I never referred to enemies in my post, but the fact that you saw the implications is heartening. Bush's pugnacious policy declaration is hardly likely to reduce the level of enmity in the world. To tell nations who can be just as rabidly nationalistic as the US that they must swallow their pride and forever play second fiddle is not a formula for world peace.

Mary Anne did a fine job clarifying my thoughts as boiling down to the transformation from republic to empire. What's wrong with that?

I think it was LarryJ who first articulated what, to me, is a reasonable objection to the UN: It's not a democratic institution. It's a council of governments whose representatives were not elected by the American people, and it's a violation of our principles for Americans to be bound by its dictates.

The Bush doctrine violates our principles the same way. Citizens of subordinate nations would not be represented in the US government. To the extent that we exact tribute (as we're talking about "managing" Iraqi oil assets to "reimburse" us for the expense of waging war against Iraq), we would be inflicting taxation without representation.

There's a way to slice this Gordian Knot: Establish a genuine world government. One which mirrors the time-tested design of American government, with proportional citizen representation balanced against governmental representation, and executive and judicial branches.

Of course, the practical problem is that we're badly outnumbered by the rest of the world. Do we have the courage to follow our principles when we might find ourselves disadvantaged by a fair and principled system of world government?

Probably not. Thus the Bush doctrine, which abandons American principles out of fear, in favor of the unchecked exercize of power.

--Robert