Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

A Quotation from Steven den Beste:

>> France in particular, and Belgium and Germany and Spain, are strongly dominated by p-idealism. And what that means is that they are not allies. We in America are not engaged in a shooting war with them, but diplomatically speaking they are our opponents and they are actively working to bring about our defeat in this war. It isn't that the US as a nation is seen as an enemy by France as a nation; it's that American empiricism and America's power and influence which have resulted from the success of empiricism is seen as an enemy by p-idealists in France, with their failed embrace of socialism and bureaucratic autocracy.

= = =

Are we in a cultural / diplomatic / ideological war with Europe? You betcha we are! And America is in a civil war on similiar issues.

I have looked at it a little differently however.

Europe and America are both descended from the Judeo / Christian tradition but our respective views on religion are diverging rapidly. Church attendance and evolution vs creationism are two examples. Death penalty issues are another.

Sam Huntington divides the world into civilizations. Today, America and Europe are going separate ways, IMHO, on many philosophical issues and sooner rather than later we may actually be two distinct civilizations.

Which is why my critique of Iraq has always been that GWB is biting off more than America can chew, or, writing checks America cannot cash.

Can we win in Iraq and simultaneously re-shape the world political order all at the same time? Hitler showed us that fighting two front wars are foolish.

Further problem. America also faces a civil war on these same issues. Its the red state / blue state thing.

Those European nations mentioned above adore and love who? WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

About half (roughly) of non-apathetic America love both CLINTONS and the other half (roughly) of non-apathetic America HATE Bill and Hillary.

Why? For similiar reasons as given in den Beste's article.

So, GWB took us into Iraq and simultaneously tried to fundamentally re-shape the United Nations at a time when America is and remains fundamentally divided on numerous questions of philosophy.

A two or three front war, and a civil war, all at once. And a huge tax cut at the same time.

Like a dog that chases the bus, we didn't really want to catch that Iraqi bus no matter how much we thought we did at the time.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 11:15 AM

Totten writes:

"Saudi Arabia hasn't played much of a military role in the Islamofascist movement, but its capital Riyadh, along with Tehran in Iran, serves as an ideological proving ground just as Moscow did during the Cold War. No country makes more money from oil than Saudi Arabia. Rivers of petrodollars flow into Islamic schools, or madrassas, all over the world with the specific objective of converting people to the Wahhabi strand of Islam."

EXACTLY!

So do we remove the Saudi royal family from power? How?

Yet the War on Terror cannot be won until that happens. And buying SUVs doesn't help.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 11:20 AM

Can we win in Iraq and simultaneously re-shape the world political order all at the same time? Hitler showed us that fighting two front wars are foolish.

No, Hitler showed us that fighting two-front wars with inadequate resources and bad timing was foolish. We seemed to manage a two-front war about sixty years ago, in the Pacific and Europe.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 11:24 AM

How many Nazis were killed by the Red Army? Who captured Berlin?

We did not win a two front war alone.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 11:30 AM

How many Nazis were killed by the Red Army? Who captured Berlin?

We did not win a two front war alone.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 11:30 AM

Who said we're alone, other than people who keep lying about our so-called unilateralism?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 11:44 AM

>How many Nazis were killed by the Red Army? Who
>captured Berlin?
>We did not win a two front war alone.

According to historian Richard Overy ( in Russia's War) the USSR engaged 80% of German military and inflicted 80% of casualties on the overall German force.

"Russia's War" By Richard Overy

Overy points out, that despite the significance of the Anglo-American role on the Western Front, it was events on the Eastern Front which broke the back of the German war machine. As I already mentioned, over 80% of German battle casualties were on the Eastern Front where the overwhelming weight of the Wehrmacht was concentrated. The Soviet Union "had to win the war". The German leaders never expected the Soviet Union to recover its economic and military strength following the devastating losses of 1941-42. Russia's War looks at the course of the Eastern Front from the point of view of the Red Army troops and partisans, and the ordinary Russian peasants and workers. It also notes the high price which the Soviet people paid for the role they played in the defeat of the Third Reich.

-------------------------------------------------
Book Description (from amazon.com)
Fifty years after the end of World War II, historians now are coming to the consensus that Russia played the decisive role in the defeat of Hitler. At least 25 million Soviet soldiers and civilians perished at home and on the battlefield in the bloodiest struggle of our century. Using material available only since the end of the Cold War, the author writes: "The conflict was fought on such a gigantic scale and with such an intensity of feeling that conventional historical discourse seems ill-equipped to convey either very satisfactorily. Little, perhaps nothing, of the experience of most Western readers and historians will have prepared them for what they will find in the history of Russia's war."

Posted by Canute at May 5, 2004 12:21 PM

As for capturing Berlin, that was a political decision, undertaken by Eisenhower, and not a military one.

The forces facing the Western Allies were quite a bit weaker than those confronting Zhukov and Koniev. Not to say that they were prepared to let us TAKE Berlin, but it was not exactly as though we were 1000 miles away, either.

Had Ike given the green-light to continue the breakneck advance, many US commanders figured they'd have rolled into Berlin several days ahead of the Germans.

Oddly enough, Ike was persuaded, in part, by reports of a "National Redoubt" in Bavaria, complete w/ stockpiles of WMD (chemical weapons, actually), and fears that the Germans would withdraw down there to slug it out for another year. So he diverted forces in that direction, and stopped the advance on Berlin in the process. You might say that "Ike lied, East Germans died" as a result (since no intelligence failure is ever circumstantial)....

Posted by Dean at May 5, 2004 12:22 PM

"There is no Christian counterpart to what Saudi Arabia does. Imagine if the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement (which includes David Duke among its adherents) made billions of dollars a year and founded churches throughout the Christian parts of the world to spread its hateful, racist, xenophobic ideology. "

Ahem, this might be the place to mention the publisher of the Washington Times and owner of UPI as a possible analog.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 12:33 PM

Do any of the institutions that you're describing here recommend death to the infidels? Do they preach hate?

When I see Christians taught by those churches flying airliners into buildings and blowing themselves up in pizza parlors, I'll take the analog seriously, Duncan.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 12:38 PM

Rand,
Read some of what the Reverend Moon has said about homosexuals. You might want to revise that comment.
He is also a Holocaust apologist (not denier - apologist!) who seeks Korean world domination through the Unification Church.

Not the same thing as the madrases - but analogous.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 01:04 PM

And I repeat that it will not be anologous until Moonies start murdering people in pursuit of their goals.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 01:13 PM

Rand,
In the same post you linked to some Clueless musings that the red-blooded "empiricists" and cheese-eating "p-idealists" are at war. Last time I looked the current nominees for "p-idealism" hadnt killed a whole lot of people either.

If you can endores that world view, I think its fair of me to put the Saudis and the moonies in the same catagory.

One thing they do have in common is far too much influence on the First Family.

I could go on, but as SDB says Holbo sneers . And he sneers so well.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 01:50 PM

So Rand, why are we fighting the French?

Freedom fries? Pouring perfectly good French wine down sewers? Misguided boycotts of Heinz ketchup?

Who is our ally in GWB's war against France and the UN?

Sudan back on the Human Rights committee? Someone is sticking it the GWB just for the amusement value. Who is our ally in that war?

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 02:07 PM

I said a war both hot and cold, Duncan. We aren't even in a cold one with the Moonies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:19 PM

Who is our ally against France and the UN? For now, Australia, Britain, Poland, and other countries in young Europe. Large swathes of the anglosphere.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:21 PM

I said a war both hot and cold, Duncan. We aren't even in a cold one with the Moonies.

Maybe we should be...

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 02:23 PM

Last time I looked the current nominees for "p-idealism" hadnt killed a whole lot of people either.

They kill millions every year, through luddism and socialism (e.g., DDT, golden rice).

