It's terrifying to me as an American, as well. The presumption of a select group of leaders in the United States that the U.S. can act on its own power with "whoever wants to join us," simply because the U.S. believes itself to be the most powerful country in the world, is terrifying. Not only (and you're right on this, Tom) is it the very model of a dictator's behavior, but also because even an extremely powerful country with a select ally or two can still be readily defeated if most other countries feel compelled to do so.
For the world's sake, I hope it doesn't come to that. (Can you imagine how many lives would be lost in, for example, U.S. & Britain versus Asia, Europe & Africa?)

→ Posted by: john at February 6, 2003 9:42 PM

This is going to sound really trashy, but I keep thinking about that episode of the West Wing where President Bartlett wants to reign down hellfire after a plane is shot down with a friend of his aboard. Leo McGarry defends a 'proportionate response' in attacking the country that attacked the plane, saying to him, "We are behaving the way a superpower ought to behave. You think racheting up the body count's going to act as a deterrent?.... So my friend, if you want to start using American military strength as the arm of the Lord, you can do that. We're the only super-power left. You can conquer the world like Charlemagne. But you better be prepared to kill everyone and you better start with me, 'cause I will raise up an army against you.... Of course, it's not good. There is no good. It's what there is. It's how you behave if you're the most powerful country in the world. It's what our fathers taught us." [A Proportionate Response] I think that's all the world wants from the US - a proportionate response - and I'm sure we'll get it...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 6, 2003 10:08 PM

There is a part of me, bitter and angry and feeling betrayed by this present American government, that hopes that if America invades Iraq, that the rest of the world rises up at last and shows the United States that it may be a superpower, but if the nations of the world unite, it can be brought down. I hope that if America decides to pull a Nazi Germany on the world, that Russia and China, Africa and Europe, go toe to toe with America and Britain and not stop until they've brought America down to its knees, the way Nazi Germany was brought down. Because frankly, the America of the present resembles Nazi Germany to a frightening extent, and I mourn the loss of the America that my father knew, when he went there as a stranger in a strange land, from a country newly liberated by America's insistence on Britain's divestment of its colonial possessions.

→ Posted by: lashlar at February 6, 2003 10:56 PM

While it's terrifying to see the political leaders of the U.S. engage in totalitarian discourse, but it's even more daunting that the average citizen is adopting the same discourse. A frighteningly large number of people are just as intoxicated by America's strength in global politics and economy as their megalomaniacal leaders that they quickly forget the grave consequences that could arise from this. Woe is the day that the freedom with which they are able to voice their opinions is jeopardized because they've paved the way for even more extreme leaders to take their seats. As unlikely as this may seem, it's gravely sobering to see an increased prevalence in the type of reasoning portrayed by the two articles mentioned.

→ Posted by: Jen at February 6, 2003 10:59 PM

Just for the record - I've deleted David's post about the relationship between the Hawks in the American government and Judaism / Israel. I've done this for two reasons, firstly because it could easily be considered anti-Semitic, secondly because no evidence was presented to support it and finally because he didn't put an e-mail address or website URL on the post concerned.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 6, 2003 11:36 PM

I don't support a war, but do think that the internet - and, hey, TV too - is responsible for so much mis-information that it's no wonder that any right-thinking person has their doubts about what our leaders are getting us into.

I'm sure if you took a step back from the links and stories that are spread around - and just concentrated yourself on straight news conferences or transcripts, say - you'll find that Bush and Blair aren't saying or supporting much of what the bloggers, 'pundits' and newscasters are claiming that the pair are saying and supporting.

Hopefully that would work, anyway.

So, to shove all that into a sentence: it's the clueless idiots who run the internet/media who scare me more than Bush and Blair.

→ Posted by: James at February 7, 2003 6:36 AM

I cannot agree that the US is behaving in a manner which can be appropriately be likened to or described as "dictatorship", or that there is any moral or historical rule that requires states to submit their understanding of their own national interest to an international body before they can act on them. It is in the nature of states, and a necessary condition of their existence, that they must be free to do whatever is necessary to proect their people, according to their own understand of that. It is absurd to insist that the United Nations, with many members that actually are dictatorships, and the Security Council (which includes China and Syria, as well as Russia) is politically, morally or militarily entitled or equipped to control the foreign policy of the United States. It is, of course, distressing to find that there is a state with the power to do much as it wishes, something that has not been true since the the sixteenth century. But hurling silly invective around won't change that.

