The US, The UN and Iraq

Yes , and oh what a difference to me.

I don't know about that! I find many of the participants in this discussion skilled at composition and expressing their views very well. c.i.

Georgeob1

Let me pause for a moment on something you said---- "attempting to sharpen the collective definition of just what it is that we disaggree on"

As I understand it, Blatham's objection to the the US ascending to the position of the world's only superpower---is that somehow America is unfit to be the global leader because we have a character flaw. Now this apparently has been the case with every president in recent history, but is much worse in the case of GWB.

He apparently does not consider it a flaw within our system but a character flaw of every president. Am I correct in my evaluation of his real objection?

I am in real doubt about exactly what it is that Blatham objects to.

Better to let him speak for himself.

guys...sorry, haven't had much time today
george...meant to address your post a couple of pages back, and the last one on kyoto etc, but that will have to be in morning...

but to quickly clarify perceptions query...I don't think any single nation is or would be fit to wield such singular power, for the same reasons I don't think an individual can be counted on with such singular power - we are too deeply flawed (for which reason, the chaps who founded the US put checks and balances everywhere, yes). It's not that the US as a nation is flawed where others are not, it's that the US as a nation is flawed LIKE all others. It's not an exception. Obviously, it's tricky arguing about 'a nation' being flawed, but groups are real things, and distinct.

As to presidents, I think truly great men have been president. But each with flaws like you and I. And as you know, I think this present President among the least talented you've ever had.

Blatham

Then that begs the question-----if there is to be one superpower, is there any nation, given the historical past of each nation considered, that is better qualified than the US to be the global leader?

Put another way, it's because we are all flawed that the US is the only superpower. How is it that five percent of the world population represented by the US is the only superpower? It's because the whole world is flawed. c.i.

C.I.

Or could it be that the US is less flawed than the rest of the world?

perception, I couldn't begin to determine "less flawed." Can you? c.i.

C.I.

Oh I could but I doubt that anyone would accept it so I won't attempt it---let's leave it at that----what I want is for Blatham to answer my question.

Perception

You walk through the very same door again with that question.

Inherent in the reasoning for checks and balances is the notion that too much power residing in a single place is a bad thing, bad because we are flawed and cannot be counted on to rise above self interest, or to not fall prey to the corrupting influences of such power, or even if well intentioned, to be wise enough.

The belief or faith or certainty that folks who might like to be in exclusive positions of power commonly have is that they are particularly suited for rule, and that of the options around, they are the most exceptionally benign or wise or good - and THEY will do the job right. But it is delusional. Your framers knew that and closed the door on ANY possibility of such an arrangement.

Inherent also in your framers' idea was the notion of broad democratic governance, as opposed to power being held by an aristocratic class. Aristocrats too tend to be very sure they know better than the dirty masses how things ought to be organized, and that power really ought to stay with them for the good of all.

So, on the one hand, we have America (on the shoulders of the Greeks, the Brits, and the French) standing as perhaps the key representative of these ideas and these principles.

You can perhaps appreciate the irony of that same America insisting that at the international level, they ought to be running the show because they know/are/will do best. An 'up yours!' response from the rest of the globe seems not entirely out of place.

The question 'who, if not us?' is the wrong question. The question ought to be, "how do we evolve these just and wise principles up to the international level?"

The US now has a unique opportunity to engage this task. If it doesn't, if it continues to insist that it ought not to be bound by international laws and agreements for the good of all, and that self-interest trumps, then it deserves to be hated. And it will be.

A well considered description of why there are checks and balances within government, and why there ought to be genuine international dialogue. Bravo, BLatham, and thank you.

One of the science fiction writers of the 20th Century, i think it was Clarke, but who matters little--he wrote that wanting the executive power for oneself ought automatically to disqualify an individual; he insisted on appointment without right of refusal, but, like all such ideals, it is not possible or realization.

George...let me take up some issues you raised earlier:[quote]I also agree with the notion you expressed that, in terms of political history, the "people who know what's good for you" and who are willing to compel you to do it, - regardless of what aspect of life it involves, or the individual freedoms curtailed, - are prominent among those who have caused much of the world's ills. I also note that in recent centuries this has been the constant affliction of the political left - not the right. I suggest to you that it continues in the political debate over most of the issues you raised.

The debate concerning Roe vs. Wade (and the appointment of Federal Judges) is not over whether abortion can be lawfully performed, but rather whether any reasonable restraint may be imposed on it by state governments, acting through their elected legislatures. A judicial fiat placed national policy at one extreme end on an issue that troubled serious people on both sides. I believe an objective view would conclude that Republicans argue only for moderation on this issue and greater freeedom for people to make their rules through democratic processes at the appropriate levels of our government. Similar arguments could be put forward on several of the other issues you cited. [/quote] I think the converse is closer to the truth. You are talking here about the issue of states' rights (or even, say, local school boards' rights). And in fact you are arguing that a state government ought to be allowed to do what the federal level ought not be allowed - to constrain the liberties of the citizens within their jurisdiction. If a state government moves to deeply curtail access to abortion, or to ban sex shops (as two states tried a couple of years ago), or to mandate the teaching of Creation Science - these are not moves towards liberty, but away from it. Liberty is the freedom to act in your own life and with your own body as you yourself choose without constraint from ANY governmental level.
I addressed some of this in a post earlier to perception. The same argument you make here could apply to your country. Do your states war with each other for power and hegemony? Why not, if such is the inevitable fate of disparate entities? Your framers understood that old patterns of social arrangement (monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies) could indeed be altered. If the US wants to export the wisdom of these fellows, then let's export it up as well as sideways. Anything else is hypocrisy. [quote]We deal with France and Germany as the fractious friends we believe them to be. We look on the evolving European Union as a rival, competitor, and a friend.[/quote] Yes, like I've said more than thrice, the US gets much right. As regards 'empire', the NY Times magazine piece by Igniatiev (sp) that I linked earlier makes this case better than I. Again, the US gets much right. But it's gotten way too much wrong precisely here. US activity in the world has not been fundamentally humanitarian in motive but has been driven by economic self-interest. Far more commonly that supporting democratic governments, the US has supported dictatorships, often very cruel ones such as Sadaam or Pinochet or Marcos, etc, and has not moved to relieve atrocities and humanitarian tragedies even where economic interests were involved if they were of no consequence economically. It is not a good record, george, it's a lousy one. And it accounts for a lot of the bad feelings in the world towards America. As I've pointed out before, the people of Bophal have STILL not been compensated. That is 'ugly americanism' at its worst. [quote]It is curious that you fault Bush for a lack of "moral confusion" but apparently ignore the stridency, even zealotry, of his critics. You have made several references to his "duplicity". Compared to what? The political leaders of Germany? France? the UK? Russia? -- Canada? Do any of them score better on your card? How about Bill Clinton?[/quote] After what was done to your last president, I'm not going to bother arguing where the zealotry has popped up in your country. But I will pass on (you can do with this what you wish) that that episode damaged the reputation of America's polity in the eyes of the rest of the world greatly.

And this gets us to 'duplicity'. Do I consider US politicians more duplicitous than Canadian or French. No. They all can be counted on to tell us fibs. It is what they are duplicitous about that is important. Jefferson humped a slave. Ike had a mistress. Kennedy screwed half of Massechusets. Hoover wore dresses (nice frilly ones). Casey did his thing (and surely Reagan knew). Clinton got blow jobs from an interne and was duplicitous about it. There is only ONE of those I care about even a twince, and that is Casey.

So, on the one hand, we have bill getting blowjobs. On the other hand we have an administration who wanted to take out Iraq and lied to you saying it was connected to 9-11. Or who won't release details of the meeting where energy policy was set and who was there.

Which is more consequential to liberty? To an informed electorate? To open and transparent governance.

Blatham

You accuse me coming in the front door with the same old question---if not us--who----and you go out the back door once again evading the real world and instead ask a philosophical question of--How do we evolve these just and wise principles up to international level?

I will not attempt to answer your question because to me it is unanswerable. I think the answer lies somewhere between the fact that the intangible thing we call human nature has not changed while the intellectual musings of man have created an atmosphere of mean spirited criticism of everything that could unify and instead tries to tear apart and destroy.

I fail to see how, in the current world of intellectuals indulging in petty name calling( Gore Vidalls new book), you can expect our national interests to be subjugated to the selfish interest of a world community whose ONLY interest is in placing constraints on us merely because they distrust our motives.

The following quote from Schopenhauer I believe to be applicable:

All truth passes through 3 stages
First, it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed
Third, it is accepted as self evident

The above quote is listed in the signature of one of our participants--Tartarin

Sorry perception...like our moms told us "So, you heard me say maybe things would be simple?"

Blatham

Is that all you can say to me?????? ----In your post to George----all you did was concentrate on items that could be considered petty criticism-----what constructive is your purpose???

You might instead be thankfull that you are not wearing a Swastika on the arm and clicking your heels----before you sing Heil Hitler.

Perception's perceptions of the world seem very skewed to me. The prospect of ANY superpower is scary. Much better a world in which nations are committed to cooperate as equals, each keeping its beliefs in its inherent superiority under wraps. For me a significant sign of social illness in the US lately has been the ratcheting up of our self-congratulation. I've always believed that congratulations should come from others. Perception's view of the gorgon railing at the rest of the beasts for trying to keep him in check is a sad if unintended recognition of the self-absorption and recklessness of the US.

In regard to the debate about being a "superpower," i have the following observations to offer:

Rome was a superpower within it's world because the Patres sought power and aggrandizement, and of course wealth, for themselves. With a short sword at the throat, their neighbors were offered peace on Rome's terms, or varying degrees of destruction (dependant upon how quickly the group in question "came to their senses."). There is a most fascinating study of this by Nicolo Machiavelli, the title translated various, but roughly Commentaries on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. Livy wrote a history of Rome which spanned the period from the foundation of the city (which was, btw, his title, Ad Urbe Condite) to the Augustan empire). It is perhaps understandable why the Patricians felt as they did, Livy's report of a lengendary early history has them under tyrranical kings, the Tarquins. More likely these "kings" were governors appointed by the Tuscans in the southern Etrurian league, and most like from the city of Tarquinia. In about 500 BCE, the "kings" were driven out, and the Romans set up a government which demonstrated that the senators knew one another well, and feared the power of another Tarquinius Superbus--the power of the chief magistrates being circumscribed as to length of term, and the power exercised in relation to the time and place. The continuing effort at the exclusion of the Plebs from a public voice (basically, the attitude of the Patres was: "Vote, provide the levies for the legions, and keep a civil tongue in your head, and we might throw you some crumbs"), and to engross all public lands from conquests for their exclusive use in slave-driven industries characterize the republican period. The earlier civil wars were "agrarian," in that the Plebs demanded access to public lands, and reform of tax and debtor laws. People like the Gracchi exploited this dynamic for their own benefit, but Sulla came along at about the time of Caesar's birth to put an end to both the ambitions of the people, and the unchecked cupidity and venality of the senators. The subsequent civil war between Pompey and Caesar put paid to the ambitions of both classes, and the Principiate arose. Octavian, who avenged Caesar's death in yet another civil war, named himself princeps, or first citizen, and a fiction of the Republic was maintained. Thereafter, the principiate empire continued the policy of the republican empire, and offered those within their world who were in range of Roman military power with the option of accepting their hegemony, or being destroyed. I really don't see this as any different from earlier, lesser, petty tyrannies of individuals or polities, acting much like the dominant male in rutting season. I think it reasonable to discard Rome as an example worthy of emulation.

The earliest Chinese dynasty is the Shang, but it's power was never that which we would recognize as imperial-local governors became an aristocracy, and exercised nearly unchecked power in their home region, submitting to "imperial" authority only in so far as there were any enforcement power. Huang Ti, remember to this day by the Chinese as "the Yellow Emperor" established the first empire worthy of the name. Like many such dynasties based upon "unifying" conquest, it was a shaky power, not surviving without competent successors-like many such dynasties, none were forthcoming. China then began a cycle of dynasties which followed a familiar pattern. A vigorous clan would provide effective military leadership to a "barbarian" tribe (who nonetheless would have been Chinese in our eyes, speaking dialects of the same language, and with the same cultural antecedants). This new group, such as the Han, the Chin, the Ming, etc., would sweep aside the impotent military organization of the degenerated dynasty, and place themselves in power. To preserve the symbols of authority, they would adopt the forms of imperial power, including the eunuchs, the mandarins, and all of the palace intrigues and politics. The mandarins provided them an effective bureaucracy in place, and life continued much as it had before for most peasants. Initially, such dynasties were both sufficiently militarily effective to deal with the nomadic tribes of the Gansu corridor and Mongolia, as well as the pirates of what we call Vietnam-and, they were sufficiently pragmatic to trade with these people. Eventually, inhabiting the imperial palace tended to "sinicize" the clan who had originally organized the new dynasty. As this happened, the broader, intricate policies of the mandarins were implemented. Open trade with the "barbarians" was shut down, new walls would be built to allow the military to canalize the attacks of the "horse barbarians," although the influence of the mandarins tended to weaken the military through parsimony and cronyism in military appointments. Finally, a new, hungry, militarily competent tribe would roar in and sweep the enervated armies before them, establishing a new dynasty. Occasionally, a dynasty would "implode," as in the later Han, and the empire would be fragmented-this, of course, only simplified the task of the next conquering tribe. The attitude of the mandarins was that China was the middle kingdom, meaning it lay between heaven and earth-this was not a geographic concept. To them, all without their borders was a howling wilderness, inhabited by subhuman barbarians-it was beneath their dignity to treat with them, or to trade with them. Racial and cultural bigotry, common among just about any human tribe, was raised to level of art and established as a tenet of philosophical faith, to the detriment of the Chinese, both in the shorter term, and the long term of the last few millenia. The "will to power" was much the same as the Roman, but, unlike the Romans, the Chinese put limits on their expansion, not wishing to become embroiled with the "unclean" benighted savages on their frontiers-and, throughout much of the history of each dynasty, this was convenient in that their military power was feeble. Neither should this be a good example for the United States.

