From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 22:42:26 MDT
--- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > To me, the choice of no international body, and a set of
> > decentralized, individual, sovereign states is clearly superior
> > to the choice repesented by the UN.
>
> If one happens to be an American citizen, that could well be
> the rational choice for the short term. But in the long term
> I don't think fortess America can work any better than fortress
> Rome, or Athens etc.
Fortress Rome didn't work because the legions became dominated by
troops who were not Romans, plus Romans fought the same way against
their neighbors for so long that their neighbors finally figured out
how to best the Roman military method.
Fortress Athens never was. As the Delphi Oracle said, the only walls
that Athens could trust were wooden walls, meaning it's navy. This
worked fine enough until Athens exiled its best general, Alcibiades, to
Sparta, and taught Lysander the value and necessity of a navy, who won
the Pelopponesian War for Sparta.
Fortress America worked fine for a couple centuries as well. We had an
ocean on either side to isolate us from the corruption, hypocrisy, back
stabbing, double dealing, and lying horse-theivery that was weltpolitik
in the more 'civilized' nations.
Given the threat of total war and atomic weapons in 1945, we could no
longer rely on two oceans to give us time to mobilize in the rare event
that we could not avoid getting involved in other peoples messes. Pax
Americana has been in effect for more than a half century already. Its
a little late for y'all to be complaining about it, especially those
who have done quite right by it.
Given the exponentially decreasing costs of waging war by mass
destruction, we can also no longer avoid imposing our values on the
rest of the world. Y'all asked for it, you wanted to tango. As Niven
said of what the Kzin learned, those human monkeys don't like playing
war because they got so damn good at it. Well, now you get to learn at
the foot of the master.
>
> I think American's want to trade, they want to travel. So some
> international laws do seem to be necessary and in the interests
> of Americans.
International laws regarding trade and travel existed long before the
UN was a figment in anyones imagination (UN I OR UN II), and they will
continue to exist long after UN III is a dim memory. You don't need a
UN to enforce international laws, all you need is signor states willing
to enforce them with naval and air power.
>
> > If you want to propose another choice, you'll have to
> > convince me that it's better than that.
>
> I don't have the answers. I wish I did. I have a suspicion that
> we may now have to ditch the illusion that was the UN to come
> up with a sort of UN version 3 (in American's interests too).
> What bothers me is how long that is likely to take.
Depends on how coy France decides to get, don't you think? The only
time it seems you can get them to the table is when their own national
survival is at stake. Europe, for that matter, is chock full of
countries with wounded pride and inflated ideas of their own importance
in the world.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 22:54:10 MDT