impose" freedom on other countries and cultures or they "impose" their way of life on us....which is death. you're still living in a pre 9-11 world if you cant or wont see that and its about as basic a concept as it gets.

I'm sure all the victims of American sponsored death squads appreciate us imposing freedom from their democratically elected (but leftist) governments on them.

furthermore, we're in a period of history where we either "impose" freedom on other countries and cultures or they "impose" their way of life on us....which is death. you're still living in a pre 9-11 world if you cant or wont see that and its about as basic a concept as it gets.

Was Iraq trying to impose its will upon us? Let the propaganda roll dude!

Was Iraq trying to impose its will upon us? Let the propaganda roll dude!
Saddam was clearly planning to invade the United States and turn it into an Islamist regime. Probably so that the Islamists would leave his secular regime alone.

Thoughtful readers might wonder at the origin of this religious-like faith in America�s divine �mission�, and the universality of our supposed �democratic values�. Where did this idea come from that suggests we have been, somehow, �set apart� by God to liberate the world, peacefully if we can but forcefully if we must? No doubt the remnant of the freedoms we can still claim as a legacy from the revolutionary liberalism of our eighteenth century Republic, along with a small remnant of the laissez-faire capitalism that planted the seeds for our economic prosperity, has helped to foster the idea that we are especially �blessed�.
That paragraph pretty much sums it up: religion. Christians, in general, are so full of themselves that they have no compunction about doing everything they can to force their beliefs upon others "for their own good." It's their mission in life. America, being full of self-righteous christians and also being the world's only superpower under the control of a radical fundementalist christian administration, is in a wonderfully unique position to force its completely unAmerican will upon others -- especially those arab heathens in the middle east. Our relationship with Israel is only a means to an end in that once the heathens have been subdued, Israel will no longer be of any interest to us and will be left to fend for itself. Being a political figure himself, I would bet that the original christ, would endorse the actions of the current administration.

It makes me want to vomit.

Was Iraq trying to impose its will upon us? Let the propaganda roll dude!

i hope you have a nice rest of the day since you seem to be stuck on 9 -10.

That was intended to be a bit ironic or at least tongue-in-cheek. We "impose" freedom by eliminating those who are depriving people of freedom, essentially. Does anyone really not want to be free? "Impose" freedom on me any time you want. Bring it on.
Actually, I think that Islam is contradictory to democracy and freedom as we would define it. With that in mind, any attempt we would make to "free" followers of that religion would be doomed for failure unless we "converted" them to something more compatable first.

. . .

That paragraph pretty much sums it up: religion. Christians, in general, are so full of themselves that they have no compunction about doing everything they can to force their beliefs upon others "for their own good." It's their mission in life. America, being full of self-righteous christians and also being the world's only superpower under the control of a radical fundementalist christian administration, is in a wonderfully unique position to force its completely unAmerican will upon others -- especially those arab heathens in the middle east. Our relationship with Israel is only a means to an end in that once the heathens have been subdued, Israel will no longer be of any interest to us and will be left to fend for itself. Being a political figure himself, I would bet that the original christ, would endorse the actions of the current administration.

It makes me want to vomit.

apparently your exposure, or lack of, to christanity is completely different than mine.

Actually, I think that Islam is contradictory to democracy and freedom as we would define it. With that in mind, any attempt we would make to "free" followers of that religion would be doomed for failure unless we "converted" them to something more compatable first.

Were the inhabitants of Iraq under Saddam (and the Taliban) simply following their faith, or was a maniacal dictator oppressing and murdering them? There is a difference between allegiance to a faith and someone perverting that faith to personal glorification and wealth. Is murdering (some with poisonous gas) 300,000 of your own people part of Islam? Is torturing people with electrocution, raping women, and jailing people for political offenses part of Islam? What was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't just conservative faith; it was out and out ruthless, evil, tyrrany.

Iraq was not an Islamist state under Saddam.

i hope you have a nice rest of the day since you seem to be stuck on 9 -10.

On 9/11 I watched the TV like millions of others only it didn't take me by suprise. I had been expecting an attack on us for years because of our policy of persecuting and murdering the people of the middle east. No, I'm in a post 9/11 world just like you, Ijust know who to lay the blame on for the 3000 or so lives taken on that day. The US Government. You don't see these maniacs attacking Switzerland do you?????

On 9/11 I watched the TV like millions of others only it didn't take me by suprise. I had been expecting an attack on us for years because of our policy of persecuting and murdering the people of the middle east. No, I'm in a post 9/11 world just like you, Ijust know who to lay the blame on for the 3000 or so lives taken on that day. The US Government. You don't see these maniacs attacking Switzerland do you?????

It is because they are petrified of those knives, now it is a spoon, no a fork, a corkscrew. It boggles Allahs mind.

Iraq was not an Islamist state under Saddam.

I'll explain. Some argued that Islam, by it's nature, entails giving up freedom, and implied that our freeing Iraq was contrary to the religious desires of its citizens. My point was exactly what you say, that Iraq's dictatorship had very little to do with Islam, but was merely a dictatorship. Religion was incidental (even if used by Saddam as part of his act).

10-4

And if they don't like it, Americans will annihilate them, "terrorists", women and children alike. You can live with that too, as we have seen.

Back in the real world, you can not impose freedom.

War is messy business. Women and children will get hurt, but it's not our intention. The United States spends a lot of money on smart weapons designed to prevent collateral damage. I would guess the war in Iraq has seen the least amount of collateral damage of any war in history.

You can impose freedom, when the imposition is on the oppressor of the freedom.

On 9/11 I watched the TV like millions of others only it didn't take me by suprise. I had been expecting an attack on us for years because of our policy of persecuting and murdering the people of the middle east. No, I'm in a post 9/11 world just like you, Ijust know who to lay the blame on for the 3000 or so lives taken on that day. The US Government. You don't see these maniacs attacking Switzerland do you?????


blame the u.s.? you need psychological help. really.

Were the inhabitants of Iraq under Saddam (and the Taliban) simply following their faith, or was a maniacal dictator oppressing and murdering them? There is a difference between allegiance to a faith and someone perverting that faith to personal glorification and wealth. Is murdering (some with poisonous gas) 300,000 of your own people part of Islam? Is torturing people with electrocution, raping women, and jailing people for political offenses part of Islam? What was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't just conservative faith; it was out and out ruthless, evil, tyrrany.
Agreed. Saddam was an evil dude and way outside of Islam. I don't really equate the two. What I am referring to is that we have been told a million times that Iraq is to be the foothold of democracy in the middle east. I'm saying that it's not going to happen. It will fail in Iraq and will never take hold in any of the other arab nations.

I also don't have much sympathy for those people either. For all of the radicals that are willing to blow themselves up to make a statement against the USA, where are those willing to stand up and fight against their dictatorial regiems? If it's that bad, revolt. Yes, you may die. Some things are worth dying for. We did it here, they did it in France, Russia, India, etc........ The people have to be willing to die for it. I just don't see it over there otherwise they truly would have welcomed us with open arms.

And I was rude.

That was my point, Mr. Rudeness. I'll explain. Some argued that Islam, by it's nature, entails giving up freedom, and implied that our freeing Iraq was contrary to the religious desires of its citizens. My point was exactly what you say, that Iraq's dictatorship had very little to do with Islam, but was merely a dictatorship. Religion was incidental (even if used by Saddam as part of his act).

Man, even when we agree, you just can't acknowledge it, can you?

If your referring to my post, I was alluding to fundamentalist Mormanism. How about fundamentalist Catholicism. Or maybe I was referring to fundamentalist Muslim. Maybe I had read the stories of Tehran college students dropping out of the University in order to wear the veil as their last "free act." Morman woman who live to be subservient in every way. Catholic women who assent to give birth and get pregnant because the Pope says despite the knowledge that they very well could die because of it. How about the Calvinists who do not believe in "free will."

Fundamentalism at its core seeks to reestablish lost beliefs to recapture some essence with the founders of that religion. Often times they speak of literal messages centuries after the proclaimed church sees them as spiritual messages. Many times this literalism flies in the face of contemporay morays thus causing friction.

Agreed. Saddam was an evil dude and way outside of Islam. I don't really equate the two. What I am referring to is that we have been told a million times that Iraq is to be the foothold of democracy in the middle east. I'm saying that it's not going to happen. It will fail in Iraq and will never take hold in any of the other arab nations.

I also don't have much sympathy for those people either. For all of the radicals that are willing to blow themselves up to make a statement against the USA, where are those willing to stand up and fight against their dictatorial regiems? If it's that bad, revolt. Yes, you may die. Some things are worth dying for. We did it here, they did it in France, Russia, India, etc........ The people have to be willing to die for it. I just don't see it over there otherwise they truly would have welcomed us with open arms.

Yes, if they don't really feel the desire for freedom, it won't last. We may be assuming that everyone wants freedom, but they may have been happier living under a murdering dictator. It's almost too bizarre to imagine.

Turkey is largely Islamist and a democracy, as so many here have pointed out in the past. At least we know the religion and democracy are not completely incompatible.

I wonder how our perception of Muslims and freedom for them might be clouded by some of the examples we see, and that perception might not always be true if freedom were allowed. For example, how would we judge Christianity if our primary examples were Germany in the 1930's or Spain in the 1400's?

It's almost too bizarre to imagine.What if instead of "dictator" they used the term "War President", and all sacrifices of liberty were merely "temporary"?

