Will the US be lured into the trap where total disaster looms?

[luckydog71]

Pure jingoism. You are saying that every other country is wrong/inferior in their way of life and system of government. It is fine to say you like your country, but by saying yours is better than someone else's you are going to put someone's nose out of joint.

Interesting westwoody... If I can presume you live in Canada.. Do you not think you live in the best country in the world??? If you do not .. move..

Best is an assessment of what options I have and what option is best suited to me... There are trade offs to be made.. given the things that are important to me - opportunity... lower taxes... freedom of speech... the USA is the best country in the world - for me. I would not want to live in Canada. Does that mean Canada is wrong or inferior. Of course not. It means that of the things that are important to me; the USA is better than Canada - for me.

You will have a different set of criteria to judge what is best for you.... most Canadians speak highly of their free health care... most Canadians speak highly of their reputation in the world.. So using your criteria Canada is the best country in the world. At least I hope you think that way.

If you think that Canada is the best country... it does not mean the USA is inferior or wrong.... it means you have different criteria for judging.

 

[westwoody]

LD, you are pretty sharp, sharper than a lot of your fellows.
At Expo 86 in front of the Soviet pavilion stood three American couples, all in their fifties or early sixties. One woman says "What's this place?". One of the men says "That's the Russian pavilion". Another woman says disgustedly "Oh we don't want to go in there, that's full of RUSSIAN stuff!" And they just walked away. Why are so many like that?
I have seen a lot of the world, more than most Americans, and I would never say Canada is better than someone else's country, that is like saying my mother is better than your mother, or more topically, my religion is better than your religion. How do you expect someone in France or India to react when they see Bush et al constantly refer to them in condescending terms as misguided or inferior? Constantly telling everyone else that you are the best is not the way to make friends.
As for moving to a better country, where would the USA be right now if George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and company had all decided to go elsewhere? If you don't like your country make it better, it is selfish to run away.

 

[georgebushmoron]

You guys have no idea how happy I am. That is, I'm happy the responses have all been so intelligent. I've read each and every post and I can see the thoughtfulness and lack of rhetoric in each one, and also the lack of accusatory and derisive tones. Not only that, there are pointed questions that challenge viewpoints. You guys are great. Thanks for responding to this thread with your excellent brains.

So … GBM, I believe you imply the U.S. must win the Iraq war… to avoid a war with Iran… to avoid impacting Iranian oil production… to avoid Chinese (economic) retaliation… to avoid U.S. bankruptcy… to avoid the implications to the world of a failed U.S. dollar.

No, I don't think that the US must win the Iraq war to avoid a war with Iran. Perhaps you think that Iran will continue to try to influence the Iraq war to the point where the US must meet Iran in a military confrontation. This is a distinct possibility, but I believe there are other ways around it. I believe a victory in Iraq will never come through military means alone, it will require the cooperation of the EU, Russia, China, and yes, Iran. The US will have to lead this in the beginning, and be willing to sincerely want peace in Iraq and give up it's power to control the government. This will avoid war with Iran. If war can be avoided, there would not be the prospect of Chinese "retaliation" and the rest of it.

Do we continue to give the U.S. a free pass in its global quest for oil… because the U.S. dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency? A free pass?

What's a free pass? All nations, be they China, Russia, France, have the right to militarize their economies. In fact, these particular nations behave in exactly the same way. Each disguises their actions, but effectively, they try to manipulate power and economic situations through the use of diplomacy backed by force. The only way to avoid overt attempts at doing so, ie: unilaterism, is to use the UN and its institutions to back International Law such that all countries obey and account for their actions. Sadly under GWB, the UN (and its institutions) were targetted for subversion by the NeoCon agenda.