I hate to say anything good about the English, but fairness requires me to point out that their "empire" was something they acquired by default, as a result of their leniency toward offenders, after they had been drubbed by the Royal Navy, and occassionally, by the army-it would not be just to lump them in with Alexander's Macedonian "empire of continuing conquest," or the Romans. Given the plutocratic tendencies of Parliament after 1688, merchants would draw the government into conflicts in regions around the world, the Indian subcontinent being the most obvious example, and then those various governments would act to assure "fair play," or use humanitarian issues or justice as an excuse for and cover for their imperial ambitions. But, by and large, they acted to assure the peace and safety of those whom they had "taken under their wing," whether or not they had come willingly. Assuredly, they exercised the "projection" of their military might selectively-Palmerston as Foreign Secretary would use the Royal Navy to overawe and extract compliance from smaller nations, such as Portugal or Greece, but he danced a different step in dealing with the continental powers. In justice to him, and the governments he served, they worked, and he specifically worked, very effectively to thwart the more right wing, repressive ambitions of the "Holy Alliance" of Russia, Austria and Prussia. If any of the "empires" we can look at afford an example of acting (mostly) for the good of the hegemon's subject populations, this would be one.

The French acquired an overseas empire as a Republic, after the royal government had acquired and lost one of their own. The French, in good, racist, 19th century fashion, spoke of their mission civilizatrice, to bring education and cultural enlightenment to their less fortunate and less aware "brown brothers." This could have unforeseen consequences with significant ramifications, however, such as Ho Chi Mihn-but the French would provide education and the opportunity for cultural and technological development as no other empire had done. But, fraught with the justifiably condemned "white man's burden" mentality of the 19th century, i consider neither England nor France to provide good examples, although both provide many good lessons in dealing effectively with local populations.

All of which brings me to the United States as "superpower." It is either naive or disingenuous to claim that American power is not imperial, or, at the least, hegemonic, in today's world. I would personally like to think that the human race builds not only upon a foundation of the accumulation of knowledge, but also of the experience of polities. Just as an individual will only enjoy the best that life has to offer by the process of maturation, so must nations also proceed. Human civilization ought to have reached, by now, the point at which old tribal values are abandoned, to be replaced by more realistic views of how more than six billion humans can live in peace on this planet. By all means, the United States needs to maintain an effective military, because the tribal fanatics are out there, their numbers are legion, and they have all the benefits of the technology of more stable, developed nations. This does not give the United States carte blanche, however, and the lessons i see from history suggest that we have a rare opportunity to use our power effectively. Ditching the United Nations will not accomplish anything constructive either for us or for the world.. Certainly, we need to "get the bastards" when and where appropriate, but we must not undercut our own values with regard to evidence, due process and justice in so doing. I also feel that we must not act alone, because then we become no better than the other militarily powerful nations who formed empires in the past. We have an opportunity to understand why so many others in the world are swayed to hatred of us, and we have an opportunity to act in a manner which, if it will not mollify all of our critics, at least will not do violence to the principles of a just society on which we like to pride ourselves.

Those reading this will know that to me this means we have not made the case for a war in Iraq. Others look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. I have posted this god-awfully long monologue to point out that we are in a position to make a significant historical statement and a change in how nations act within the community of nations. Being the world's only "superpower" does not make us the world's cop-it should also not lead us to become the world bully.

I think I share blathams view of the US. After 911 America had the world's sympathy. How has Bush managed to squander that capital so quickly? A great country with much to be admired is feared and loathed by billions. Why? Its very sad. As I said on another thread, I'm sorry about the loss of the shuttle, but I don't care as much as I did about Challenger. What goes on in America now has nothing to do with me. I'm ROW (the rest of the world), about which Bush APPEARS to know very little and cares even less. Why should I be more upset over the deaths of 7 astronauts (I was actually) than the same number of people killed that day in road traffic accidents in this country?

Bush is taking us into a war that is not justified. Now I think perhaps the USA is not that great bastion of liberal democracy we respect, but merely the home territory of a global empire we fear.

Instead of only saying that I agree to blathams views as well, I want to copy some sentences from Jules François Camille Ferry as well:
"[...;]in a Europe, or rather in a universe thus constituted, a policy of withdrawal or abstention is simply the high road to decadence! In our time nations are great only through the activity they deploy; it is not by spreading the peaceable light of their institutions ... that they are great, in the present day."
From his "Speech Before the French Chamber of Commerce", where he promoted his ideas of a vast extension of the French colonial empire.
Oh, that was on March 28, 1884, and Ferry was twice prime minister of France, from 1880-1881, 1883-1885.