kleinyy, [“I fear and dislike Bush's attitude that he is going to pistol-whip anybody who looks at America crosswise, without bothering to figure out what's behind the look. I'll still vote for him in November.”] So why vote for Bush. One must assume that you fear and dislike Kerry or the Democratic Party more. Or are you so set in your ways that you cannot break the habit of your lifetime – “I've been a Republican since I was old enough to vote”. [“However there is something Quixotic about Rorty's internationalism, and it's not surprising that it leaves most Americans cold. What passes for international law these days is a sufficient travesty of justice for me to prefer Bush, on the whole.”] Internationalism and International Law is not the same thing. I am not sure what you mean by ‘internationalism’. Are you referring to the UN or the idea of World Government or multilateral consensus for military action, which is broader than a cobbled together and bribed ‘ coalition of the willing’, as we have seen in Iraq. [“To submit to an international regime would compromise America's ability to live up to its values rather more than Bush's policies.”] Whether or not ‘America’s ability to live up to its values', would continue depends on the international regime, although I repeat, I am not sure which sort of institutional framework you have in mind. What are the ‘values’ you are referring to? Are they those that are embodied in the Constitution. Please spell them out for us. Are you sure that America is living up to the values you have in mind? [“What Rorty views as crippling militarism I view as one of life's less pretty but more fundamental rules: Liberty requires keeping your powder dry.”] And what about the military-industrial complex and its interest in creating more and more powder. Can increasing quantities of powder all be kept dry? I am sure that other major and developing powers are asking this question.

I enjoyed this dialogue very much. However I have a question to both parties.It has always seemed to me that the American obsession with "protecting" and "exporting" their "way of life" to sundry parts of the world is actually reflective of a deep seated sense of psychological insecurity. By this I mean that the existence of alternative modes of life, values and being in the world somehow seem to threaten American's sense of the nobleness, morality and universality of their professed (rather than practiced) beliefs and values. Words such as "socialist" (it used to be communist) for example are spouted by Americans as a way of automatically ending arguments about alternatives in living and thinking.The American experience in the Vietnam war, a war that American could not fit within their sense of moral righteousness, continues to haunt the American psyche even today. Indeed blind service to America's wars now seems to be the new litmus test of leadership and patriotism. It is strange indeed that few people are prepared to say that they admire John Kerry precisely because he returned from war and turned against it.

Kleinyy, [“Since you ask, I'll respond:”] "So why vote for Bush. One must assume that you fear and dislike Kerry or the Democratic Party more. Or are you so set in your ways that you cannot break the habit of your lifetime – “I've been a Republican since I was old enough to vote”." [“The former. Except that I must stipulate that the dislike is not personal but toward a set of policy positions. To explain why, let me proceed first to some of your other points: "Whether or not 'America's ability to live up to its values' would continue depends on the international regime, although . . . I am not sure which sort of institutional framework you have in mind." Fundamental disagreement here. Like Rorty, you think the right institutional framework will make it possible to realize good ethics. I couldn't disagree more, and I couldn't care less about any or all of the alternative institutional frameworks you want me to be precise about. The reason why I am against a binding international regime of any sort is because I think that whatever is good in America's foreign policy is good because of the (inevitably flawed) ethics of American society. I trust French and Russian public ethics far less. These nations are more worried about America's power than fighting terrorist organizations and terrorist regimes, are bribed by their cosy contracts with people who are the enemies of their civilization. An international regime in which they determined policy would do nothing but temporize and appease. I think that policy is one of short-sighted cupidity and I have no time for it.”] The importance of an international framework of ‘values’, such as is provided by the United Nations Charter, is absolutely paramount in this very dangerous century. It must be remembered that the US post World War Two, was instrumental in the framing of the Charter and the formation of the UN, as its leaders then fervently believed in the value of an international organization that could set standards and mediate conflicts of interest, in order to avoid wars. This is not to say that the UN in practice is in perfect working order. It is not, but this applies to all governmental organizations, where different interests have to be reconciled as far as possible, in order to avoid lawlessness and often bloody conflict. History has shown that no one country, however much it prizes its own virtues, will be tolerated as being the leader of all others. Example - yes, domination by whatever means - no. As for your being against ‘binding international regimes of any sort’, I am not sure what you mean. The word regime I take to mean the method or system of government. I don’t think that anyone realistically expects to see a world government, which exercises sovereign authority over all countries and peoples, for ages to come. On the other hand there are treaties and pacts that governments enter into, which must be binding if they are to have any effect. There are many of these, which regulate economic and political activities and if these were to be abrogated at the whim of governments, there would be anarchy in the skies and on the seas apart from land itself. Your point about American foreign policy being ‘good because of the (inevitably flawed) ethics of American society’, is just another form of chauvinism, which is all too commonplace among Americans these