<You people like Saddam? > Who are the people you refer to? I am just one person and I didn't like Saddam when the USA did. Donald Rumsfeld was cuddling up to him to get Iran. April Glaspie gave him the green light to sort out Kuwait pinching their oil.
An empire doesn't comprise a single transient leader such as King George II. < Who has an emperor? Bush will be out of office in three years> An empire lasts for 1000 years, or not quite as long in the case of the Third Reich. Empires are handed down from father to son or through some other mechanism. Democratic process can hand the leadership of an empire on quite effectively.
The USA is running an empire. If somebody is naughty, they are dealt with. Such as Saddam, and any number of others who have disappointed the USA. I am a beneficiary of that empire. Empires don't succeed these days, or even in recent history, by simply conducting genocidal massacres and confiscation of land and property like the conquest of Amerindians, Aztecs, and Maori on Maori cannibalism. That was chimp-like tribal behaviour.
High quality empires have been more like Rome's, the Mongol empire, and most successfully and most civilized, the British Empire. Japan's efforts were very much on the barbaric side, but even they didn't just kill everyone.
Buying an empire is much more successful than shooting an empire into existence. My financial allegiance is more to the USA Empire than to New Zealand, which treats me like a serf. I do have a vote, but the majority likes serfdom and confiscation of loads of loot from taxpayers.
Which isn't to say I'm an enthusiastic serf of the USA too, where I don't even get a vote. No taxation without representation say I, but such a stupid idea isn't accepted in the USA ... little joke there for those who have celebrated the 4th of July.
<By the olde style of Arab international relations, I take it to mean relations by revenge? Am I reading you right? >
Only in part. There is and was a lot more to Arabian Nights than simple revenge. There were/are shifting alliances and you can read all you like about how the Arab world conducts relations. Revenge has always been part of such dog eat dog tribal processes, going way back to Romeo and Juliet and beyond.
It seems to me a model more akin to the constitution of the USA for global relations rather than the Arabian Nights model, or the shifting-alliances WWI model. But not just a copy of the USA as the federal government is too busy-body in state affairs for a global constitution where the federales should be on a short constitutional leash. I'd like to have a vote on who should be the global leader, rather than have Helen of Helengrad make my choice for me. I didn't choose her and I didn't choose our mayor of Auckland and I don't see why they should, in conjunction with similarly unpopular politicians get to choose the overall boss.
<Suppose NYC falls as you suggest it might. What should we do then? Flatten Tehran? >
What I'm suggesting is to develop a process and political context so there are few people if any who want to flatten NYC and even if some want to, they don't have a mechanism. The olde style you suggest has not been successful so far other than in littering the planet with untold millions of corpses.
I would like to be in charge of the conundrum, because I'd do a better job. Unfortunately, most people like their serfdom [Stockholm syndrome] and confiscatory vengeful tribal allegiances. They go on voting for more of the same every election.
Mqurice |