It was another war, the Vietnam War, that drained the U.S. of its gold reserves – no longer was the U.S. dollar fixed to an ounce of gold – no longer would the U.S. pay it’s creditors with gold, effectively creating today’s politicization of the U.S. dollar where world currencies floated against the U.S. dollar and the U.S. dollar became the only global reserve currency. Another U.S. war…

An excellent point, however I do differ in your interpretation of history. In about 1971 Nixon made the move to "fiat" the US currency. This was as a consequence to pay for the Vietnam war, but there were two-fold reasons for doing so: to liberate the US dollar from fixed assets - thus allowing for debt financing and greater spending power, and to seize control of the world economy by making the US dollar as the defacto currency for trade in oil. It was a brilliant move.... probably the most strategically important move the United States has ever made.

Today’s close relations between China and Russia, coupled with their ties to Iran, bring forward a significant triumvirate to challenge the U.S. on all levels. Strictly on an economic level, would a U.S. war with Iran threaten China to the point where it would no longer buy American debt? There have been other crises in the past – even some associated with oil – where countries opted to devalue their own currencies, to inflate their economies, rather than risk creating a U.S. dollar crisis, because those countries held so many U.S. dollars/bonds themselves. Would a U.S.-Iran war cause China to use its economic hammer?… and risk the implications to its own economy?

I believe that an Iranian war would risk the 25 year deal China has with Iran for Iran to be China's main supplier of oil. Would China use it's economic hammer? Yes, because it would have no choice. And furthermore, Europe, Mexico, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and even Canada are markets China can develop that in time would overcome the US market. One reason that America is a prime market for China is not just because the economic engine is there, but because America has the greatest world influence. That influence will be lost should America enter a war with Iran, which it would surely lose.

The world is producing oil at 2% surplus. That means that increasing demand for oil can only be sustained if the increase is maximum 2%. America's thirst for oil has not decreased at all (in fact, increased dramatically over the administration of GWB), and China and India's demands are ever increasing. Iran is 4% of world oil production. Should a war with Iran begin, that production will halt. Oil prices will shoot through the roof. GWB will be tempted to open the tap to US reserves with the great risk they will be emptied in a matter of months, possibly weeks. Other oil producers will use this weakening in the system to manipulate US actions, particularly if they have anti-US sentiments. One way they will do this is by choking production periodically. It is not hard to imagine Chavez, the Saudis, and others to want to squeeze the US into defeat. As oil prices shoot through the roof, the US dollar will weaken. China, anxious to avoid economic collapse, will switch out the US dollar to Euros before it becomes worthless. The speculation of this will cause others to follow suit, driving the US dollar further down faster.

It’s long overdue for Canada to aggressively court trade/associations with China… to diversify and shift away from our too close ties to a U.S. that includes policies of unilateralism and militarism as key components of its foreign policy.

Canada will gain in the short run if there is a choke on oil production as a result of a war with Iran. But setting up trade infrastructure with China and the EU will take quite a bit of time. It will be very disruptive for the Canadian economy to do so.

It an error to think that China will become more powerful if the US becomes weaker. Most nations other than the US are not allowing the level of Chinese imports that is driving the Chinese economy. If the US can't afford the imports, China doesn't get the income.

China will not become more powerful in the short run. However, should the US become a prostrate nation, there will be adjustments in power balances and economic situations to create new infrastructures. China already has its tentacles out into nearly every part of the world. The list of nations China is dealing with is probably in the hundreds. It is hard to say whether or not China will become more powerful than the US, but it will certainly become more powerful than it is now. The US is not the only market (360 million consumers isn't all that much), and that market will become much less attractive if the US loses world influence, loses its position as the economic engine of the world, and is seen as militarily incapable.

There are no resources to invade Iran.
The idea of invading Iran is a pathetic joke and an empty threat.

I don't believe it is an empty threat. There are approximately 200,000 US service men that could be deployed if needed. Another 200,000 could also be moved from Eastern Europe and South Korea and Japan combined. Also, Israel, the true reason for US aggression against Iran, would probably add its own forces without much hesitation. The question is, would GWB be stupid enough to do it. Of course I can not predict what he might do. But American Senators both Republican and Democratic are so worried about it, that they are using every platform to express their worry. When McCain, Byrd, and other moderates speak in these tones, it would be wise to listen because these guys do not bluff.

US foreign policy has been the same since the mid 50s. We have changed leaders and we have changed control of Congress, but we have not have not changed our foreign policy..... Should we continue to be the policeman for the world or as others perceive it the aggressors of the world?….. I vote no

You are absolutely right that US foreign policy has not changed regardless of who the Presidents are or who has control of Congress. Be it Democratic under Clinton, or Republican under Reagan, US foreign policy has essentially been the same. I vote that the US be the policeman for the world, but in a different way. I vote for worldwide pan-Americanism. I vote for the US be the shining star that leads the world to peace, prosperity, and stability through a strong military, through NATO, through the UN, through respect for its Allies and its enemies, through the backing of international law, through proper fair trade agreements, etc. America is a nation of peoples from the world's nations, and it can do it if it so chooses. I don't want this unitaliarism on the foreign front, nor this despotism in the GWB administration.

The only way out that could achieve anything for Iraq would be to negotiate some sort of regional self-governments, enforced by other countries in the region. The US would also have to give up any claims to the oil. This would also be a total defeat for US policies, so it won't happen soon.

Sadly, I think you are right. GWB absolutely will not admit defeat, which is what will prevent him from recognizing the total defeat to US policies this has been. The danger now is whether or not he will make the next big mistake.

On another note, I don't see China doing anything to hurt the US. Kill our economy and China's economy crashes also. Who do you think buys those chinese exports?

The US market is only 360 million strong. There are other markets out there, with greater numbers.

I'm no economist, but consider a counter-argument. Maybe one of the biggest weaknesses the US has right now is that so many foreign powers control so many US dollars. If the US had tighter control of its own currency perhaps it would be in stronger position.

Maybe having the national currency as a de-facto world currency actually weakens a nation. I notice that the Chinese are very careful to not let their currency "loose" on world markets.

It is a big weakness for so many foreign powers to control the US dollar. It is the debt funded by these powers, and one day the debt must be reconciled. But having a defacto world currency does not weaken a nation, as it was one of the key elements in the US gaining predominance as the world's economic engine. The Chinese are careful not to let their currency float to artificially keep the value suppressed so that it is very attractive to buy Chinese goods. It is not to prevent it from being the defacto currency.

 

[Mr.O]

Triumvirate??

So … GBM, I believe you imply the U.S. must win the Iraq war… to avoid a war with Iran… to avoid impacting Iranian oil production… to avoid Chinese (economic) retaliation… to avoid U.S. bankruptcy… to avoid the implications to the world of a failed U.S. dollar.

Yes GBM is right the only viable solution at this time is to reduce the turmoil in the region, get the newly elected government to where it can function with authority & enforce the rule of LAW. Whether Canadians like it or not our biggest trade partner & in reality ally, is the US. If Canada were to abandon or allow the fall of the US dollar, to the point of serious economic reprocussions, it would have an effect on this whole continent, not just the US.

Do we continue to give the U.S. a free pass in its global quest for oil… because the U.S. dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency? A free pass?

Lets not oversimplify here there is NO "free pass"

It was another war, the Vietnam War, that drained the U.S. of its gold reserves – no longer was the U.S. dollar fixed to an ounce of gold – no longer would the U.S. pay it’s creditors with gold, effectively creating today’s politicization of the U.S. dollar where world currencies floated against the U.S. dollar and the U.S. dollar became the only global reserve currency. Another U.S. war…

Wrong, the "Gold Standard" was lost due to the ever increasing industrialization of the nations around the globe & the complications of dealing in a world economy. The US dollar was chosen due to the economic & industrial strength of that country at the time.
It had to do with choosing a stable currency by which other currency could fluctuate but still be traded.

Today’s close relations between China and Russia, coupled with their ties to Iran, bring forward a significant triumvirate to challenge the U.S. on all levels. Strictly on an economic level, would a U.S. war with Iran threaten China to the point where it would no longer buy American debt? There have been other crises in the past – even some associated with oil – where countries opted to devalue their own currencies, to inflate their economies, rather than risk creating a U.S. dollar crisis, because those countries held so many U.S. dollars/bonds themselves. Would a U.S.-Iran war cause China to use its economic hammer?… and risk the implications to its own economy?

Iran & China is a marriage of convenience & time will tell how long it takes Ahmadinejad to tire of the "handling" from China.

It’s long overdue for Canada to aggressively court trade/associations with China… to diversify and shift away from our too close ties to a U.S. that includes policies of unilateralism and militarism as key components of its foreign policy.

See above comment, Canada & this whole of North America will feel the effect of any significant slump in the US economy (they are our largest trade partner by about 60%)

triumvirate:
1. Roman History. the office or magistracy of a triumvir.
2. a government of three officers or magistrates functioning jointly.
3. a coalition of three magistrates or rulers for joint administration.
4. any association of three in office or authority.
5. any group or set of three.

 

[luckydog71]

LD, you are pretty sharp, sharper than a lot of your fellows.
At Expo 86 in front of the Soviet pavilion stood three American couples, all in their fifties or early sixties. One woman says "What's this place?". One of the men says "That's the Russian pavilion". Another woman says disgustedly "Oh we don't want to go in there, that's full of RUSSIAN stuff!" And they just walked away. Why are so many like that?

WW – Many people are like that because they are afraid. Afraid that if they get even the smallest challenge to their core beliefs; their core believes will crumble. How sad. How very very sad. The more I talk with other people the more I have confidence in my own core beliefs. Not because theirs is wrong and mine is right. There is no single core beliefs that are applied to everyone. I gain confidence in my beliefs because I hear their arguments and positions; I can measure them against what I think is right for me; and decide if my beliefs can stand the challenge. When they do, I am are stronger.

BTW – I was at EXPO86 – in fact I had a seasons pass.

I have seen a lot of the world, more than most Americans, and I would never say Canada is better than someone else's country, that is like saying my mother is better than your mother, or more topically, my religion is better than your religion. How do you expect someone in France or India to react when they see Bush et al constantly refer to them in condescending terms as misguided or inferior?

I too have seen the world. I do not think I have ever said the USA is better than some else’s country for them… The USA is the best country for me…

My mother is better than your mother …. For me….

When you use France in your example.. You hit my weak spot… France is a shit hole…. But India… there are 1 billion Indians.. I am sure the majority of them would say India is better than the USA. I am not offended by that claim.

As for moving to a better country, where would the USA be right now if George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and company had all decided to go elsewhere? If you don't like your country make it better, it is selfish to run away.

The founding fathers laid a foundation for this country that allowed us to build a great nation. If any of them could see how we have distorted their ideas that formed our constitution they would be shocked.

If you don't like your country make it better, it is selfish to run away.

You hit a chord. I was educated in Canada. As an adult I got to choose were I wanted to live. I love Canada, it is a great place to live and it has fantastic people. So why did I conclude the USA was better? It is a personal decision, but Ontario and Quebec controls Canada. What ever is best for them the rest of your country must accept. Oil prices rise in the 80s and the Canadian government pass a law compelling Alberta to sell its oil below world prices so Ontario and Quebec do not suffer. All of Canada must have bilingual packaging, but in Quebec it is against the law to have English signs. The government takes too much of my money in taxes.

I do not believe living in B.C. I had even the smallest chance of changing any of that. I left. Call it selfish. I decided what was best for me was to live in the USA. I have never regretted the decision.

 

[OTBn]

So … GBM, I believe you imply the U.S. must win the Iraq war… to avoid a war with Iran… to avoid impacting Iranian oil production… to avoid Chinese (economic) retaliation… to avoid U.S. bankruptcy… to avoid the implications to the world of a failed U.S. dollar.

Yes GBM is right the only viable solution at this time is to reduce the turmoil in the region, get the newly elected government to where it can function with authority & enforce the rule of LAW.

The existing Iraq government/constitution is viewed with disdain by the majority of Iraqis – it’s viewed as simply a puppet extension of the U.S.. You advocate sending in more U.S. troops – an escalation that would presume to “set things straight/right”… you are in the minority. What/whose rule of law?… the rule of law that stems from the current U.S. drafted Iraqi constitution? That’s the path you choose?

Do we continue to give the U.S. a free pass in its global quest for oil… because the U.S. dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency? A free pass?

Lets not oversimplify here there is NO "free pass"

Good to hear – how do advocate bringing forward control measures to deal with the ever increasing unilateralism of the U.S. and its world policeman posturing? How do you advocate establishing a “NO free pass” for the U.S. in it’s global quest for oil?

It was another war, the Vietnam War, that drained the U.S. of its gold reserves – no longer was the U.S. dollar fixed to an ounce of gold – no longer would the U.S. pay it’s creditors with gold, effectively creating today’s politicization of the U.S. dollar where world currencies floated against the U.S. dollar and the U.S. dollar became the only global reserve currency. Another U.S. war…

Wrong, the "Gold Standard" was lost due to the ever increasing industrialization of the nations around the globe & the complications of dealing in a world economy. The US dollar was chosen due to the economic & industrial strength of that country at the time.
It had to do choosing a stable currency by which other currency could fluctuate but still be traded.

Sorry, you are incorrect – please read up on the Bretton Woods system and the so-called “Nixon Shock”. In 1971 Nixon unilaterally cancelled the Bretton Woods system and stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold… a direct consequence of the financial state of the U.S. under the influence of the Vietnam War.

Today’s close relations between China and Russia, coupled with their ties to Iran, bring forward a significant triumvirate to challenge the U.S. on all levels. Strictly on an economic level, would a U.S. war with Iran threaten China to the point where it would no longer buy American debt? There have been other crises in the past – even some associated with oil – where countries opted to devalue their own currencies, to inflate their economies, rather than risk creating a U.S. dollar crisis, because those countries held so many U.S. dollars/bonds themselves. Would a U.S.-Iran war cause China to use its economic hammer?… and risk the implications to its own economy?

Iran & China is a marriage of convenience & time will tell how long it takes Ahmadinejad to tire of the "handling" from China.

Again, you are in the minority. For several years now Russia has been forging a strong relationship with Iran… as is China now – 30 years is a lifetime in a “marriage of convenience”. Has Iran tired of “Russian handling”? Will they tire of “Chinese handling”… I suspect not if they feel a return in kind.

Let’s see… guy doesn’t seem to like the term “triumvirate”… Russia, China, Iran… 1, 2, 3… any group or set of three, by guys own definition.

It’s long overdue for Canada to aggressively court trade/associations with China… to diversify and shift away from our too close ties to a U.S. that includes policies of unilateralism and militarism as key components of its foreign policy.

See above comment, Canada & this whole of North America will feel the effect of any significant slump in the US economy (they are our largest trade partner by about 60%)

Of course. That’s exactly why it’s long overdue for Canada to diversify – to replace and/or extend on key aspects of our U.S. trade with alternate trading partners. To reduce our risk associations with a U.S. that is increasingly isolating itself from its world partners.

 

[OTBn]

There is no good way out. They made a bad choice and they lost. It is a total disaster for the US any way it turns out.

The only way out that could achieve anything for Iraq would be to negotiate some sort of regional self-governments, enforced by other countries in the region. The US would also have to give up any claims to the oil. This would also be a total defeat for US policies, so it won't happen soon.

A fine analysis - but can the current U.S. administration even say the word diplomacy?

 

[Mr.O]

Anti-Americanism?

Good to hear – how do advocate bringing forward control measures to deal with the ever increasing unilateralism of the U.S. and its world policeman posturing? How do you advocate establishing a “NO free pass” for the U.S. in it’s global quest for oil?

Of course. That’s exactly why it’s long overdue for Canada to diversify – to replace and/or extend on key aspects of our U.S. trade with alternate trading partners. To reduce our risk associations with a U.S. that is increasingly isolating itself from its world partners.

I don't disagree that the current and past US policies are causing rifts in the Mid-East.

But the comments by you are certainly ANTI-AMERICAN.
Hey do you even know any americans?
Have you lived there?
You seem to have a hard-on against Americans.

I have lived there, I have worked there several years & I can say from personal experience that they are much like Canadians except for they are very patriotic about thier Country & freedom.
MANY good people down there!!!!!!!!!!!!

That does not make the US policy correct, hell 99% percent of the people really DON"T understand the real reasons for US policy, we at best take educated guesses. (you're no different)

The reason for why US is there can be found by doing some research into Paul Wolfowitz.
If other counties judged Canada by it's Prime Min. & Gov. (as so often I see here on this very board toward the US & it's Admin.) they would laugh out loud!
The Canadian PEOPLE make the difference!

I have good friends down there who are just as concerned with the current situation & don't bash Canadians about thier world views, culture or Gov.
Maybe that's because they are a little more mature?

Grow up!

 

[Mr.O]

Excellent!

I think the war in Iraq was doomed from the start for one key reason. To replace a totalitarian government with a "democracy" is a very time consuming process and really takes a very long term commitment. I think Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head in his comment about what democracy is "The rule of law, independent judges, the right of free speech, the ability to fire those to whom you loan power and private property -- unless you have all five of those in place, you don't have a viable democracy," Those 5 things take not years but generations and the will of the people to put it in place. There is not a history of democracy in those terms in Iraq. And I have to ask if the Iraqi people really want this at all?

If there is one thing the American people can't stand it is long wars with little perceived progress. This is where we are now. I cannot forgive GWB for not realizing this basic trait of the americian people.

Unfortunately, no one can unscramble this egg now. So why did we scramble it in the first place? But that is another question.

I think US troops will leave before the job is done. The Americian people are tired of this war, right or wrong. I don't see what a "surge" of troops will do. Maybe with more troops it will suppress the violence for a while, but things will be back to business as usual as soon as the troops start to go home. I think untimately Iran will spread it's influence into Iraq and take it over when the US leaves. I don't think the US will go to war with Iran. They have way too much military & economic power. Considering the impact 4 years of war in Iraq has had on the US military - I think the body count would be quite high.

On another note, I don't see China doing anything to hurt the US. Kill our economy and China's economy crashes also. Who do you think buys all those chinese exports?

Now here is the most objective, well thought commentary I have seen on this so far!

Any one taking notes?

Did'nt think so.

Now go back to your ranting & raving... this was only a momentary pause of rationality.

 

[OTBn]

Good to hear – how do advocate bringing forward control measures to deal with the ever increasing unilateralism of the U.S. and its world policeman posturing? How do you advocate establishing a “NO free pass” for the U.S. in it’s global quest for oil?

Of course. That’s exactly why it’s long overdue for Canada to diversify – to replace and/or extend on key aspects of our U.S. trade with alternate trading partners. To reduce our risk associations with a U.S. that is increasingly isolating itself from its world partners.

I don't disagree that the current and past US policies are causing rifts in the Mid-East.

But the comments by you are certainly ANTI-AMERICAN.
Hey do you even know any americans?
Have you lived there?
You seem to have a hard-on against Americans.

I have lived there, I have worked there several years & I can say from personal experience that they are much like Canadians except for they are very patriotic about thier Country & freedom.
MANY good people down there!!!!!!!!!!!!

That does not make the US policy correct, hell 99% percent of the people really DON"T understand the real reasons for US policy, we at best take educated guesses. (you're no different)

The reason for why US is there can be found by doing some research into Paul Wolfowitz.
If other counties judged Canada by it's Prime Min. & Gov. (as so often I see here on this very board toward the US & it's Admin.) they would laugh out loud!
The Canadian PEOPLE make the difference!

I have good friends down there who are just as concerned with the current situation & don't bash Canadians about thier world views, culture or Gov.
Maybe that's because they are a little more mature?

Grow up!

Hey font boy - to pull the anti-America card doesn’t speak well of your ability to accept that not everyone agrees with the current Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Would you pull that same card on the majority of Americans who also currently don’t support the Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq?

Surely you don’t interpret advocating a rebalance of Canada’s trade with alternate partners as being anti-American. It’s called risk management.

