When the US puts sanctions on exports of weaker countries it hurts them a lot. If Brazil and Mali put sanctions on US exports they hurt themselves a lot (by having to switch to higher-cost imports) and the US scarcely notices. Meanwhile, when the ruling classes resolve their differences (in the US's favor, of course) and make a deal, its always workers and peasants who pay the bill.
[WS:] May be, but it is the US workers and peasants who elect their imperial leaders and also fight and die for them, so the argument that something hurts the 'ordinary 'Muricans' does not carry much weight in my book. The bastards got what they voted for, which cannot be said about, say, Mali.
The point I was trying to make was that the 'free trade' spiel like a 'Christian love' - a verbal façade to cover its opposite - imperial expansionism, protectionism and monopolistic practices. 'Free trade' is only for US exports and products, whereas all other countries are subjected to US barriers, sanctions, and monopolies. Sure, the US elites are the main beneficiary, but it also trickles down quite a bit, so the whole Empire benefits.
The only way to counter that is to subject the US to its own medicine and force it to adopt free markets at home. It will effectively erode the monopolistic foundations of the Empire. From that point of view, the WTO is more effective than any other approach.
>From that point of view, it does not matter that free trade may hurt the US.
Actually it should. Like Andie, I am a retributionist too, and I believe
that perpetrators should be punished for their crimes against the humanity.
Wojtek