days. To lump French and Russia public ethics together is rather opprobrious, as the histories of the two countries and the experience of their peoples have been widely different over recent centuries. Furthermore, I cannot make the distinction you make between the ethics of the French public with those of the American people. While the French tolerated heinous crimes perpetrated by their military and sanctioned by their political leaders, as their empire broke up, so did the American public and political authorities, in allowing millions of civilians to be killed or maimed in Vietnam, for a cause that was ultimately abandoned because of its bloodletting and being misguided. You seem to be elevating for consideration the noble language and sentiments expressed in the US Constitution, as if they are unmatched elsewhere. The ideals and aspirations of the French Revolution were not dissimilar. In practice both the US and France do not reflect very well, after over two centuries, the practice of these ideals. In both societies there is a large, poor underclass and in the US in particular, shocking excesses of greed and theft in the corporate world, through which millions have become the victims (destroyed or reduced pension funds). This fundamental flaw is tolerated as being a necessary corollary to ‘freedom, enterprise and the functioning of the free market system’. The counter activities of the Securities Exchange Commission are minute in comparison to the abuses that go on daily in Wall Street and corporate America. As for fighting terrorist regimes and organizations, the US has supported this form of activity (terrorism) on a large scale, in central and southern America, over recent decades. Right wing militias, which killed innocent people in their thousands and who opposed regimes that had as their goal a better distribution of wealth, were a form of terrorist organization, that you do not mention. Where were the ‘ethically’ driven American people, at these times? As for nations “ bribed by their cosy contracts with people who are the enemies of their civilization”, this could well apply to the US and its relationship with Saudi Arabia, from where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists hailed and where the extremist Muslim fundamentalists have so strong an influence. The dependence on Saudi oil and the strong tie between the Bush family and Saudi money and investment, should at least be cause for you to raise your eyebrows. At the least it ill behoves you to talk about ‘cosy contracts’ in reference to France. I note you do not mention the UK in this context but you can be assured that it has all sorts of unsavoury contracts in Africa and the Middle East, which are seldom exposed to view and are with authoritarian regimes. I suppose that you are enough of a Republican and Bushite not to mention you main coalition partner in a derogatory manner, for fear of exposing their rather ‘flawed’ ethical position. As for ‘old’ Europe ( I assume this is what you are referring to when you say an international regime in which ‘they’ determined policy), temporising with terrorism, it is not the case. It is pure Bush and Cheney poppycock and propaganda. France has faced Muslim terrorism for over twenty years, with several bombings in crowded places. Not on the scale of 9/11 but terrorism, none the less. France has a much larger percentage of Muslims (approximately five millions) living within it, than has the US. It is also much closer to Muslim countries in North Africa and has open borders with six other European nations under the Schengen agreement, all of which have Muslim residents. It would not be difficult for terrorists cells to attack vital infrastructure, such as petroleum depots or railway stations and trains, as we saw in Madrid. In the face of fierce opposition from Muslims both within and without France, it has this week enforced its Islamic Headscarf Law banning the wearing of such in schools, even while the lives of two French hostages held in Iraq, were threatened because of this law. I do not think this is evidence of ‘temporising’ with terrorists. You seem unaware of the discussions that have taken place on OpenDemocracy which have dealt with the underlying reasons for the invasion of Iraq, which for most Europeans and many Americans had nothing to do with WMD. Nor do we believe (apart from a few of our leaders like Blair and Berlusconi, who are unrepresentative of their own public opinion), that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda in any way. Many of us do not trust the Bush regime and its neoconservative cohorts and to use your own words, think its policy is ‘short sighted’ and dangerous in the extreme. We see no evidence whatsoever that Iraq or Afghanistan are becoming better and safer societies and, if anything, the hatred that the invasion and occupation has aroused, is likely to be the cause of further terrorism spreading and continuing for decades. We must be careful not to apply the word terrorist in a blanket fashion, as we could be making an even bigger rod for our own backs. Many of those active in Iraq, Russia and in other parts of the world are resistance fighters, who are opposed to the occupation of their country or a lack of autonomy or oppression. Bush himself said in a recent comment, that even he would not like ‘to be occupied’, when asked about the insurgency in Iraq. As an example of the ‘success ‘ of confronting the ‘terrorists’ head on and not ‘temporising’ we can look at Russia. Their brutal war against terror has made no progress and in fact has seen a great escalation this week, with catastrophic consequences. [“ I think Kerry would like to play the international-consensus game with people who have quite different objectives in mind and that's one reason why I'm going to vote for Bush.”] Bully for you! Kerry has unfortunately been cowed by the extremely powerful influence of the right wing media and the Bush strategists, that labels any criticism of the ‘great leader’ and his ‘war on terror’ as being unpatriotic. [“I think some of the American values I am talking about are written up in the Consitution, possibly some of the most important ones don't even appear there; such as the unwritten (not in the Constitution, anyway) that individuals bear a moral responsibility toward their society, religious values overtly or impliedly practiced, and the important recognition