Sunday, November 09, 2008

Obama and Brown: Globalism on the rise?

It has been reported that Gordon Brown suggests that it is time for a global society. This is not far out of line with what Obama believes and coupled with what has been projected in Obama using executive powers coupled with a democrat congress, could a lesser United States be in the making amongst a global context? Obama's beliefs are antithetical to the traditional definition of American Exceptionalism. Is this the beginning of something good or bad? You tell me.

Thank you for reading this blog. 


Héctor said...

I don't think Brown meant something like creating a worldwide state, but rather to emphazise the fact that every country in this world is- to some extent- depedent on other country.
Regarding the idea of some worldwide confederation, maybe it's a good idea. After all, we need some worldwide institution(s) that make sure Human Rights are enforced everywhere, and that international laws can be exercised in every country (so, for example, no country starts a war just because they want oil)...

The Right Guy said...

Contrary to your opinion, we didn't go to war in Iraq for oil... If we did, we surely haven't seen any from it. As far as human rights go, what about the UN? I mean they are feckless and corrupt, but they are supposed to do such things. No, what Brown talks about is the prelude to globalism, and I agree it will eventually happen. I just hope it's long after I am dead.

Héctor said...

Well, you certainly didn't go to Iraq because of WMDs...
The UN is –in important stuff– ruled by the US, and so is unable to stop or counterbalance America when it goes rouge (again, like in Iraq). Other strong countries, like China, also have veto powers in the UN (so no one has done anything about Darfur). So I don't think the UN has real powers over its strong members

The Right Guy said...

No we did not. That was just a pretext for the real reason.

If you think the UN is ruled by the US, you should live in NY. The UN lives in it's own world. You have to ask yourself why would china block it?

Héctor said...

I mean that the UN is ruled by the World War II Allies (those with a permanent seat in the Security Counsil -or however that is called). Any of those countries has veto power (that is not subject to an override).
Why do you think the US went to Iraq, then?

The Right Guy said...

Ok señor, here it goes. We can take the populist approach, or the crusader approach. I'll give you both. Populists operate on one of two fronts: If they are left, they demonize the wealthy and foment class struggle. If they are right, they usually foment fear due to some foreign invader or other national security issue. Both create straw men in order to raise the level of fear, that will in turn keep them elected. Sometimes there is a basis for the fear, and it is usually manipulated to their advantage. OK.

Now for the crusader. Bush the crusader sees himself as the bastion of western Christendom, and sees Islam as a threat to peace in the world. He knows that the real culprits in islamic terror are the Saudis and the Iranians. He can't go against the Saudis as they are his friends and allies in the oil business. The best he can hope for their is social change over time. With Iran, he has a problem. He can't justify military confrontation outright. He think may be he can put two quasi democracies on either side of Iran and hope it rubs off, and if not, they are in a vise. What he doesn't anticipate is Iran's alliance with Russia and China. Getting Iran to move politically is not realistic, so he'll hope he draws them into a confrontation. The goal as a crusader though is to reshape the middle east and create a positive legacy.

Honestly, it could be a combination of the two as well. What is in common is the a priori pretext in order to get into Iraq to move the plan along. I will say this though. There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Hussein did use them against his own people as well as Iran. My guess is that he got most of them out of the country at some point prior to us getting in there, but they did find some. The ironic thing is that as crazy and despotic Hussein was, I think one, he thought he could out bluff us, and two, he had enough secular rationality that he knew if he used them Iraq would become an apocryphal fairy tale in history. With Iran, you are dealing with zealots. Ayn Rand said something to the effect that reason is not automatic: Those that deny it cannot be conquered by it. Man can be a very irrational beast and those are the people to be afraid of, anyone that believes beyond reason.

Did I explain myself enough?

Héctor said...

Quite, thanks :o)
Anyway, I still think it's very suspicious that many Bush cabinet members have been employed (or continue to be) by big oil corporations. By the way, wasn't Hussein supported by the US against Iran's Aytollah?.
Whatever the reason for the war on Iraq was, I don't think we'll be hearing it from any government soon.
Hussein did use Mustard Gas (and other chemical weapons) against internal enemies, in the 90s... Why attacking him about 10 years later? I don't think it was because of Clinton, because he did intervene in the Kosovo conflict.
I agree, zealots (right or left) are among the scariest things on Earth.

The Right Guy said...

You have to remember that Bush relies heavily on loyalty and cronyism. These are people he knew, or his dad did and there was oil in the family. Politics can be like that for either side. One thing you should look at too. Many politicians or their families work for hedge funds. Chelsea, Gore and Edwards pop out right away. I will say this, while I may do postings that seem edgy, I am mostly trying to provoke commentary. It doesn't seem to work well. May be too many people agree with me or they think I am nuts. Oh well. :) The truth is always somewhere in the middle, with everything.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails