"Mr Wolfowitz, a lifelong academic and diplomat with no direct experience of the financial world, is an incendiary figure in international circles because he has consistently pushed for an end to the US doctrine of containment in international affairs and believes the United States has the right to take pre-emptive action wherever it sees fit and extend what he has called a "benevolent hegemony" over the rest of the world."
From The Independent comes the disturbing sequel to my previous entry, "If Only This Were..."
It is beyond my comprehension that men bent on creating an antagonistic empire out of the United States continue to be placed (or nominated/suggested) for such positions as they have been recently. Paul Wolfowitz believes that it is in the US's best interest and duty to violently suppress any country that could possibly cause any trouble for our position as the world's leading superpower. Mr. Wolfowitz's vision will now extend to, not only bloody battlefields, but a starnglehold on nations' pocketbooks. This is not a gut reaction based on fear and loathing of the Neoconservative agenda, but a reaction stemming from the cry of justice through a compassionate God who loathes the oppression of human beings, whether it be physical our monetary. The fear that rises now is that this will be no mere sequel, but a saga of epic proportions with disastorous repercussions.
3 comments:
If the United States was not the world's leading superpower, who would be? Oh yeah sure, I'm sure the world would be better off without a leading superpower, but surely you will not argue that SOMEONE will take the place of the United States if it does vacate that position. So really, who would do a better job as the leading superpower?
Communist China? The same Communist China that is threatening to use force against Taiwan? The same Tinnamen (sp?) Square Communist China?
The European Union? Yeah, they might care about peace and justice. France and Germany sure talk a good game, but could they fill the bill? But would their reaction to injustice be the same as "a reaction stemming from the cry of justice through a compassionate God who loathes the oppression of human beings"? The EU is even more secular than the US. Could such a godless institution possibly be entrusted to carry forth God's policiy of liberation?
Who is left? The Middle East? Russia? Austrailia? Africa? Who short of Christ himself reigning over a physical nation of Israel in the new Millennium could possibly do a better job than the US?
Like it or not, SOMEONE will play the role of superpower. Someone always has and always will till Jesus comes. Until another candidate comes along, the US is the only one capable of doing the job.
You sound like you're saying that we're the less of two evils, and that what is happening with our appointments to various offices is ok and justified. I hope that I am wrong, but your arguments are not arguments at all. You You also refer to the EU as if it is paganm and the US is Christian, and that is laughable. Your view perpetuates our American arrogance and apathy towards the international community, but seems to be in step with our current political administration.
Tree, it's not just a financial position. It is VERY much a diplomatic position as well. Wolfowitz has plenty of experience in that arena before he became #2 at the Pentagon. Of course it's going to be a partisan appointment--it would've been regardless of the person sitting in the Oval Office.
Additionally, who pumps most of the funds into the WB? Does it not make sense that in order to manage the money, you're going to appoint someone you trust to be the head of the organization?
Post a Comment