THEY BROKE IT YOU BOUGHT IT
We, "the activists," probably could use more regular intellectual depth and historical context in our writing, while I think the "intellectuals" could use a lot more focus on the sort of action and meta self-awareness that you regularly see at places like MyDD and Dailykos. -- Chris Bowers, mydd.com.
Was it something I said? [Sigh.] So many people to annoy, so little time . . .
The nub of the question here is not very radical or ideological -- it's whether the public, netroots included, can be sold the next war. Democrats and any netroot backers who support more needless war will deserve all the raspberries we can pitch. Any day I can provoke anyone into swearing, at me and up and down, that they are likely to do no such thing, that's a good day.
It's not about being pure in an ideological sense. It's about extremes -- being extremely opposed to another disastrous military intervention. Insofar as anti-war arguments with exceptions can be replaced with more comprehensive ones, the better off we are, say I.
The politics of war should be difficult for the aggressor. There should be a high bar to clear for its advocacy. It should not be enough for some other nation to be an enemy, for it to have nuclear weapons, for it to be a tyranny, for there to be idle U.S. troops not engaged in some other war, for it to abuse its subjects or its neighbors, for it to be universally despised, for the U.N. to vote for its demise. My three exceptions would be 1) self-defense (in the face of an imminent, manifest, tangible threat, or act of aggression), naturally; 2) the threat of genocide, or 3) the near-guarantee of very great benefits at very low cost.
Without doubt, among the netroots assorted bloggers and commenters have trod all over this ground in diverse ways. One can find statements adhering to my preferred, narrow criteria, but also -- the object of my previous post -- a lot of more superficial stuff. The latter greases the skids for the next war, which is what we don't want, remember? Don't forget that netroot hero Howard Dean at one point called for 50,000 more troops.
I like Dean and don't begrudge Democrats any campaign donations. The context for our politics is that there is nobody to vote for these days but Democrats. I would vote for most any Democrat over most any Republican, unless the former distinguished himself from the latter by promising to invade yet another hapless nation of brown people. I work with diverse Democrats. I have communed with the DLC/PPI, and I have broken bread with -- egad! -- Republicans. I worked for the Federal government when Ronald Reagan was president, and I'd do it again. Believe it or not, it is possible to attempt practical tasks and hold radical thoughts at the same time.
The problem is many Democrats in positions of power are also constrained by thin arguments, such as "leaving would be a disaster, so we can't leave." Or we get bullshit alternatives, like building a bigger army or more special forces. In the same vein, the response to the pointless U.S. intervention in Somalia has been muted. Chances are that funding for the escalation, much less the occupation, will not be cut off. I would like to see the netroots be more critical. You don't have to be a marxist rocket scientist to join the debate.
I appreciate activism, on blogs and elsewhere, and I understand that it is based on accessible messages, not abstract theorizing. But as Bowers says activism can always get smarter, just as theorizing can always be better delivered to the lay person. We can all do better in some dimension.
Being more or less left, more or less steeped left critiques of U.S. foreign policy, has a practical consequence. The more you are, the less you are likely to be suckered into the next invasion. It helps to develop some kind of systematic way of thinking, rather than treating every new situation as absolutely unique, for instance that Iraq would be different from Vietnam and Bush's 'War Cabinet' smarter than Robert McNamera, Walt Rostow, and McGeorge Bundy. There is plenty about the 60s left to regret, but ill-considered broad-brush dismissals betray a limited view of contemporary affairs.
I do not recommend anybody run to the library to read Marx. Marx's economic texts -- an interest of mine -- are mostly unreadable for humans. His philosophy means nothing at all to me. His political polemics are entertaining but of limited relevance. Those influenced by Marx who can write well are another matter. You may be brilliant and well-educated, but if none of them have gotten to you, you're missing a lot.
Younger people will dismiss older people -- I did. Older people will regret the excesses of their youth -- I do. Everybody will get wiser as they get older. What has not changed is an elite national security establishment that is inclined to direct gratuitous, horrific violence at the weak. I am confident the netroots will play a role in resisting it. My aim is to supply some infinitesimal impetus to that end.
Hi Five, Max! You hit the nail on the head that time. I get extremely frustrated when I read here that the Afghanistan invasion was a good invasion, vs. the Iraq invasion, which was a bad invasion. Neither was good. Both were poorly justified, and both were doomed to fail to meet their objectives. Both killed a lot of people who did nothing to deserve an early death.
The Constitution is so explicit on this question, so why are we too dumb to understand it? Congress, not the President, has the sole authority to take our nation to war, and they must do that by declaring war on another nation. Congress works slowly, with much debate, much compromising, and the amount of care needed before we commit to a war.
Implicit in what the Constitution has to say about war is that the Congress cannot delegate a single one of its authorities to anyone, and certainly not to another branch of the government. If you deny this, consider the fact that you are therefore willing for the Supreme Court to delegate to Bush the authority to determine if a law or action is Constitutional. Or, you are willing for Congress to delegate to the courts the authority to pass laws on any subject they see fit, including revenue bills.
We keep asking that our Democrats in Congress grow spines. Maybe some of us need a growth surge too.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 17, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A previous Republican Congress not too many years ago stupidly tried to divest itself of the Power of the Purse by offering the President a so-called "line-item veto." The Supine Court woke up for once and ruled, correctly, that the Congress "was not at liberty" to do any such divesting of its Constitutional authorities. On the issue of war powers, though, the Supine Ones have unhesitatingly divested themselves of their own authority by allowing the Congress "the liberty" to give up its constitutional war powers to an ever-grasping imperial Presidency. As a result, we've now got Dick Cheney turning the Vice Presidency into some sort of de facto Shogunate with the hapless "President" George W. Bush reduced to propaganda-catapulting figurehead emperor.
January 17, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy-
You might want to remind "Pepino" of that.
What bothers me about Max's 3 war options is the "high rate of return/low risk" model. This was much of the rationale of the current war. High return of reshaping middle east oil political dynamic with rose petals and applause as the risk side. "Go shopping, no sacrifice needed" the mantra and many chanting incessantly.
I'm not pleased with much of anything other than direct attack response. Why?
One- Because it focuses the aim of the war. Rather than let one drift through the current mission creep of WMD, yada, yada, the response is quick, savage, and over. Then let the diplomats and reconstructionists take over.
Two- It requires sacrifice from the citizen when the possibility for sacrifice is at it's peak.
Three- Support will be at it's highest through common interest and self-preservation during the hostility, but not for a protracted occupation such as the one that we are in. Had the Powell method for war been declared, the war would have been over in six weeks and we would have had allies in the newly reconstructed Afghanistan (because we never would have gone to Iraq).
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
January 17, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, re: high B/C ratio, any rationale can be falsified. I'm afraid there is no miracle cure for that. Properly speaking, the benefit side entails its likelihood, not just any old ideal outcome. The prospect of a democratic Iraq was highly contestable, which would disqualify it for reasonable people.
January 17, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Max. Being against our country waging wars other then for reasons of self defense or to stop a genocide (even though I disagree with your exception #3) doesn't sound "radical" to me. I guess if true I am a radical along with you...
Short of us being attacked the next war will never be "sold" to me. But then again I am not a member of the democratic (or republican) party. But regarding the type of war we are currently fighting and it's rationale I must quote a band from the 60's "War. What's it good for? Absolutely nothing...say it again".
To paraphrase Ben Franklin...there is no such thing as a good war and there is no such thing as a bad peace. And your message is still vibrant as Franklin's, who, if still living, would be much older then you.
January 17, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we settled the Pepino issue some time ago. He is a subversive, a fascist enabler, and an extremely poor interpreter of the Constitution, if he bothers to read that document at all. Given the authority he would just declare Bush to be el Presidente Eternal. Pardon my French.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has not changed is an elite national security establishment that is inclined to direct gratuitous, horrific violence at the weak.
--Sawicky
3) the near-guarantee of very great benefits at very low cost.
--Sawicky
I think these two would over lap to quite an enormous degree except in exceptional circumstances. I have come around to the view that Americans don't mind beating up on the weak. It's fun, easy and you incur few consequences. I think this is a result of Americans never actually being conquered like all the other nations on the planet. We have nothing in our history that can teach us what it is like to be weak and so we cannot understand it as easily as other peoples of the world. When we WERE weak we were protected largely by oceans and because stronger countries were involved in fighting each other. By the time they weren't, we were strong enough to deal with them. This leads to a certain level of predisposition in beating up weak people because we are Americans and that is what we do. We're usually not as brazen about it as in Iraq or as the European colonial empires were, but our "leaders" are usually not delusional idiots either.
A word about Howard Dean, I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to say here, but Howard Dean's call for more troops was made in the summer of 2003 when that number of troops properly utilized (say by the general who replaced Casey) might have made a serious difference. You can argue that Bush was sure to fuck it all up regardless but at that early date there was a strong case that we should attempt and could avoid the mega-clusterfuck.
January 17, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I just take exception to Max's willingness to tell me what to think. The argument over the Iraq war was fought on a lot of different levels, all of them legitimate.
First off was, "They haven't done anything to us and so we shouldn't invade them." But there were also arguments to be made like, "Hey, if you're going to invade them no matter what I say, would you at least do it in the best way and not get us stuck in a quagmire." I don't see any reason not to argue on all of those fronts.
Max is saying "Don't buy the next war." Hey, I didn't buy this one. But if the next war happens whether or not I'm buying, I'm still going to want to be part of the discussion. That might mean saying things like, "Don't do it, but if you're gonna anyway, use more troops."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 17, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, Sir, are pardoned ;<)
I'm not sure Pepino deserves one, with his current actions of replacing the USA's that would finally be getting around to 'ol Dusty Foggo with Rove's "gotcha" researchers like little Timmie.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
January 17, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that he's right and you're right too? You disagree so much but now you say that you're both right?
/old jewish joke
January 17, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Growing up, I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly forgive the common German citizen.
Now I understand the common German citizen much more.
January 17, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody will get wiser as they get older.
Ever the optimist, eh, Max?
Any sign of that in anyone currently in the White House or the Congressional GOP leadership? To get a bit more ad hominem, I haven't seen any evidence of that in Biden, Lieberman or McCain, either.
January 17, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third world militaries can figure out perfectly well how to kill one another without help or weapons from the United States. Christ said to love your enemy, but that's a bit ambitious for American foreign policy. American efforts should be directed towards helping people grudgingly put up with one another.
January 17, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
<snark>Well, there is certainly no question that Biden, Lieberman and McCain are older, old enough to bring shuddering memories of Reagan.<?snark>
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 17, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max Sawicky... What has not changed is an elite national security establishment that is inclined to direct gratuitous, horrific violence at the weak. I am confident the netroots will play a role in resisting it. My aim is to supply some infinitesimal impetus to that end.
I can't disagree with this but I'm sure some will make the argument that with respect to theories on Fourth Generation War, the "weak and stateless"' will most likely be those "directing horrific violence" at us. It's not likely to come unprovoked from states like Iran or North Korea. There are so many ways for a sole super power to throw it's weight around and coerce and cajole the rest of the world it is just difficult to see the upside in invading Iraq. on the matter of selling the next war, I think it will be easier than we all want to think. That's something that the "elite national security establishment" has always been quite good at. Caveat Emptor.
January 17, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Discussing how concedes that there will be the next war. Only by firmly rejecting the next war can we prevent it.
At the risk of offending many, I do not care that we are bogged down in a winless war. We were wrong to go. We would be no more moral had we won long ago. In fact, that would only encourage the very entities I most want to discourage. I am sorry that people (Americans, Iraqis, and others) are dying. I am not convinced there would be fewer deaths had we won in a cakewalk. The Bush adventurism would be where, now?
Patriotism is not supporting misguided decisions by a misguided and seemingly criminal (as in committing illegal acts) head of state. Patriotism requires acceptance of the consequences of national error. And we have made a big one.
January 17, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Netroots are Dumb".
True enough.
On this thread at MyDD:
So even Duncan Black is unable to reason that perhaps someone could be opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan and find Move On's position intellectually shallow. My meaning was clear enough. [in reply Atrios says he doesn't think it's unreasonable to argue that the invasion was a mistake, but still he assumed that wasn't my point and I think my point was obvious. Why the disconnect?]Social Democrats on every continent ridicule American liberalism and what, you think it's because they all hate the Jews? Are they all just jealous? I have Sam Rosenfeld on record saying Matthew Yglesias is honest in private about his snobbery, M.J. Rosenberg saying that Arab democracies are not good for israel, Josh Marshall saying the world "owes" the jews, Amanda from Pandagon calling herself a proud martini drinking urbanite in a country full of unwashed christian peasants, and now Chris Bowers bragging that he went to Oxford.
The younger generation of political "intellectuals" in this country continue the unending battle between the politics of narcissism and autism: between those who never look at themselves in the mirror and those who do nothing else.
It's to Atrios' credit that he spent the first few years of his blogging life calling hiimself "a hack." A little humility goes a long way.
---
one more point: I've said elsewhere that the strength of the movement this time around is in it's actual not theoretical diversity. I'm a little tired of brilliant political thinkers and their followers. Democracy is low and vulgar; it needs to be to work. I'm actually almost optimistic these days, but it's damn sure not because of the new generation of "reformist intellectuals" and professional "activists"
January 17, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem we face today with war is the same problem we faced in the 60's. No one knows how to stop the damned thing. Like the Vietnam war it has taken on a life of its own and the only solution anyone can think of is to starve it to death.
We had every right to clean out that hornet's nest in Afghanistan and every right to seek retribution for that crime. In fact, we had a duty and responsibility to shut down that operation to ensure the domestic tranquility, but we have no right to seek revenge and mete out arbitrary punishment whenever we see fit.
The neocons have defined it as a war on terror and our enemy isn't Al Qaeda or those men who perpetuated that brutish attack on the World Trade Center - for them the enemy is the world - and our goal is to show the world that we're as brutish and cruel as the terrorists. They've accomplished that goal - now the rest of the world sees us as their enemy.
No cabal of think tank warriors should dictate foreign policy or decide a plan of action that calls for the sacrifice of human lives - (and no one should for that matter) that's not how it's supposed to work in this country. It isn't a democracy for them and a republic for us, where they get a vote and we get "representation". It's a democratic republic where our representatives reflect our views and interests and we all have a say in the matter. It is ridiculous that in the 21st century, we still have a small elitist group dictating the direction of our future.
January 17, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, some of the nicest people in existence got together to create something called "Princeton Project", and prosed "Concert of Democracies".
Somehow, the said "Concert" looked like a vehicle for invasions "done right", and the aforementioned nice people got a lot of flack, and hardly a single supportive comment.
Now they are writing about idiocy and futility of the "surge".
My impression is that Bush The Lesser made pacifism mainstream and popular.
What remains is a "responsible blueprint of the military posture that befits the only remaining superpower". I will sketch it in points.
1. There is no point in being the only remaining superpower if you don't do what you damn please.
2. There is not point in doing what you damn please if you do something futile and unpleasant. The fights should be picked according to the feasibility of goals and/or fun factor.
3. Temperatures around 120F, grumpy locals who often do not know English, self-combusting local resources etc. do not add to a lot of feasibility, while the implied fun factor is ...
4. Fun factor recommends for invasion of countries well endowed with beaches, alcoholic beverages, comely young persons gracing beaches and night clubs etc. Widespread knowledge of English is a plus.
5. Resolved: liquidate regional theater offices (whatever they are called) for Africa and Middle East (on the account of heat, widespread grumpiness and/or lacking language skills among the populace).
6. Resolved: create new commands of Windward Islands, Leeward Islands, Eastern South Pacific and Western South Pacific. Kiribati, here we come!
7. A comprehensive revue of military structures and technologies should commence. Those that are inappropriate for engagements on warm friendly islands should be mothballed or eliminated. Gazillions will be saved.
8. A question for strategic analysis: the climate of Zimbabwe is probably quite nice, due to elevation, English is widely known, population oppressed. The country is landlocked but it has some world-class tourist attractions: Victoria Falls etc.
