>--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
>>
>> >> (though now they're curiously appealing to the
>> non-U.S. elements to
>> >> demand a Magna Carta).
>
>Look, it's not clear that they are "APPEALING" to the
>non-US elements to demand a Magna Carta. That is one
>possible reading of the text, and at first I thought
>that they were making such an appeal. However, on
>further reading, it appears to me (and others) that
>they are describing a situation- the one in Iraq-
>where the US has tried unilateralism, it has failed
>and so they must take into account the "aristocracy":
>those other leading capitalist countries. The US
>would love to continue down the Neo-con unilateral
>road, but it's just not viable. My point is that H&N
>may be DESCRIBING a situation, NOT PRESCRIBING a
>remedy.
Ok, you could read it this way, but it's kind of ambiguous. I've been meaning to write Michael Hardt for a clarification.
Doug