→ Posted by: charlie b. at February 9, 2003 3:34 PM

Much as any citizen of a country cannot act in any way that they see fit in order to do what they believe is in the best interest of their families (we would not expect a court to look favourably on a man who executed people because he 'believed them to be a threat') - nor is a country on the international stage able to act in any way that it feels is appropriate without regard to the views of the rest of the international community. The whole point is to stop rogue states doing tremendously damaging things. We expect that of Iraq. We expect that of the United States.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 9, 2003 7:08 PM

I am afraid that there is no basis in history or theory on which to base the claim that the "international community" (what is that precisely?) has legitimate authority to control the actions of individual states. While courts do indeed deal with the actions of individuals who might act according to their own notions of right, rather than the law, this is not true of states, and the analogy is inappropriate. There is no world government (and the United Nations certainly is not one) nor is there an international law, except to the degree that nations individually agree to it, and voluntarily abide by it. I would be interested to read the sources, in philosophy or international law, that establish any basis for the claim that states have permanently surrendered their claims to sovereignty to an international body; and the means by which that international body enforces its will against that of individual states. Claims about the so-called "international community" are simply personal opinion dressed up in a vocabulary that pretends to authenticate them. "We expect that of..." Who is "we"? And how do they arrive at their decisions and seek to enforce them? Not by any process comparable to the domestic courts of law.

It is worth examining the history of the United Nations to see what it was intended to to, and what it has done. The Security Council is structured so that any of the permanent members (which included the soviet union when that state existed) may block the wishes of the others. As a result the actions of the great powers are formally protected from any interference by any supposed "expression of the will of the international community". On that basis the United Nations stood by saying and doing nothing while the soviet union did as it wished in eastern europe. The only reason it was possible for the United States to obtain United Nations approval for action in korea in 1950 was that the soviet union, in a fit of pique over other matters, was boycotting the Security Council. If a resolution condemning the United States for any of its actions was proposed at any time in the future, the United States would be completely within its rights to veto it. Even if the United States stood alone, there would be no legal basis for coercing it. The only thing would be to expel it from the United Nations, and that would simply ratify a permanent disjunction between one state and the rest. It would not happen. The idea of recourse to the general assembly (full of the most odious dictatorships on earth) to coerce the United States would be equally absurd. Further, since the United States provides the budget of the United Nations, i am not sure how it would function without it.

So by what authority does the United Nations pronounce on Iraq? To exactly the extent that the great powers (and not the "international community") permit. If the structure of the Security Council allows countries that are not great powers to block the wishes of the great powers, they will be ignored, sooner or later. The accord reached over Iraq in 1991, when it invaded kuwait, was possible only because the soviet union was disintegrating, and no longer able to exert its accustomed influence -- and the United States was willing to do the fighting. Had any state on the Security Council stood up for Iraq (or against the wishes of the United States) the United States and others would have had to have acted without United Nations approval, or allowed Iraq to get away with it. Had, for any reason, the United States declined to to the fighting for the United Nations, it would not have had the power and the resources to do anything itself, and nor would any other member of the "international community".

For information, the United States has never acknowledged any international constraints on its sovereign powers, and did not join the League of Nations in 1920. It is worth looking into the likely fate of the United Nations without the United States.

→ Posted by: charlie b. at February 10, 2003 7:25 AM

Indeed, the United Nations has no right in law or treaty to deny Kuwait, the United States, Great Britain, and their other allies the right to act in their self defense against breaches of the peace, acts of war, and continuing threats to peace and security committed by the Saddam Hussein Regime of Iraq. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations guarantees these nations the right to use armed force as a means of compelling Iraqi compliance with international law and the United Nations resolutions. The Coalition nations are required to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council, but there is no requirement in the Charter of the United Nations for the Coalition nations to refrain from using armed force while the United Nations remains unsuccessful at compelling Iraqi compliance.

→ Posted by: Dallas Patterson at March 17, 2003 7:48 PM

BUSH SUCKS

→ Posted by: Bob at March 29, 2006 1:44 PM

Indeed, Bush sucks!

→ Posted by: Billy at March 29, 2006 1:49 PM