that sometimes you have to shoot the bad guys. It's a unique American mix which is unexportable as foreign policy. I bet Dr. Jahanbegloo got his doctorate in the States, and that's how some of these American values have been exported to Iran.”] I don’t see anything uniquely American in the mix of values you mention, except that Americans will not give up their right to bear weapons and are thus far more likely to shoot guys, both good and bad. As already mentioned, the US has been responsible both directly and indirectly for the deaths of millions of people since WWII and thus ‘shooting the bad guys’ has caused enormous collateral damage. [“The "military-industrial complex?" Yawn. I don't see any great difference between it and the "welfare-education-big government complex" that forms the backbone of Kerry's coalition. Both are in it for the money and are an unavoidable tax on the policymaking process in a democracy. You've got to have an army and you've got to have schools, so you're going to have whatever that firm is (disremember the name) that's raking up contracts in Iraq just as you're going to have the NEA.”] Your soporific condition is evidenced by what you post, so I will not dwell too long on the dangers of the ‘military-industrial complex’ which is quite different to the ‘welfare-education-big –government complex’,in character and in scope for potential annihilation of mankind. [“I have since read the reaction after yours. The idea that America's international pugnaciousness is the outcome of an "inferiority complex" is laughable. Superiority complex is closer to the truth.”] This last comment shows an alarming lack of insight into the current psychology of the American public and also is a reflection on your own unwarranted arrogance. You are not a new boy on this block and you have posted before using a different user name. You don’t fool anyone. Message was edited by: brolly2_1

Republican X, >>The importance of an international framework of ‘values’, such as is provided by the United Nations Charter, is absolutely paramount in this very dangerous century…This is not to say that the UN in practice is in perfect working order.” [“I would have to say both points are an understatement. The current UN proves more useless to Americans every day. The continued stonewalling of the Food for Oil program is a major contributor to this feeling. The UN is paralyzed in the Sudan. Member nations are quick to be in outrage of the Abu Graib situation but say nothing of terrorists beheading people on television. You have often pointed out Israel’s refusal to submit to its decisions with the support of my country. Any way we look at it we need to go back to the drawing board with a list of lessons learned in tow.”] The fact that the UN is not meeting the expectations of ALL its members ALL of the time and some of its members some of the time (if I can half use a well known turn of phrase) and that there is a considerable degree of hypocrisy displayed, is not in itself sufficient reason to condemn it. It is a highly important and vital organization. Two American presidents have seen the need for such an organization in the last century. Both times it came into being after terribly destructive wars and when it fell apart the first time as ‘The League of Nations’, it had to be put back together again as the ‘United Nations’. The UN is a forum for all nations ( both big and small) and it is inevitable that a mighty nation such as the US, will be frustrated as it experiences opposition to aspects of its foreign policy. The US as a superpower, which knows it can impose a military solution when it decides to do so, will resent having to compromise. This is especially true of this administration with its neoconservative policies. The greatest danger to world peace and security is not the terrorism of a small number of fundamentalists and fanatics but the potential for clashes in this century as China and India, as well as some middle ranking powers, respond to the implicit imperialism of the Bush Doctrine. It is impossible for the US to curtail the spread of and advance of the nuclear capability of other nations, while pursuing the development of ever more sophisticated weapons itself, as it abandons treaties that are designed to limit and reduce the nuclear and other WMD threats. The enunciation of the PNAC will be seen in retrospect to be an enormous mistake. It positively tells the world of the clear intention of the US to position itself to dominate all other nations by the force of arms. No individual or nation willingly accepts the dominion of others and all seek to break free. It is thus a call to arms for the others. The fact that imperialism is not a concept that sits comfortably with the American public at large and is not always directly visible in its various manifestations, gives rise to the denial of its existence by many Americans, who do not appreciate how the PNAC is perceived by others. To return to the point of departure, the UN offers a unique opportunity to assist in the resolution of conflict even if it has not always done so. To continually revisit the ‘drawing board’, as you put it, is preferable to letting the UN go the way of ‘The League of Nations’. >>“History has shown that no one country, however much it prizes its own virtues, will be tolerated as being the leader of all others.””] [“So it has. I find it strange that the position of the isolationists was not elaborated is Rorty’s response. We do exist. International cooperation is vital to modern economics and security but America will never submit to any rule outside its borders. In parallel, we should cease being the world’s policeman. Both the imperialists and internationalists carry a foolish utopian picture of the world. Kill those that kill us and then go home.”] I agree that the US should not be the world’s policeman, although it should make a contribution, as should other democracies, in coalitions that have the sanction of the UN, and are not unilaterally cobbled together by the US. The fact that the UN is cumbersome is not surprising, as conflicting interests have to be reconciled but this in itself is a safety mechanism, as it helps to prevent a form of anarchy in which the more powerful ignore the rest. When you say that the US “will never submit to rule outside its borders” I am not quite sure what you mean. It is open to a number of