adam wrote:
] Its a kinder, gentler imperialism.

Of course, that was a quazi sarcastic reference to a Bush Sr. campaign quotation.

] So the USA has crossed the Rubicon.

The realpolitik perspective is that there was never a rubicon to cross in the first place. Everyone operates in his own interest and so in a unipolar world the US becomes "world dictator" when the same action would not seem that way in a multipolar context.

But I think that Bush has in fact changed the rules of the game considerably and I think that is a reason that this war is uncomfortable for a lot of people.

] Imperialism is ok if it fulfills your definitions of
] freedom. Capitalism, US corporations, the American
] vision, a unipolar world.

There is no one outside of the radical left who thinks this is about "US Corporations." The US might have an interest in free market capitalism in general but they are not specifically pursuing foreign policy that excludes foreign corporations from the market. In fact, the concept a "US Corporation" is really becoming old fashioned in certain respects. Some corporations really don't have countries...

Other then that you're reasonably close to what the neocons think. However, the neocons are an odd group of conservative intellectuals. They have certainly influenced the Bush administration but he stops short of being a neocon.

The Bush administration is not pursuing a broad based strategy of reforming world governments in a particular image nor do I think that the US has the resources to do that if they wanted to. The administration is acting in what it feels its interests are in Iraq specifically, and specifically with respect to a broader fight against Al'Q.

] If the UN objects then use the veto or pretend no clear
] UN mandate is necessary because the French might veto.

Americans do not beleive that the UN should have the power to veto their military actions. There is clearly an attempt to demonstrate independence from the international system. There is a lot of frustration around about UN processes that put western nations on equal footing with terror states. There is also some frustration with the UN's inability to contain certain international conflagurations in the 90's.

I would argue that while some of these objections are realistic, in gutting these institutions without replacing them with something more effective the US is returning international law to a state of nature, which will ultimately result in serious problems.

] Will the USA invade again if a government which is
] unfriendly to the US is elected, that throws out the
] US corporations and renationalises the oil industry.

Not for those reasons, but any government that "threw out the US corporations and renationalises the oil industry" is likely to be a totalitarian one, and so there would be other problems that went along with that. Those problems might result in a response, but again it would depend on the specific *violent* threat the country posed to US interests.

] What right does a US administration have to dictate to the
] world.

Well, ostensibly the US is acting in self defense against a bunch of crazy fundamentalists bent on murder and destruction.

] Like Bin Laden violence is the tool of
] those who feel they cannot win an argument by rational
] means. I believe in liberal democracy and believe like
] Gandhi it can win the war on terrorism by satyagraha
] ('"truth force").

Of course, the truth that Gandhi was communicating to the British was that they would loose the impending war if they didn't leave. Having been through this with colonies several times in the past they got the picture and backed down. Sometimes you can't win the arguement by rational means because the person you are arguing with isn't rational. The British government is about the best adversary one could hope for in that regard. Al'Q is about the worst.

I'm not at all convinced that it would have been impossible for the international community to stare down the various countries harboring Al'Q and get them to crack down without a war in Iraq, but the fact is that in the wake of the Afghan issue the international community did not get out a head of this thing and insist that Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc take action, and their threats weren't credible. They did not do this because they did not care.

RE: Iraqis crowd the polls | csmonitor.com