>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/02 08:06PM >>> well the direction of US foreign policy need not necessarily change. All I am suggesting is that within the context of an overall agreement to screw the workers/peasants fo the USA/the world - there may be cause to disagree on some matters within the ruling class. I am trying to understand why there can be a lobby within the US ruling circles that might at this present juncture contradict the general agreement ot launch war. Hari <<<>>>
problem of managing opinion differences between one side favoring focus on 'destroying terrorists' via mutlinational action & other side urging focus on 'targetting iraq' through unilateral action (and if saddam hussein didn't exist, u.s. would create him!)... above 'debate' not so new - fdr hoped that u.n. would act as instrument of "collective policing"... may be lesser degree of elite consensus today than after ww2 but elites remain committed to u.s. policing world even as some seek to shift part of burden onto other countries/security council (never, of course, more democratically organized general assembly)... what some dems are now doing is divided gov't institutional 'combat'... even if prez feels compelled to validate policy with congress through resolution, relationship almost always involves congressional acquiescence... michael hoover
