Jayne: Glad to see that at least one other person here actually listened to Sanders’ entire speech.
I’m reading various articles for and against Sanders’ speech The following piece slams him as an imperialist.
Judas was more principled: Sanders declares his allegiance to US imperialism – Sept 26, 2017 – Tom Hall – Greanvillepost
I took notes (immediately below) on Sanders’ speech; and disagree. I think Sanders was advocating for anti-hegemony, anti-war, and pro-diplomacy. In a way, his speech somewhat reminded me of Trump’s campaign promises to end wars and strife, including disagreements with Russia. We now see that the military has taken over Trump’s administration and imperial was is back on the table. If Sanders were to be elected President, I believe we’d see the same takeover by the military.
Anyway, here are the notes that I took that were of particular interest to me. Items beginning with *** consist of statements with which I disagree; because, I’m not anti-Russia; and, believe all the MSM anti-Russia/Putin hype is fake news; and, my mind won’t be changed on that until the intelligence agencies actually present at least one item of solid proof.
Notes on Sanders’ speech:
Called Iraq and Afghanistan a huge mistake
***“We now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths, the integrity of our elections and our faith in our own democracy.”
“Some in Washington continue to argue, quote: “Benevolent global hegemony should be the goal of our foreign policy…that the United States, by virtue of its extraordinary power, should stand astride the world; and, reshape the world to our liking.” I would argue that the events of the past two decades, particularly the disastrous war in Iraq and the instability and destruction it has brought to the region have utterly discredited that vision. The goal is not for the United States to dominate the world, nor on the other hand is our goal to withdraw from the international community and shirk our responsibilities under the banner of “America First”. Our goal should be global engagement, based on partnership rather than dominance. This is better for our security; better for global security; and, better for facilitating the international cooperation necessary to meet shared challenges.”
Gave examples of bad foreign policy, where we intervened
1953 - overthrow of Iran
1973 - Chile
During the Cold War - El Salvador and Guatemala
Vietnam
Iraq
Examples of good foreign policy:
Marshall Plan
***Condemns Russia’s and Iran’s support for Bashar Al Assad’s slaughter in Syria
Condemns SA’s “destructive intervention” in Yemen.
Climate change
Does not agree with the current movement for international oligarchy
***Gives example: says that Putin is looting Russia (but doesn’t give any proof of this).
Needed reforms of policing and criminal justice system
"As an organzing framework, the global “War on Terror” has been a disaster for the American people and for American leadership. Orienting U.S. national security strategy around terrorism essentially allowed a few thousand violent extremists and terrorists to dictate policy for the most powerful nation on earth. It responds to terrorists by giving them exactly what they want. In addition to draining our resources and distorting our vision, the “War on Terror” has caused us to undermine our own moral standards regarding torture, indefinite detention and the use of force around the world, using drone strikes and other air strikes that often result in high civilian casualties. A heavy-handed military approach, with little transparency or accountability does not enhance our security. In many ways, it only makes the problem worse. We must rethink the old Washington mindset that judges seriousness according to the willingness to use force. One of the key misapprehensions of this mindset is the idea that military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not. Yes, military force is sometimes necessary; but, always, always as the last resort. And, blustery threats of force, while they may make a few columnists happy, can often signal weakness, as much as strength, diminishing U.S. deterrence, credibility, and security in the process. (gave the contrasting examples of the Iraq war vs the Iran nuclear agreement - Says the Iranian nuclear agreement was an example of real leadership and real power; whereas, the Iraq war was an example of the limits of U.S. power)
North Korea - Says should pursue the same Iranian agreement model for N. Korea.
