The really sad thing is this mess was predicted during the first Gulf war by US conservative's and was their stated reason why they didn't invade Iraq then. As with most things American it's easy to point and laugh but the reality is the average US man on the street is no more or less ignorant of other cultures then Aussies. However they seem to have a much greater aversion to intellectuals then we do, So ignorance is not seen as a obstacle to high office.

I saw an episode of the West Wing (the white house soapie) recently.
In it some people from a newly independant country were at the White House
talking to people about their new constitution they were writing.
One of the White House characters reccomended that they do not use the
US constitution as a model as it was a too dangerously flawed document.

Now that program does tend to preach on different subjects sometimes
but that was the last comment I expected to hear. A parliamentary
system was reccomended.
Hmmmm

The United States has always been a culturally insular country. Pride appears to be confused with patriotism. The U.S has three distinct cultures. On the top it has a political culture that is made up of such wealth that it is as divorced and disconnected from the American people. I think in this way the U.S has developed a political culture not unlike the Roman emporer, the Tsars of Russia and the the courts of the Louis dynasty of France.

Stuck in the middle is the every day American who has a large and varying degree of wealth and education , who are just like most of the world are just trying to get by or do their own thing. These people also have a varying degree of understanding of the outside world just like anywhere else.

At the bottom , the people who the top mobilise and who's so called patriotism is exploited are the peasants. American peasants are an extremely superstitious and uneducated people and I dont mean this as a slur but do wear their ignorance (of just about everything) on their sleeve. This is the people that claim to be the moral majority , the righteous , this is the hypocritical mass , the Christian column. The people that for many now days have become the schema for what is American. Ironically ideologically no different than their terrorist Moslem enemies.

I would argue that in a way Australia is moving in the same direction and who can be blamed but the media for pushing an English skin head skunk music ID call of " oi , oi , oi " as some how a patriotic Australian jingo. Certainly not a natural distribution by Australian language.

Dibb's current government funded academic position makes him less critical of Australia's "policy" on Iraq than he could have been. The Strategic and Defence Studies Centre (at the Australian National University) needs constant access to the policy areas of the Australian government. Frank and fearless comments would endanger his Centre.

Dibb repeats what is now widely accepted conventional wisdom on the US. He does not want America to pull out of Iraq but he provides no alternative strategies for the US.

He fails to see that the failings of perception he identifies in the American foreign and defence establishment have been equally present in Australia's government and academic bodies (like his own). Australia has constantly supported US actions and broad views at every turn since the US, Australia and others jointly invaded Iraq in 2003. Our troops are still occupying Iraq now according to US doctrine - with no end for our support in sight.

If Dibb put up an argument that the US and Australia wish to sit tight in Iraq (partly) because of the oil then the pieces may start to fall into place - but that is dangerous ground for a serious academic leader.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

West,

I agree with your pithy outline and with your final sentence in particular. Well said.

I agree the US has run out of good Iraq options. The follow on effects are properly outlined in this article.

With a change in the US presidency, I suggest it may be easier for Iranian moderates (like Khatami) to return to power; end it's isolation and loosen the authoritarian shackles. This view is based on the idea that the external US threat (from the Iranian viewpoint) has empowered hardliners and than Iran would otherwise feel neither theatened or be a threat to its neighbours. I admit this seems optomistic view, but Iran is not a dictatorship as Iraq was.

But I do not believe the US misunderstands the world, at least in terms of its diplomatic and military leadership

In my view, the problem US cannot decide its own place in the world. Is it a country like any other, or a supernation? Is it the "leader of the free world"? Is it the world's sheriff? Are China, India and the EU threats or opportunities?

I do not think anyone could have confidently predicted the present state of Iraq when Saddam’s army was defeated. The speed of the defeat and the initial euphoria gave a false sense of confidence that caught the US with its pants down over planning to transition Iraq back to the people. The transition that eventuated is the failure, and as long as US troops remain in Iraq and the Iraqi government is perceived as a US proxy, elements hostile to the US and/or Shiites will ensure that nothing is ever resolved. Not helping either is the Iraqi leader’s Shiite leanings and his recent engagements with Iran – this would make Sunnis seethe with rage.

Leaving aside the WMD, I suspect that Bush’s main goal in invading Iraq was to close the file: remember that substantial numbers of US troops had been occupying southern Iraq since 1991. However, Bush’s call for more troops is to fight fire with fire and won’t work. Dialogue with all interested parties and a complete US troop withdrawl are the only hope of lasting peace. Hopefully this is the approach the US will move to, and it is more likely as increasing numbers of Americans oppose the war, in addition to Bush’s recent lame duck presidential status.

Paul,

Good article. Let’s put on a wider angle lens.

America is an interesting study:

Because we live decades, not centuries ‘what is’ can be distorted. No, doubt the US is THE superpower of superpowers, politically, economically and militarily.

The situation of the American Ascendancy, in large measure, started during during the nineteenth century and crystallised in the early twentieth century with roots in earlier History.

Politics:

Its birth was leveraged from a desire for independence from British. In the Revolutionary War colonies rallied under the ideologies of French progressive thinkers. Herein, it is curious Lincoln saw the maintenance “The Union” preferable to ending slavery, which the British had achieved long beforehand. In this frame, the political Lincoln was not a clone of his well-honed television and patriotic image: The notion of preserving The Union over allowing the Southern states to leave secede was counter to French progressive thinking. Fact, a political solution trumped an ideological surface image. The Emancipation Proclamation was not the US centre stone.

Economics:

England, historically, entered the Industrial revolution, before the US colonies or nation. However, its social strata were fixed around monarchism, aristocracy and gentry (and still is to some extent (Queen, House of Lords, titles). This system was the Land as its locus, not commerce, not industry. The poorer peasant classes were pushed of the Land by the re-structuring associated with the Enclosure Acts, which created the situation were read of in Dickens. The landed leisure class (Veblen) would have little to do with “dirty” industry and commerce.

The pioneering American state, under its Manifest Destiny; to conquer the Northern American continent; were willing to engage in entrepreneurial commerce, not only agriculture. Also, it borrowed, from Germany the idea, that, corporations might be best run by the most capable (employees) not just family members.

Moreover, industrial capitalism and reformed Banking systems funded the best ideas of excellent inventors, c. 1880-1920. Herein, America prospered by willingly engaging in “dirty” commerce, Germanic management systems (non-familial management), and fostering industrial capitalism.

[More to come. I WILL come back and tether to your article/posits. Space problem.]

Good piece, Paul. You might recall that Bush the Elder wrote in his autobiography that the reason he did not invade Iraq in 1991 was that he could not construct a successful exit strategy. Pity there wasn't a father-and-son D&M about it all.

Don Aitkin

For me the rhetoric of ‘building democracy’ is perhaps the most disturbing part of the whole justification for war (and not just war in Iraq). As cited in this article, not only was it used to justify this war but it is also a major underpinning of the American mythos of the ‘moral use of military power’. American intellectuals never tire of patting themselves on the back for their success in ‘exporting democracy’ following the end of WW2.

However, a deeper look into their claims suggests a different story. Ignore, for the moment, the essentially contested nature of the word democracy and focus only on their claims of success: Germany and Japan.

Prior to rise of the Nazi-party, Germany was a democracy. While the success of the Weimar Republic can be debated, it established the basis for a democratic Germany and would have been fresh in the minds of Germans who lived through the terror of the Nazis. American reasserted a system in a country that understood and appreciated it.

Japan, however, is very different. Democracy here exists as little more than a façade welded onto a largely authoritarian and community-based society. There was no prior experience with democracy before the war and, even today, many Japanese have difficulty grasping the basic concepts of individuality that are at its core. The same party has been in power since the war and, in large measure, is the same groups of people wielding the same power as they did before the war- just with different names. Very little policy debate is entered into and the media actively collude with the politicians to keep the population ignorant of the bigger issues.

I’m not putting down the Japanese- cultural norms make the current system suitable for Japan- but it is NOT the democracy that Americans are talking about when they talk about exporting it to the rest of us. Until American leaders and intellectuals look with open eyes at their experiments in exporting democracy, they are never going to have a solid understanding of how this process can be used successfully- if at all.

Well said Plantagenet.I suspect what we are seeing is an attempt by Dibb to reposition himself in the face of the bleeding obvious.
What does Dibb understand by the phrase"as allies of the US"?
Dibb says:" And where were the US State Department advisers and National Security Council staff when it came to warning George W Bush that a weak and defeated Iraq would inevitably lead to Iran becoming the dominant power in the region?"
As an adviser to the Australian Government where was Dibb? Why has it not ben possible, as an ally of the US,for Australia to put this proposition( together with many others ) to the US?I don't recall hearing Dibb leading or even attempting to lead public debate on issues relating to the war.
Dibb says:"...the time has come for us to ask why the Americans are so bad at foreign policy."
Where has Dibb been? Many have asked and have attempted to get answers to that question but couldn't get past the wall of denial.
Dibb says:"But the US is good, very good at conventional war." And then says:'As President Theodore Roosevelt said...:'The country that loses its capacity to hold its own in actual warfare will ultimately show that it has lost every thing.'That is certainly not what we, as allies of the US,want to see as the epitaph of contemporary US foreign policy."
According to Dibb's first statement it is unlikely to be the cause of the epitaph, but having been so categorical he then throws doubt on the substance and strength of future US power.And what,to Dibb, is the source of this power, well surprise,surprise it is the barrel of a gun.Dibb equates ( rightly in my opinion )US warfare with US foreign policy. And that is the rubb whether it is using Israel,Ethiopia or Australia as surrogates the US seeks to extend its influence by force rather than by diplomacy.Australia has been a willing pawn.
Perhaps the loss of power, inherent in the US withdrawal from Iraq, will force it to finally refine,define and utilise its diplomatic skills.
Bruce Haigh

Do we Australians still have a culture, I was under the impression that the U.S.A. had installed their own culture in Australia long ago. Most now say "guy" where our culture said "mate" we have the U.S.A. consumerism culture, we watch U.S.A. TV shows, the shop has become the store.

We used to have an Australian identity, however these days we speak and act like an extra State of the United States of America, our culture has been destroyed, mate ship is something very few of us still practise, it's now "all about me" and what I can rip off someone else, not how can I help someone else, it's a very sad state of affairs, we are even labelled the U.S.A.'s deputy sheriff, oh for an independent Australia once again, is it too late to reverse this ugly process.

I think this influence of the U.S is waning and within a decade we will not be able to see the Chinese and Indian influence on our culture. It is a question of scale and the amount of time of exposure.

Very good article by Dib which looks for the answers to why the Bush government uses old-style power politics mixed with capitalistic reasoning, but not even like trying for a safe bet on the Stock Exchange.

It was Maynard Keynes not long before he died who predicted that sadly the Western world was headed for Casino Capitalism. Keynes was also the one who predicted the rise of a German tyrant - Hitler - after Germany was treated so harshly during the Treaty of Versaille.

The lesson is that if a Keynes had been advising Bush and his Zionistic crew the US might have devised a different way to get rid of Saddam, rather than the China shop job.

Even a first year social science student from one of the lesser US colleges might have warned about the outcome.

Saddam's Sunnis who comprised the bulk of Saddam's military force also had friends and relatives in Sunni Saudi-Arabia, as also bin Laden and most of al Quida are of Sunni heritage. Also Donald Rumsfeld helped organise Saddam's Sunnis to make the attack on Shi-ite Iran back in 1981, with Saddam's Sunnis after 8 years forced to beg for an armistice.

The question now is, with Georg W' going in bravely to bash hell out of Saddam's Sunnis, he was also facing hundreds of thousands of anti-American Shias he had gone into save.

The real complication which came about, however, and which even to any first year year social science student, would be no surprise - Iran by far the biggest state in the Middle East and which bordered Iraq, had been obviously ready to back the Iraqi Shias for years.

And who could blame Iran the way she was attacked by a US-backed Iraq in 1981.

We could also make a safe bet that all the above was predicted by lecturers in British and European universties. But not so sure about the US Uni's, which they say are now dominated more by the ultra-right rather than even the middle-road

How the pot does call the kettle black when attacking America and George Bush. A huge percentage of Western do- gooders who themselves have flawed Western ideas about utopian ways to bring peace to the world, point the finger at America for having those same flawed utopian ideas of how to bring peace to the world.
American politicians are a product of their own Western societies and the silly namby pamy ideas that have pervaded western schools and universities for too long.

Bruce Haigh :-“will force (America) to finally refine define and utilize its diplomatic skills".

Translated this means we can stop wars by talking and sucking up to people. Sitting around the peace table and talking love and peace brothers. Another stupid utopian idea that the West grew up believing.

I knew 20years ago that sooner or later the West would be attacked.. You don’t think the world is going to let us sit over here with all we’ve got and say, “aw don’t attack those lovely western people because they talk so nicely to us about love and peace and tolerance." Talk is cheap, it doesn’t give you or your children any hope of a better life, but war does, if you can take a rich country.

George Bush and his politicians should have been taught in Western schools that the point at which democracy will no longer work is when two tribes become so big in numbers that they wage civil war over control of a country. It never fails to happen.
Then they would have known what the result of trying to force democracy on Iraq would have been

If the US pulls out of the Middle East,it won't be long before you lot will be squealing like pigs about to be slaughtered because oil prices have gone through the roof.As if China or India with their burgeoning populations will be the benevolent benefactor like the US has been since WW2.

If China has to invade the Middle East to secure their energy supplies,they won't mess around like the US.They know that the Muslim faith is a virus that stymies progress and will wipe it from the planet and take the oil at will.China could then control the planet.

The American critics need to take heed and stock of what is in their best interests.Remember Tiernamin Square,when their leader alluded to killing a million of his own people if necessary.A million was considered to be a small number.

When a totalitarian state can re-write the history books and control the media,they can do as they damn well please.There will be no world shame or awareness of the general population to curb their excesses.We have taken our democracy for granted and live in a very insular,naieve existence.

Instead of constantly bagging the US,thank God that they are there because nothing will save us as world instability continues to mount due to population pressures,energy/resource scarcity and climate change.Short of developing our own nuclear weapons we have no other options than relying on the US.

If we want to look at the historical examples of occupying armies locking down hostile countries, we don't have to look far into the past. Russia very successfully occupied Hungary (6 million people in 90,000 sq km) in 1956; and Czechoslovakia(12 million people in 120,000 sq km) in 1967. Iraq had 21 million people in 420,000 sq km in 2003. By considering the different border circumstances ( ie Warsaw Pact countries occupied most of the borders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia)and technological changes, it is possible to make an approximate estimate of the resources required to do the job in Iraq.
My best guess is an army of 600,000 - 1,000,000 troops and 10,000 tanks.
I have to wonder if Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc even gave history a thought.

Arjay. Without your comments I would not sleep well at night. You are a person of "comfort"!

West. Maybe Arjay could take a few points from you, but I don't hold my breath!

The Americans are NOT stupid, or culturally cut-off. Their strategy in Iraq can be explained differently. The Americans need oil. We need oil bacause there is no alternative for plastics. We rely on oil - we need it for a stable economy. Iraq has much oil and weren't handing it over . We have no alternative to use to produce goods in our industrys to keep them making a profit. When the price of oil soars everything made from oil goes up in price.
The insurgents and Arab culture make the oil companies nervous. The oil companies do not want to send their boys in to a dangerous situation, so Uncle Sam has had to send extra boys in to show the oil Companies it's safe to go there, that Uncle Sam will back them up.
Let us not forget that George W Bush is an oil Baron like the Bin Ladens. They control the flow of oil around the world and in doing so they regulate our economies.
North Korea has no oil so there is no point spending lives there because it will not stabilise the worlds economy.
Wars are fought over trade and any excuse will do to go in and get the riches, it has always been the case over the centuries, nothing has changed. Except of course unless you are threatened with direct invasion you would go to war to prevent being taken over.
The Americans have learned (over Vietnam) that it doen't matter what the politics are so long as you can do business with them, they are OK. That is the lesson of Vietnam, too the fact that in the end people of a proud nation will fight to the very last to retain their identity. The English and Vietnamese are examples. The Iraqi's also seem to be in this mould. Everything else is a game of words. The problem the Americans have is the dead soldiers as it was in Vietnam. We need to learn how to create a balanced world economy without wars - very difficult when armaments stimulate economies.

Bruce Haigh - thanks mate.

I get the feeling that certain defence/foreign policy opinion leaders are playing it academically safe, sniffing the wind and may even sense a Rudd victory coming on.

Arjay

I am (almost) loathe to agree with you on the key importance of oil in the whole Iraq venture/occupation but you're right. Iraq is important because of its (cheap) oil and its proximity to the Saudis (with their oil). If democracy was the main US imperitive then 20 vicious dictatorships in Africa would need to feel the benefits of US democracy (indented with Abrams tank tracks) first.

Naturally a discussion of oil, the world's most valuable resource, having an influence on US or Australian foreign policy is too impolite for well payed foreign advisers/academics or even the Opposition.

Oil companies pay multi-billion $ oil levies and presumably hefty political campaign donations to the Coalition and the ALP. So any mainstream discussion of oil (Cheney stopped calling it "energy security policy" in 2001) as a reason for "I-raq" is not serious.

Its up to economic determinist Lefties and a few others (who cannot be bought off) to make the connection.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Sorry Barfenzie, but Americans, on the whole, ARE stupid and culturally cut-off. As an Aussie living and working in the US I find this thread very entertaining.

I don't think that americans are deliberately ignorant of other cultures (as they unfortunately are) its just that here is a country that has spent most of its history thinking of itself as no.1 in the world. Its also not just a homogenous bunch of people but in fact 50+ different nationalities all within the one land mass. A Californian is the not the same as someone from Alabama. I think one of the only true generalizations you can make is that there are so many individuals with so many irritating idiosyncracies in the US that Americans just switch themselves off and insulate. Only 36% voted at the last election, the majority have fired a gun at least once in their lives, and only 1 in 4 owns a passport. Gun-toting, apathetic, un-worldly god-botherers that don't seem to care that a complete idiot is running their country.

The American economic and political elite are not "ignorant;" all too many are arrogant, unfortunately.

Your close cousins in England were also arrogant in regard to the Mesopotamian Basin, 1915-1921. Possession of powerful weapons contributes to arrogance, as well as other factors.

See Fromm's excellent analysis of the founding of Iraq, "A Peace to End all Peace." Published in 1989, as I recall.

For purposes of argument, I challenge the widespread belief that the US is losing in Iraq.

Perhaps "W" is merely following the tried and true method of governance used by the British Empire: "Divide and rule."

When radical shia fevers reached a peak in the late 1970s, endangering the entire middle east, what was the American response?

Saddam was set loose on Iran: a horrible war developed between the two countries, effectively dampening the shia emotions and emptying their pocketbooks. Divide and rule.

A new round of extremism erupts in the late 1990s, endangering American and British lives; what is the solution? Attack Iraq, giving the terrorists a target. But also in the process: Bush and Blair have divided the moslem world, diverting the radicals' attention from the "west," turning shia excesses inward.

And here "W" and Blair have succeeded. Divide and rule.

Many of my friends are American's who are very good people and yet, while most American's are friendly to Australian's even with minimal knowledge, it is amazing the number of American's seen on discussion forums where any person who is not American, including those of her allies are hated. Australia and Canada high up on their list to hate.

The problem with America is that the people grow up surrounded by propaganda only matched by China and North Korea. When you grow up having your head filled with crud from the time of birth, one can only expect them to be of limited position.

Divide and WHAT??

Arjay,
If fuel prices go through the roof [they already have] then surely the Australian Government should invest some of it's $10 billion surplus refining alternate sources of power to oil, there are a range of technologies which have the capacity to replace oil.

Yes the Americans, certainly not the magnificents of Australian cultural awareness.

And apparently it's important for some Australians to point that out even if it is a gross generalization and not an actual truth.

What Americans need is a good dose of filtered sewage to shake them out of their complaisant coca cola cultural ignorance.

Bashing America. It's come to represent the epitome of Australian cultural think. What fine people we are. The great we...except you know, us we, not those other we of Australia.

America is a country built by different cultures the Irish,Italians, British, Africans, Native Indians, Japanese,Mexicans and many others.Each and all of them are an important part to the history and development of America.
I think America could be one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world.And I believe one of the reasons why it has so much power and success is because their not afraid of changes.I would agree that some Americans are unaware of the outside world and are not as willing to learn about it,but so are many Australians,British and others.Most people from non-european cultures go to America and can bring something of themselves without so much of a hassle. It has problems with racism crime and poverty like everyone else but America is still open to diversity and accepting of those who want the American Dream.

Most of you are caught up in an oil conspiracy. Iraqi oil was available to the U.S before the U.S invasion of Iraq and is more vulnerable than today. As oil peak is slowly taking grip on oil dependence technological adaptation is lagging but will get there. The war in Iraq will possibly grind on for decades - who knows? The cost of the war has already outstripped any gain the U.S could possibly dream of making. By the time the last killed U.S soldier is zipped up in a body bag the cars of the U.S will be fuelled by Chinese or Indian owned and manufactured alternative fuels.

The main protagonists in the war is the honour of the president who committed to a folly of grand proportion in a political system which like ours has no fail safes. How many workers are sacked for less?

Probably the most important protagonist is the myth of rapture which that same President subscribes too. That a glorious Christian army will defeat the heathens of the east and the Jews will rejoice by converting to Christ and then Jesus descends and Christians are airlifted to heaven. Before September 11 the President was playing cat and mouse with the Chinese for no apparent political or economic reason. America could have got back to “No1” If they embraced China; now like us they become more dependent on China every day. The whole axis of evil is the rapture discourse. No secular president has ever sanctioned torture.

Jesus failed to show, the term of Gods president is almost up. The world is moving on, bombings in Iraq have moved from the front page to a few words buried away where no one notices.

I don’t think the U.S will be a place of importance within 20 years. I also believe with climate change even though the world needs global action most countries will have to be very self focused to hold fast during the next few centuries of increasingly destructive climate change.

"America's problem is a serious lack of understanding of other cultures".

And this differs from every other country in the world and their people's lack of understanding of other cultures. How?

Arrogance of race is a worldwide problem of all races.

In fact given the lack of multiculturalism in many countries their lack of understanding is probably much worse than Americans is.

The title of the article misleadingly suggests that it is about America, when in fact it is about only the war in Iraq and written within a shortsighted perspective displaying little awareness of historical context. There is no recognition of the clash of civilizations, which is of the historical moment in which we live. War is difficult, but to presume failure on that basis is actually to wish and hope for American failure, which would be a tragedy for the world, considering the alternative of a world superpower of bloodletting fundamentalists.

The depiction of America fighting a “Christian War” is media hype. The American constitution is grounded in the separation between church and state. In contemporary America there is a cultural debate generated by a growing atheistic fundamentalism. President Bush has frequently recognized religious multiplicity in his State of the Union Address. The fact that the president is a Christian does not justify the claim that America is fighting a Christian War. In The Federalist papers, the founding fathers speak of “the divine”, but they did not speak of “Jesus”, as “Jesus” reflects a particular religion and the forefathers were concerned with assuring religious freedom and intentionally avoided references to specific religions.

As for slavery, it was not addressed by the founding fathers, for pragmatic reasons. (long before Lincoln, and Lincoln did change slavery despite the writers unsupported claims about Lincoln’s motivations). At that time, there had never been a republic as large as the proposed territory. The economy of the Southern states was dependent on slavery, and so a Union would unlikely have formulated , if the founding fathers had pushed slavery as an issue, at that time. Following the war with England the colonists were wary of big government. The defense advantage was an incentive for formulating a Union of States. Doubt was abundant that a union as large as the thirteen colonies could ever succeed.

The comment about the TV show should not have been in the article. It is fiction, hardly a reliable source for genuine “knowledge of the world”

Sorry Natural person yours was an obvious load of Christian propaganda.

The "founding fathers" of the U.S simply incorporated the British parliments muddy panacea for the Church of England Vs Catholic conflict. There is nothing enlightened about religious tolerance, religious tolerance is and has always been a politically correct term for uneasy truce. Christians wear their beliefs on their sleeves because everybody has the freedom of religion as long as it is their religion and nobody has the right to no religion. No surprise its exactly the same case within Islam. One thing for certain the belief in god has a corrupting effect on people.

The belief in Divinity is still superstition no matter how its spun or what its called. The fact is Bush believes in god which is a dangerous thing to believe if a person has even the slightest power over another. Worst still Bush belongs to the New Age prosperity cult of Pentecostalism which holds greed and self serving as core values. Worst again the same cult believes in occult magic such as pseudo science gods, messiahs, demonology and spell prayer. Worst again the same cult believes in, looks foward to and seeks to evoke the end of days.

Concerning the oil conspiracy,

Before September 11, President Bush tried to get permission to drill for oil in Alaska, for the reason given, that The United States needs to be independant of external sources for it's oil. The environmentalists stopped it, for better or for worse, but the point is that the president's goal was oil independence.

Last year oil was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, which will take years before it can be made availble.

We currently live in an oil dependent world. This is a pragmatic fact that is handily demonized. The same critic who demonizes any pragmatic concern over oil supplies would probably be the first to blame any administration if oil became unavailable.

I don't deny that oil must need be a factor in many high level decisions, but neither do I buy into the idea that the need for oil explains all. There are other factors involved as well. Oil is just one problem, among many. It's a complex world.

I have never believed that Lincoln and the North freed the slaves for altruistic reasons. White people sent their sons to die to free black slaves? Sons they had raised and loved for umpteen years?

I'm not saying that they didnt think slavery was terrible I just dont believe they sent their sons to die for that reason.
It was a trade war. The people in the South were undercutting the prices of the produce of the people in the North and sending them broke. In other words the economy of the North was being sent to the wall by the farmers in the South who were usisng slave labour to wage a cut price trade war.

Lincoln?(not sure of spelling) in one of his speeches said "We will smash the South". Sounds more like a phrase you would use in waging an economic war than a noble phrase about freeing the slaves.

Shonga,I agree there should be movement toward alternatives, but this will take time.I think the way to go is solar but both Govt and industry won't like this since it will make the individual autonomous.You can't tax it and you can't profit from it.

Heaven forbid,we all could become lazy bums who want to spend more time with our familes,instead of working for Govt and Multi Nationals.

Actually China is embracing solar technology more than the West.They are using Australian Solar Technology to heat their water and run their air conditioners.This is where our Govts have failed us now and in the past.Our biggest nuclear power station is the Sun.

If the World continues to heat up,we could use billions of solar panels to change heat energy to kinetic energy and thus cool the planet.We could regulate our own climate using solar panels.Solar panels placed in deserts would cool the local encvironment and thus encourage water laden clouds to release their moisture,changing the local climate.Sounds far fetched,but I bet that no one has done the sums.

We need to accelerate development of solar panels since this is our most abundant pollution free energy source.

Part One

Hullo Onliners, plenty of interesting comments. But have you read Mikhail Gorbachev’s contribution in the latest Guardian?

He gives intimation about an American decline in global popularity owing to a persistent policy of unilateralism. rather than more one of multilateralism.

Gorbachev seems to believe that today’s US leaders are so full of themselves as unipolarists or unilateralists they have lost sight of a globe changing and needing multilaterlism much more than unilateralism, which gives too much appearance of America ruling the roost and holding the big end of the political stick.

After all the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the 1990s. It has become more interconnected and interdependent. New giants - China, India, and even Brazil - have entered the world arena and their views can no longer be ignored. Also Europe is gaining more pride in itself, and its political and economic influence can only but grow tremendously.

Though the Islamic world is still finding it difficult to get out of its own Dark Age owing to the rise of the former barbarian West, as so many Humanities lecturers tell us - and as Gorbachev predicts, this great civilisation will eventually again find its feet again and be treated with respect.

Gorbachev also predicts his reformed Russia will very soon again be a strong player in the international scene. Further, though he says that many critics are saying that the new Russia appears to be too quickly rejecting democracy, there are no real reasons to fear Russia in the future.

Gorbachev goes on to talk about his New World Order, but much different than that envisaged by George W Bush and Co.

It is a philosophy very much like the one suggested by the late 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose idea of a Federation of Nations to preserve Perpetual Peace was the forerunner of not only the League of Nations but also the United Nations.

BB Part Two

But it seems Gorbachev believes that Immanuel Kant wanted something far stronger than the present United Nations. Possibly something more like NATO but with a far stronger military force, with unilateral forces such as the US having to line up more in the ranks. Certainly this plan was talked about during the Korean War, with all military equipment with appropriate UN emblems.

The problem with big power US unilateralism, is not only its Roman-style autocracy, but also the threatening carrier-based missile diplomacy represented not by members from a Federation of Nations, but from the one big arrogant power, as unfortunately Condoleeza Rice now symbolises.

Gorbachev, earlier in his reckoning certainly does intimate the global power position right now as pointing towards it. In the East so talks of China, India, Russia the former Soviet Union, representing both East and West possibly. In the West of course, we have both France and Germany, as well as Britain and the US.

Kant made no mention of regional representation in his Federation of Nations, which could bring in South America and Africa, but the late 1700s was such a long time ago historically.

Gorbachev’s ideas might also fit in with some of plans of the reshaped White House Congress

Arjay,
That would never work for two reasons, firstly as you identified nobody makes a quid, all this will do is save the planet. Secondly, this is old fashioned thinking mate, 20th century stuff, I'll bet you are still working on logic and common sense, it is now the 21st century, so it no longer applies.

I have just discovered that Townsville {where I live} is favourite for the first nuclear reactor, and I'm ropeable, when we have the Burdekin Dam which holds 7 times the volume of water of Sydney Harbour, which was completed in 1987, ready for Stage 2 with hydro electric power station, that has never been built.

I hope we get a progressive government this year that will build the hydro and scrap the nuclear power.

I live in the state of Maine, USA.
We do not hate Australians and Canadaians, as has been posted in this topic. We love Keith Urban but since he lives in Nashville, he might be an American, I have no idea.

As for the distribution of wealth in America, we are experiencing the same phenomena as the rest of the world in that wealth is rapidly becoming concentrated inthe hands of a few, but in the midcentury the distribution of wealth in the United States took the form of a bell curve with the greatest amount of wealth distributed among the greatest number of the people. That such a distribution could exist at all, is a great thing about this country. The way I see it , it is a challenge of the current generation to return to that ideal as I don't see how there can be a democracy without a middle class.

I have read that the middle class in Australia is very small and that there are more wealthy people than poor and middle calss in Australia.

I think that it is a global problem to ensure that international corporations do not become more powerful than governments- and that the only interface between the artificial personhood of corporations and the the natural person does not become a layer of artificial intelligence programed and manipulated by the artifical personhood.

It is true that I take pride in America which is based(in part)in the belief that the American spirit has the strength to confront the problems of inequality, and because we are better at adapting to multiculturalism than most, and we started with a great Constitution.

I personally don't think there should be a world government as it is too totalitarian a concept for me, but I am not sure if that is what is intended by the tern "unilateralism".

I probably won't stick around this topic bcause of the 350 word limit and other posting restrictions, My schedual requires a more sponaneous approach.

Natural Person Australia like much of Northern Europe is mostly middle class. Australia with the exception of the indigenous Australians do not have the level of poverty that exists in the United States. The wealthy In Australia are not as wealthy as the wealthiest in the U.S.

Multiculturalism is a vulnerable program because it requires top down leadership to consciously steer culture to accept differences. At the moment it is failing in Australia as it is in most of the developed world. It has to be recalled before multiculturalism there had always been great conflict between religious sects and of course class struggle.

For the Australian traveller finding themselves in Southern Australia it is interesting to note the number of very small country towns with a large number of churches of the same sect. Often these Churches in stones throw away from each other were products of schisms within churches often at times over the slightest differences in interpretation of the bible. For many this ripped families’ apart and set towns people against each other.

Tribalism will always be a major feature of social organisation I cant see why tribalism on a national scale would not occur naturally.

P.S I cant stand Keith Urban , You can keep him (Please) :)

West.
My information on Australia is from official statistics that I looked up on Australia, a couple of years ago.

Bill Gates in the richest man in America and also the richest man in the world so it’s not surprising that Australians are not as rich as Bill Gates.

Given the word limitations of this conference, I won’t comment further. I find this 350 word limit too time consuming as I usually go over and then have to spend extra time figuring out what to delete.

Sorry to hear you don’t like Keith Urban. My sympathies go out to you and I hope that someday you recover.

I have been participating at what is now www.newcafe.org for a number of years. There is no post length limit there, only a request that if your post is over 100 line to hide it. And you can post whenever and as often as you wish.

I usually stick with the philosophy conference. They are looking for new participants at this time. Any one wishing to discuss Kant and other philosphers will fit right in.

If the Texas Yank's theory about divide and conquer were true, wouldn't it have made more sense to have Iraq and Iran get in another all out war, instead of simply removing Iraq and having Iran run riot?

TurnRightthenleft has a point. If we apply his point and go back to the instability of Afghanistan which gave the Whitehouse the excuse to invade Iraq the U.S and the world would have been better off allowing the Soviet Union occupy Afghanistan. The U.S.S.R would not have tolerated Islamic extremism and Iran and the U.S.S.R would have viewed each other as a threat thereby preventing arms trading between the two. Afghanistan would have been closed as a highway between Pakistan to the middle east. Iraq could always have been kept in the U.S pocket even with the invasion of Kuwait. Saddams crimes would have continued but could have been reduced through carrot and stick diplomacy. Extremists in Pakistan would be focused on the U.S.S.R and not the U.S. It all sounds Machiavellian but compared to the mess we are in now the world would be a safer and less hostile.

So, America does not understand a world.

No problem-as far as America makes world understanding the USA.