Harry, your questions are more than a little difficult. With regard to handling future dangers, much would seem to depend on how and by whom the dangers are perceived. Is the danger real, or is it being fabricated so that other objectives, often hidden from the citizenry, can be achieved? All I can suggest is that, given the state of the world, every country should be prepared to defend its people and territory. However, I would also suggest that this stops well short of justifying a preemptive strike.
With regard to the interruption of the supply of oil, I would say, yes, the US has the right to defend itself. However, the enormous and inefficient dependence of the US on global oil supplies needs to be considered. How did the US get into the position of being so dependent on foreign resources? What steps can it take to reduce this dependence and make its use of oil more efficient? There are no simple answers to either of your questions. Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? > > > Ed, > > Very good post! > > Something I would like comment on - from everyone, if possible. > > Does a country have the right to take steps to handle a perceived danger in > the future. > > As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself > against interruptions in the supply? > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >Some of you may have read the Mother Jones article by Robert Dreyfus. I > >posted the URL the other day. It suggests that what is going on, and has > >gone on, in the Middle East is part of long-term strategy for global > >dominance that Washington hawks have developed over the past few decades. > >I've argued something like this in earlier postings, pointing out that > >both the location and resources of the Middle East are enormously > >strategic. The power that controls the Mid East may dominate the world > >during the next few decades. > > > >Thus far I've tended to think of this need for dominance in terms of the > >economy (energy) and power (keeping a lid on terror, etc.), but it also > >has more idealistic origins. Since its beginnings as a nation, America, in > >various ways, has been in a state of continuous expansion. During the > >earlier parts of the 19th Century this expansion was mainly confined to > >carving and filling out the continental United States. As settlers moved > >westward from the original colonies, vast tracts of lands were taken from > >the Indians, Louisiana was purchased from the French, and parts of the > >southwest and far west were forcibly taken from Mexico. Expansionism > >continued during the later part of the 19th Century and into the 20th with > >the Spanish-American War and the building of the Panama Canal. It > >continued throughout the 20th Century in Central America, Korea and > >Vietnam. Where it was not militaristic in nature, it was economic. Often, > >it was both. However, by then it was no longer confined to the American > >continent. It had gone world wide. > > > >While this expansion was at times brutal and typically exploitative, it > >had to be dressed up in the highest of ideals and principles. During much > >of the 19th Century, it was part of the nation's "manifest destiny" - > >something that simply had to happen because it represented a superior way > >and quality of life. In the 20th Century it was about progress and keeping > >the world safe for democracy. Currently, though it is most likely about > >oil and dominance at a material level, it is given the idealistic clothing > >of constructing global democracy. > > > >I heard a commentator on the radio this morning express concerns about > >what America is doing and where it may be taking us. One of the points he > >made was that people dream their own dreams and cannot easily dream > >someone else's. Global democracy may be a fine concept for Americans but > >may be difficult to export because others have different concepts of how > >to govern themselves. Authoritarianism at the top does not necessarily > >preclude democratic institutions at the village or regional level, as was > >demonstrated in Czarist Russia. Nor does democracy at the top guarantee > >democracy at the village level, as is illustrated by the re-emergence of > >regional warlords in Afghanistan. Democracy is almost certainly not a > >one-size-fits-all phenomenon, and people have to have to decide how much > >freedom versus authority is tolerable at all levels of society, and then > >they have to figure out how to practically achieve the appropriate > >balance. And we may have to accept the possibility that some people will > >take a very long time to figure it out. > > > >Intervention in the affairs of other nations should not be based on giving > >them a particular model of democracy, but on giving them the means and > >breathing space to figure out what model might best suit them. > > > >Ed Weick > > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
