>>American people aren't natural enemies of these European countries, but they just can't sit and watch as religious fundamentalists gain so much power, and actively train their own militants, not in a country with so much WMD.
>
>I get your point. Have always gotten it. In fact, the USSR looked at the US - and most western nations - in exactly that way for 70 years.

We may be the last two fossils who remember seeing things from both three sides. I just felt like posting a hypothetical reminder on how things may look from the outside, looking in (Moody Blues, right? :).

>And that is exactly the point. Nations will attempt to influence the course of other nations for their own benefit. That is the power game as old as organized society. And historically subversion has caused less human suffering than invasion.

Which makes it just the lesser evil, not the best thing to do.

>>But would it change anything? The pressure was there, he was just the visible end of the PA system. He was on the top of the machinery - but I can't really believe that he made the cylinders and pistons. If he was shot, it'd have been somebody else - maybe a year or two later, but then maybe with even more force. The leaders focus the masses, but don't create them.
>
>My goodness, you did learn your history from Marxists, didn't you <s>

Like most of the others, they weren't exactly wrong in their analysis, they were wrong in assuming it wouldn't apply to themselves. Though, in my head, it's more Asimov :).

>I am not as convinced as you seem to be of historical inevitability. I believe that individuals and their actions are extremely determinative in how things play out. I don't think killing Hitler would have made Europe one whit less anti-Semitic but I think it would have left them with a lot more Jews to hate.

Or less - we can play WWIHBHIHB (what would it have been, had it have been) until sundown, and the determinative power of the individual is actually rooted in the masses. What the marxist analysis usually forgot was that the people's belief in leaders is a material force - if the mass psychology is so geared towards embracing the next shepherd, then that psychology a force which will influence the material world, a lot. So not just the pressure of anti-Semitism, but also the "we've been fouled" sentiment of the losers of WWI, the Jeanie-come-lately players in the colony grab (poor Italy being left with a single colony, tsk, tsk), the failure of Weimar Republic - all those pressures were there, and the skills of the guys who would focus them did matter.

We could argue that a less charismatic leader, someone less skilled in mass psychology, may have caused the whole inflammation to fizzle out, but the pressure would remain. Specially the pressure of investors.

>If the theocracy in Iran had no ambitions beyond beating naughty Iranians with sticks I would be content to let them proceed until the naughty Iranians decided they'd had enough. If elements inside Iran wanted outside help I wouldn't see a problem with giving it to them. Mr. Franklin found such help in Paris. And the motivation of imperial Louis was not to promote democracy. Made the French navy no less welcome.

So Iran's ambitions to be some sort of leaders to their followers is wrong, while the US's ambitions to be some sort of leader of "the free world" (to differ from the locked-up world) is right? Take that as an axiom?

This is another hypothetical reminder of how things may look from the outside. It's brought to you in part by bicycle.

>Empire is truly an outdated concept.

So give it up, then.

>Even in the 70s when "imperialism" was getting thrown around with as little semantic accuracy as "fascism" has then and since, the concept was dead.

Oh, no - the concept was announced dead by paid theoreticians, the philosophers of the New Right ("God is dead, Marx is dead, and I'm not feeling well either"). They also announced the end of history.

Imperialism has changed its window dressing, true, it's called globalization, and it's not a colonial system, where one country owns other countries. It's a slightly different system where banks own countries.

>A nation can use its power to influence - to some extent - the behavior of other nations but the limits a painfully obvious. And even the old style imperialism was a mixed bag. Rhodesia was a nasty place for black Africans. Zimbabwe is worse.

Still waiting for the neighbors' judgment in the case of Zimbabwe - haven't heard anything from the other side yet. Don't even know whether there's another color-coded revolution being packed, it just smells like one. I may be wrong, and wish to be.

>I think the possibility of international law on a world-scale is nil, as law must be based on common values. It is difficult enough within the US or the EU. The idea that international law can work for the US, the Sudan, and China is ludicrous.

There are things which work already, institutions which exist and aren't under dispute: borders (as an idea, not each one of them ;), countries (again, as an idea), system of embassies and other means of mutual representation, etc. There's a solid base to build from.

