>
>>>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.

And had that leader been a Bismark instead of a Hitler you may have had a belligerent, revanchist Germany but it would have had and entirely different complexion - and very different goals (and they'd be speaking German in Paris today)

>
>>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?
>

It is not Iran's ambitions to "leadership" that I am worried about - no one but Shiites would follow them anywhere. It is their millenarian thinking. If you believe we are in the end times then you play an end-game. It is the reason I would not want to see Pat Robertson with his finger on the Big Trigger.

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

OK, I missed that one ...?

>
>>Empire is truly an outdated concept.
>
>So give it up, then.

Everyone has given it up, now that the Soviets are kaput. The new game is far different (and yet, as you point out in your remarks on globalization, remarkable similar.) But that means you can't use Amerikan Imperializm as a scapegoat for the ills of 'developing nations'.

>
>>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.

I like that. Marxist were 'philosophers' but those further to the right than Haubsbaum were 'paid theoreticians' <g> Fuk Fukiyama. History ain't over yet.

>
>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.

And in the future there will be no war ... only Rollerball !!

>>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.

Ground rules for limiting carnage are not a structure of international law.

Remember the Kellog-Briand Pact ? (no cereal - or simultaneous - jokes ) And that involved nations with at least a similar cultural heritage.

Exactly how do you get nations that are actively working to establish Sha'ria to sign on to international law?

>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.

Iraqi legal system wasn't good enough for anything. The trial was a sop. They were going to hang him - as well he should have been - and they wanted to dress it up. US played along for reasons that were entirely pragmatic.

>>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").

If your neighbor is abusing his child and your reporting it to the police has yielded no result and you have the physical power intervene and you hear screaming ...

Principles are complex.

>
>>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).
>

Making decisions involves responsibility. Not acting is also a decision, but it is easier to deny responsibility.

>>>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?
>

No, it means that if we have principles we understand the exceptions to platitudes.

>>>>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?

There has been a trend among politically correct intellectuals to be 'non-judgmental' - and thereby to see themselves a on a morally higher plane. While this is admirable to a point it also logically leads to clitorectomy being seen as just a quaint local custom and the banning of suttee and example of Evil English Imperialism.

>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".

Those are not the only two options. The golden rule sounds great but it is bumper sticker morality. If I were to try to kill someone's friend, I would want them to not stop me. Does that mean if they try to kill my friend I should not stop them?
>
>>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?

I think it would have been a splendid idea. Trotsky would have liked it. It may have prevented the crimes against the kulaks. The monster Yagoda was Stalin's creature, as was Beria. The world would unquestionably have been a better place with Stalin's piece removed from the board.

And a socialist Germany would have been much less militaristic and quite possibly a model for how a society very good at organizing things could have applied that to socialism. Sweden on steroids. They would not have been interested in invading France or Britain but in supporting their Left, also probably not a bad thing at that point in history.

Mao, originally Stalin's personal darling, may have never come to the fore - and there you have the three greatest mass murderers in history removed from the equation.

Yeah, killing Stalin would have been a very very good thing. Do you think otherwise? Or do you think it would have made no difference and we would have had the same outcome because of Historical Forces or some drivel about The Masses ?


>
>>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.

That last phrase loses something in translation <g> Dealing with other 'nations' often means dealing with other 'cultures'. Actually quite relevant if often ignored.

>
>>>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.

You can acknowledge that someone is the head of state without 'taking them seriously'. And you can take someone seriously even if they are thug or a buffoon, simply because they may be a dangerous thug or buffoon. And sometimes 'taking them seriously' means trying to do them harm as soon as possible. There was a time when no one took that silly little man with the Charlie Chaplin mustache seriously.
>
>>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}.

I think one should distinguish between foreign policy in a bipolar ( so apt ) world and foreign policy since the Cold War. I saw a lot of the bipolar stuff up close and I also got a good look at what was ready to fill the vacuum anywhere we didn't want to play. Since 1990, I'd say thinking changed a great deal - or at least did until 911. It is a very different game now from the one that was played in 50s - 80s.