> Nathan wrote: > >Clinton could be pursuing humanitarian ends for the wrong reasons. > > Wrong ends: the continuation and expansion of NATO/US spheres of influence > (economic, political, and military). > Wrong means: bombings; economic sanctions against the countries whose > citizens have not called for them (e.g. Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.); > deployment of ground troops (in the name of 'peace-keeping'); formenting > nationalisms (when the said nationalisms are in accordance with US > objectives) > Wrong reasons: removing any existing or potential obstacles for capitalism > all over the world. > Yoshie US federal gov't courses/textbooks routinely describe various presidential roles: chief executive, 'chief legislator,' chief diplomat, commander-in- chief...as Michael Parenti notes, such lists do not include 'chief liar'... US presidents are primarily committed to projection/protection of US corporate interests...can mean imposing/supporting certain kinds of political dictatorships, can also mean imposing/supporting weak and pliable 'democratic' regimes that are unlikely to become obstinate and sometimes refuse to do US bidding... James Madison wrote: 'War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement'... Michael Hoover
