>And what he said in the mid-1990s about the pivotal geostrategic
>position held by the Bosnian Muslims? And the claim in the fall of
>2001 "'Western Civilization' was basing its plans on the assumption
>that they might lead to the death of several million innocent
>civilians"? And the claim that the Taliban forces displayed
>"astonishing endurance" in their fight against the U.S., its allies,
>and the Northern Alliance?
etc etc. It seems to me that people who are uncomfortable with talk about U.S. imperialism like to seize on these things so they don't have to talk about imperialism - or better still, find comfort in discovering the errors of a leading critic of imperialism. So I'm wondering, Brad. You're clearly somewhere between intrigued by and reluctantly sympathetic with a discourse further left than you. Do you think that the reason U.S. per capita income is four tiems Mexico's, eight times the Philippines, and 22 times Haiti's has anything to do with imperialism (or empire or Empire), some political hierarchy of domination? Or is there no such thing as imperialism?
Doug