I described:
> > the standard way that the US imperialists see it: the US provides "international public goods" from which the other countries -- including the totally dominated ones -- benefit. The countries that don't go along (e.g., deGaulle's France, Schroeder's Germany) are "free riders." As in the usual public goods story, if the state (read: the US) doesn't get some payment from the beneficiaries (the other countries), the public good is not just under-produced but can go away altogether. So coercion (taxes) are justified.<<
Ian:
> Hence the current obsession by US weapons makers securing comparative
> advantage via "interoperability" "harmonization" on weapons systems
> procured by NATO countries. In the absence of the ability of the US to tax
> other states "we" demand that they make budget commitments, like Lithuania
> buying $34 million worth of Stingers that they don't need.
Ian, Ian, Ian! you're getting too close to reality! the efforts by individual parts of the military-industrial complex (or the whole shebang) to gain advantage for themselves is part of the reality of imperialism. It's not the same as the self-perception and self-justification of imperialists that I described.
Jim
