Michael, I agree with most of that, written with feeling. I'm glad to bring out the best in you.
As you say, if the USA had stayed out of the war, which became a bit tricky after Japan destroyed a lot of the USA fleet at Pearl Harbour, we'd have entered a dark era which might well have run for, as Hitler hoped, 1000 years.
The possibility doesn't really bear thinking about. It would have been a horror story on a colossal scale. It's also hypothetical, so I won't bother guessing the outcome. But violent, racist dictatorships have always been horrific.
If the USA had stayed out, I wouldn't be here, let alone our offspring. It was quite courageous of my father to take on what would have been probably a hopeless cause. I think that the USA tends to ignore what other people have done and be boastful about their own achievements, as though nobody else matters or even exists. That attitude grates on me. So we are both grated.
Believing the myths can lead to problems like the current situation in Iraq, where Americans are suffering excessively because of the go it alone attitude. I know the UN is very uncool in the USA, but the USA is only 4% of the world and it's too much like hard work to single-handedly civilize the planet.
The UN needs a rebore and the imperial idea of a PNAC [which is why I use the nickname King George II - he likes to give people nicknames, so I'm sure he'd enjoy his] with pre-eminent and pre-emptive rights over any foreign individual or country is unacceptable to lots of people. It's time to move on towards a more integrated world. It's time for the NUN. The USA is in a position to lead on that and would be a primary beneficiary of a better global political system.
I'm for the individual and while the USA has obviously done far more than any other country to civilize the world in the last century, plenty of other people have done their bit and should not be over-looked and sneered at.
Without the courage of the people in those countries which took on Germany in the early days, with NZ being the first of all countries to declare war on Germany, [by a few hours as we reach daylight first], the USA wouldn't have taken them on either and the USA might now be staring at a monster across the Atlantic and maybe even closer to home.
<When you say we are in this battle in the Middle East for purely selfish oil reasons, while our sons and daughters and being maimed and killed, it irritates me.>
Not just for oil. Also for security against nukes etc. Also for revenge [King George II is very pleased to have got Saddam and his sons, positively gloating - attacking Bush I, Laura and co on their mid-east visit was the reason for revenge]. Also for imperial democracy [what's good for us is good for you]. Also for mercantilist reasons. And to have a good base near the oil. And to protect Israel. And to stop Saddam paying for and carrying out terrorist attacks. And to make the world a better place.
But oil is the first and foremost reason for the military approach. Oil is a vital interest for the USA.
We do things primarily for selfish reasons, whether we admit it or not. We aren't in the depths of Africa sorting out the mess there. That's because we are selfish and oil is more important to us than the sands of Sudan. It's not that we specially care about Iraqis rather than Sudanese, or Rwandans.
There's nothing wrong with protecting ourselves and our interests. If we can help others at the same time, all to the good.
<However, it's also true we could have sat back, (like France and Germany are doing now in regard to Iraq), allowed Hitler to continue his rampage, and forced Japan to stay west of a certain longitude while we built the new Atlantis across the sea. >
That wouldn't have been a good idea. Imagine no middle east oil going to the USA. Hitler's descendants would own all the middle east and probably Russia's too. The Japanese empire would own China and down through the Pacific to NZ and the oil and minerals in that region. The USA would be a shadow of itself. I'm sure you are very glad the USA didn't take that approach.
Which is why I don't think the USA will do this: <I think people around the world should start worrying about how average Americans, like me, think toward those who constantly denigrate our country, and show absolutely zero appreciation for what we do every day toward ensuring their liberty and peace is maintained. Because, you know what Maurice, if the world is not careful, one day we may just stand up as a society and say, "the hell with having troops overseas protecting the interests of peace in other countries", the hell with separating families on long sea-going submarine voyages protecting sea lanes, the hell with our sons and daughters dying anywhere in this world except on American soil. Let them build and pay for their own submarines, combatants, planes, and weapons systems, let them spend the billions to train, equip and motivate their people to serve the cause of peace, we're sick of it.
>
I'm paying my share. I've been backing the USA. I'd rather back a NUN, or both, but in the absence of a better entity, I'll back the USA. Money is the most sincere appreciation. Putting money where mouth is matters.
We're in it together.
I'm in favour of a civilizing empire and if it has to be an American empire instead of a NUN empire, I'll go with that. I certainly don't want a Chinese empire where individuals don't matter. Neither do I want Islamic Jihad reaching down from Indonesia.
I appreciate what the people at QUALCOMM do and I appreciate USA soldiers getting rid of Saddam and sons and Osama and Omar, though Dostum should be on the short-list too. Islamic Jihad is serious. Not as tough as Germany and Japan, in WWII days, but a dangerous idea and able to create long-term mayhem, just as the IRA could spoil a nice day.
Shall we declare an armistice now?
Mqurice |
