Dear Poirot,

Roy’s description of the US and the reactions of the rest of the world toward the US seems to me accurate, but it also seems to me to miss what is pertinent about reasons for war.

I don’t think the problem is with the US regardless of how predatory the US is. The US had two great rivals in the last century - Nazi Germany and the USSR. If either of them had won out and gone on to be the sole superpower it is quite possible that their oppression would be worse than the oppression of the United States. If Germany had won I would probably have been eliminated. If the USSR had won I think the world would have been worse.

It is like describing the behaviour of the top predator in an ecosystem and condemning that top predator for its ruthless attacks on those further down in the food chain. If we remove the top predator from an ecosystem some other creature may emerge to become the top predator, the system may collapse or something unforeseen will happen. We don’t know the consequences of removing or curbing the US. Maybe China will do it. Of course the analogy of the nation state system with an ecosystem is somewhat faulty as analogies generally are.

We humans have lived in various groups which have competed and cooperated with each other. At times various groups have grown large and powerful – the Athenian Empire, Han China, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Mongol Empire etc. Now the US is the Leviathan. Invariably these concentrations of power have been opposed and have been curbed or eliminated. All have left some marks on the world.

Many believe in a religious or non-religious millennium which will bring peace to earth. None of them that I know of seem plausible. A world government under the UN as presently constituted might be more oppressive than the US. Anyhow, I think the US is a symptom of the problem and not the problem. The elimination of the US would not bring peace.

David f,.

Well, all things come to pass - empires, like foaming waves, rise and fall....and the American empire, I believe, has begun the first phase of it's descent.

There's no doubt in my mind that China will take over the mantle, although I think they are also gunning for collapse - and probably more rapidly than most examples because overpopulation and the accompanying pressure of their artificial social arrangements which they have instituted to compete and out-capitalise the capitalists.

Man is a strange entity - far too flawed to realise his dreaming desire of perennial fortune and peace to become a sustainable reality.

I wonder if America will go out with a bang, or the more commonly experienced whimper?

Dear Squeers,

Thank you for the references. I am making my way through them.

Dear Davidf,

I too marched against the Iraq war on a rather bleak and wet Melbourne day. It was my children's first protest march and I think I may have cured them of the inclination in the future.

But less face facts, polls had around 87% of Australians against the war with many actively protesting. When it came time to vote however nearly the same percentage ticked the box of one of our major parties. I would put it to you that many we marched with did the same despite taking to the streets which is about as strident as most would have been politically in years, if ever.

To them I anoint responsibility. This was not a sin of passivity but an act of voting for the two parties that are prepared to take us to war at America's behest.

As to the question of guilt, perhaps it is the eye of the beholder. Reflect however on the current move to tighten disability payments, much of it budget driven, there is no mention of the largesse of the veteran's Gold Card. We can call it what we like but for me the silence has its roots firmly mired in guilt.

I don't want to pass judgement on the reasonableness of those feelings but they are real. Plus they are held by those who might have strongly disagreed with our involvement in a particular conflict.

Finally I will grant the armed forces use the glory of service to attract personnel but most of us would say if the alternative is not to have a viable armed force then they can glorify to their hearts content because it is in our interest to do so.

csteele:

It seems to me the explanation for the discrepancies you illustrate are based on an inherent dualism in human nature and society, idealism/realism, in which the latter nearly always wins out due to its more manifest demands, in the process rationalising away the claims of the former. Idealism has always been an important factor in human action that I'm inclined to think is in part innate rather than merely indoctrinated. The more we subscribe to the realist paradigm, the more pragmatic we become, idealistic actions functioning only to absolve us of guilt by association or ruthlessness. Most of us today are utterly won over by realism and its insistences, and idealism is either affected, dismissed out of hand or conceived--cynically or sincerely--as tantamount to neurosis. In our empirical reality--chthonian depths filled--concerns over ethics and justice can be rationalised as luxuries that can be sacrificed when pressed.
In my view the only hope for our humanity lies in establishing idealistic foundations that take precedence over tawdry realism at least to a point. The problem with exigent realism is that it ever forces ideals to retreat when the situation is far far from desperate. It's no contest between idealism and realism.

Dear Squeers,

Idealism is not always odds with realism. They may at times coincide. Neither prevails. What prevails is short term interest. Uncontrolled population growth is an example. Thinking people know it is radically going to affect us but not next week. Most nations have done little or nothing about it.

A Chinese official when asked about the results of the French Revolution answered that it was too early to tell. To me it is significant the China is the only nation whose government is seriously concern with population control.

csteele,
I'm sceptical that guilt is the inhibiting or insulating factor exercised when it comes to veteran's affairs or militarism in general. While guilt and gratitude are no doubt factors, at least for thinking people, I still think it's more about heroism and patriotism as sacred cows for the unthinking zealots. If these awe-inspired concepts were exposed to the light of critical reason they would reveal their bewildered and unspeakable content: fear, confusion, despair, compassion, hate, cowardice (and yes, bravery too--or rather fool-hardiness, access of panic), abandon, violence--both blood and sexual lust etc. Perhaps most disturbing of all there are those who carry out unspeakable acts during war with cold and calculating indifference.
All of this, in the popular consciousness, is suppressed, swaddled in sentiment, wrapped in a flag and fantasised and celebrated as something wholesome, sanctioned by God. Guilt implies genuine soul searching. I don't think most people look beneath uniform.

davidf,

Wasn't that Mao himself?

I'd like to agree with you that idealism sometimes attends realism, but I see little evidence. And then it depends on the nature of the idealism. Certainly selfish idealism often attends realism.
And then again, idealism attending realism can be a positive evil, for instance the crusades.
I've been studying Hegel and had a minor breakthrough understanding him--so have been a bit caught up with idealism. Hegel btw, I'm convinced, was not an idealist--at least not in the sense that the world is merely a product of thought. This has been the accepted interpretation until recently. But that's perhaps for another thread.