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

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
36. Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:05 PM
Mar 2015
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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

One sentence on Sanders? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #1
Indeed, if that's all they have of Sanders, then I'm increasingly confident that Sanders is our man. android fan Mar 2015 #13
In a democracy, we're not supposed to "trust" politicians. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #2
Unrec, weak ass hit piece on O'Malley. FSogol Mar 2015 #3
And yet facts are facts. leftofcool Mar 2015 #6
The poster is accusing him of being a Democrat. FSogol Mar 2015 #11
and you called it a 'weak ass hit piece.' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #19
I was referring to your other 20+ childish paragraphs, but thanks for proving my point. FSogol Mar 2015 #21
you really protest loudly when you sniff a scent of O'Malley criticism. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #23
From wiki: FSogol Mar 2015 #40
From wiki: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #41
I never said own, I said invested in. Plus 5% is enough to make his son the director FSogol Mar 2015 #42
I mean, I would have owned my car after just a few months. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #43
President Chomsky. n/t Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #4
Tolstoy? Electric Monk Mar 2015 #5
My thought exactly Demeter Mar 2015 #8
Well, we *know* some people we can't trust. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #7
So true, Manny. hifiguy Mar 2015 #14
There was nothing liberal about voting for the Iraq war resolution. Your rewriting history is dissentient Mar 2015 #9
What history have I rewritten? Quote the relevant part. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #10
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
The IWR met the definition perfectly wyldwolf Mar 2015 #22
So you're saying Dems who voted for it didn't think Bush would misuse it? They trusted him? Scuba Mar 2015 #24
I'm not a mind-reader. But facts are facts wyldwolf Mar 2015 #25
The facts are that even though the resolution had words in it that encouraged the use of rhett o rick Mar 2015 #30
Probably none were 1's, but many we're 2's with a few 3's thrown in. Scuba Mar 2015 #32
I think mostly 3's. nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #34
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
bwhahahahaha. cali Mar 2015 #12
I trust Congresswoman Barbara Lee 100% Dems to Win Mar 2015 #15
+1,000 Scuba Mar 2015 #33
After reading through your OP, I am still looking for your point. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #17
Tolstoy was a pacifist..so I'd trust him. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #20
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
So which neoliberal do you want us to vote for? Rex Mar 2015 #35
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #36
But this isn't true!! It was MADE UP then retroactively "planted" on the internets wyldwolf Mar 2015 #37
Bless the intertubes scarcastic little heart. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #39
Me. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2015 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who CAN you trust on war ...»Reply #36