if being on top is not a fault in and of itself, then certainly attempting to maintain that with force & violence or other dirty means certainly is.
Let me clear things up here.
If a A attacked B then perhaps B's use of force might be justifiable.
International law, which the US has signed many international treaties including laws that make the crime against peace illegal, a war of agression, and under the Nuremberg Principles constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow.
If one found themselves "on the top", and let's be
conservative here, acting withing the existing legal framework. Being
conservative, no need to invent any new law or theory on this stuff. Being
conservative if one were attacked they would have the right to use force in response. Acting
non-
conservatively one might use 'other dirty means' such as invent one's own 'law' for themselves being arrogant and supremacist about it all, be belligerent, attack whomever they felt like and commit war crimes. from which all other war crimes follow.
the rule of law and/or democracy might seem like a pie-in-the-sky kingdom of heaven theory, but we don't give up trying to better our understanding and practice of it. Well, many havn't.
The early Soviet Union proved that the ideals it supposedly stood for could not be forced on from above.
Iraq is showing likewise for democracy. democracy is not top-down by definition anyway.
So maybe you want a democratic (adjective) political system (the other one above is, of course an economic system). Chalmers Johnson says South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan "achieved democracy from below", so maybe they are truer democracies than say, the US?
He also says
In South Korea and the Philippines, mass movements fought against oppressive American imposed and supported dictators
It is that type of "force & violence or other dirty means" I am thinking of, that is quite well documented in many places, that the US gov't is in fault.
And hypocritical since they always claim to be supporting 'democracy'.
Just because something seemingly always has been - 'violence or force', does not mean it always will be. How many individual people go through their lives without or doing minimal violence? I'm sure few have not killed a mosquitoe or ant...
I will not try to argue that heirarchy does not exist. I would lose for sure.
Just one example: There is of course, a heirarchy of skills. A novice baker has less skills than a baker who has been making pies all her life. But that does not mean the 'master' baker should have all power over the novice baker/student. The 'master' baker should not have the power to order the 'student' to say, do x-rated stuff with them. An obvious abuse of power/knowledge of baking. What would happen if a student's skills were to gain such as to seemingly exceed the skills of the master? Would the 'master' attempt to sabotage the student's goods? Wouldn't that 'master' baker be a jerk? Or if they used violence or other such dirty handed means to ensure their position? Would they be some sort of total piece of toilet flushings?
back to the title of the string:
I don't understand this "fill the vacuum of power" thing.
That it would be filled by someone if the US ended their occupation of
Okinawa and/or Japan and/or East Asia, since the cold war has been far over.
It's as if a removal of US tanks and planes and ships from countries X, Y, & Z, this would make some other country 'M' say to themselves, "hey, let's go put our tanks and planes and ships in countries X, Y, & Z".
I do not understand why someone thinks country 'M' would automatically do that. Just because country 'A' wants to maintain over 700 known/acknowledged bases in over 130 different countries doesn't mean countries 'G', 'S', & 'M' want anything similar to it.
I maintain that country 'A' wants to maintain that for economic reasons.
not only what the late & former US prez/general Dwight Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", so pervasive that individual huge military contractors have parts factories in all 50 states so they can argue they need to keep the war economy to keep jobs,
but also to prevent other countries from verying away from a corporate based global economy. the alternative of which does not equal communism or socialism, since corporations are legal entities, are different from 'regular' businesses, and not any sort of 'natural' occurring thing - the corporation is legally constructed. countries that reject foreign corporations in their country or even the corporate legal construct altogether are given some sort of derogatory label and viewed by US (and other corporate elites around the world) as enemies to 'freedom', even though the corporate form itself constructs legal privileges such as limited liability. limited liability is not a right, but a privilege. should you or i have limited liability for stealing from a store or killing someone? no. it's not a right, but a privilege.
US maintainance of bases in Japan helps to protect these privileges from local justice or democracy movements from below around the globe.
It is not China that is a threat to the United States, but 1) war that is a threat to us all, and 2) a false democracy that is really about ensuring privilege under the guise of equality and freedom.
That's rather long-winded, I know,
but i hope it shows that i am not delusioned by any false hope
of a Soviet Union model. But nor am i delusioned into thinking there
is anything remotely close to honor present in the existance of empire.
The DIS-honor of empire is so great that it negates into a black hole and
into an infinate number of continuous black-holes any other possibly existing honors that one might imagine to exist otherwise.
Futhermore,
Iraq is NOT a smudge on the screen.
It is a continuation of what US gov'ts do and have been doing for decades.
The thing with the Bush regime is that it is so blatant and obvious and they are horrible at p.r. Other US administrations are just more subtle about it all.
Ever hear of Iran/Contra?
Or Clinton, a list
Don't look back
or Kosovo specific:
The New Military Humanism book review
Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service
Pages from the Liberals' War
'truth is the first casualty of war'
Time for peace, empire is wrong and war cannot be trusted