Crushing Fist:
You cite our withdrawal of diplomatic ties with the PA as indicative of U.S. lack of support for democracy.
But why should the United States offer support to a democratically elected government which holds positions the administration finds untenable? We should simply maintain relations because the country is democratic?
That is, put simply, silly.
Certainly, we would withdraw some measure of support for any other administration, HAMAS or not, that held positions contrary to our own. We would at the very least use our power to try and convince them to change their minds.
Now, I happen to believe that we should have maintained money flows and a diplomatic relationship, because that keeps a dialogue, and that ensures that nobody will come around to replace you. When you depart and cut yourself off, you lose the opportunity to shape the situation, and make it possible for some other country to begin exerting much more influence and have much more of a say.
But maintaining that relationship is certainly not some sort of democratic imperative, and cutting it off doesn't suggest that the United States is any less committed to democracy. It merely suggests that supporting HAMAS is anathematic.
Or are you saying that support for all democracies, everywhere, is in fact the imperative, even if it forces us to support governments with which we disagree, and that act counter to our interests?
I'll have to fundamentally disagree with that. That's like inviting a burglar into your home - clearly contrary to your interests.
No doubt that the American ideal as a representation of teir empire is in utter decline.
I LOVE statements like this! Do tell! Even at the nadir of our moral leadership - and we are probably at the lowest point - from a moral legitimacy perspective - since we emerged as a superpower after WWII, name one other country with more influence than the United States.
Name one other country more people are trying to immigrate to.
The American dream lives on...and it is writ in the heart, soul and mind of hundreds of thousands of legal and illegal immigrants each year.
I suffer from no illusions that the United States is without flaw, or occupies a "chosen" place on the planet or in history. And I think the United States could stand to revamp certain approaches to issues, both internally and externally - after all, you could add "Name one other country more people are irritated with," and probably get the same answer (I say probably because a lot of Indians are probably ****ed with Pakistan, and many South Americans consider Chavez a more immediate annoyance). In 50 years, we might be a second tier power. But, that will require, IMO, some major cultural, social and political revolutions in a few key places. And I do not know if they are up to the task.
China is the most commonly cited example of the next great hope...but they don't even have the financial instruments to float the Yuan and are VERY concerned about what fully floating it will do to their economy. They have 200 MILLION internal illegal migrants -rural Chinese who have migrated to urban areas- who cannot gain access to government services, education and jobs. The urban average income in China is about 3 times that of the rural migrants, and their purchasing power is similarly greater. Significant obstacles...
Remember when Japan was going to own the Western world?
Paraphrasing Mark Twain... "The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated."
"In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell
"Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli
"A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli