WWIV

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

Thanks for playing catch up!

D:If the Iraqi people didn't understand these facts of life (I

believe that they do), then they would indeed not be ready for

self-government. Some kind of moderate mixed regime friendly to

western interests is required.

Okay. The key to understanding self-governance is the pragmatic

appreciation of who really is holding power, and, thus is the arbiter

of your final choice.

Conclusion, self-government is not really 'selves governing', its the

conquered facing up to the facts most important to the hegemonic

imperium.

This would belie any appeal to the " God granted wish of all peoples

to be free " . In other words, Bush et al know darn well that this wish

is allowable only within the constraints imposed by the national

interest of the U.S. Spouting off about absolute principles having to

do with what all yearning for 'democracy' is about, is, I suppose, a

kind of noble lie. Oh, and it's another lie of the garden-variety

type too.

D:A certain amount of real estate is required. What's your point?

Wreaking havoc on disagreeable despots who happen also to be one's

enemies is a *good* thing.

Yeah, a know the reasoning: governments able to use against us or

transfer the technology of WMD are to be defeated militarily or

diplomatically. What replaces those governments will be whatever

government is easiest to implement as long as it will not threaten

us. Hopefully, ever again.

Tis a long list of countries, but, over time, all will be defeated

and need to be defeated. This I also suppose is the company line.

This will take a long long time. I wonder if our own Democracy can

survive or needs to survive these many prospective decades of battle?

Some would argue that it need not because, finally, this is about the

survival of those who must survive.

***

Iraq is the great test case for all this. If there is a fly in the

ointment it is how the Iraqi people are to be converted to the

realization that their own self-interest is now, and, in a sense,

forever, tied to the superior self-interest of the U.S.

History teaches us that these kinds of cross-national conversions

have never stood the test of time, but this isn't a reason to not try!

But, we are in the great age of democracy, and, so far, democracy has

stood the test of time. Wouldn't it be ironic if the other fly in the

ointment turned out to be the unwillingness of the american peoples

to hitch their aspirations to the superior aspirations of persons who

might someday be moved to elevate their own survival in power over,

even, democracy?

This may be the most unlikely eventuation. But, the other part of the

experiment is how remarkably different this current situation is

from the only other situation where democracy battled for survival

over many decades; the cold war. Nobody knows whether democracy can

survive being at war again for decades.

I have no idea myself. I do know: the suggestion that if survival is

the singular paramount proposition, then those who wish to survive

might be strongly disposed to crush any disruptive dissent

ruthlessly, and, if they thought the loyal opposition could not

possibly be successful in safeguarding survival, they might also go

to whatever lengths are necessary to make sure their opponents never

come to power.

This is a paranoid thought problem. But, I think, despite this taint,

it is not unreasonable. Democracy may well be besides the point of

this great fourth world war.

Psychologically viewed, the line between pure survival instinct and

everything else is apparent enough. This may be one reason why even

the winning side is often very anxious.

regards,