Hawk,
You've conveniently disregarded many of my utterances about how U.S. policy might be shaped.
To begin with, our relations with the U.N. are appalling and really need to be improved. We act like the spoiled child, who takes his ball home if the rest of the kids want to play the game a different way. Ted Turner has a big clue as to what a valuable asset to world peace the U.N. can be. In this regard, Ted is a hero of mine. How's that for positive?
As to our beneficence in the world, I don't question the validity and value of the Marshall Plan post-WWII. It was the right answer for the world at the time. If we were still engaged in this sort of nation building, rather than abusively using the World Band/IMF as a thuggery operation to punish innocent populations while lining the pockets of crooked pols, like in Argentina, then we would be well on our way to regaining some respect in the world.
Unlike you, I pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. And a lot of what we do out there is to try to impose our will on peoples who would rather go their own way. We are coercive. That is what I object to. Were we merely to be friendly "Peace Corps" types, or technologists spreading the benefits of peaceful improvements in techology, that would be wonderful.
But as it turns out, we are our own worst enemies when it comes to weapons proliferation throughout the world. We are the biggest gun runners on the planet, forcing everyone else to play catch-up. This is insane, and we don't want to stop because it's also very profitable. But what a wicked game we play, what a world of permanent turmoil we are creating. There are better ways. Just not better for the war rackets industries.
-R. |
