[Heisenberg]

It is not genocide if you only kill those who resist.

Good luck selling that idea to people. I quite like you, actually: you're open about your motives. When other posters on this site decide they want to turn the world into a new Anglo-American liberal empire, they do it using weasel words like "freedom and democracy". You aren't at all hypocritical, however.

[layman]

It is not genocide if you only kill those who resist.

Please be more clear then. I expect you use the language you do to troll or be edgy but it isnt clear.

I consider myself an old-school liberal in the mold of Joseph Chamberlain, Garibaldi, Mazzini, Jabotinsky, or Masaryk.

I consider myself a bit of an old school liberal actually.

Liberalism never clashed with the idea of the "Liberal Empire" as I have outlined.

Well the British found that the more they turned to liberalism, the more it was at odds with empire. You can of course simply consider all 'dirty foreigners' as being exempt from individual (liberal) rights but then this just gets messy. Especially when you have to rule over them in some way -- see Israel.

[Quantum]

Lol at American empire building in the Middle East. Anyway, America will be populated with Latinos, so any prospect of empire building will die along with their ascent. The Americans ought to police their south border before trying to police the world and bothering others.

[dcomplex]

I watched this video on the collapse of the colonial world order and how crappy it has been ever since:

[youtube]Y7bRx5fEJbU[/youtube]

The US does not fulfill its responsibilities as a world-Hegemon.

Also, Britain only gave up its empire after the US forced it to after WW2. Recently declassified documents show that the founding of Israel threw a wrench in Britain's plan to create a subservient middle-east, which is why the Zionists were supported for a while post-1945 by France and the Soviet Union.

Anticolonial ideology in Britain was a rationalization of British retreat rather than a cause.

[Rei Murasame]

Dcomplex, you are the most interesting liberal I've seen in a while.

Joseph Chamberlain, Garibaldi, Mazzini

These three I know about, so I have to say, if you are going to go with liberalism (and I am not optimistic about it), you've certainly chosen some of its actually not-too-bad champions. You could also add to that Cecil John Rhodes, who was also a liberal.

Regarding Zionism being a serious problem for the British Empire, that is absolutely true, and John Bagot Glubb's whole life story actually can be interpreted as him being continually frustrated by Jews.

[anarchist23]

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi are all fabulously wealthy, intensely hostile (ideologically), and extremely weak (militarily). Why should the United States not colonize these countries and seize their resources? The reason for capturing them is not greed but preventing our enemies from capitalizing on them while supporting terrorists. Why do we give so much deference to a bunch of extreme clerics and oil sheikhs?

What a pathetic thread.

[AFAIK]

I also find dcomplex refreshing and think his comments should be juxtaposed with a speech by Bush or Blair. A comedy sketch where it appears he is translating.

It is not genocide if you only kill those who resist.

Actually it is in several countries. The reason the UN definition doesn't include political groups is because Stalin demanded it's removal. If you physically destroy a political party or trade union you are considered genocidal in many jurisdictions. Frances law is the most inclusive as it lists 'a group determined by any arbitrary criteria'. Page 101 of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine discusses this in detail.

[Rei Murasame]

I also find dcomplex refreshing and think his comments should be juxtaposed with a speech by Bush or Blair. A comedy sketch where it appears he is translating.

That would be hilarious. But basically yes, what Dcomplex is advocating actually is completely against the international law that his ideology pledges to uphold.

[dcomplex]

International law is a joke. You can't have international law without international police. All you have is international politics.

[pugsville]

Liberal how does he qualify as a liberal , He's a fascist, Might makes right, racist, no morals comfortable with mass murder, fantasist with little grounding in reality , his values and ideas are hard right crazy.

[dcomplex]

The liberal party in Britain was the most pro-empire party at the time.

[Rei Murasame]

Liberal how does he qualify as a liberal

Because his intent is to impose the liberal system, and nothing else after that.

He's a fascist, Might makes right, racist, no morals comfortable with mass murder,

No, he's just a liberal that is okay with killing people.

[pugsville]

What liberal party? I dont recall anyl iberal party in Britain.

What the are values?

[dcomplex]

Yes from 1859 to 1988, but in the 1890s, it split into the Liberal unionists and the liberals, but the unionists broke off and joined the tories. The Unionists were imperialists while the vanilla liberals were not.

Chamberlain was a pro-empire anti-home-rule-for-ireland liberal at the head of the unionists..

[Bounce]

No, he's just a liberal that is okay with killing people.

It's kind of a thing that Liberals don't support the murder of people. They are murderous but they do so under the belief that they are 'liberating force'.

(He also doesn't support international law, doesn't support free labour, argues for genocide, and for forced land dispossession. He is a Fascist).

I don't know why people are bothering with someone that lives in America and has these opinions. He isn't Israeli, and has an extremely poor grasp of the concepts he is talking about (Jabotinsky not supporting armed removal of Arabs )

[dcomplex]

Real liberals know there is a difference between killing and murder. You are a leftist, not a liberal.

Moreover, I proved to you that Jabo was against transfer (as was Menachem Begin). Also, I have Israeli citizenship and lived there for four years. Moreover, international law is a joke because it is not enforced. I am a realist about international relations.

Also, if you can come up with a reason why we should not defeat our declared enemies, I would be very surprised.

You make peace with your defeated enemies, not your active enemies. Could you imagine a Marshall plan for Nazi Germany in 1941?

I am an older kind of liberal, the kind that is not afraid to defeat evil immediately.

[Bounce]

You didn't prove anything. You boringly refused to note the militant attitude of his writings while suffocating yourself over the 'liberal' tendencies that he may have (the same as Mussolini and Hitler. The 'acceptance' and 'respect' of foreign people as long as they don't want your lands).

You cant remove the militant attitude that exists in Israel and especially in Jabotinsky's writings. You don't even accept that he wanted to disposses the Arabs of 'the two banks of the Jordan'.

There is nothing liberal in desiring a racially/religiously exclusionary state. Nor is there in proposing genocide (or really in genocide or colonisation). (I don't consider many of the aforementioned governments are proper representations of international liberalism).

I'm not sure of the idea of 'liberal empire'. I've not come across it before, but the outcome of this case does not mean that liberals (i.e. Tony Blair) don't have 'noble' intentions for their intervention.

[dcomplex]

Jabotinsky wrote an ultra-liberal constitution for a fully binational democratic Greater Palestine (both sides of the Jordan) in 1936. His only demand was free immigration of Jewish refugees from Europe.

His only goal was to prevent the shoah, but he died in 1940 soon after calling for the formation of a Jewish Army to save the Jews of Europe. Read "The War and the Jew" by Jabo.

Jabotinsky was eloquently defended by Israel Eldad in the essay "Jabotinsky Distorted":

http://www.saveisrael.com/eldad/eldadjabo.htm

[Brother of Karl]

Well for one thing, the US doesn't want to get involved in a world war by making enemies of all the other countries in NATO, and outside it as well. That's generally not the smartest idea in a post-nuclear world.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not sure of the idea of 'liberal empire'.

Well, let's think of it like this. If Cecil John Rhodes wasn't a liberal, then what was he? Also, if Napoleon III wasn't a liberal, then what was he?