interpretations. >>“This fundamental flaw is tolerated as being a necessary corollary to ‘freedom, enterprise and the functioning of the free market system’. The counter activities of the Securities Exchange Commission are minute in comparison to the abuses that go on daily in Wall Street and corporate America.” [“I disagree that it is tolerated. Americans are aware of the corruption and greed but what to do? The immediate solution escapes us all. I am sure it can be solved at the ballot box but only when people start paying attention to what their reps in gov’t vote for. For Americans that want to know, track your Congressman’s voting record at: http://www.yourcongress.com/”] There is an inherent contradiction in the financial markets between the pursuit of profit and transparency and honesty. In the US and the UK and, of course elsewhere, remuneration of those that work for the investment banks, stockbrokers and other institutions, is made up of bonuses as well as salaries.. The oil on which the markets run is money and this commodity encourages greed. Just as the rich employ smart accountants and lawyers to continuously seek ways to reduce their tax liabilities, so do the market professionals continuously look for ways round the regulations that are intended to keep them on a straight and narrow path.. If they followed the regulations to the letter, they would be inhibited to such a degree, as to make the whole enterprise not worthwhile. How do you sell all those financial products that are inherently risky, and this applies to the majority of them, without at worst lying and at least by substantial ‘embroidery’. >>“Right wing militias, which killed innocent people in their thousands and who opposed regimes that had as their goal a better distribution of wealth, were a form of terrorist organization, that you do not mention. Where were the ‘ethically’ driven American people, at these times?” [“I know many of the actions you allude to where in the name of fighting communism and the war on drugs. What are your references on this? I know two people, one from Columbia and the other from Guatemala, which do not share this view. Both fled from warring regions in their country. Both have gratitude for American efforts in their countries.”] Well, to start with the coup in Chile in 1973, which was supported by the US and which brought General Pinochet to power as it displaced the democratically elected Allende. I don’t think there is much denial that the US played its part in this event. For your reference here is just one of many sources on this subject: http://www.ptb.be/scripts/print.phtml?object_id=8021 I am sure you will maintain that the following website is left wing propaganda but whether or not you believe it in full, part or not at all, it makes interesting reading on this subject. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html#ElSalvador >>“The dependence on Saudi oil and the strong tie between the Bush family and Saudi money and investment, should at least be cause for you to raise your eyebrows.” [“Raise eyebrows and laugh maybe. Why perpetuate this unproven nonsense?”] How do we know this is nonsense? There are many accounts of a connection and one such is detailed in the following article: http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/houseofbush.html I cannot present the sort of proof that a mathematician might regard as sufficient but the old saying that where there is smoke there is fire, pertains. There is no doubt that the fundamentalists that destroyed the Twin Towers were mainly Saudis and that the Wahhabism, which is the most fierce version of Islam, is Saudi in origin. There have been plenty of references to the financial support for Al Qaeda coming from Saudi Arabia. It is also very evident that the Bush administration places a lot of reliance upon its Saudi connections. >>“We see no evidence whatsoever that Iraq or Afghanistan are becoming better and safer societies and, if anything, the hatred that the invasion and occupation has aroused, is likely to be the cause of further terrorism spreading and continuing for decades.” [“Have you read accounts of soldiers on the ground building schools and hospitals? Do their accounts qualify as evidence to you?”] I would not doubt that their have been and still are examples of genuine efforts at construction but this is probably very small in comparison to the amount of infrastructure destroyed during the war. >>“Kerry has unfortunately been cowed by the extremely powerful influence of the right wing media and the Bush strategists, that labels any criticism of the ‘great leader’ and his ‘war on terror’ as being unpatriotic.” [“What right wing media. You say this often in many posts but never show any collusion that point to this as fact. The media is biased but it is in your direction. Do not take my word for it, take the reporters themselves: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829 The truth is Kerry is a phony and people realize it more everyday.”] I believe that Rupert Murdoch’s press and TV have a very substantial effect and that together with other right wing owned media including radio, play a significant part in opinion formation. As in the US, there are other newspapers and the BBC that stand apart from Murdoch and other right wing media but do not have the largest percentage of the market. As for saying that Kerry is a phony, this is a statement that I find extraordinarily glib and with which I do not agree. I think that if one is bandying this word gratuitously about then it could easily fit Bush. I will not dwell on his sheer lack of sophistication and his one dimensional view of the world. [“This last comment shows an alarming lack of insight into the current psychology of the American public” What do you, a Brit, think you know about the psychology of the American public? Even I am not a big enough of a know-it-all to think I know anything about the psychology of any country but my own.”] We in Britain pay far more attention to the US political scene than you pay to ours and on this basis are entitled to make some comments. This does not mean that we know all of the different influences that are felt but at least some of the important ones. However what is far more to the point is that because we are not Americans, we are in a position to see the US from an outside perspective and how its conduct impacts on the rest of us.