9. A question for economic analysis: should we consider fueling our thirsty vehicles with coconut oil or some other resource available in the countries where it is fun to be a hegemon? As it is, we do it backwards: we use oil, we need oil, we go to damn awful places because they have oil. A better way is to do it forward: we go to fun places, fun places have coconuts (or whatever they have), we need to secure the national supply of coconuts (or whatever we can secure while having some fun). Bio-diesel!
January 17, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Max. You said what needed to be said.
No one here is anti-intellectual. Hell, if we're sitting on the tubes reading political blogs, that's prima facie evidence of our intellectual, erm, balls. Nor are we Kos clones, shoveling out money and letters to the editor because his K-ness held forth. I wish everybody would pay more attention to the 'from each according to his ability' thing and less on paying sly attention to who's doing more work and who's getting the bigger piece of brownie.
My political epiphanies are from 60's literature that I read in the 70s and 80s and I ply my pixels on your blog and Steve Clemmons's blog and Teh Editors blog and even Kos's blog (vachon, user ID 687) in 2007. Ain't it grand? I disagree with your war justification #3. Yet I can sit here and tell you that and listen to why commenter #5 thinks I'm sadly mistaken, and, blogger Meatballs thinks you have a point but have you considered this aspect...well, here we go. Maybe I'll change my mind, maybe I won't but I will be a hell of a lot more informed than before I clicked on this link.
Who gives a sh*t who or what gave us our moments of political clarity in the past. The point is we're here now, comming up with new (and old) ideas, making ourselves visible to each other and, perhaps more importantly, making ourselves heard to the people who currently hold power. This whole thing rocks.
Love ya, Max.
January 17, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could the Left or the Netroots ever approach the intellectual level of Rush Limbaugh, the red-blooded self admitted drug addict, most popular truly American radio host in the universe??
What chance does the Left really have against giants who are blessed with a self proclaimed direct channel to God and to The Word, like Pat Robertson, or Sponge Dob(son)?
January 17, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like all the others, I have to ask, Max, what possible scenario are you trying to "rule in" with #3? I just can't think of any, not any that you would be in favor of anyway.
January 17, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. But looking back at it now, don't you wish the Democrats had had the spine to insist on Bush's obtaining a Declaration of War on Afghanistan as the only way to do it? Allowing Bush to turn this legitimate war into the Neocon "War on Terra" was the worst political, moral and every other kind of mistake Democrats made.
And it's not like it was a secret at the time that this was where Bush wanted to take it.
January 18, 2007 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that providing a bit of air support to a bunch of out-of-office Afghan warlords and handing them sacks of money borrowed from the Chinese central bank warrants a full-fledged Constitutional imprimatur.
Now, if we'd actually gone to war in Afghanistan . . . .
January 18, 2007 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sitting high above the devastated city of New Orleans, attending a conference on what it means to be a responsible educator these days, and being a bit grumpy myself, though the temperature is missing about 70 of the degrees in Piotr's rubric, I think I can agree with the the first two (make that 1.5) points of his plan--with a couple of qualifications.
The rest of the points I have to refrain from analyzing until my satire meter is repaired. Looking out at Canal Street in "rush hour" and being able to count the cars in five blocks on one hand has temporarily broken it. What's the point of being a superpower if one cannot restore the common good at home with at least some compassion, efficiency, and dispatch?
aMike
p.s. The Poetry of Wilfred Owen, which I first encountered set to the music of Benjamin Britten stimulated my pacifist tendencies (tendencies, not absolute convictions) when Bush was harmful only to his fraternity buddies.
January 18, 2007 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sawicky quotes
I've decided that from henceforth terms like meta-self-awareness shall leave me meta-annoyed and meta-suspicious of the validity of whatever I read following. But then I was raised to avoid the second person singular pronoun in formal writing. Quoting this predisposed me to agree with whatever Max said afterwards...actually reading what he wrote left me agreeing with 90 per cent of it.
aMike
January 18, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. I think giving him a blank check to do whatever he wanted was the worst mistake they made.
January 18, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant actions that appear to reasonable people -- unlike the current occupants of the White House -- to be very easy. For instance, with evidently little effort U.S. military scattered the Ton Ton Macoute in Haiti, in and of itself a good thing (kidnapping Aristide, not a good thing). Or protecting people in Liberia. Even Chomsky thought the U.S. could intervene in East Timor.