Of course, there are different legal systems and traditions, and any country can delay the process by staying out of the system (latest example: Iraqi legal system was good enough to try Saddam, but somehow isn't good enough for the paid militants sent by the current regime in Washington). What you say is a negative prophecy which hopes to be self-fulfilling, but time may prove it wrong. Which is my wish... even though I know what Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about wishes and their fulfillment.

>The intervention in the affairs of others may or may not be a good idea based on circumstances.

Not a good idea, based on principle. In the same Judeo-Christian tradition it's the marxist idea of the golden rule (and not the cynical "got gold, make rules").

>But the means should always involve the least disturbance to non-power-participants possible and should ultimately result in greater good.

And the perpetrator reserves the imperial rights to decide what's good, what's greater good, and which nations are too stupid to think for themselves (and give the wrong answer to "who owns your oil" again).

>>How about the freedom of those same individuals to be safe from foreign governments?

>I think there are number of places where being "free" of foreign governments would not be a blessing.

So there may be exceptions to everything - does that mean we shouldn't have principles at all?

>>>All countries, all cultures and all ideas are *not* equal. Moral relativism sounds very high minded but is a cop out to allow one to not believe in *anything*.

I missed the substance on this one. What do you mean, "all countries should get equal treatment" is somehow identical to "there are no differences between countries"? I'm on the fence here, was this a straw man or a non sequitur? And how is this moral relativism and disbelief in everything? I believe that the golden rule should apply, fiercely, regardless of who is wielding what stick. You want to be respected as a country, respect other countries. You want to be respected because of your stick - fine, you'll be respected as a bully, and everybody will talk behind your back and don't be surprised when people who appear at your birthday are the ones who pulled the short straw.

I'd rather believe in the golden rule than in the "might makes right".

>So North Korea's government should be dealt with as we would deal with that of Norway? With the same set of assumptions about their values, their aims and their legitimacy? I am all for the equality of Norwegians and Koreans - it is the attitude toward their governments I'm talking about - hence my point that any action against a government should target that government with precision.

Again, how is this attitude, that you need to, should, are allowed to take an action against a foreign government - how is it not imperial? I mean, if the US has the right to do something about the North Korean government, then Portugal has the same right about the government of Columbia, or, again, the imaginary union of East-of-Baltic countries would have the same right about the US government. Might makes right?

>Von Stauffenberg, not Dresden.

Then should have killed Stalin before 1920, so he wouldn't disband KPD, and the German Communists would have been strong enough to stop the nazism. But that's not the solution anyone would like, would it?

>And what of cultures? Am I to have the same respect for the culture of Yemen that I do for Britain? Or for that of the Congo as I do of Finland? This 'people are the same everywhere' stuff sounds great if you are a Miss America contestant, but doesn't hold up if you actually have any interaction with some cultures.

One's personal attitudes are a matter of one's free will. Believe me, there are several brands of Serbian culture that I seriously dislike ;). This was about relations between countries, don't apply toothpaste on a carwash brush.

>>Pinochet was taken seriously here. At some point so was Somosa, and Noriega, and every Saudi prince who came along. Rumsfeld was very cordial with Saddam once upon a time. Sheesh, there are even countries who take GW2B seriously. Not because all of these guys inspire deep respect - but because of the people they, under the circumstances, represent. And until we have a ruling body with Earth in its name, this is the way to show respect to people - respect their countries. Equally.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by 'taken seriously'.

As in "received, and had relations with, as if a head of a country", no matter who was whose thug.

>I am cynical about those who seek power over others in general.

I'd add admiral to that.

>I don't have any particular reverence for any of them. But I think the primary way of judging the legitimacy of any government is the degree to which it leaves its citizens alone while protecting them from harm.
>
>Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe etc etc very obviously fall short on all counts so I really don't see their 'regimes' as worthy of any respect at all. We deal with them as we must, but it should be without any illusions.

But the most serious illusion is in effect: that they'd be better off if the US would just send {insert favorite form of military aid, from "instructors" up}.