Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype
we have the power to carry an imperial doctrine, we should do nothing less and we should be the primary beneficiaries of our efforts. I can guarantee that in 30 years, if we have not established ourselves in a position of world primacy, then both China and Russia will be striving to replace us.
|
Okay, but couldn't you argue that a good emperor would both instill fear and demand respect? If you want to pull it from the Machiavelli playbook, if you must be feared or hated, then it's better to be feared. It seems that our approach abroad has fostered a good deal of hatred, too.
I don't think the argument here is that we should be really nice to Iran, for example. However, shouldn't President Bush at least
pretend then to be more worldly?? As the article said, Clinton slapped sanctions on India and they loved him for it.
I also think that if so much of this war is an ideological one, then we need to do a better job to win the hearts and minds, no? I feel we're at a bit of a disadvantage here, because the world community has already been turned off so badly by the invasion over WsMD (which even Bush today acknowledged as a mistake). Instead, when Bush visits these sensitive places, he acts like a rock star passing through a meaningless mid-western town. Then he sends Condi Rice to talk about the tough issues, thus making him look weak and ignorant, because he himself couldn't/wouldn't talk about them when he was there.....!