The New York Times is carrying a lengthy story about coincidence. It is a long and well written piece, and one that I found very amusing. Just I would not place much credence in coincidence. 🙂
The Bishop Colin Bennetts makes some interesting point in his article on Iraq in the Guardian today. Regardless of Mr. Barretts religious views, I do agree with the points he makes. The British public will find it hard to accept an invasion of Iraq if Blair’s constant dodging of the issues persist.
Some comparisons have been made by commentators recently between Hitler and Hussein. That the pacification of Hussein, rather than the invasion of Iraq is the solution, compared to “peace in our time” as Chamberlain pacified Hitler with the Sudetenland. I am not inclined to agree with this comparison. Mainly because Germany in the 1930s and 40s was only a threat to Britain, and what was left of her Empire – the sleeping giant of US imperialism was only awakened following the second world war.
Fundamentally, Germany was a threat to the existence of Anglo-franco dominance of Europe. Iraq, even with weapons of mass destruction, dare not use them, the retaliation at least by America would be total. Even if Saddam is a mad dictator, surely in order to stay in power he would not launch an attack on any country. Iraq has oil, this is, as far as I see it, the only reason for invasion.
Francis is at it again in his article in the excellent International Herald Tribune. I say nonsense since I do not agree with many of the things Fukuyama has said in the past. The End of History is the best example, a book that proclaims that liberal democracy is the be all and end all, and humanity has a reached a point that we cannot go over, that history will cease to be made once liberal western democracy has spread to the rest of the world. Or to quote Fukuyama himself “we may be witnessing the end of history as such: that is, the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government”.
What is ironic about his views that “the end of history was supposed to be about the victory of Western, not simply American, values and institutions, making liberal democracy and market-oriented economics the only viable choices”. History shows us not that liberal democracy is the be all and end all of humanity, taking its origins from Greek and Roman ideas, but that history does not end. Liberal democracy is not the be all, it is just another step in history. People like Fukuyama make claims like this in every generation, but are proved wrong by time, and by history.
The reason Europeans I think despise US unilateralism, is the European history is a patchwork of wars and battles, all fought by countries who believed they were right. America believes it is right, but since international war has never really occured on it own soil it has not learned the lessons European nations have.
I think to this extent Fukuyama agrees with me, but he fails to draw the conclusion I would from the 2002 rift between the EU and the US. That war, at some point in the future, is possible between the two most powerful regions on earth. I would say it is a distinct possibility for the future.
Seems that the US is considering trying out some new toys when it decides to invade Iraq. I find it interesting how many articles will appear in the run-up to invasion about new weaponry, whether its designed to kill people or not. Why not a stealth bomber that drops food in the millions of starving in Sudan (Bill Hicks!).
Some hope for humanity, that we are taking steps to get our asses off the planet. Our attempts at exploration are somewhat feeble and indeed under funded, but are very important if humanity is to survive the nest 100 years. Thankfully Nasa will be webcasting its testing of Mars Rovers for us all to see, and how they will work on the surface of the Red Planet.
Apparently there’s much hype these days about Blogs, can’t see what all the fuss is about. I guess this new competition is an indication of the growing nature of Weblogs. What I don’t understand is how anyone ends up staying on a page, if there are lots of links out of it, will people come back? I guess the Blogs themselves would have to be pretty damn interesting to keep people on their site, no matter how much waffle they go on about.
I decided today to start writing on the Net, at least here I can publish my own crap.