I wish you'd read my notes. I hate repeating myself. Pay attention. There was Gulf I. Saddam was not defeated. The war didn't end. There was a truce. There was only one war that extended from Gulf 1 to Gulf 2. Think about it. Gulf 1 never ended. It was never declared over. There was only a truce. Saddam was supposed to live up to the truce. He didn't. He set out to punish people who had turned against him so American and British plance overflew Iraq from the time of Gulf 1 to Gulf 2. I really do hate repeating myself. During the interim between Gulf 1 & Gulf 2 a great number of UN resolutions were issued against Saddam requesting certain sorts of compliance. Saddam pretty much stayed in violation during the entire time. The key stumbling block that sent the US back to Iraq was Saddam's continual flaunting of the UN resolutions. I fail to see why you don't understand this. And good grief, the point was Fukuyama and Barnett. What is wrong with you? I wrote a note entitled "On the Prospect of World Peace" in which I asked the question of pacifists, since Fukuyama and Barnett have a process for obtaining world peace and you, the pacifists, aren't you interested in supporting this process. Read your note below and see how ridiculous it sounds. You have once again taken a discussion into the irretrievable land of obfuscation so dense that it is irretrievable. I have no idea how you got there. We can't disagree. We aren't even in the same world. I simply can't understand how you can get so mixed up. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:50 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace You're talking about Gulf I. You know nothing whatsoever about Gulf II. Galbraith is the book, not the website; it's the reality of what's going on on the ground. The point is, focusing on Fukuyama and Barnett's ideological pie in the sky instead of dealing with what's going on on the ground is why Iraq is where it is today. We have to agree to disagree. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 9/5/2006 12:32:07 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace Gad, Irene. I cant get past your second sentence. No, no, that is not true. That is not Fukuyamas focus and it isnt Barnetts focus. It isnt even Huntingtons focus. It is hard to move from that mistake to your subsequent sentences, but as I wrote elsewhere, there is a non-proliferation treaty that many nations have signed. And you keep making the mistake of saying that the US caused the Iraq problems. That isnt true. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Did you forget that? The Gulf War never ended. Did you forget that? There was a treaty that Saddam violated. Did you know that? The US and Britain overflew Iraq all the years until they returned because saddam violated his treaties. Saddams Iraq was a Rogue State and he led others to believe that he had WMDs. Did you know that? He refused to comply with UN resolutions. Did you know that? He violated and made a mockery of the UN food for oil arrangement. Did you know that? What in all of that tells you that the US is the cause of all its problems there? I wish you would give up this erroneous and discredited nonsense. You then follow with a lot of Islamic stuff you got from some web site. Most of it seems true, but it is not particularly relevant as far as I can see. What does this have to do with the Fukuyama/Barnett plan for World Peace. I already said that Fukuyama disagreed with the invasion of Iraq; so youre saying that it isnt going well (whether it is or not) isnt relevant to the discussion in that Fukuyama already predicted that. Furthermore, the Fukuyama End of History is not dependent upon the U.S. I dont know where you got that. And it isnt correct to describe Liberal Democracy as taking over the world. Thats not a correct way of looking at the matter. A nation becomes a Liberal Democracy because the people like its freedom, entrepreneurs like the opportunities to become rich and governments like the taxes that roll in. A Liberal Democracy doesnt take over anything. State run and capitalism are contradictions. The China isnt State Run Capitalism because if the economy were state run it would be socialism. The government is concerned about retaining power but the economy is largely free. The Chinese economy is far more fragile than ours. People are predicting that because of its size it is a major player despite the poverty, but once workers start earning more then it will follow the way of all Liberal Democracies. Remember, there was once a time not so long ago when it was imagined that Japans economy would surpass the U.S. economy. It didnt happen. Chinas economy is predicted to grow 10% this year compared to the U.S. 3.6% but dont forget that since the US represents 1/3 of the worlds economy 3.6% of the American economy is much greater than 10% of the Chinese economy. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:48 AM To: lit-ideas Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace I started a reply to your other post, but it can apply to this one. This [the focus on liberal democracy] assumes that the U.S. is the end all and be all of everybody's attention. It doesn't take into account (1) that countries with nuclear weapons have never used them and tend to be more responsible after they acquire them; (2) that the U.S. is the cause of many of its problems (in Iraq the U.S. is the cause of ALL of its problems); and (3) it doesn't take into account the intricacies of the Islam world. Right now in Iraq (reference is Galbraith) the Salafis, a branch of Sunni Muslims, have essentially excommunicated (declared takfir) the Shiites, meaning that Shiites can be killed and their property taken at will. Mainstream Sunni theologians reject that any Muslim can excommunicate another Muslim; they say only Go d can do that. In the meantime, a Sunni-Shiite civil war (which according to Galbraith&nb sp;may have started as early as August 29, 2003) serves the interests of both wings of the insurgency (Ba'ath and al-Qaeda). These are intricacies that are lost in the furor over whether liberal democracy will take over the world. Either we have absolutely, utterly no clue what's going on in the world (a very distinct probability), or it's so overwhelmingly complicated that we focus on abstract ideological arguments as a way of escaping the complexity. So we turn around and say we're the center of the world, see, that's why they're all out to get us. We took the small group of weirdos that al Qaeda had been and through our obsession with this ridiculous neocon liberal democracy ideological distraction, made al Qaeda much more powerful, entrenched them as a movement, and sowed the seeds for who knows what. Regarding China, they're a hybrid of state-run and capitalism. They still regulate free speech. They have actual little icons (cars I think) that go across people's computer screens reminding them that Big Brother is watching. They also have over a billion people still living in abject poverty, and pollution to the point where these may become socially destabilizing forces, particularly the pollution. There's no way to put China into a neat box vis-a-vis liberal democracy. Economically they are at this moment a distinct challenge. They're growing at something like 10% a year while we're doing something like 3% and looking at a recession again. Not that we're collapsing any time real soon (I hope), but China is definitely a contender. If we get into a war with Iran, things could change. Regar ding what you say about Germany, that's exactly what we did in Iraq, forced democracy on them, historic al precedent that went unheeded. You keep repeating that LB's don't war with LB's except when they do, and when they do, boy do they war. That's all I have time for. See ya.