randomWalks

Interesting article, but I don't see why France and Russia challenging U.S. hegemony is necessarily a "hopeful" sign. That's somewhat of a strange conclusion to an article that went a long ways in offering a history and explanation behind U.S. intervention. European powers have an even longer history of doing the same damn thing.

I guess for me that kind of formulation is sort of like saying that the U.S. ruling class is terrible (true), but that the ruling classes of France and Russia, et. al. are fine. I mean, these countries are standing up to the U.S. not because of some higher moral standing. They're protecting their interests now and into the future. The between argument them represents a rift within the international ruling class. I'm not sure we gain anything by taking sides in it.

U.S. hegemony is bad, but would French or Russian hegemony be better?

I agree with you, zagg...but you know what? someone has got to stand up. Until we can fix things, we at least need to contain things, right? At least that's how I'm seeing it.

But is that not what the massive protests here and abroad are? People standing up? Why are so many people going into the streets if we don't believe at some level that we should have a direct say?

To me this seems almost like a form of lesser evilism. We know the Democrats suck, but at least they're better than the Repubs so people get suckered into supporting them every four years only to get betrayed again and again.

In this case, we know that French and Russian leaders are merely looking out for themselves and for French and Russian business interests, but since that's "better" than U.S. hegemony we should support them?

I don't get how that contains things. If the U.S. is knocked off its perch by another superpower or by a group of other countries, why wouldn't that new power undertake the exact same steps? The Middle East would still be central for whoever the superpower is in maintaining power.

Seems like rather than supporting (either actively or tacitly) another band of crooks, we should be pointing back to the people flooding the streets and saying that the vast majority of people should be the ones running things in our own interests.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the antiwar movement should put forward an idea that merely puts the world at the mercy of another section of the same class that's already fucking things up.

many other governments, including Security Council members France and Russia, are challenging US hegemony

I agree with Zagg. France and Russia have economic and strategic interests in Iraq. If the roles were reversed, I'm sure they would be invading. Look no further than Chechnya to see that.

I definitely do not disagree with either of you. At the same time, I think right now it is important to have a nation or group of nations who are capable of at least butting heads with the US and preventing too much progress. Like empire gridlock or something.

I realize that this is a cynical way of looking at it, but things are looking kind of grim. I definitely do not trust any government to concern itself with the general well-being of the human race, but if they're busy butting heads, maybe we can make some headway.

The main way that imperialism has been held in check in the past is through national struggles for self-determination. We need to support the Iraqi people's resistance to the U.S. occupation as it continues to develop as well as any fightback that might occur in Syria or Iran or whoever the U.S. invades next.

It's a contradiction to say we support the victims of U.S. imperialism and at the same time to get behind other nations with imperial aspirations simply because they also stand against the U.S.

As I see it, we have a temporary convergence of interests with with Russia and France's rulers, but it's coming from an entirely different place. We oppose the U.S. government because we want a more equitable world and society, one without war or oppression. France and Russia oppose the U.S. because they want the same things the U.S. is getting: billion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq, domain over the Middle East, etc.

The main way we can support the struggle of the targets of U.S. imperialism is by continuing to challenge our government and trying to grow the anti-war movement and putting an emphasis on anti-Imperialist politics.

We also have to be making the connections between the war abroad and the war right here in the U.S.

Hope that's not too preachy.

It's not too preachy, but if you are addressing me, you are preaching to the choir.

I'm just trying to throw some ideas out there. The one thing that's always vexed me about rW in general is that while we link to lots of great material, none of us really opines within our posts. So I end up doing that sort of thing in the comments section.

The one thing that's always vexed me about rW in general is that while we link to lots of great material, none of us really opines within our posts.

I would like to see more of this in posts.

I would like to see more of this in posts

If people (even rW editors) didn't get so pissy when others argue with them, I think maybe you would see more of this.

zagg and I have had discussions about this, the general hissy-fit throwing tendencies of the left when disagreements occur, and the hinderance this places on an open discussion of ideas. Even among people that are generally on the same side of things. We didn't really reach any conclusions about this, though.

I don't think there's anything wrong with opining in posts. Some do it, some don't. I always value zagg's mega-posts about issues that have lots of links and opinion -- they're always really well done.

I would also prefer 'reasoned arguments' to 'opinions', but I'd guess that sentiment is fairly common, not to mention obvious.

LionIndex, in my opinion you stink!

Wait...was i throwing a hissy fit? I'm having a hard time figuring out what, if any, of this stuff is directed at me, but I have not felt particularly pissy or hissy about any of it. (except for, ironically, the accusation of "hissy fit" - if it does indeed apply to me somehow)

I've been thinking about this issue (the issue in the actual post and comment by Zagg) and I'll probably post about it later on my own blog.

Regarding the issue of including more opinion or "reasoned arguments" within the randomwalks posts - I enjoy just posting excerpts and links here because I freqently see something that is interesting but I don't have time to necessarily think through a "reasoned argument" surrounding my interest in it. That's kind of what I use randomWalks for - as a place to post those links that I don't have time to comment on...because I know there will be someone here who will bring up points and counterpoints.

Oh, and just so it's clear. I think you all rule. mwah!

Wait...was i throwing a hissy fit?

No no no! *None* of that was directed at you.

as a place to post those links that I don't have time to comment on...because I know there will be someone here who will bring up points and counterpoints.

That's the way I've always seen it too, just a place for links and information where the comments run a distinct second in terms of importance. I'm just saying that if we're going to start editorializing, at least make a reasoned argument instead of just spouting off about it like the last post by zagg (who happens to be an utter, utter moron).

re: "hissy fits."

LionIndex and I have had discussions about the Left in the U.S. in general and what I've perceived to be a desire to apoliticize activism. The Left is broad and is not going to always agree on every point, but I feel like sometimes debate within meetings is shouted down because it's "disruptive." Or else I've been told that people don't want to be "argued" with.

I feel like if the movement does not take up questions--such as do we support France or not--and try to figure out definittively where it should stand it's going to hamper its growth and ultimately how successful it will be.

But what I'm not saying is that everyone coming in has to agree to a specific program or anything like that. The bar should kept low--say not to war--but within the movement I feel like the more progressive and radical elements should be having discussions with the more liberal ones to try to create a more radical movement.

I wholeheartedly agree with this article. I view the US's power in the world as a hegemony, and that hegemony would be great, if it didn't have so many damned contradictions. Especially Bush himself, personally, I don't think he's doing anything for the US, rather, all his actions are to make him stand out as president.

But also on French and Russian hegemony, I doubt they'd last very long. The French especially, because they don't have much of an industry, they have culture yes, but how would they get to be hegemon if they lack the industrial power to become a true power. On Russian hegemony, it has the potential, but the fact that corruption undoubtedly plagues the Soviet Union lessons its ability to be respected. The fact that the resources are still not fully exploited means that it would take years for Russia to become wealthy enough to be a hegemony.