Peter: > It would have been wiser for the US at the outset > to have acknowledged the infeasibility of permanent > domination and used its waning power to encourage > systems of transnational governance and collaboration.
But I do not think empires are capable of thinking that way! I am not sure if it is the Bush Administration who is screwing the US global hegemony up, not that this is what you said. I happen to side with those who claim that irrespective of Republicrats or Demopublicans in power the US will try to further its hegemony. > Our planet is shrinking, common problems like finite > energy, global warming, and pollution are going to be key > and the old model of competing states seems unsuited for > these challenges. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Yet I still support the deployment of the so-called "nation state" against the so-called "globalization" (or should we say "imperilialism" as it stands)to achieve the above objective. Some sort of a "stagism" maybe, but in my heart I believe that this is the way to go. Of course, I have no proof of that this is the way to go. This is just a feeling. Those who are willing to change my feelings are most welcome to give it a try to change them if they care. Since most people who know me know that I am an "anti-globalizationist", or better said, "counter-globalizationist", they find it difficult to understand why I still support the so- called "nation state". Yet I still do since this is the only possible tool to use I can think of to counter "globalization". Any comments? Best, Sabri
