At 09:30 PM 10/16/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote: >>d.brin wrote: >I totally agree with this. Indeed, anyone who peers forward 100 >years and foresees this as stable is crazy. Pax Americana can only >be a transition state... like all other Paxii.
Well actually, aren't all states "transitional" in the long term? In the short term, however, it may be possible for some states to be stable. >The world seems willing to make this transition slowly. (The Eu is >setting precedents on how to federalize.) Actually, the way things are going, the EU seems to be setting the precedent on how not to federalize. The reports from the EU Constitutional Convention underway right now seem to hint that the idea of a federal Europe is *not* going to emerge from this process. Meanwhile, the EU is completely mistrusted by the European citizenry, and the only two active EMU Brin-L'ers seem shocked everytime "EU" and "federalism" are used in the same sentence. >>There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has >>been squandered. > >It's tragic. Just tragic. How can we ask others to follow us in >some coming emergency if we piss away their esteem without even >listening to their complaints? > >Yes, Euros bitch and whine - as they did in Yugoslavia. But they >WILL follow decent leadership when it is patient and strong and - >above all - mature. I don't get this. The US has been practicing shuttle diplomacy from the very beginning on this. Moreover, many European countries, like Spain and Italy already support us on Iraq. Most of the others told us that they wanted to see UN support first. So, we took the case to the UN Security Council. There, France, which has always been content to buy oil from Hussein and sell him nuclear components is obstructing the deal. Meanwhile, Russia has insisted that we bribe them for support using the oil of the Iraqi people. Sorry, but the oil of the Iraqi people is not the US's to give away. Yet, oddly, the fact that the price of UN support is basically an unethical bribery has not dampened anyone's enthusiasm to consult this completely discredited body. And I haven't even mentioned yet that China holds a veto power in the UN, and has spent the past 10 years selling Iraq missiles designed to shoot down the US aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zone yet. Thus, the US is presented with a fait acompli. Choice 1) Listen to our allies' demands to get UN support first, and pay off the Chinese, the French, and the Russians - in large part with the resources of the Iraqi people. Choice 2) Tell our allies that the moral case against Iraq is even stronger than the moral case against Yugoslavia, with the exception that the Iraqis are not white Europeans and the Yugoslavians never pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. As such, we tell our allies that we aren't willing to horse-trade with the Chinese who are trying to shoot down our plans, horse-trade with the Russians who just want the loot from Iraq, and horse-trade with the French who have never been too concerned about Iraq's nuclear program in the first place as long as they could make a buck. As such, we tell our allies that we'll try for UN support, but if we have to compromise ourselves to get it, then the moral imperative is for us to act alone. Personally, I am shocked that you support Choice 1 over Choice 2. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
