[Nettime-bold] Re: [TW] State of the Union?

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

I think that the 'stability' of the world in 21st century cannot be 
guaranteed by ONE country, no matter how benevolent, 
reasonable, or enlightened it is (and recently it is NOT...).

I admit that British and Dutch imperialism/colonialism were less 
destructive for the host countries than French, Belgian, Spanish or 
Portugese - the fate of those host countries in the post-colonial era 
testifies to that point the best. 

Most of the French and Belgian former colonies are still in total 
chaos.

But we live in a different era now. Maybe imperialism was an 
appropriate way to provide stability to the world in 18th century, but 
it is simply not acceptable any more. And I always want to re-
iterate the Aldous Huxley and his Encyclopaedia of Non-Violence 
where he so eloquently wrote of shortcomings of British world-view 
and how it helped formation of Hitler's Germany.

It can be applied so well on the U.S. and Osama Bin Laden.

Blair is not opting out from being an ally (yet), which is good, 
because there is hope that he may moderate US actions, but he is 
agreeing that a tough inspection regime combined with the threat of 
force is the best solution - and this is agreeable to both Germany 
and France. Colin Powell likes that the best, too.

Unfortunately, Colin Powell is not the president of the U.S.
 
ivo

From:           	"Frank Rose" <frank.frank@virgin.net>
To:             	<ivo@reporters.net>
Subject:        	Re: [TW] State of the Union?
Date sent:      	Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:32:59 -0000

Again just a few comments in Italics interspaced with selected paragraphs


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ivo Skoric" <ivo@REPORTERS.NET>
To: <TWATCH-L@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: [TW] State of the Union?


Tribunal Watch archives since 1995
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/twatch-l.html
======================================

It is true that Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN resolution and
that he broke his agreement to disarm, that he promised to do after
losing a war to 'the coalition' of 1991. But Israel also violated UN
resolutions. And in 18th century this would be treated as a colonial
problem of the U.S or, rather, U.K. at that time. But this is 21st
century, and it is indeed the U.S. that always insist on building
coalitions, because Americans do not like to look like imperialists,
like those from the 'Old Europe'.

And in 18th century this would be treated as a colonial problem of 
the U.S or, rather, U.K. at that time  

Well I'm glad your are  aware of whose problem it was.

British were the imperialist for the best part of three centuries and 
provided reasonable stability to much of the world, now it's the turn 
of the USA, it's time the USA faced up to this reality.  

British went alone to Falklands, blissfully unashamed of their
imperialist posture. The U.S. wants to be granted permission by
the world to do something that would only benefit their private
imperialist designs on the world, and the U.S. government is
whining and calling heads of states pygmies, labelling whole
countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant,
when their support is not forthcoming.

The British went into the Falklands to free British subjects from the 
Argentina dictatorship.  

the will of the people off, telling that HE disagreed with them. The 
U.S. is not any more a Republic by the people, for the people. It 
became an empire. But Tony Blair softened British pro-war rhetoric 
following the protests, leaving the U.S. in danger of losing that last 
ally in the world.  

Well I don't see any signs of Blair opting out of being an ally
frr

Ivo




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold