How America Got to Rule the World

Sidney Morning Herald (Australia) ^ | January 25, 2003 | Paul McGeough

[Cicero]

I don't agree with everything in this article, but it contains a lot of food for thought.

[JennysCool]

Agreed, and thanks for the post. The author has given us a great summation of where things stand -- warts and all.

[wizardoz]

Yuh-huh.

And when Clinton did intervene on the side of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, he did so with such reluctance that it won him little kudos in the Islamic world.

I stopped here. The idea that the Islamic world ignores America's acts of goodwill because we did it reluctantly.... yeah, right. THAT'S why they want to wipe us out. Because we didn't help them enthusiastically enough. Right. That's why. Okay. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Well well.

[goodnesswins]

Careful that "tag line".....could be considered a hate crime in some environs.....LOL...but it sure is funny!

[kimosabe31]

bump

[IronJack]

"In today's world, American military and economic dominance is a decisive factor and must be maintained but mainly to be the shadow enforcer of the international system Americans have done so much to create in the last century .

We will rise to the task and govern this world if we must. But if we do, Imperial America has a right to demand certain conformities from its subject nations; failing that, they can bicker among themselves until their civilization is in ruins and robed scavengers are picking its bones. Then America will stand alone, triumphant, and ready to engage the forces of evil, as we stand ready today and always have.

[wizardoz]

Hmmm... how about this?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Dark Wing]

This is something to consider.

[SSN558]

"The whole postwar international order was set up by my parents' generation, but the Clinton and Blair generations just coped. They didn't invent; there's no legacy.""

Put more bluntly, a opportunity of historic proportions for the human race existed for a few years. It was called the peace dividend, and it was squandered by Clinton on blow jobs and aspirin factory attacks. That is the legacy.

[Dec31,1999]

ping.

[banjo joe]

Then America will stand alone, triumphant, and ready to engage the forces of evil, as we stand ready today and always have.

I wish it were so. The hand of evil is on this country and it's govt. We're disolving into chaos and disunity. Thanks liberalism (socialism).

[goodnesswins]

Join the AXIS OF FREEDOM Rally on TUESDAY –

it’s a CAR/HOUSE/YARD sign Rally

DAY of SUPPORT…Tues, 1/28/03....FLY your flags (U.S., British, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Spanish, Quatar, Kuwaiti, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.

GET THE MEDIA’S ATTENTION!!!

	JAPAN
AUSTRALIA	BULGARIA	UK
ROMANIA	ISRAEL	POLAND
SPAIN	CZECH
KUWAIT	HUNGARY	QATAR

[Dick Bachert]

OH, BE STILL MY HEART!

[Billthedrill]

The author seems to retain more hope in international institutions than their track record would seem to encourage. The fact is that it is not these institutions who possess an enforcement authority, it is the United States, and this, were there a penalty for it, would tend to discourage them from making decisions contrary to the interests of the nation tasked to do the military heavy lifting. But as there isn't, and never has been such a penalty, these institutions have fallen into the trap of actively embracing positions contrary to those interests in the full knowledge that they will never be implemented and their proponents never penalized. This is a straight road to irrelevance.

I see absolutely no hope of the U.S. turning over enforcement authority to the UN, especially in view of the Libyan debacle the author cites. The UN has failed. There is hope in regional organizations if they are composed of countries willing to take on the enforcement function, little if they do not. And if they do some forum will be necessary between them or we'll be back to the Great Powers writ large. Perhaps that may be the function of the United States.

[daviddennis]

Last week's issue of The Economist had an excellent response to articles like this. It was, in effect, "don't shoot the messenger."

In other words, the US finds out that certain nations - Iraq and North Korea - are flaunting International Law. Do we criticise the US for exposing unhappy truths, or do we agree that something therefore has to be done to enforce international law?

The problem is that, since the Eurocrats are obsessed with keeping the peace at all costs, they're papering over the problem. If they were truly committed to enforcing International Law, they would support us. Since they are not, we have to go our own way.

This seems clear enough, no?

D

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

Cicero - thanks for the post!

"Apocalyptic violence is at our doorstep. So efforts at strengthening the rules and institutions of the international community are of little practical value. If we accept the worst-case imaginings of [Donald Rumsfeld], everything else is secondary: international rules, traditions of partnership and standards of legitimacy. It is a war."

I agree with this! The Europeans and the American Left seem not too!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[rboatman]

This is an interesting view of the world situation.

boatman