Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who CAN you trust on war and peace? [View all]Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)36. Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.
O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership
The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to America First isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the revolution in military affairs that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.
Goals for 2010
A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership
The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to America First isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the revolution in military affairs that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.
Goals for 2010
A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Indeed, if that's all they have of Sanders, then I'm increasingly confident that Sanders is our man.
android fan
Mar 2015
#13
I was referring to your other 20+ childish paragraphs, but thanks for proving my point.
FSogol
Mar 2015
#21
I never said own, I said invested in. Plus 5% is enough to make his son the director
FSogol
Mar 2015
#42
There was nothing liberal about voting for the Iraq war resolution. Your rewriting history is
dissentient
Mar 2015
#9
You seem to have fallen for the cover story of votes for the Iraq War being "liberal nationalism" ..
Scuba
Mar 2015
#16
But the argument that the Iraq War was "liberal nationalism" doesn't meet the definitions
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#18
So you're saying Dems who voted for it didn't think Bush would misuse it? They trusted him?
Scuba
Mar 2015
#24
The facts are that even though the resolution had words in it that encouraged the use of
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#30
So your argument is that democrats in office at the time were fucking morons?
Scootaloo
Mar 2015
#28
The Iraq War was a Neocon war. International institutions and legal processes were not used.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#29
war and peace is not the driving issue....having a winning ticket for the WH
beachbum bob
Mar 2015
#26
The middle class is disappearing. The middle class is now the upper low income.
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2015
#27
Boy do you have things backwards. First of all you label of "idealistic malcontents"
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#31
But this isn't true!! It was MADE UP then retroactively "planted" on the internets
wyldwolf
Mar 2015
#37