Was today the first day you have ever read this blog?

If not, do you ever read the comments?

If so, why are you asking these questions?

Glenn's blog is an ongoing dialogue. Everything you mention has been hashed, rehashed, referenced, linked to, you name it.

I don't think the majority of commenters on the blog are either pedantic or sloppy in their thinking. Glenn most certainly isn't. He is thorough, though. More than almost any other blogger out there.

So, as someone who reads Glenn's posts, and who reads all of the comments for each post before I make a comment, that you seem insincere in your efforts to contribute to the conversation is the kindest thing I can think of to say.

How has her task as trustee, on the one hand, for the advancement of the subject races, and on the other hand, for the development of its material resources for the benefit of mankind, been fulfilled? . . . .

Lord Frederick Lugard

You are getting very close to the crux of the matter with this brief essay. Britain was an empire that derived its power from its control of the sea and its efficient administration of its territories. So were the other European empires that emerged from the middle ages. While the advancement of the subject races may have been somewhere on the agenda, the development of material resources for the benefit of mankind (mankind defined as the colonizing nation) was alway number one on the list.

What has really changed the balance of the equation in the relationship between colonies and colonizers is the clear understanding by increasing numbers of people in the world of the role that the colonies' indigenous leaders play in the suppression of the colonies' general population and the extraction of its wealth for the benefit of the elites.

In an effort to put lipstick on the pig of Western imperialism, we have developed organizations like the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. But the West's monopoly on "investment" in developing nations is now being broken by China, the one nation in the world with deeper pockets than even the U.S. when it comes to reserve currency and liquidity.

That is one of the main reasons the U.S. is becoming increasingly militaristic when it comes to its relationships with countries upon which it is dependent for crucial resources such as oil. That is why we are close to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and other monarchies in the Middle East. The real problem is that the populations of those countries know this, they know our game, and are now prepared to play against us.

They don't hate us for our freedoms. That is the one of the few things they admire about us. They hate for trying to use the idea of our freedom as a means of taking theirs away.

What you are saying today cuts to the very core of our "war on terrorism." If we leave these people alone, they will leave us alone. It is not up to us to define freedom for rest of the world, not if our definition of freedom includes war, torture, permanent military occupation and the creation of puppet regimes whose only purpose is to aid us in the theft of another country's wealth.

It doesn't have to be this way. The U.S. can get what it needs from other countries using other than military means. China certainly does, and they are no friend to democracy or the rule of law. They just pay cash for what they want.

BTW, Tony Blair's close relationship with big oil and his abiding love for democracy in oil producing countries should come as a surprise to no one:

BP Chairman made Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe

The strength of BP's links to Britain's New-Labour government became apparent within weeks of their election in 1997 when they appointed former chair of BP David Simon (Lord Simon of Highbury) to a position in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) as Minister for Competitiveness in Europe.

BP is represented on a number of government QUANGOs: the Learning & Skills Council, Competition Commission, DTI Advisory Panel on Photovoltaics, Council for Science & Technology, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Advice Committee on Business and Environment, Industrial Development Advice Board, Public Services Productivity Committee, Scottish National Heritage, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, SW Essex Business & Education Partnership, and the Oil and Pipelines Agency.

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=289

Tony Blair knows that in the oil business, friendship is all about the oil:

Russia is already the single biggest source of BP’s oil; its share of TNK-BP’s output was 60% higher than its total US production. If anything, the company’s reliance on Russia will increase further over the next few years: the bulk of its booked replacements for its oil and gas reserves came from Russia last year; around a third of its unbooked reserves are in the country.

http://tinyurl.com/2lzhlj

That was a pretty traitorous thing you just said.

Just kidding. But you have to admit that the above sentence makes about as much sense as your last post.

Anyway, don't worry about Iraq. Iraq doesn't have nukes. Now, Russia has nukes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2091130,00.html

Don't you feel all warm inside knowing you and your beloved Bush administration have probably just undone fifty years of U.S. cold war diplomacy in just a little over six years. We might have our cold war back. Just like old times. You guys keep it up and we might all get to share in the nuclear holocaust you and your kind have been gunning for since the end of WWII.