TanGeng and Doug, you are both incorrect about NeoCon foreign policy. And it is not comparable to Wilson’s reasons for entering WWI, which were idealistic and altruistic (and untenable as well). NeoCon foreign policy says that we remake things to be more liberal, democratic and capitalist because it makes the USA safer. That is not the same as fighting a war to spread democracy for the sake of democracy, which is what Wilson advocated.

By the way, we are applying the term NeoCon wildly incorrectly, in any case. NeoCons are people who used to be leftist democrats and switched sides, so to speak. Strictly speaking, W can’t be a NeoCon because of that. Reagan, on the other hand, was.

It sort of feels like Rome invading Gaul so that Romans could bring civilization to those “barbaric” Gauls. Today, we’re not even sure that the Gauls were as barbaric as the Romans claimed they were, but there was a humanitarian justification for invading France and killing the resistance, enslaving the unruly, and raping the women.

Errrr… At least I think it was a humanitarian justification.

The only comparison to World War I mean to make is to the idea that American foreign policy should be guided by some zeal to remake the world — which, essentially, is what Wilson used to justify entry into the war back in 1917/

In that respect, I think, the neocon response to 9/11 — that America needs to remake the political structure of the Middle East — is similar to the logic that propelled us into the Great War.

The legions of Rome are off in the distant edges engaging in small skirmishes with any group that might threaten the cities and the peace of the Empire. Meanwhile the stupid plebs back home are sedated by the gory games at the Colosseum and reap the benefits from the spoils the army manages to loot and pillage. All of this is finance by a dinarius that went from 99% pure gold at the height of the Republic to less than 0.1% when the Empire finally fell apart some 500 years later.

That is not to suggest that I don’t approve of your sentiments, I do. But the comparison to WWI is poor, at best. As is the comparison between Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush. I think Bush is a very poor president, to say the least. But that doesn’t make him particularly comparable to Wilson, except that they were both fairly awful presidents, overall.