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:29 PM

For now, Australia...
Howard will be toast by January. Labour leader Latham is kicking his arse.
...Britain,
Tony might not even survive his current term - the only thing holding him up is the appaling weakness of the Torries.
...Poland,
which just went socialist - and joined the EU.
and other countries in young Europe.
Most of whom are also members of the European Union.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 02:29 PM

I should also add that they were killing thousands of Iraqis every year by propping up Saddam for pay.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:30 PM

Duncan beat me to the punch.

I seem to recall the Polish President being annoyed that Bush "took them for a ride" on the WMD issue. About as close as he could come to calling Bush the L word.

Then Poland and Spain withdrew their objections to the EU constitution and sided with Chirac, contrary to what Washington had wanted.

Poland is also angry that we US-ians have not given Warsaw more contracts in Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 02:35 PM

Sorry, I forgot.

Canada. Are they on our side in this US vs EU soft war?

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 02:36 PM

How many Kurds did Ronald Reagan kill by selling Saddam the posion gas he used to suppress them and fight Iran?

There is enough blood out there in history to soak everyone's hands.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 02:38 PM

I should also add that they were killing thousands of Iraqis every year by propping up Saddam for pay.

Righto - the Oil-for-Food scandal.

I have no doubts that the UN is fundamentally a often corrupt, somewhat ineffectual organization. Which not that bad in the long run - an effective U.N. might make the case for World Government, which would not be a good thing.

However, most the pertinent documents relating to the current accusations are being held by the I N C - who proved so reliable with WMD. And Chalibi's merry men released these unverified documents at the same time as they realized that the UN was going to cut them out of New Iraq.

So please excuse my skeptism.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 02:48 PM

Yes, there's nothing there, Duncan. That's why Annan and Sevan are stonewalling.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:54 PM

How many Kurds did Ronald Reagan kill by selling Saddam the posion gas he used to suppress them and fight Iran?

He didn't sell him posion, or for that matter, poison gas.

There is enough blood out there in history to soak everyone's hands.

Yup, everybody's the same. There are no moral distinctions to be made. Mao, Stalin, Reagan, Bush--they're all equally evil.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 02:56 PM

Yes, there's nothing there, Duncan. That's why Annan and Sevan are stonewalling.

If stonewalling is an indicator for guilt, the entire Bush Adminstration should be deported to Gitmo.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 03:03 PM

What you're calling stonewalling most people call executive priviledge--a well-established legal concept. What's the basis for hiding/destroying/"losing" the UN books?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 03:14 PM

UN folks that embezzled Iraqi money belong in jail as do several Enron people.

Rand, I started posting on this board because you wrote a post saying you wanted to have sincere conversations with people who think differently than you. After all, we do need a bi-partsan space program or we ain't going no where, right?

Like I wrote to Mark Whittington, telling your wife she is stupid is a lousy way to win an argument (even if she really is stupid).

Americans have less blood on their hands (IMHO) than most nations in all history but to claim our hands are totally pure while Chirac's are dirt black prevents meaningful conversation because it just ain't true. And even if it is true, to talk about that prevents meaningful dialouge unless total war against the UN is what is on our plate.

And winning that is just a few bridges too far, IMHO, whether or not it would be cool to do.

= = =

Had we given Sistani his elections a few months back and not tried this Israeli look alike flag thing and not tried to micro-manage the Iraqi reconstruction, Bush and the USA could have won a huge victory in Iraq.

Remove Saddam and go home.

But no! We listened to Ahmad Chalabi. Did Bush lie about WMD? Probably not but what is worse, he & Dick Cheney got played by Chalabi, who has been passing notes to Iranian intelligence.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 03:19 PM

...but to claim our hands are totally pure while Chirac's are dirt black...

I must have missed that post. Can you point me to it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 03:33 PM

Canute,

It's true the Russians did the majority of the fighting and dying to win the war in Europe. It's also true that without the material support provided by the Allies (in particular the US) that Russia would not have made the gains she made on the Eastern Front.

Posted by Brian at May 5, 2004 03:40 PM

Okay, here is some pointing. You were being sarcastic with this:

There is enough blood out there in history to soak everyone's hands.

Yup, everybody's the same. There are no moral distinctions to be made. Mao, Stalin, Reagan, Bush--they're all equally evil.

= = =

Embezzlement from oil for food and Chirac's oil deals with Saddam are routinely trotted out to prove the perfidy of the French. Okay fine, the French are dirty. So what.

I am reminded of the movie Casablanca and that scene where the police chief is SHOCKED to learn there is gambling going on.

Your winnings, sir.

Posted by BIll White at May 5, 2004 03:54 PM

Brian writes:

"It's true the Russians did the majority of the fighting and dying to win the war in Europe. It's also true that without the material support provided by the Allies (in particular the US) that Russia would not have made the gains she made on the Eastern Front."

The original context was Rand's assertion that America has won two front wars before. Yes we have, with a whole lot of help from the Soviets.

Is there any ally helping us in the War on Terror today that offers nearly the support Joe Stalin did when Hitler was defeated.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 03:57 PM

Embezzlement from oil for food and Chirac's oil deals with Saddam are routinely trotted out to prove the perfidy of the French. Okay fine, the French are dirty. So what.

So what?

So they cannot be relied on as "allies" when it's clearly in their business interests to prop up our enemies. They haven't been allies in any useful sense of the word for many years, and Kerry's notion that we should go back to them on bended knee and ask their forgiveness is just one of the many reasons that I can't even contemplate voting for him, no matter how unhappy I get with Bush.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 04:03 PM

Joe Stalin was an essential ally at the right time.

A dirty scoundrel SOB who is now buring in hell, but an essential ally to whom we gave huge Lend-Lease support because we needed to defeat Hitler.

Why should Chirac be different?

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 04:21 PM

Because Stalin shared a common cause with us--defeating Hitler. It's not clear what interests of ours Chirac shares. His prime foreign-policy motivator seems to be to weaken us.

In any event, why do we need him? Your notion that we can't do it without allies is baseless. It would be nice to have more than we do (we wouldn't have to tax as much, or have as many of our own fight) but we can go it alone if we have to. Unlike WW II, we're making very few sacrifices for this war right now--we have a deep bench.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 04:31 PM

Why do we need France and the United Nations?

Because roughly half of non-apathetic America (give or take a few perentage points) loves Bill Clinton, hates the death penalty, thinks America should be part of international institutions, believes global warming is real (even if Kyoto is a bad solution) etc. . .

While the Clueless take "p-idealism" versus "empiricism" has holes there are some elements of real truth to it. America is pretty much split 50/50 red state & blue state and we are split in the Clueless system of thinking as well.

Many Americans (and even more Canadians) are sympathetic with the European way of looking at social problems and other issues.

The Bush way of fighting terror leaves large numbers of Americans believing that George Bush hates them about as much as he hates bin Laden. Liberals fear/hate John Ashcroft more than bin Laden and conservatives fear/hate Hillary Clinton more than bin Laden.

When pro-life people go on TV and say abortion rights activists are the moral equivalent of al Qaeda, how can that unify America towards a common goal?

After 9-11 NATO offered a NATO resolution to go get al Qaeda. Bush said "No thanks" it was an American problem not a European problem.

This internal quarrels drain our bench versus bin Laden.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 04:47 PM

One of the things that bothers me is the extent to which the USA and it's citizen's allow themselves to be played by their adversaries. The UN is a perfect example. While it may have some useful committees, overall it works to prevent us from doing the right thing at the right time. All they have to do is delay us in some cases to win. Since it's inception, where it was put on American soil just to make it hard for us to pull out, as many nations did from the League of Nations... we've been played. It's time we stopped.

Americans don't need other countries to keep us honest, we have citizens and a constitution that does that for us.

Posted by ken anthony at May 5, 2004 04:48 PM

We need France and the UN because the nation is divided?

Sorry, I'm missing some, or all of the logic here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 04:56 PM

Ken Anthony writes:

"One of the things that bothers me is the extent to which the USA and it's citizen's allow themselves to be played by their adversaries."

Ahmad Chalabi is a better example. :-)

= = =

Rand -

If America had a real civil war, today, there are factions within America that France would have sympathy with and factions that France would oppose. Great Britain sided with the Confederacy and the Euro-weenies LOVE Bill Clinton.

By bashing France and trying to change the UN, Bush is also waging a political war against the liberal elements within American society. Karl Rove said exactly that quite bluntly.

Thus by bashing France, Bush is bashing those Americans who support Bill Clinton's views on things.

A two front war and a civil war just like you said in your original post. US vs EU and the GOP vs liberals, fought all at the same time as we fight the War on Terror.

Rand, dude, I agree with your original post about there being a US vs EU ideological war and a cultural war within the US overlaying the War on Terror.

Here is the question. Is Bill Clinton as evil as bin Laden?

Must Bush crush liberalism as thoroughly as he crushes al Qaeda?

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 05:14 PM

In any event, why do we need him? Your notion that we can't do it without allies is baseless.

That is highly dependent on what "it" is, isnt it?

The vagaries of a war on an abstract noun.

The best summation of the den Bestes article comes from the comments section of Crooked Timber
"A priori, I am an empiricist"

Posted by Duncan Young at May 5, 2004 05:16 PM

Duncan, for the record, don Beste's analysis is half baked (IMHO) yet liberals and conservatives (if those words have any meaning left in them) do think differently and the US and EU are on divergent intellectual courses.

Its a "Men are from Mars & Women from Venus" sort of thing.

However, the American Left and Right (more oxymorons!) just cannot talk to each other without flames and invective that is BAD for America in general, not merely when we are trying to fight a war.

Running with don Beste seemed as good a way as any to engage Rand on the topic.

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 05:27 PM

Oh Duncan, I just realized "it" - - Lets debate the meaning of "it" !!

Or is it the meaning of is?

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 05:31 PM

Judging from this thread, the answer to the question implied by the title of this post would seem to be Everyone except the enemy.

Posted by McGehee at May 5, 2004 07:14 PM

Here is the question. Is Bill Clinton as evil as bin Laden?

Must Bush crush liberalism as thoroughly as he crushes al Qaeda?

These are two unrelated questions. No, Bill Clinton is not as evil as bin Laden. Bill Clinton is a garden-variety sociopath, not a megalomaniacal ideologue.

As for liberalism, I'm not sure what that means. I consider myself a classical liberal. We must crush totalitarianism in all forms, one of which is Al Qaeda (though we are at war against much more than Al Qaeda, which people who oppose the removal of Saddam continue to fail to understand). So-called liberals aren't the enemy in the same sense, but they make the war much more difficult.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 09:28 PM

Bill Clinton may well be a sociopath (or something) - - entire doctoral dissertations could be written on what makes that fellow tick.

On the other hand, he doesn't believe he was put on this Earth personally by God to assure American global hegemony, as do a few other people, including GWB, and:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Cheney-Empire-Christmas24dec03.htm

Posted by Bill White at May 5, 2004 09:45 PM

...he doesn't believe he was put on this Earth personally by God to assure American global hegemony, as do a few other people, including GWB...

This is utter, industrial-grade, bullshit.

I now understand what kind of netherworld you live in.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2004 10:12 PM

"I now understand what kind of netherworld you live in."

Do you choose to end the discussion? I can handle the insults.

:-)

Posted by Bill White at May 6, 2004 05:18 AM

PS - if it is utter bullshit, how many nations do we accept as equal partners?

The essence of the Declaration of Independence is that all men are created equal, whether some have JDAMs and others do not.

Posted by Bill White at May 6, 2004 05:27 AM

>It's a restorative for those tired of arguing
>with people who mistakenly think that Iraq was
>a "distraction" from the "war on Al Qaeda."

Why does one get the impression (when viewed from outside the US) that roughly half of the non-apathetic America who HATE Bill and Hillary (using Bill White's terminology), and who also believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, seem to regard Iraqees as some lower life-form.

At http://www.washingtonmonthly.com Kevin Drum has this to say about the latest Abu Ghreib pictures:

"The Washington Post has more Abu Ghreib pictures, including this one, which by my count shows either eight or nine soldiers walking around while Iraqi prisoners are being forced into simulated sex acts. Considering how casually they're all taking this, it's hard not to believe that there's at least two or three times that many who were involved in this, and maybe a lot more."

