egafd.com

If we look at world history over the last 2500 years or so, there has often been at least one dominant "power", if not several, fighting for ultimate supremacy.

If we take Rome as an example, it controlled much of the then known world. Nonetheless there were territories outside its sphere of influence that it did not control, nor trade with. Rome cajolled many of those it invaded by offering a better standard of living, and often allowed the subjugated leaders to remain in power, but under the influence of Rome. A simple example of this is the way the Pharaoes were allowed to contine ruling Egypt, but had to pay tribute to Rome.

The British Empire worked slightly differently in so far as conquered people and territories had "rulers" imposed on them. Hence the role of Governor-General. Britain, certainly from the Victorian period onward, also realised that its sphere of influence was limited, though it protected those within it mightily.

The current "American Empire" works in a very similar way to the old Roman Empire. Those who embrace the capitalist system are rewarded with various icons of American "culture"... Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Nike and so on. The indigenous political leaders who are pro-capitalist are helped to power financialy and become "allies". You need look no further than the CIA involvement in toppling the communist Allende government in Chile in 1973 and replacing it with the right-wing pro-American dictatorship of General Pinochet as a prime example of American colonialism. Suddenly an impoverished nation received billions of dollars of aid from the USA. That none of this money actually got seen by the poorest should not be too much of a surprise, however. Instead it went straight into the coffers of America's largest defence companies.

The big difference between the American and Roman empires is that Rome never sold its weaponry to others. America's economy is reliant on it's massive sales of armaments to other countries. But before you think I'm off on an anti-American rant, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the old Soviet Union are just as culpable. We have all sold weapons to pretty much anyone who has the money to buy them (and when they've not had the money we've lent it to them!)... usually at the expense of health care, education and food. Often we, the so-called civilised west, have sold armamennts to BOTH sides involved in the conflict. Ah... there's nothing like hedging your bets and making a good profit to boot! And when everything has been destroyed, our companies can go in and re-build the place... for a fee, of course! The ultimate in asset stripping.

Who sold Saddam the weapons he now threatens to use against us, and that he has in the past used against his own people? Who helped train Bin Laden and his followers? I'm not saying someone else wouldn't have if we'd said "no", but the "quality" may not have been so high! The biggest problem is that very few American Presidents and senior staff (with the possible exceptions of Kissinger and Haig) have had any real grasp on international politics.

Why do dictators like Saddam ignore organisations such as the UN? Why shouldn't they? If the USA can ride roughshod over international treaties, why should they adhere to them.

It is ironic that a nation that fought so strongly for its independence should now try to force its will on the rest of the world. It seems to have forgotten the words, and more importantly the history behind those words, in the preamble to the 1776 declaration of independence.

What you don't seem to realise is that by putting its interests first, America has been the cause of much of the turmoil of the last 30 or so years. I am far more concerned about someone like "Dubbya" having his finger on the button of a nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal so vast it could destroy the entire planet several times over than a vile but otherwise impotent (militarily, that is) dictator like Saddam.

While you may genuinely believe that Americas interests are broadly the same as the whole western world, the western world makes up only a small percentage of the entire planet! When it took several weeks to get from one side of the world to another, maybe that wasn't too much of a problem, but the world, in terms of travel and communications is a much smaller place and it's so much easier now to tread on each others toes.

Americas interests are not the interests of the whole world, and that is a fundamental lesson it has so far failed to learn. That it believes the whole world to be within its sphere of influence is a mistake that will cost it and its allies dear.

But then, what do I know? After all I'm a vegetarian Guardian reading former lecturer in international relations!

Bob S
www.fullservice.org.uk

I've also taken issue (again) with Dibsy, in the 'Objectivity' thread.
Maybe all this light reading will keep him out of trouble.........

I was waiting for you to pounce. Swift, too.

Joshing aside, there's no need to take what I say personally. If you're in any way sincere you'll know the sort of charlatans I mean (and that's the awful thing about stereotypes. They do indeed exist). However, any party or movement willing to accept them on board for their cause - or to just bump up the numbers - must itself have its intentions questioned (and on this note I read with interest how the time-honoured CND are perhaps trying to seperate themselves from the newly-formed STW). But that's by the way now, isn't it. The war has already started. For the anti-war brigade it's all over bar the shouting.

Okay, here's the deal; We will leave all the feverd finger-pointing and gesticulations to the wretched Mark Thomasses of the world. You win. I lose. And so this phoney game of one-upmanship is drawn to a close. You can punch the air if you like, or whatever. I don't mind.

So you get your way. But what's that? A troop withdrawal. An aid withdrawal. A gold star for your geopolitics essay. Then.........what? Do tell me. I'm all yours now, remember. I'd love to know. Aside from the hilarious sub-Die Hard/assassinate-Saddam fantasists busy with their toy soldiers, I've heard nothing credible on this forum or, frankly, anywhere. History shows us followers are often more deadly than their leaders. A broadstroke it had to be.

You may think Dibble a fool, but he's right to tear up the notion of crippling US attempts at dealing with Iraq by chaining them to the oil issue.
Sure it's there. And it will still be there in five and ten years time, only with more at stake. Meanwhile Saddam....

There really was no alternative.

And that's the rub for many, isn't it. It's not happening in five or ten years, is it. It's now. They're acting right now, as I write this.

Well how dare they. In a sensationally subordinate move, powerful, pro-active America goes against the wishes of inactive, powerless armchair generals the world over. The sheer nerve, eh.

In my first post I talked of getting one over Uncle Sam. Looks like he's got one over quite a few.

And so this game of one-upmanship is drawn to a close.

Yes, this is all very interesting Bob and I was aware of most of it, save for some of the minutiae, even though I am but a humble 'Bog standard Comp, Grade B English CSE lad.

"While you may genuinely believe that Americas interests are broadly the same as the whole western world, the western world makes up only a small percentage of the entire planet!"

Er, yes. But that's our percentage.

The fact is that there is no utopian solution for the ills of the world - if ills they be. Our selfish instincts to better our own lots preclude it. To get ahead means stepping on someone else?s toes. It means some will get left behind because they are not up to it. Let's not wring our hands over this to much because it is only this that has lead to us sitting here in relative comfort, in front of our technologically advanced computers, being able to chew it over without wondering where our next meal will come from and whether that pesky Sabre Tooth Tiger will bite our asses off if we step out of the front door. You can impose utopian solutions to imagined problems on society - like communism. But it doesn't work. Society stagnates because there is no longer any incentive to do better, to get ahead, to increase our status within the group. We need the Ferraris, Sunseekers and palatial Villas in Marbella dangled in front of our noses to give us the will to get up in the morning.

It can never be 'nice' for everyone. There will always be discord in the world because it is a fundamental property of this universe. Discord causes friction and change that drives the universe forward. Creation and destruction constantly churning. Billions of years hence when all matter and energy has levelled out into a harmonious interstellar mist ('increasing entropy' I believe is the term). There will be no friction and discord. But the Universe will be silent and dead.


Dibble ? Doctor Of Philosophy, University Of Life.

I didn't 'pounce': I merely responded- and it's that sort of crack that might make people think you were making it personal.......
It's not necessary to spend three paragraphs castigating those with hidden agendas: no-one sane denies their existence, which is why some of us were trying, however ham-fistedly, to keep the debate limited to actual events, probable motivations, and possible solutions. But that doesn't mean sincere and thoughtful people haven't also expressed cogent objections to this war and the whole 'thinking' behind it.
I certainly don't think Dibble a fool: on the contrary. I do, however, think he is grossly mistaken, and abhor his (possibly jocular) delight in
'bloodying Johnny Foreigner's nose'.
As to my take on the whole thing, I have outlined that in the 'Objectivity' thread, and won't bore anyone again with it. Suffice to say that I feel it offers a more realistic set of goals, and hopefully a more fruitful outcome.
I won't dignify your last four paras with a response, except to say they're just more straw men: inaccurate, stereotypical and not worthy of a supposedly reasoned debate.

Ouch !! Bashing us poor grads again (I paid for my own tertiary education, BTW...). Still, you can always count your motors, and take comfort in the knowledge that not many of those bleeding-heart leftie beardy sandal-wearers own such fine pieces of automotive craftsmanship......
I for one don't deny the necessity or desirability of an aspirational dynamic (although I would hope it wouldn't be as banally-limited as your flash car and 'dolly-bird'): where I part company with you is in your seeking to justify that as an admirable ethic in a world where most people never even get the chance to have any aspirations. If they did, you might find the competiton a little too hot, which is why I suspect a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping a bigger lot of other people down, although it seems to me that an increase in overall productivity would only be a good thing for all. Have your Rollers and Rolexes, fine, as long as everyone else at least has the wherewithal to eat three meals a day, get an education, and not be shot at all the time.
I have spent a fair portion of my puff wondering where my next meal was coming from: but it didn't make me behave in some faux-darwinistic, 'dog-eat-dog, 'step-on-the-back-of-the-bastard-in-front-of-you' Gordon Gekko fashion. Instead I worked hard and treated people fairly: and to their credit, most people responded in kind.
Love that 'summary' para: an amazing blend of poorly-understood science and New Age mysticism. It has an almost Manichean feel to it: and we all know what happened to them......

I'd love to stay and bash out a more comprehensive rebuttal, but I?ve got some tiresome porno work to do and a couple of top dollies are due round my gaff on Wednesday (wheyhey!) so I need to rustle a bit of a script up.

But...

"I for one don't deny the necessity or desirability of an aspirational dynamic (although I would hope it wouldn't be as banally-limited as your flash car and 'dolly-bird')"

Call me shallow if you will.

"Instead I worked hard and treated people fairly"

Don't know about working hard but I do try and treat folks fairly.

"Love that 'summary' para: an amazing blend of poorly-understood science and New Age mysticism. It has an almost Manichean feel to it: and we all know what happened to them..."

Thank you. Hey, I may be no Stephen Hawking, but I have read 'A brief History Of Time' and I can grasp some of the ideas he puts forward - though sadly none of the mathematics that underpins them, and although you maybe a 'uni' lad I?ll wager you did not study Astrophysics there, and consequently I suggest that your understanding of 'entropy' is no greater than mine. I'll also wager that the majority of folks on the forum haven?t the slightest idea what we are talking about here anyway. As for the 'mysticism' you alluded to - creative writing dude. I thought it was poetic and mildly profound. You should count your lucky stars. It's not often we get treated to a piece of writing interesting enough to comment at length on - though the general standard has been rising of late.

Afraid you've got one over me with "Manichean" Who's he? Some obscure Bosch philosopher? Or were you referring to the profound and enlightened utterances of Man United players?

Dibble.

i dont no much but i know when someone has been on google looking for information to try and have an arguement with someone to wind them up.
as you well know it aint what u do its the way you do it.

good luck

OK, you're shallow !! But being extremely witty doesn't alter the basic callousness and selfishness of your weltanschauung (there's another one for you to look up during detention...).
You could certainly treat ME a bit more fairly.....I suggest you take some time to check your old business e-mails [cue slap on wrist.....]!!
You win your 'Astrophysics'; bet: I merely have the sort of vague knowledge of entropy you'd pick up by way of 8 years studying Chemistry, Physics and Biology.
Yes, the mysticism was interesting, in a sort of case-study way.....
And as this has been such a diverting exchange, I'll let you off the other half of detention: .

It seems I've got some explaining to do.

I'll keep my eye on those with hidden agendas, I think. For all of us. It's their possible influence on actual events, their probable motivations, and their 'possible' solutions that worry me. Simple as that. And yes, they're on both sides. Their are people who I work with who are obviously secretly loving all this turmoil, sadly.

But that's not important. This is:

I know it's bad form to start with an apology, so I'll start it here. If I have caused offence, in any shape or form, then I apologise. Yes, I have insinuated, and certainly unnecessarily, as anyone who intends to rip the mask from the face and found themselves ripping the face instead will tell you. Again, I apologise. I just can't stand frauds in situations as important as these, that's all.

I've not read your other thread yet. But I will.


Until this is over,


Jack Torrance.