Francis Fukuyama: Back To The End Of History

We are reaching too far. Wat has Iraq gotten us? We should NEVER engage in nation building, since the nation we are trying to rebuild HATE us. Our priorities are screwed up, and the real problem was in A-stan, and Pakistan. Now we have an angry Bear to deal with, allies who don't honor thier commitments, so where does that leave us? Charity starts at home, and we should send Iraq a bill for wat we spent. Wat is so sad is there can be no price put on the people we lost. Now, they are kicking us out. We should maintain a strong military presence in Kurdistan, since they are practically thier own country. The Shia hate us. The Sunni's work for the highest bidder. Wat happens when US troops leave? The Shia will attempt to impose thier own rule in Iraq, with the help of thier "brothers" in IRAN. Bad play Dubya, bad play.

On the mark!! There exists a subtlety here that transcends national politics. This is what the U.S. has created, a foreign policy that bigger than itself, in one word ..... we are a global power. Something China, Russia ........ will never, in our lifetimes ........ create ........... these are all based on the Declaration of Independents and the Constitution, a couple of must reads for any internationalists today ...............military power, compromise, and negotiation ??????..the only way to true world power ???..without which China and Japan would call in any outstanding loans and bankrupt us .. effectively calling us a fraud ?????? that is the reality of today ?????? we cannot function without Asia ???.. and paradoxically ???.. Asia cannot function without us ???. We provide the framework .. they provide the function ??????the only alternative is anarchy

Fukuyama loves his theory and does not want to accept the reality. This was a problem of many Soviet leaders.

Such theories as at Hukujamy can be moulded as from the conveyor. 1) to find that a thread and to declare it that that all want without the proof 2) to declare that all history is an achievement of that that you declared the absolute well and further - details and a fiction with the adaptation to the necessary ideology For example all people on the earth dream today of a cud all political life in the world is a struggle for access a cud which is unique legitimate laziness in the opinion of mankind Papuans today manage human flesh, but it not a withdrawal from the theory because in the long term they will understand that a cud better and will start to struggle for access to a cud a conclusion - only those countries at which is cud factories are civilised and is an example of the future all mankind I for example I do not see the big persuasiveness in a liberalism postulate (freedom from natural duties of the person and refusal of preservation of the subspecies) than in postulation of absolute value of a cud (c) Al28

Basically Fukuyama of the rights that actions of the USA discredited the policy concept "democracy". Though in a real kind it is difficult to name political system of the USA democracy, it is more oligarchy. Yes there are declared freedom, but in the majority of constitutions of the countries of the world they the same is, though these countries not always the democratic. In the rest I would not name democracy two-party system of the USA and presidential elections an electoral college. Direct will of the population of the country here is not present. And the rights of law enforcement bodies and special services are expanded to impossibility. Quantity of special services of the USA, one of authors names-16, speaks more likely about a police state, than about democracy, growth of number of power bodies can lead to their arbitrariness. The thesis of Fukuyama is besides doubtful:" Liberal democracy remains the unique legitimate form of government accepted by various strata of society ". Legitimacy of a form of government depends besides on population will, and it can be a miscellaneous

Here to you M.Veber who distinguished 3 types of legitimacy: traditional domination, charismatic domination and is rational-legal domination. To be legitimate, the government should cover 3 various levels. First, the government should correspond to the established rules; secondly, rules should operate, and the belief in these rules to be divided and those who corrects, and those who submits; and, at last, over whom is carried out the government , should show obviously the consent to such imperious relations. Depending on what of elements is not carried out, it is possible to tell about nonlegitimacy, deficiency of legitimacy. If legitimacy level in system low or the legitimacy bases are not accepted by the population it is compelled to resort to violence for expression of political disagreement. In the conditions of stable modes, «stability in time ??? to be exact, simply habitualness ??? acts as criterion of legitimacy of system of board ???». Fukuyama badly analyzes and predicts, he does not take the trouble yet in books to look, precisely to understand that designates this or that unfamiliar word of type "legitimacy".