I can see the point of much of what you're saying - however, you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse other posters of: where are the facts in your statements? I understand your opinion and belief that Bush was the "lesser of two evils" - an opinion which I (obviously) don't share; but nonetheless, the fact remains that America is NOT meant to be the world police. I realize that Americans want and arguably, America as a nation, wants what is best for the world. However, America as a nation wants first what is best for itself and THEN what is best for the world, in that order. I'm not saying that's wrong - that's more or less how a country MUST function. But it does mean that unilateral actions such as invasions by one sovereign nation against another cannot be considered acceptable for many reasons, among those the fact that no matter how well-meaning the nation is (and I'm not going to pretend that there may not be SOME good intentions behind the USA's actions) there will always be at least a certain degree of self-interest involved. You argue that allowing "folks like Koffi Annan to make decisions about world affairs" is a bad thing. Arguably, the United Nations is corrupt - no more so than the current US administration. As well, even if the UN does have some flaws, does that mean that it makes sense for the United States to totally discard the the organization's goals of maintaining some form of global peace and co-operation between nations?
<br />
<br />
The statements "America is going to be reviled if for no other reason we are the lone superpower in the world" and "when you are the lone superpower, you are constantly being called on and expected to respond when there are issues around the world" cause me some alarm. First of all, that smacks of an accusation of envy, 'it's lonely at the top'. Secondly, I ask you: Did Afghanistan or Iraq call for America to 'liberate' them? There are certainly issues in the world which do require SOMEONE'S attention, but that does not necessarily mean they require the military attention of the United States, nor the financial attention of Halliburton.
<br />
As far as facts - one of the links that I included in my article lists just a few of the nations which have grievances against the United States and the reasons for these grievances. Have a look at it again if you'd like:
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestranger.com/2001-09-20/wtc7.html">http://www.thestranger.com/2001-09-20/wtc7.html</a>
<br />
<br />
If you need more facts, let me provide you with some...
<br />
<br />
Was the Iraq War Pre-Mediated?
<br />
<a href="http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000032.html">http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000032.html</a>
<br />
<br />
The (il-or-semi?)legality of the Iraq War:
<br />
<a href="http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030328.americawar.delisle.intllawwariraq.html">http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20030328.americawar.delisle.intllawwariraq.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://dcregistry.com/users/IraqWar/">http://dcregistry.com/users/IraqWar/</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/04-26-99/illegal_war.htm">http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/04-26-99/illegal_war.htm</a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000561.php">http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000561.php</a>
<br />
<br />
Corruption??
<br />
<a href="http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000042.html">http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000042.html</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.konformist.com/911/osama-bush.htm">http://www.konformist.com/911/osama-bush.htm</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000025.html">http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000025.html</a>
<br />
<br />
Limits to Free Speech
<br />
<a href="http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000655.php">http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000655.php</a>
<br />
<br />
Also, the only nation which has ever used nuclear weapons against other human beings is the United States. And the targets were, of course two cities. That action DID end the second World War, however, and I won't pretend that there was not some sense to the decision. There IS blood on everyone's hands, so to speak, when it comes to military actions. However, the USA's military history is long, bloody, and (I would say) overly aggressive. Being the world's lone superpower does not mean that you have a duty to single-handedly deal out 'justice' wherever you see fit. Similarly, when this 'justice' is sought on the basis of outright deception (i.e. absent WMD), the situation is called into even greater question.
<br />
<br />
Clearly, as was mentioned here, "we" and "Americans" ARE loaded words, and the term "hate" is far too strong and emotional. I as an individual strongly relate to individual Americans, and I agree with this anonymous poster in saying that "Americans by nature are generous and want what is best for the rest of the world". However, much of what happens that is not "best for the world", but best for America, is not put on display openly for the American people, as it is not a subject of intense patriotic pride to mention that the "generous good hearted people that have helped many underdogs when they were being overwhelmed by the more powerful" did so for their own self-interest. Again, I repeat that THIS is not the offfensive action - the duplicity of casting such actions in the light of altruism is where the problem lies. In the case of Osama Bin Laden as well, providing CIA training to help him and the Saudi Mujahadeen in fighting against the occupying Russian forces in Afganistan was not to assist the beleaguered Mujahadeen so much as to beleaguer the powerful Russians.
<br />
<br />
I am disgusted with the current military agenda being pursued by the United States, but the entire point of my article was to express my personal affection for and support of the American people. I don't believe that Canadians are somehow more "enlightened" than Americans, or that I necessarily know better than they do. But the fact of the matter is that sovereign states exist for a reason and international law must be respected - if the United States can violate at will treaties which it has signed (such as the United Nations Charter) what is to stop other nations from doing the same?
<br />
<br />
Essentially, I agree with you - the United States, being the lone superpower, NEEDS to set an example for the rest of the world. But violence UNDERMINES the legitimacy of authority more than establishing it. The United States, difficult as it is (and I do not mean that to be sarcastic or a jab - this is not an easy task for ANY nation) must lead by example, demonstrating to other nations the sort of free and democratic society that it is supposed to stand for - not wantonly assaulting other nations to further its own interests while using patriotic rhetoric and alienating the rest of the world. Might does NOT make right. The US is the only superpower, but if it continues to resort to schoolyard bully tactics, it cannot hope to maintain that position of power and leadership. Borders exist for a reason, and should be respected. To defend an attacked nation is one thing - to begin an unprovoked attack for questionable reasons (later determined to be in complete error) is another thing entirely. The United Nations is imperfect, but arguing that it should not exist implicitly suggests that the United States Administration is? Is that the case? I would prefer to have a corrupt group of nations making decisions of world affairs than a single corrupt superpower, acting in its own self interest.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:54 am 
