>
>That is a slippery slope fallacy. I simply do not buy it that
>Washington wants to declare a war against all. For one thing, that
>would not be very beneficial to the US ruling class' interests. As
>Napoleon is believed to say, you can do many things with bayonetts
>except to sit on them. An unstable world poses a far greater danger to
>the US ruling class than a stable one.
>
>Wojtek
No, Washington wants empire, it wants to be the force that can overawe them all, and crush any potential challengers or anyone who won't comply. As for this being a slippery slope argument, that is not the name of a falalcy. You want a parade of horribles, I listed some of the 200+ US interventions over the last century, most of which were indiusputably dreadful. We are not talking about merely hypothetical menaces here, but a long and proven track record of violence on behal;f of wealth and power. Pursuit of stability, however, is not necessarily as high on its agenda as yours (or mine), or the US would not be talking about overthrowing SH and leaving Iraq rudderless and distintegrating.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx