reply to post by CaptChaos
We'd be kidding ourselves to think that neoconservativism -- the outward aspects of conservatives, justified by a liberal rhetoric of bringing
Progress to the whole world -- is anything but mental retardation, if we take it at face value. When you look at how complex it is to run a large
nation like the USA, however, you can quickly see that the "ideology" mumbled by candidates is secondary to how the system works, and that the rules
of power quickly take over from any dogma.
If you're the USA, you have to face the fact that almost every other nation on earth wants you to fail. You're the big guy. In a tribe of monkeys,
everyone tries to beat on the alpha male. It keeps the alpha male strong, and replaces him when necessary. In the meantime, he has to respond with
prison ethics: do something to me, and somebody -- it may not even matter -- is gonna pay.
This is what Iraq was about. Instability in the middle east may have facilitated a terrorist attack on us? We're going to go kick some ass, install
favorable governments in the region, destabilize the progress of said region toward fundamentalism, and maybe that'll take care of the problem -- if
not, it'll make any government think twice about what would happen if we did have solid information about who helped al-Qaeda.
This isn't about globalization. It's about a concentration of power, and the balance between continents: Europe versus Eurasia versus Asia. Russia,
as a state in Eurasia between Europe and Asia, is ethnically not Europe, culturally not European, and while it incorporates Asian elements in both
genetics and culture, isn't Asian either. It's hard to be on the fence. Russia will not feel stable until it dominates either Asia or Europe. Europe
will not feel stable until it dominates Russia. The Americans know that if Russia and Europe merge, Americans will end up fighting against Europe
troops controlled by the Russian majority. Problematic.
Luckily for those in power, the people old enough to remember the 1980s will be written off as too old by the enfranchised younger generation, or
people of different cultural background, so no one of demographic importance is going to point out the obvious: we've been fighting WWI since, uh,
WWI. We're still trying to settle the issue of Eurasian geopolitical balance.
While many criticize the Pax Americana, and indeed this member is skeptical of it and any imperial peace, the fact remains that having one big guy on
top is more stable than having several people gunning for being the big guy. It may be that we need world government, and not of the moral nature of
the UN, but some giant Roman-style empire that is smart enough to leave self-government to its vassal states in exchange for nuclear non-proliferation
and yearly tariff. Power, after all, may not be the enemy, but the contest for power might be our doom.