taken my sobriquet in vain:

I'd categorize your debate strategy here as ~ Ashleigh Brilliant's, In the end, everything is related to.. everything else.

A Revealed-Truth with which I would never be so foolish as to disagree. And.. undeniably this precept is the mother's milk of all international diplomacy / tact etc. wherein each spokesperson, in highly ritualized manner - attempts to portray the large Concern felt by (his) people for the (addressee's) people.

The trouble I see with attempting to achieve this highest scale of Consideration is, not merely the attention span of all parties + their historical memory, but - the sheer human impossibility of even coming close. This, even in the rarest of cases: where there is a genuine mutual desire to do so.

I don't believe that you think it's possible either, unless you do Not believe that we (US) operate on largely Machiavellian principles, ~ those of enlightened self-interest. If that is so, we are most often Not 'considering the overall health of the world-complex'.

(We could digress and discuss the Marshall Plan - a component of which was (almost undeniably?) such altruistic motives. To claim that these were unalloyed humanitarion motives however.. is where the long thread would just begin.)

Maybe my mind operates differently from yours (!?) but I often find that reducing multifarious 'considerations' to a few simple questions - can lead to listing of those multis in some semblance of priority. (I don't know if that's Brandioch's point)

Lastly, I believe that *many* of our (US) worldwide dilemmas exist for us because: we WON'T stop, look around - and go back to some first principles to be debated or at least shared.. with the interested few who trouble to vote (on anything). In present context an obvious example would be:

WHEN are we going to address pointedly, our profligacy with energy usage? We can raise 'efficiency' in countless areas - where we have done so already, in just a few. Imagining that petroleum shall suffice forever IS the POV of the ostrich.

And I agree with Brandioch ~ that: [oil] is all we think about, however intermixed occasionally with ~worldwide considerations. We can continue with this style so typical of the bizness Quarterly mentality - per usual - or, we could do better. (And if we did - maybe have fewer Quarterly-type wars?)

Thus far we appear as disinterested as always, in "looking at root causes" of our discontent. Maybe that's too radical a concept. [pun intended]




Ashton