> Gar Lipow wrote:
>
>>Hmm; I think that in the abstract there are cases where wars by
>>imperialist nations have to be supported. WWII comes to mind.
>
>
> To what extent and in what way was WW2 an imperialist war say, as was
> the Great War (before it became WW1)?
I think we are actully in agreement. Note I said "wars by imperialist powers" not impoerialist wars.
>
> Not all wars that imperialist nations engage in are necessarily
> imperialist wars. That might be the only basis on which one would
> support a war by an imperialist nation. That is what DP, et al base
> themselves on in supporting the war (on terrorism), as opposed to the
> one on Iraq and Saddam -- unless some have decided that they are
> persuaded by Hitchens.
>
>
>>But such support must come on a realistic basis. That is you have to
>>support intervention of the sort a real imperialist nation will
>>commit with all the side effects and consequences.
>
>
> Further re the character of WW2 and in ref to side effects and
> consequences. Dresden and other German cities were arguably a direct
> effect of the war and its viciousness. Arguably Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki had more to do with imperialism, the world order to be
> established after the war, or -- if one prefers -- inter-imperialist
> contention between the US and the former SU.
It was pretty widely agreed after the war that the bombing of Dresden.a civilian city without signifcant military targets gain nothing for the war effort.
>
> I think the real side effect and consequence of WW2 was the so-called
> 'golden age' -- the rise of the welfare state and the rise in the
> living standards of EuroAmerican labour. May not be everyone's cup of
> tea, but I recall Raymond Williams, who was in a tank division, maybe
> commanding one, giving some sense of the sentiment of the ordinary
> people who fought that war and put their lives on the line that they
> weren't about to be going back to the old dispensation, no bloody way.
You have a point. Not all the consequences were good though. The counteratt of the old powers started almost immediatly too - the cold war, the Truman McCarthy era in thte U.S.
>
> Now if one uses consequences as one way of gauging a war, then the
> current one looks really bad indeed -- unless of course one would
> attribute the setbacks to 'globalisation' to it, but I think that
> would be stretching it.
100% agreeement ; among them is the possible fall the current dicator in Pakistan to a coup that would push his nation ever farther to right - while possesion of nuclear weapons.
>
> In any case, by no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that
> however objectionable and repressive Islamism of the alQ sort may be,
> that it represents the real possibility of another world order
> incomparably worse than the present one -- unlike, say, the Nazis, or
> - -- horrors -- Stalinist communism.
In total agreement. I think this also applies to most of the post WWII sars that are cited as good wars, including the war against Afghanistan.
I may have failed to make my larger point clear. I pointing out the it is possible to have opposed every (or almost every)
I may have failed to make my larger point clear. I was pointing out that it is possible to have opposed every (or almost every) U.S. intervention since WWII wihtout being simply reflexive. That the burden of proof rquire for supporting such interventions is strong, and I can't think of many that meet it.