Material Grounds of U.S. Aggression, was Re: Bush-Hitler

[Peter K.]

Taking a break from his usual scolding Carrol inquires:
>More crudely: Is the U.S.
>_forced_ to become more openly aggressive in the world. Someone said of
>Napoleon, "He has to be always doing something." (Not accurate -- quoted
>from memory.) Is this now true of the U.S. position in the world?
>
>(These questions presuppose that imperialism is the mode of existence of
>modern capital, not a choice or a policy. They ask whether that mode of
>existence has become more constrained in its policies.)

Obiviously not, which is why you're getting opposition from echt-
establishemnt folks like Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and
Eagleburger and right-wing populists like Pat Buchanan.

The former don't want their ME client-state system disrupted,
the latter only like foreign policy adventures that benefit
white Christian America like fighting "Communism" in
Central America or supporting Christian Croats in the
Balkan wars.

I know hypotheticals are beyond the grasp of your
imagination, but maybe things would be different if so
many Jews had not fled Europe for America and had
not become its most successful minority.

Peter