Nancy Gish wrote:
> And how is this different from the fact that every country has fools, makes
> mistakes, does terrible things, and has masses of people who read foolish
> books? I'm sure you know anyone could list the same for America.
Let us assume that all concerned in this complex of issues are sensible
and know what they are doing. What is involved is not differences in
"intelligence" or "courage" but real material clashes of interest, under
given historical conditions. (And incidentally, what is in the interest
of a given state is _not_ necessarily in the interest of the inhabitans
of that state. In fact I would argue that the actions of France and
Germany are more in the interests of ordinary Americans than are the
actions of the u.s. state.)
What the French and many other Europeans (including apparently a
majority of the English population) recognize is that the main threat to
world peace in the 21st century is the United States. As I stated in an
earlier post, "A U.S. Army occupying Iraq would have its finger on the
carotid artery of Europe and Japan." I believe the leaders of the EU (as
well as masses of their citizens) are aware of this fact, and aware that
it is vital to their interests to oppose u.s. expansionism. But the
present balance of forces is such (i.e., U.S. global hegemony is stable
enough) that they cannot openly move against the U.S., though it would
bboth in their interests _and_ in the interests of the vast majority of
Americans, were they able to do so.
Hence their present pretense, of being foot-dragging "allies" of their
real enemy (the U.S.), is probably their most sensible policy.
If the U.S. continues on its present course, within a generation the
United States and the E.U. will be on the verge of open warfare
(probably nuclear warfare). It is in the interest of humanity that the
U.S. be stopped.
I don't read Kate's posts, but I gather that she is essentially standing
by the principles of Kipling's "White Man's Burden." The best answer,
perhaps, is Mark Twain's "To the Person Sitting in Darkness."
Or perhaps Gandhi's response to a question as to what he thought of
western civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."
Nancy's reference to _Antigone_ is perhaps quite relevant. Creon claims
that he is defending "Order." In effect Antigone agrees with him on the
basic issue of order, but she maintains that his act is an act of
anarchy, not of order. The U.S. is now creating disorder, not order, in