The terminology is accurate enough, according to the rules of Anglo-Americandiscourse, which defines "the world" as the political class inWashington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specificmatters). It is common, for example, to read that "the world" fullysupported George Bush when he ordered the bombing of Afghanistan. That may betrue of "the world," but hardly of the world, as revealed in aninternational Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support wasslight. In Latin America, which has some experience with U.S. behavior, supportranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama, and that support was conditional uponthe culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the FBIreported), and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). Therewas an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures,rejected out of hand by "the world."