A Conservative's View (albeit not my own)

In the March 2004 issue of the American Conservative Magazine, pundit Pat Buchanan wrote an article called "No end to War". In it he details what he sees as the danger of the neocons leading American down a route that would embroil it in endless conflict and ultimately cost it its power. He argues that US ties to Israel, misplaced liberal ideals with a militant twist, and an abandonment of US restraint will end up in defeat.
"The long retreat of American empire has begun" writes Buchanan. I feel this is an interesting statement coming from a man like him regarding the current adminstration's policies. It raises two questions. First, if America is an empire, is its current extension the beginning of the end? Second, are we willing to relinquish our status as the global power/empire?
I think the first answer is problematic. The current situation could help or hinder America's as an empire. In the short run it may end giving it greater power and influence in the Middle East. However we are already seeing the problem of America already becoming over extended with its incursion in Iraq. The question of North Korea and Iran looms heavy but the only recourse we have is through the UN which may in fact be a good thing. If a real threat did present itself (as they sometimes do even tough those of us on the left wish we could wish them away like a bad dream), America as an empire would be hard pressed to do anything without taking drastic measures such as a draft.
The second answer is one that deserves close attention. Buchanan is clearly of the mindset that we should not give up our status as an empire because it ultimately benefits America. On a basic level I agree with him. While it may seem immoral, I would rather the US be the main power broker. I do feel that being an empire and being somewhat morally decent are not incompatible. It would be naive to think that the US empire could create a better world, however it could do some good in areas such as the Sudan or in promoting better business practices in the World Bank and WTO.
Anyhow have a good weekend. Here is a link to the article.

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/print/coverprint.html

The end of the world....maybe

NY Times - North Korea with Nuclear Weapons (also linked by Laura)

It does concern me that such an unstable country, one that we do not have good relations with, has claimed to achieve nuclear weapon status. I think what concerns me more though is the doubts expressed in the article as to whether North Korea was really successful in setting off the nuclear bomb, or if it was a failure or some other type of explosive.

The article also mentions the statement made by Bush in 2003 about the US not tolerating a nuclear-armed North Korea. The US will now turn to the UN to figure out what to do next.

However, one positive thing that the article touches upon is that it seems that China is not thrilled with North Korea having nuclear weapons either. The first thing China did after being warned of the tests was to contact the US. So it seems as though China will not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea, just as the US will not tolerate it.

We'll have to wait and see where things go over the next week. First they have to actually confirm that North Korea did set off nuclear bombs by using "sniffer planes". So we'll have to wait and see whether these claims are justifiable.

The end of the world...maybe???

Ok, I undestand that we (as the Western world) are afraid of North Korea as a possible threat, but are we at the same time all aware of how much nuclear potential rests in our countries and in the USA in particular...

This is what I found online, a short summary of 50 interesting facts concerning US nuclear weapons (50 Facts about U.S. Nuclear Weapons) .

Isnt't that threatening too???

WTO policies

At the MARCUS conference weekend I saw an interesting presentation on WTO/ IMF policies regarding transparencies. The person researched measurements of transparencies as given by the World Bank and others. She then compared them to measures of GDP and quality of life to see if the established maxim for transparency equaling growth was true. She found that there was no correlation whatsoever.

I think this is interesting because it highlights how the WTO, IMF, etc. ideals are often worthless because they are mainly suited to serve western business. Transparency makes business easier for the west because it frees them from having to deal with local regulation or other things such as corruption. It is interesting to see how one more policy of the WTO free trade regime is lacking in proof (others include deregulation, tax policy, and social spending). Good Night.