On 9/11 I watched the TV like millions of others only it didn't take me by suprise. I had been expecting an attack on us for years because of our policy of persecuting and murdering the people of the middle east. No, I'm in a post 9/11 world just like you, Ijust know who to lay the blame on for the 3000 or so lives taken on that day. The US Government. You don't see these maniacs attacking Switzerland do you?????
That's pretty far out there.

Sure, our foreign policy needs some serious help but if we're to blame at all, it's for not responding immediately and absolutely to all attacks on American citizens. We should have destroyed Tehran back in 79. I mean carpet bombed it into dust. That should be our response to all attacks. We would have lost the hostages back then but I seriously doubt that 9/11 and most of the preceding attacks would have happened.

The message needs to be: "Mess with us and you and all you hold dear will die."

If your referring to my post, I was alluding to fundamentalist Mormanism. How about fundamentalist Catholicism. Or maybe I was referring to fundamentalist Muslim. Maybe I had read the stories of Tehran college students dropping out of the University in order to wear the veil as their last "free act." Morman woman who live to be subservient in every way. Catholic women who assent to give birth and get pregnant because the Pope says despite the knowledge that they very well could die because of it. How about the Calvinists who do not believe in "free will."

Fundamentalism at its core seeks to reestablish lost beliefs to recapture some essence with the founders of that religion. Often times they speak of literal messages centuries after the proclaimed church sees them as spiritual messages. Many times this literalism flies in the face of contemporay morays thus causing friction.

We all give up certain freedoms by personal choice. I'm giving up the freedom to ride my bike all day long so I can sit in this building and act like a lawyer. However, that's different, I think, than someone, whether it be a cleric or dictator, telling me and forcing me to do it. I can walk out tomorrow and do something completely different. Mormon women can leave the Church. Catholic women can get divorced and never set foot in the church again. Contrast Taliban beating people with sticks or killing women because they laugh or are unveiled...

What if instead of "dictator" they used the term "War President", and all sacrifices of liberty were merely "temporary"?

I sure hope not. That would be sad. However, even if it fails, does that mean it was a gross miscalculation and never should have been attempted, or it was noble cause that failed? Do we never try to help free people unless we are certain it will succeed and last? Now *I'm* sounding liberal...

You can impose freedom, when the imposition is on the oppressor of the freedom.Since you can't impose logic either, <i>sayounara</i>.

What if instead of "dictator" they used the term "War President", and all sacrifices of liberty were merely "temporary"?
Insightful, funny and scary all in one sentence. Well done.

And I was rude.

10-4; I do it too, sometimes, as hard as it is to believe. ;-)

Don't despair. The reality is that our intentions are anything but noble.

That's pretty far out there.

Sure, our foreign policy needs some serious help but if we're to blame at all, it's for not responding immediately and absolutely to all attacks on American citizens. We should have destroyed Tehran back in 79. I mean carpet bombed it into dust. That should be our response to all attacks. We would have lost the hostages back then but I seriously doubt that 9/11 and most of the preceding attacks would have happened.

The message needs to be: "Mess with us and you and all you hold dear will die."

We wouldn't have had the problem in Tehran if we hadn't overthrown the government of Iran and installed the dictatator (the Shah) who murdered scores of thousands in Iran. Nearly all of the problems we have with those people are connected with that. We also helped to bring Saddam to power by helping to install the Baath party into power in '63 in Iraq.

We all give up certain freedoms by personal choice. I'm giving up the freedom to ride my bike all day long so I can sit in this building and act like a lawyer. However, that's different, I think, than someone, whether it be a cleric or dictator, telling me and forcing me to do it. I can walk out tomorrow and do something completely different. Mormon women can leave the Church. Catholic women can get divorced and never set foot in the church again. Contrast Taliban beating people with sticks or killing women because they laugh or are unveiled...

would translate into armed cops busting down the walls of the monastary to 'free' Catholic nuns, who've given up a tremendous amount of what you and I, as political secularists, call freedom for a higher i.e. spritual freedom as a bride of Christ.

In these matters, I'm as 'sensitive' as George Bush used to say we ought to be, and John Kerry still does. I'm not real big on imposing anything on cultures I can't begin to claim I understand. Star Fleet has the Prime Directive for damn good reason, and I tend to defer to it.

You know, if someone just wants to kick go in and their ass and make' em safe for American corporations, fine. Say as much and have the American people decide if they'll support it. I'll always defer to the people's wisdom. But to stomp in in the name of 'imposing freedom' on cultures that don't ask for our help, or demonstrate an unslakable thirst for liberty by putting their own asses on the line -- nah.

would translate into armed cops busting down the walls of the monastary to 'free' Catholic nuns, who've given up a tremendous amount of what you and I, as political secularists, call freedom for a higher i.e. spritual freedom as a bride of Christ.

In these matters, I'm as 'sensitive' as George Bush used to say we ought to be, and John Kerry still does. I'm not real big on imposing anything on cultures I can't begin to claim I understand. Star Fleet has the Prime Directive for damn good reason, and I tend to defer to it.