It's true that this is subject to abuse, but so is any other doctrine besides "never do anything." I ain't that radical.
January 18, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A word about Howard Dean, I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to say here, but Howard Dean's call for more troops was made in the summer of 2003 when that number of troops properly utilized (say by the general who replaced Casey) might have made a serious difference."
I agree and have said as much myself, but in keeping with my 'left fanny' post, that statement while possibly true is a) not very much to the left; b) reflects a very narrow criticism of the invasion; and c) is a common refrain among Democratic politicians. It doesn't make you brainless, but I happen to think it is incorrect.
January 18, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It leaves me laughing. Reminds me of midcentury sociology-speak. It doesn't mean a thing.
January 18, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was basically proving that there is no point in remaining the last superpower unless we are ready to switch our cars to run on coconut oil, which quite possibly means that there is no point in remaining the last superpower, period.
Three weeks ago I was on a hike and a visiting student from Indiana tripped on the way down and broke his finger. His problem, in part, was trying to walk a bit faster than he could. It takes some practice to walk briskly down a stony path (and such practice is not available in Indiana). Beside anything else, it is an example that often there is a threshold: up to the threshold things are easy, but above that threshold, hard and dangerous.
Same with being "a power" and "the only remaining superpower which does as it damn pleases". The first, with our resources, is simplicity itself. The second, well, pulls us above the threshold of hard and dangerous.
I think that Hobbes was a royalist and it was up to the king to assure that the life of the rest of us is not short, nasty, and brutish, even if (or because) the monarch can make some lives short, and nasty as well. Wouldn't it be fun to be a king?
I guess we should call some witnesses, ranging from Macbeth to Prince Charles, to testify that being a royal has distinct disadvantages.
As far as "restoring common good at home", royal household are famously disfunctional.
January 18, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
meta-self-awarenes
January 18, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I concede B and C. I believe B was largely expanded on before the 2004 elections into a more comprehensive critical package. C has been effectively useless for a while, and I think the blogosphere began preaching against using the "incompetence dodge" about as soon as it became apparent. I know it has been around for quite some time.
It is with A that I think there is a divide.
I read both the reason article, and the blogpost you made that was linked from it. What do you think a left statement should be in that situation?
Second at the time and circumstances of the statement I think criticism that we needed to put in more resources and use them more effectively was one that was correct to make and at the time was the best criticism possible.
I am left largely because I believe the solutions advanced by the left are the best ones to achieve the society I want. If a certain goal is better achieved by more centrist or rightist or libertarian ideas for example, then I have no problem advocating that. What political spectrum they fall under matters less than if they work without screwing up other things.
My sense right now is that you would not say that but please correct me if I'm wrong.
January 18, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt Hobbes was a royalist. The idea of the social contract was that some body (the state, in the person of the crown) had to hold our natural right to do whatever we were strong enough to do, in essence to keep us from pursuing our own worst instincts. The concept of the social contract does not of necessity have to be attached to a monarch: it works just as well in democracies, where we forgo our right to do whatever we "damn well please" to each other, and, incidentally, our right to exact personal justice or vengeance or to take anticipatory actions based upon suspicions of what others might do to us.
One assumes that as international law advances and international agencies evolve and mature, we will recognize that the principle which Hobbes applied to individuals equally applies to nation-states and to other agglomerations like corporations. They, too will eventually recognize that none are safe in a state of perpetual war of each against each.
If one doesn't assume so, one can at least hope so, or work toward that end.
I take no particular position on the "Concert of Democracies" idea, by the way. . . except to suggest that the name is perhaps a bit ingenuous. Would it be fairer or more accurate to title the organization something like "Concert of mainly Northern European and North American Democracies more or less like us"? Or are we prepared to let Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Ecuador tootle their tunes as well?
aMike
In a spirit of fair disclosure, I should also add I don't drive, never have had a driver's license, and never will. :-)
January 18, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, those are some good examples. I knew you must have had something in mind. All I could think of were things like Grenada - Low cost but little or no benefit or Panama, which would be a little too imperial for our taste.
January 18, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving yourself head??????
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
January 18, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink