but boiled down, you go straight to the same old same old contention that one small group in the back rooms of Washington are ample and legitimate rule for the planet,
No, I do not.
one powerful nation, or a small coalition of like minded partners, are likely to be more effective'
Oh definitely, they'll make the trains run on time too
Obviously more efficient doesn't always equal better, but considered in isolation it is better and also I wasn't the person who brought up the issue of "what works".
Were oil discovered in Burkina Faso tomorrow, should burkinafaseños [sp?] lose all rights of self-determination to the back rooms of Washington?
No they should not and most likely would not. You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that I think the US should rule the world and that anything it does is right if it is good for the US.
'Definition of what?' - mmm no, Who's on first, lol ... just thought you might be interested ... i won't have much time for this round-and-round today, but just figure it out Tim - the fantastic arrogance of some little clique of chickenhawks in Washington setting themselves up to dictate to six billions is not going to endear them to the Rest of Us ... they have control of overwhelming military power and a stranglehold on US taxpayers, sure, but that's all they've got besides the arrogance, such regimes have historically not lasted long periods, but have been known to pull down considerable shit on the heads of their subjects
That is pretty hard to boil down to a point, or a coherent set of points. I quoted the whole paragraph so it can't be said that I quoted you out of context. You seem to be saying that if the US sets themselves up as dictator over the rest of the world that the rest of the world won't like it much. I agree, but I don't see why that point would be considered relevant because 1 - The US is not setting up a world wide American Empire, and 2 - I am not advocating that it do so.
Tim |