Republican X, Why not? Better late than never.I look forward to hearing from you. Just another word. As you probably have seen by now, I am not the most civil of interlocuters but you are one the exceptions to what I regard as my SOB opponents. They in their turn probably think that I am the worst SOB of all.

capfka, The extremist friends, as you call them, will never recognize the truth because they are 'extremists'. Such people by their very nature are not able to be rational. It is something in their genes. Thanks for the weblink, it makes illuminating reading and shows how the conduct of this most arrogant and ignorant president has been a turn off for someone who voted for him four years ago. Let us hope that many more will see the light and get beyond the lies and distortions of this foul administration and its neconservative Likudites.

Republican X, I am a little later than intended in responding to your post of 8th October. My original remarks have quote marks around them and your responses are bracketed. You may find that I have been somewhat discursive and have at times have tended to go into too much detail but there we are: “The UN is a forum for all nations (both big and small) and it is inevitable that a mighty nation such as the US, will be frustrated as it experiences opposition to aspects of its foreign policy. The US as a superpower, which knows it can impose a military solution when it decides to do so, will resent having to compromise.” [“I am not saying scrap the U.N. as whole. Americans should tolerate compromise. In the whole I feel America does compromise a great deal when considering how much we put in to the actual work done. We are no stranger to compromise and would be willing to do it more so long as other countries started contributing more than words. Here is where we diverge, national security. Policy that would conflict with a nations security should be off the table completely. The CIA report recently released shows us many things and one of them is the vast corruption by Security Council members. Missiles sold to Iraq by France as recently as 2003. Technology dealt to Saddam by China and Russia. Billions in kickbacks distributed to all parties involved. My point is that when you come down to the bottom line every nation takes care of their interests. It is suddenly clear to me why France, China, and Russia where so against going into Iraq. It certainly seems that Iraq successfully bluffed the table to the very end. CIA, MI-5, DIA, and even Iran; All bluffed. Except for those snickering in the back room…France and Co. They more than likely knew the truth the whole time. How could they not? “] If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that France and Russia knew that Saddam had no WMD all along. This is probably true. Both France and Russia have much to fear from Muslim terrorists. France has a large Muslim population that are quite disaffected, as they are resented by the host population and there have been terrorist bombings in France by Muslims in the last decade. Russia has even more to fear as it has killed tens of thousands in Chechnya in the wars of the nineties and more recently. So both countries would be very vulnerable to WMD falling into the hands of Fundamentalists or Chechen fighters, the so-called nexus between terrorists and Iraq. Therefore you have made a reasonable assumption that the French and Russians had confidence that Saddam didn’t have any significant WMD (and I would add that even if he had, he was not likely to hand them over to anyone). I do not believe that the CIA, MI6 and other intelligence agencies got it as wrong as the politicians would have us believe. Two inquiries in the UK by Lords Hutton and Butler have shown that the MI6 intelligence was ‘sexed up’ by Tony Blair and his underlings. The key words that Butler quoted from MI6 was that the intelligence regarding Saddam having WMD was ‘patchy and sporadic’. Blair deliberately misled Parliament and said "Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing." He also said the intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoritative". These statements were clearly lies and are explained by the fact that Blair could not sell an invasion based on regime change to the British people, which he had already agreed with George W.Bush. So he had to strike the note of fear as when he said that “Iraq has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population". In the London Evening Standard the following day, the headlines proclaimed that we were “45 minutes away from attack”. Almost everyone understood this to mean that the UK population was directly threatened. Blair’s Minister of Defence acknowledged that he had been told by MI6 that the 45 minutes warning possibility related purely to battlefield weapons and not anything else. When asked at one of the Inquiries why he had not corrected the wrong impression in the Newspapers, he flannelled his way out of giving a proper answer. It is almost certain that Blair knew at least as much as his Defence Minister. But he was clearly caught on the horns of a dilemma. If he said that he knew that the 45 minutes warning related to the battlefield, he would have lost a large part of his argument for the war and would have been shown to have blatantly misled the public and Parliament. He therefore thought that by saying he was not aware of the significance of the intelligence, he would appear innocent of any charge of duplicity. He seemed not to worry about the alternative charge of gross incompetence, for not asking the intelligence committee for full details of the 45 minutes issue. How he has survived is a mystery to me. If you visit the following website you will see how the MI6 information was changed and spun to exaggerate and distort the intelligence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm I take the view that were there a genuine threat to the security of the US, and the French really believed this to be the case, they would not have opposed the war. With regard to your view that “Policy that would conflict with a nations security should be off the table completely”, I disagree. The UN only stood in the way of the Bush administration’s attempt to force a Second Resolution for an immediate invasion because UN Inspectors were working flat out to determine the position regarding WMD and that while this was going on, there