> > > If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could 
> > > use conventional weapons and force the US to at least 
> > > retreat from trying to rule the world.

James A. Donald:
> > This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is 
> > not apparent -- at least not to the US.

Tim May
> What is "to the US" referring to? To the Bush Administration, 
> to a majority of Congress, what?
> To _this_ American, namely, me, it is apparent that Pax 
> Americana is the goal.

They believe their aim, Pax Americana, is a world of 
independent, moderately capitalist, democratic countries -- to 
do to the whole world what was done to Germany, Japan, and 
Napoleonic France.

Now I suspect, and doubtless many of the reluctant recipients 
of this generosity suspect, that this good intention will not 
lead to a good outcome -- that a bourgeois democracy cannot be 
created merely by force, that the actual outcome will merely be 
the imposition of a tyrant supposedly less dangerous to US 
interests -- imperialism.  Of course, the US ability to pick 
tyrants less dangerous to US interests is none too good.

However because the administration is certain in its own 
righteousness, a certainty not entirly implausible, mere 
outside force is unlikely to change the administration's 
program.  If the outside world should apply sterner measures, 
this is more likely to convince the administration, and a 
majority of Americans, that regime change in Paris is 
advisable, than to convince them that regime change in Baghdad 
is inadvisable.

> But they certainly want pliable governments that will not be 
> _too_ democratic (as we don't want Islamists elected) and 
> that will be cooperative with oil interests, military basing 
> requests, etc.

It seems probable that the majority of each Iraqi religious and 
racial group wil vote for the expulsion or liquidation of all 
the other groups, unless of course they all unite on the issue 
of war with Israel, in which case the US will wind up turning a 
blind eye to the suppression of democracy, as it has done in 
Kurdish areas.  But again, it is not obvious that genuine 
democracy will produce an outcome unacceptable to the US.  The 
Islamicist Iranian government could not win a fair and free 
election.   The US government and people's faith in the 
righteousness and feasibility of their program is not provably 
misplaced.   They do not think they are imperialists, and their 
sincerity is not obviously delusive.

> It is economic imperialism, pure and simple. Not the kind 
> that the lefties used to complain about, the so-called 
> economic imperialism of McDonald's and Hollywood and Nike. 
> No, this is the real kind of economic imperialism, where 
> gunboats and bombers are used to implement "regime change" 
> when there has been no demonstrated clear and present danger 
> from a foreign state.

Indeed its imperialism -- but I doubt it is economic.  This war 
is ideological.

The Baathist program is a combination of communism and nazism. 
The racial element of their program is to unite all arabic 
speaking people by force under a single supposedly charismatic 
leadership, so as to restore the rightful place of arabs in the 
world, subduing its non arab neighbors under arab rule -- a 
secular and socialist version of Bin Laden's program.

I suspect that had the US let nature take its course, the true 
horror of this program would have became apparent, and the 
united arab regime would eventually collapse in flames, after 
several decades of inflicting enormous horror on arabs and 
their immediate neighbors, and that during this period they 
would pump oil like mad to finance enormous war expenditure.

The flaw in the administration's program is not that it is 
driven by evil oil companies seeking to steal oil, or evil Jews 
seeking to steal land, but that it is driven by a dangerously 
great faith in democracy, a failure to realise that democracy 
does not work in general, that it has worked in some countries, 
some of the time, by a fortunate historical accident that 
arguably no longer applies even in those countries.

Now it may well turn out, probably will turn out, that when 
these idealistic ideas do not work out, the US government all 
too easily proceed to give the Israeli lobby what it wants,
contrary to US interests, but they do not think of themselves
as tools of the Zionist occupation forces.

> I see nothing in the United States Constitution that supports 
> this interventionist, imperial policy.

Everything the Federal government does except the post office, 
the patent office, and defence against imminent foreign threats 
is unconstitutional, and the post office and the patent office 
are bad ideas also.  Why should its activites in Iraq be 

         James A. Donald

Reply via email to