You know, if someone just wants to kick go in and their ass and make' em safe for American corporations, fine. Say as much and have the American people decide if they'll support it. I'll always defer to the people's wisdom. But to stomp in in the name of 'imposing freedom' on cultures that don't ask for our help, or demonstrate an unslakable thirst for liberty by putting their own asses on the line -- nah.


Has the followers of Rush would say, Ditto!!!!!!

We all give up certain freedoms by personal choice. I'm giving up the freedom to ride my bike all day long so I can sit in this building and act like a lawyer. However, that's different, I think, than someone, whether it be a cleric or dictator, telling me and forcing me to do it. I can walk out tomorrow and do something completely different. Mormon women can leave the Church. Catholic women can get divorced and never set foot in the church again. Contrast Taliban beating people with sticks or killing women because they laugh or are unveiled...
Keep in mind, though, that even though a Catholic woman can legally get divorced or a have an abortion or whatever, most don't out of fear for their immortal souls. Rational or not, that fear of eternal damnation often makes the dictatorial regeims look not so bad since it is only happening 'in this life.' When the clerics are running things you end up with the worst of all situations regardless of the deity.

We wouldn't have had the problem in Tehran if we hadn't overthrown the government of Iran and installed the dictatator (the Shah) who murdered scores of thousands in Iran. Nearly all of the problems we have with those people are connected with that. We also helped to bring Saddam to power by helping to install the Baath party into power in '63 in Iraq.
And we wouldn't have had the problem had not the British empire carved off the nation of Kuwait from Iraq (wasn't that what the whole first Gulf War was about?) or if the UN didn't create Israel.

The problem isn't so much our involvement in these regions it's the lack of conviction to see our involvement through. This is the only reason I'm against pulling out of Iraq right now -- as much as I am and have always been against being there in the first place. We need to finish the job. Had we stood behind the Shah in Iran and backed him with the necessary force that nation would still be our ally -- negating the need to back Saddam to counter the Iranian slide. If you're going play with dominos make sure you play with all of them.

But the real fault lies with oil. Take away our dependence upon oil and that entire region goes back to what it was 100 years ago -- a desert of no importance to anyone but those who live in it.

Frankly, if there are people in the world who don't actually want their freedom, then who are we to force it on them? Just like the catholic church in South America converted people under the threat of death, you can't force people to accept something, then expect them to embrace it fully.

The only truly "free" people are those who work for it. Freedom isn't something that can be bestowed on anybody-whether by force (as in Iraq), or by inaction (as is the case with supporters of the Patriot Act). Nobody is owed freedom-it must be achieved and held by our actions.

It's become quite obvious to me in the last few years that most Americans are spoiled, selfish, and arrogant. Get it into your thick heads, will you? We can't dictate to the rest of the world how to live and expect it to not take offence!!! There will always be regimes that resent being bossed around!! We are not the saviors of the rest of the world!! The more we try to make the world into the way we want it, the more the terrorists will try to destroy us!!!!!

Stupid idiots!!

Since you can't impose logic either, <i>sayounara</i>.

What part are you having trouble understanding? Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto

Whatever the religious or idealistic motivations for America's actions lately, I doubt they'd have much power without the ecomomic support. Maybe it's even silly to try to seperate the two aspects, but I'm not religious. Americans seem more concerned with the fluctuations of the dow and nasdaq, worried about their economic status and future and their priveledged place in the world than religion or ideals. After 911 it seems like America was kind of put on the spot to try to define just what our way of life is and who we are. I still remember all those average folks responding to calls to give blood and send money to the victims of 911, only to find out later that their blood was unnecessary and largely wasted, and their hard earned money was not only not made readily available to many truly in need of help but seemed to be almost spat upon by the well to do families of the high income earners in those towers. After the justifiably emotional reaction to that event, these stories were truly nauseating to me, but also seemed very revealing of the kinds of cynical values that seem to win out in the end.
America is defending it's place on top of the hill. If it means playing dirty and kicking others further down to stay on top, so be it. Whatever our reasons, cultural, religious, economic, a warped sense of history or ourselves, or just plain fear, we feel entitled to too much at the expense of others. We've strongarmed much of the rest of the world into our economic straightjacket and told them to just trust that if we all go fast enough we can get through the rough spots and make a better world. All the while the gap between the rich and the poor widens, the environment gets trashed, nations that try a different way get villanized and punished. If a few thugs, a little terrorism and religion can be blamed for America's failures and turned into the next justification for our bullying, greedy ways, that's got to be good for a lot of people to fly.

I get the part about imposing our will on dictators. But this discussion is not about cutesy semantics. It is about whether it is possible to democratize a culture at gunpoint -- and keep coming back every time they freely choose to abdicate their freedom.