was no danger. Almost everyone outside of the US knew that Bush was determined to go to war regardless of weapons inspections and that he only went to the UN to help Tony Blair with his difficult political situation in the UK, whose population is totally committed to that institution, warts and all. It was the cynical and bullying way that the US went about trying to force the hand of the Security Council that caused resistance. If anything should be learned from the sorry Iraqi quagmire it is that pre-emptive war based on ‘intelligence’ that a nation has WMD and is likely to strike the US, is inherently risky. But far more so, is when an administration unilaterally decides that a nation ‘has the intention’ of striking the US and then deliberately falsifies intelligence to justify a ‘preventative’ war. Bush in his wriggling when confronted by the Duelfer report has now enunciated this variation of the Bush Doctrine and that an ‘intention’ to have a WMD programme is now sufficient to incur a preventative war. This will lead to disaster for all sooner or later as China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and maybe others in the future, will not line up to be attacked as the US develops even more sophisticated weapons and defences, in a bid to outdo all others militarily. Has US security been furthered by the unilateral action it has taken? I don’t think so. Read the following article of Peter Galbraith, US Ambassador to Croatia, it paints a better picture on this point than I can: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1324259,00.html In this day and age, all nations are said to be interdependent economically and what affects some is bound to affect others, particularly the big economies. That is why we have the frequent G8 meetings and other regular meetings of Finance Ministers and Central Bankers. We have the World Trade Organization as well. All of these are intended to help promote the growth of world trade and to keep the economic wheels of the world on the road. Of course there are conflicts of interest but it has been recognized since the time of the great Depression of the early 1930’s, that there is much to be gained by regular discussions of problems and some degree of co-ordination. We have seen deliberate adjustments in currency exchange rates in order to help rebalance economies, although not always too successfully, and efforts to bring inflation under control which have been very successful. The point I am making here, albeit in a roundabout way, is that co-operation and the existence of multilateral institutions are now part and parcel of the aim for economic security and that there is a parallel for political security. Each countries national interests impinges on others and it is far too dangerous to have an anarchical situation in which some countries can, by virtue of superior military strength, try to enforce their will on the others. We can see the potential for an extremely cataclysmic conflict if there were to be a full blooded confrontation between the US and China over Taiwan. While this may not occur for quite some time, as China realizes it is not a military match for the US in this decade or maybe the next , it is one of the more awful possibilities that is waiting to happen. Chinese military planners are as aware of the PNAC and Bush Doctrine as anyone on this planet and with typical oriental resolve and patience will be aiming to neutralize the gap in military technology that currently exists between itself and the US. With the speed of economic growth that China is exhibiting it is quite possible that it will catch up with the US well before the midway point of this century. We have seen how the Soviet Union in the space of few short years developed the atomic and then hydrogen bombs and sufficient rocketry to reach the US from both submarines and silos. So the commanding US technological lead did not last for long after the WWII. It is folly on the part of the US neoconservative hawks to believe that the US will maintain its military lead over all others throughout this century unless it is prepared to fight preventative wars with major powers in order to set back their ability to rival the US militarily. It is on this basis that I believe that the UN is absolutely necessary to any prospect of the avoidance of major wars in this century. The development and enforcement of disarmament treaties and thorough inspections is what the UN should be engaged on. It should also be moving towards a multinational force, which can act speedily to discover serious breaches of nuclear proliferation treaties and other weapons development. This is not an impossible dream when it is realized that we have had working nuclear disarmament and test ban treaties in the past. What we must also do to restore nations’ faith in the fairness of non-proliferation, is to stop the US and other nuclear powers from casting aside all restraints on their ability to pursue newer, more deadly or sophisticated weaponry while trying to prohibit others form doing so. Otherwise we are assuring ourselves of clandestine efforts to do so. In all sports involving two parties or more it has been found that a referee or umpire is necessary to any satisfactory outcome. So it is in the sphere of geopolitics, as the potential for conflict is nearly always near at hand and in an age of WMD, the outcome can be catastrophic and on a scale not seen since 1946 and Hiroshima. The UN serves the precise purpose of being the one global institution that has been developed for the purpose of ‘refereeing’ between nations. The fact that it often frustrates the US in particular is no bad thing because the US is the 800 pounds guerrilla that can wreak the most damage if not kept in check. The UN certainly needs further reform and the US should play its part in this process rather than to continually condemn it as merely a talking shop. The fact is that a talking shop at least has the potential to arrest or delay the development of head on conflicts. As Churchill wisely proclaimed “to jaw jaw is better than to war war”. There is every reason to work even harder at the UN to develop the criteria that will determine when its members’ national security is really threatened and the appropriate form of action to be taken to deal with the issue. The UN had no problem with the Resolutions to authorise the action taken in Afghanistan and in Kuwait a decade or so earlier. As I stated earlier it was the genuine perception that there was not a direct and imminent threat to the US that prevented a Second Resolution being passed. “The greatest danger to world peace and security is not the terrorism of a small number of fundamentalists and fanatics but the potential for clashes in this century as China and India… the implicit imperialism of the Bush Doctrine. “ [“I agree that clashes of major nations are a threat. Most notable to me is the potential melt down we face in North Korea. Japan is only going to take so much. I still do not see how you believe pre-emptive strikes means imperialism. Do you really think the U.S. will start marching across the world to the beat of the war drums in the name of pre-emptive defense?”] I am not so sure as you are. I think that Bush is a dangerously wild card with his limited intellectual capacity and his religious leanings, which to some of us sound juvenile, fanatical and naïve. As far as Bush and his cohorts are concerned the extension of Americas reach militarily (and also economically) is part of the ‘war on terror’ and the implementation of the Project for the New American Century, is allegedly designed to secure the US ‘s security in this century. However a form of imperialism is already taking shape. The US has over one hundred plus military bases throughout the world and now it is beginning to install puppet leaders and regimes – Allawi in Iraq, and Karzai in Afghanistan or support authoritarian ones that allow it military bases, such as in Uzbekistan. The neoconservatives would dearly like to ‘democratise’ Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East, particularly those that have oil and are threats to Israel. I think that the word ‘imperialism’ is causing a problem and if I define it to imply that it can mean a) the increasing spread of military bases throughout the world, with a view to providing jumping off points for wars or for ‘surgical strikes’ on both military and governmental targets ( after all the attacks on Ba’athist offices were aimed at getting rid of governmental organs) and b) the installation of puppet leaders, who acquire a ‘democratic’ mandate, when this is virtually fixed by the US in advance by converting an ‘interim’ leader or group to one that is elected, after showering it with money and giving it months to prepare the way for success by bribery, rigging and by closing opposition newspapers and having control of the main TV Station/s. “It is impossible for the US to curtail the spread of and advance of the nuclear capability of other nations, while pursuing the development of ever more sophisticated weapons itself, as it abandons treaties that are designed to limit and reduce the nuclear and other WMD threats.” [“You are most likely right on this point. However as I pointed out above, it is my belief that nations will do what it must regardless of treaties. I am a strong supporter of continuing military research. At the same time I am a supporter of crafting policy that limits the necessity of using that technology.”] I have dealt with the above points earlier on. “The enunciation of the PNAC will be seen in retrospect to be an enormous mistake. It positively tells the world of the clear intention of the US to position itself to dominate all other nations by the force of arms. No individual or nation willingly accepts the dominion of others and all seek to break free. It is thus a call to arms for the others. The fact that imperialism is not a concept that sits comfortably with the American public at large and is not always directly visible in its various manifestations, gives rise to the denial of its existence by many Americans, who do not appreciate how the PNAC is perceived by others.” [“The simple truth is that you give the PNAC way to much credit. This mass government control you contribute to them is just nonsense. What is PNAC compared to CitiCorp, Ford, GE, etc when it comes to influence on policy? It is nothing more than a think tank, one of several trumpeting policy from both spectrums.”] I disagree with you with regard to PNAC. Yes, it was the brainchild of a think tank but we have seen it enunciated in the Bush Doctrine as part of official US government foreign and defence policy. It has already started to be implemented as witness the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. “To continually revisit the ‘drawing board’, as you put it, is preferable to letting the UN go the way of ‘The League of Nations’ “ [“Agreed.”] “When you say that the US “will never submit to rule outside its borders” I am not quite sure what you mean. It is open to a number of interpretations.” [“I meant that we should not enter binding agreements that involve our own national security. This includes protection for our citizens and soldiers which means not participating in the ICC.”] Here again we have another example of the US setting a bad precedent. Why should there be any difference in treatment of US nationals from any other when they have committed war crimes. There is a parallel with the owning of nuclear bombs. Why should Israel, who doesn’t admit to even having them, be allowed to have them and Muslim countries like Iran and Syria and even North Korea, not be allowed to have these weapons? Why should Iran, Syria, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries believe that Israel is so benevolent that it will never threaten their use and can be totally relied upon? Going further, why should any nation accept that US, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel can be nuclear powers and they cannot? Is their any Divine Right that they have? Are all these nations so inherently good and trustful? If the US wants nations to accept it as a moral leader, it should not only help to set moral standards but also be willing to be judged by them. If not, then why should anyone accept the ICC or any prohibition that is set by the US, on its activities. In fact the US disqualifies itself from being at the forefront of political morality. “Well, to start with the coup in Chile in 1973, which was supported by the US and which brought General Pinochet to power as it displaced the democratically elected Allende. I don’t think there is much denial that the US played its part in this event. For your reference here is just one of many sources on this subject: http://www.ptb.be/scripts/print.phtml?object_id=8021” [“Interesting reading but can I believe every word of it…No. I do think many of your liberal brethren will like this part…”] [‘Part of Clinton's economic package for the U.S. is to create "free trade agreements" across the globe, first within North America (NAFTA in 1994), then with Africa, and simultaneously with South America. The neoliberal assault on South America will need to come plated in impeachable ideological armor. To say that one is a genuine champion of human rights (and therefore able to be open about one's past with the much reviled dictators of the Southern Cone) is critical in that part of the world.’ NEOLIBERAL…hah that’s a new one.] Well, nothing wrong Clinton’s package in one sense i.e. owning up to the past CIA plotting and subversion. I am not so sure about the free trade agreements, as that is an economic hot potato as far as underdeveloped countries are concerned and one that I do not know enough about technically to pass comment on. ”I am sure you will maintain that the following website is left wing propaganda but whether or not you believe it in full, part or not at all, it makes interesting reading on this subject. http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html#ElSalvador” [“Chomsky nonsense.”] “How do we know this is nonsense? There are many accounts of a connection and one such is detailed in the following article: http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/houseofbush.html” [“Cooperation between the Saudi’s and U.S. Presidents did not begin with nor was it exclusive to President Bush. Both Democrat and Republican Presidents have had intricate relationships with these people. You are just feeding into a legend that is believed by only the leftist of the left in America.”] There cannot be much doubt, however, that Saudi Arabia is a distinctly undemocratic country and yet it is a ‘close’ friend of the US. So here is another example of hypocrisy writ large. The Bushites talk incessantly about ‘God’s’ gift of freedom and yet associate with the other type of Saudi God that denies it. “There is no doubt that the fundamentalists that destroyed the Twin Towers were mainly Saudis and that the Wahhabism, which is the most fierce version of Islam, is Saudi in origin. There have been plenty of references to the financial support for Al Qaeda coming from Saudi Arabia. It is also very evident that the Bush administration places a lot of reliance upon its Saudi connections.” [As I said, every President places a great reliance on their connections with the world’s largest Oil producer (one that has a major influence in OPEC). This is not to discount my shared concern. We still have not seen the senate report that details the Kingdoms hand in 9/11.] Difficult to speak on this point as I simply have no idea. I suppose that anything is possible given that there is a strong Islamic tradition in Saudi Arabia.. “…in the US, there are other newspapers and the BBC that stand apart from Murdoch and other right wing media but do not have the largest percentage of the market.” ["The BBC with all its outstanding programming has a news organization that is widely known as the liberal-socialist mouthpiece. Murdoch owns one newspaper, one network and one magazine in the U.S. This is a total of 3 outlets. This is compared with Viacom’s CBS and MTV. The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post…Time, Newsweek… ABC, PBS…NPR…I could go on and on. All of which are left wing biased.] So I suppose the question is, as in the UK, which is the most influential? Certainly Murdoch’s three ( it may be four) newspapers in the UK outsell most of the others combined. Sufficient to say that before the 1997 election, after which 'New Labour' gained a majority in Parliament and Blair became Prime Minister, he flew half way across the world to Australia to get a promise from Murdoch that his papers would support Blair. Some months ago, Murdoch let it be known that he did not want Britain signing the New European Constitution, which Blair had said previously would not require a Referendum. Suddenly Blair changed his mind, presumably after a threat from Murdoch, and a Referendum was back on the table. I believe that the Republican cause has far more US media support in terms of the numbers that access it and are influenced by it , than has its opposition. I do not expect that Middle America follows to any great extent the more liberal newspapers found on both East and West Coasts. “As for saying that Kerry is a phony, this is a statement that I find extraordinarily glib and with which I do not agree. I think that if one is bandying this word gratuitously about then it could easily fit Bush. I will not dwell on his sheer lack of sophistication and his one dimensional view of the world.” [“Well he has been my Senator for many long years and I know the man well. He is a phony! Say what you want about his supposed sophistication…it means nothing to me and in about 4 weeks it will mean nothing to the citizens.”] What is more phony about Kerry than Bush? To me most politicians can be described as phony, by which I mean that they most often do not believe or doubt that they can deliver what they promise and will say virtually anything to gain office. “We in Britain pay far more attention to the US political scene than you pay to ours and on this basis are entitled to make some comments. This does not mean that we know all of the different influences that are felt but at least some of the important ones. However what is far more to the point is that because we are not Americans, we are in a position to see the US from an outside perspective and how its conduct impacts on the rest of us.” [“There is more to America and the foreign policy of Presidents. I understand you have a different perspective and that is why I joined this site…to hear those perspectives.”] Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

Republican X, I was just about to transmit my long delayed response to your post of a week or so ago, when I hit the wrong key and it all disappeared 'down the drain'. I will need a day or two to recover from this shock as I spent some time working on it. I actually had it on a Word Document and was getting rid of some other extracts when it happened. I should have saved it as I went along but commited the cardinal sin of breezing on regardless.