Hero of my Generations

Sure, the same people who voted for the government officials in office. The same people who sign up for the military machine that murders millions in other countries. Sorry, but if you want pictures of that, I won't oblige...

Yep, that's it.

I just read you're profile...have you ever been to another country?  You claim to study philosophy but you must have failed your epistomology class.  Let me guess, you probably ready Mills' "On Liberty" and it changed your life, right?  Clearly, given your comments in your profile a little more studying is in order...perhaps you should look at Descartes and Hume.  As it sounds you clearly didn't make it past Hobbes....do you even know the relevence of that comment?

And by the way of the many rights you have one of them is the right to a passport...

You said, "The power of this country is not the government". Clearly, you're living in this fantasy that the government of this country conducts it's wars without the help of the people of this country.

Tryst this is growing tiresome...if that's your best respnonse to my previous post then this discourse has come to it's conclusion.  And really...I implore you, if you're going to mention philosophy in your profile...read a book...you're an embarrasment to anyone who actually does study philosophy.

I figured you would give up once you realized I can read.

Let me put this gently: I don't need or seek your approval, for what I find interesting.

Hilarious! You're like offended

Here you go:

Someone better clean that up, 'cause I'm not.

Nope, not offended, merely reminding you of the unimportance of your opinion.

Here you go:

The new "kinder, gentler" Prawn.

How I miss the days of, "Piss off, ya' bother me."

Boy, you're really upset about this! Okay, you win. Poop is soooo interesting

The old round and round trick. No thanks.

Whatever invisible force it is that makes people go nuts seems to be attracted not only to Fischer, but to the very mention of his name.

Pretty strong statement.  One that I think is utterly erroneous from the historical perspective.

Ultimately, I disagree with your primary claim that America is singular in not seeking world domination.  For one thing, it begs the question: what is world domination?  Politically, since the second World War, and especially peaking during the cold war, we have pursued a policy of ideological hegemony, trying to export western values and democracy upon the world at large.  While this might not always take the form of a direct military occupation, it is, in its own way, an attempt at global domination.

This is to say nothing about the role of national self interest and economic imperialism.  Even if we don't try to conquer the entire world, we have been maintaining a presence in certain key strategic locales for generations (the Middle East is the most obvious example, which has both defensive and economic motivations underlining its prominence).  Even if this isn't global, it is still territorial, and power-oriented.  Furthermore, there is the example of American corporations, which have become global superpowers in their own right.

Of course, I recognize that there is a distinction between the American government, American institutions and the American people itself.  However, politics and institutions are not something that should be underestimated and, especially when considering how fickle human beings can be.  To subjugate the importance of such factors in favor of collective sentimentality is to create a distorted, and easilly manipulated, picture of a far more complicated sociopolitical tableau.

As for the second element of your claim that all other hegemonic powers have been driven by a desire to dominate, this is completely erroneous.  They may have conquered massive amount of territory, but often this territorial supremacy been an effect of alternative factors, rather than a cause in itself.  I'll limit myself to two examples here: the British Empire and Revolutionary France. 

The British Empire was largely focused more upon economic hegemony rather than outright political occupation.  This was especially the case during the 18th century, when colonization was carried out through Joint Stock Companies.  Even moving past this point, to the best of my knowledge, the true value of places such as India to the British wasn't as locales under British sovereingty so much as the economic, as well as the strategic, benefits that these places granted them. This is not to say they did not take a certain amount of pride in the Empire (though some historians have disputed even that claim), but their intent was something far more calculated and nuanced than world domination.  They tended to be driven more along commerical and naval interests.  It was these concerns that led to the British Empire, rather than any desire for conquest.

Then there is the case of the French expansion during the Revolution, which was accompanied by extraordinary ideological intensity: they perceived the entire Revolution to be in extrarodinary danger, and it was.  Taken from this perspective, the extraordinary expansion of French power during the end of the 18th century is simultaneously a form of self defence as well as an extended campaign of liberation.  It was also, of course, a means of conquest and appropriation.  Nevertheless, in both of these cases, these countries were driven by far more than the prosaic desire of world conquest.