the united states and it's lickspittle client state, the uk, are not capable of attacking a real enemy, say russia, or china
they engage in what emannuel todd refers to as "theatrical micro militarism"
"9 Todd points out three features of US theatrical micro-militarism. First, never resolve a problem decisively, to justify endless rounds of military action by the one and only superpower. Second, concentrate on third-rate powers like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Third, develop new arms systems that can be advertised as putting the US far ahead of the field in an endless arms race (Todd,
Citation2003, p. 21).
10 Todd sees universalism as ‘a fundamental resource for any state’ that seeks to rule over a nation or over a vaster, multiethnic, and ‘imperial domain’. This ‘ebbing of a universalist sentiment’ in the US prevents ‘an egalitarian, just, and responsible vision of the planet’ (see Todd,
Citation2003, p. 125).
11 Johnson argues that by 2002, the US no longer had a ‘foreign policy’ (Johnson,
Citation2004, p. 22). Mann points out that in contrast to the term ‘imperialism’, the new militarists invest ‘Empire’ and ‘imperial’ with ‘noble, civilizing, even humanitarian sentiments’. Empire brings ‘peace, freedom and democracy’, and saves oppressed peoples from their own ‘rogue’ leaders' (Mann,
Citation2003, p. 9). Johnson notes that the sense of separation between ‘homeland’ and ‘empire’ is in crisis (Johnson,
Citation2004, p. 5). Harvey similarly remarks about the new imperialist mind-set: ‘Military activity abroad requires military-like discipline at home’ (Harvey,
Citation2003, p. 193).
posted in the, probably vain, hope that you will read it and ponder of the illusions of imperial fiat
comrade stalin
donbass
news.yahoo.com
en.wikipedia.org
