the first term should be obvious--you might not agree with the steps of the interpretation, but that it is a legitimate reading of bushwar is not in doubt (think unsc)...
on the term colonial: this is more polemical---the "importing" of "democracy" at the end of a gun barrel by imperial powers who legitimate themselves with racist, patronizing assumptions about the nature of the people receiving the "gift" of american-style politics. again, not an other-than accurate description of bushwar in its present, sorry state.
robespierre already understood what the bush folk are unlikely to ever figure out:
Quote:
The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political
thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in
hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and
constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress
of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson
of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force.
Signed,
The Incorruptible
Paris, 1791
|
http://counterpunch.org/robespierre07302004.html