Again, as seen from outside the US, one can see the seeds of such despicable dehumanization in the confusion of al Qaeda with Iraq by your commander in chief. By purposely confusing Saddam with Osama, shrub has coaxed generalized fear and hatred among a large proportion of ignorant Americans. Karl Rove may have thought he was clever in letting dumbya confuse American public opinion to gain an advantage during an election year, but instead has contributed to an atmosphere of collective blame, especially among the members of your armed forces who, on average, probably don't know much about the world outside your borders.

Finally, it's highly ironic that now when allegations of horrific abuses of Iraqi prisoners are shocking Americans (including some of the ignorant ones) and the world at large, the GOP decides it's a good time to have a couple of Kerry's former commanders stand up and condemn his bid for the presidency because Kerry came home from Vietnam and opposed the war on the grounds that atrocities were being committed there.

The world (minus the roughly half of the non-apathetic America who HATE Bill and Hillary) have known about America's less than glorious record (to put it mildly) in South East Asia for the last 35 years. Now, some in this ignorant crowd may wake up and ask themselves some troubling questions. However, I wouldn't count on it. If anything though, this latest trick by the the GOP may backfire bigtime.

Posted by Canute at May 6, 2004 05:45 AM

> Canada. Are they on our side in this US vs EU soft war?

Most of us are on the American side. While we've had our share of anti-Iraq-war marches, we also had two pro-US marches here in Winnipeg alone. (The folks in Quebec will boo the US anthem, but then they also boo the Canadian anthem.)

Our economy is tied to the US, not European economy. Where we do have ties with Europe, they're mostly with Britain.

Alas, our armed forces have been neglected. What we have is stretched thin in Afghanistan, Kosovo etc. Our participation in the Iraq war was limited to a couple destroyers in the Gulf searching ships, some folks on AWACS aircraft, a few ground troops doing the cross-pollination thing with the Americans, and a support base in "an unnamed Gulf state".

Our current Prime Minister is far more pro-US than the one at the start of the Iraq war.

Posted by Roger Strong at May 6, 2004 09:29 AM

>Most of us are on the American side. While
>we've had our share of anti-Iraq-war marches,
>we also had two pro-US marches here in Winnipeg
>alone. (The folks in Quebec will boo the US
>anthem, but then they also boo the Canadian
>anthem.)

"80 percent of Canadians dislike Bush: poll"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040430/323/esi1i.html

"TORONTO (AFP) - More than eight in 10 Canadians harbour a strong dislike for President George W. Bush, according to a new poll released, hours before Prime Minister Paul Martin was set to meet the US leader."
_______________________________________________

"How can there be peace without people understanding each other; and how can this be if they don't know each other?"

Lester B. Pearson (Canadien PM 1963-68)
Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, Oslo, Norway 1957

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1957/pearson-lecture.html

Posted by Canute at May 6, 2004 11:16 AM

Yet another example of the headline not matching the story. The 82% who agreed with the statement "Bush is not necessarily a friend of Canada and doesn't really know anything about Canadian issues" are acknowledging a truth about Canadian-American relations - namely that Canada is the big white spot up north of the States on the map.

We in Canada have roughly 10% of the population and less than 10% of the GDP of the States. I would like to think that we're a bit more important to the American economy than Mexico, but that might not register with a President that's been in and concerned with Texas for a couple of decades.

This is not the same attitude as agreeing with a statement like "I really dislike Bush" would indicate.

Posted by tyrfing at May 6, 2004 12:09 PM

> if it is utter bullshit, how many nations do we accept as equal partners?

The answer to the question "how many nations SHOULD we accept as equal partners?" is zero.

That's the whole point of being the only hyperpower. And that's exactly the answer that any other country in the US' position would give.

No other nation is expected to give a veto over its policy to others. At best, it is understood that some nations don't have a choice wrt such vetos.

Posted by Andy Freeman at May 7, 2004 09:01 AM

Post a comment