I was looking at it from the G7 pov, not a socialist pov; I am sorry if I failed to make that clear. They don't really care if we're the Texas Chainsaw Empire, unless they're dumb and subservient like the Brits it costs them little or nothing, impoverishes a competitor, and does serve a half-assed imperial protection role. If they were to be the Eurocop, it would cost them money and impoverishes them relative to
us. Needless to say it would be better for the world to have the Eurocops do it, but who cares what's good for the wogs except the commies and of course the wogs? And who cares what either of those groups think?
All that said I am enough of a Hobbesean to think that if the choice is really tyranny or anarchy (bad sense, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a good sense), tyranny is better.
--- Dennis Redmond <dredmond at efn.org> wrote:
> Andie Nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > But it is still better having some cop
> > on the beat, even if he's fat, stupid, ignorant,
> > drunk, and helpless in front of a halfway real
> menace
> > -- than none at all.
>
> Not at all. The choice is between a psychotic mass
> murderer, a.k.a. the
> Texas Chainsaw Empire (it's scary to think of how
> closely Hooper's horror
> classic foretold the bloodthirst of the Bush clan)
> and the Eurocorps. The
> EU spends maybe $220 billion a year on its military,
> around 2% of GDP,
> plenty for defense. (The figure is bumped up a bit
> by UK and France, which
> still have occasional delusions of thermonuclear
> grandeur, the rest of
> Europe spends 1.5% of GDP.) Bring on the twelve
> stars, I say.
>
> -- DRR
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com