LOL – Paul Wolfowitz! The guy who, while at the Pentagon as deputy defense secretary, dismissed the U.S. Army’s estimate of troops needed for Iraq (re: General Shinseki)… the guy who in early 2003 said, "There's a lot of money to pay for this (the Iraq war). It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."… the guy who helped write the Bush Doctrine… the guy who was one of the key architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Paul Wolfowitz?

 

[Mr.O]

Wtf?????

Hey font boy - to pull the anti-America card doesn’t speak well of your ability to accept that not everyone agrees with the current Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Would you pull that same card on the majority of Americans who also currently don’t support the Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq?

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, your sounding delusional.
I think it was quite clear that my friends were "concerned" as well & yes the majority do not support the invasion now. The only reason there ever was support in the high percentile was because of false & misleading information from Cheney & Co.

Surely you don’t interpret advocating a rebalance of Canada’s trade with alternate partners as being anti-American. It’s called risk management.

LOL – Paul Wolfowitz! The guy who, while at the Pentagon as deputy defense secretary, dismissed the U.S. Army’s estimate of troops needed for Iraq (re: General Shinseki)… the guy who in early 2003 said, "There's a lot of money to pay for this (the Iraq war). It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."… the guy who helped write the Bush Doctrine… the guy who was one of the key architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Paul Wolfowitz?

Yea that's the guy, surprised you were able to gather that info.
But actually it is not the "BUSH doctrine" it comes from Wolfowitz & was submitted in the Defense Planning Guidance Feb 1992.
Was rewritten later under the close supervision of Sec. of Defence Cheney.
Give it a read sometime.

Try & not be like a Nazi toward Americans, in my book the majority are really good people.

HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS FONT?

 

[OTBn]

Hey font boy - to pull the anti-America card doesn’t speak well of your ability to accept that not everyone agrees with the current Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Would you pull that same card on the majority of Americans who also currently don’t support the Bush administration and/or its unlawful invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq?

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, your sounding delusional.

Here, font boy, help me read what you wrote…here it is - kinda reads like you pulled the anti-America card: "But the comments by you are certainly ANTI-AMERICAN.
Hey do you even know any americans?
Have you lived there?
You seem to have a hard-on against Americans."

Surely you don’t interpret advocating a rebalance of Canada’s trade with alternate partners as being anti-American. It’s called risk management.

LOL – Paul Wolfowitz! The guy who, while at the Pentagon as deputy defense secretary, dismissed the U.S. Army’s estimate of troops needed for Iraq (re: General Shinseki)… the guy who in early 2003 said, "There's a lot of money to pay for this (the Iraq war). It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."… the guy who helped write the Bush Doctrine… the guy who was one of the key architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Paul Wolfowitz?

Yea that's the guy, surprised you were able to gather that info.
But actually it is not the "BUSH doctrine" it comes from Wolfowitz & was submitted in the Defense Planning Guidance Feb 1992.
Was rewritten later under the close supervision of Sec. of Defence Cheney.
Give it a read sometime.

Try & not be like a Nazi toward Americans, in my book the majority are really good people.

LOL – in this context… in this Iraq invasion context… would that be, specifically, aligned with the Bush Doctrine (of 2002 - that Wolfowitz contributed to) or the Wolfowitz Doctrine (of 1992)? Specifically… you can handle specific, right?

 

[Mr.O]

Irrelevant

LOL – in this context… in this Iraq invasion context… would that be, specifically, aligned with the Bush Doctrine (of 2002 - that Wolfowitz contributed to) or the Wolfowitz Doctrine (of 1992)? Specifically… you can handle specific, right?

Give it a rest man your going off the deep end!
.

 

[sdw]

China will not become more powerful in the short run. However, should the US become a prostrate nation, there will be adjustments in power balances and economic situations to create new infrastructures. China already has its tentacles out into nearly every part of the world. The list of nations China is dealing with is probably in the hundreds. It is hard to say whether or not China will become more powerful than the US, but it will certainly become more powerful than it is now. The US is not the only market (360 million consumers isn't all that much), and that market will become much less attractive if the US loses world influence, loses its position as the economic engine of the world, and is seen as militarily incapable.

What you are not allowing for is the fact that China's citizens are, on average, the highest IQ in the world. Yet, despite the age of China as a recognized entity, China has never been the most powerful nation.

One of the things that makes China hard to govern and to keep as an unified entity is the high IQ of it's citizens. It's much easier to rule a mob of low IQ citizens than it is to get a group of intelligent people to all agree on a common purpose and a common stragety to accomplish that purpose.

For an easy example:
Look at a McDonalds. There are a whole batch of fairly unskilled people working under the direction of a set of instructions inforced by a marginally skilled straw boss. It works because the workers follow the instructions because their sole purpose for being there is to earn a paycheque.

Now look at a Lawyer's office. There is constant infighting, constant failure to meet goals, constant departures of staff. It doesn't work because each Lawyer and Legal Clerk thinks that they know the right way to proceed.

China will never be the major world power. They will never be able to get all of their bussiness people and politicians on the same path long enough to accomplish that goal.

I think the replacement for the USA is Islamic or African.

Moslems have successfully colonized most of the nations of the world. If they can resolve their internal religious problems, they could be the leaders of the new world order.

Africans have also successfully colonized most of the nations of the world. If they can gain a real leader, they could be the leaders of the new world order.

 

[MissingOne]

One of the things that makes China hard to govern and to keep as an unified entity is the high IQ of it's citizens. It's much easier to rule a mob of low IQ citizens than it is to get a group of intelligent people to all agree on a common purpose and a common stragety to accomplish that purpose.

A few years ago I was sitting in a meeting in China. I was the only non-Chinese present. The room was full of very smart people. The topic was the result of some scientific work. The senior person presented his interpretation of the results, an interpretation that was patently wrong. Most of the other people present knew it. But the presenter was the senior guy. His interpretation was adopted. They still adhere to it.

Not that my example characterizes China. But neither, I think, does sdw's thesis.

 

[squid]

No Quick Fix

This is probably the most interesting threads I've read on this board. There clearly are many more politically astute posters contributing to this thread. However, I have a question that perhaps someone can clarify for me. Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, has anyone in the current Administration stopped to think why there is such anti-American sentiment around the world. I compare it to the current war on drugs in the U.S. Let me first clarify that I in no way do I condone the use of drugs, but what has the present policy accomplished ? It is not just the racially discriminated or the financially impoverished that are someway involved in the drug trade. Multi-millionaire athletes, movie/TV personalities are arrested or are going to rehab daily. Free enterprise shows that where there is demand someone will step in to meet it. This question doesn't seem to be addressed. Which brings me back to my original question. Any poll you read shows that there is world wide anti-American feelings. Is it because of their arrogance ? Is it because of their blatant display of wealth ? Unless this question is answered with some honesty then the U.S. will be fighting wars around the globe against another opponent. Just me 2 cents.

 

[Mr.O]

Human Nature???

This is probably the most interesting threads I've read on this board. ...has anyone in the current Administration stopped to think why there is such anti-American sentiment around the world. This question doesn't seem to be addressed. Which brings me back to my original question. Any poll you read shows that there is world wide anti-American feelings. Is it because of their arrogance ? Is it because of their blatant display of wealth ? Unless this question is answered with some honesty then the U.S. will be fighting wars around the globe against another opponent. Just me 2 cents.

I think the fact that the US is wealthy is the reason.
I saw a quote online which read "Behind every successful person lies a pack of haters".
While I worked in the US a few years back I was very successful & although I was very generous to my friends & family I did note that things were said & some feelings were expressed with negative sentiment.
Instead of being happy for me they would tell me I was Lucky & it was just a matter of time before I lost it all or that I was exaggerating my earnings. (but not after I showed bank statments)
Apparently many did not believe that I should have been successful, I made my wealth too easy (according to them) & they felt they deserved my good fortune more than I did. When I lost the majority of my wealth in the Dot-Com crash in 2000 they were very quick to say "see I told you so"
I can only remember a couple that expressed they felt sorry.
When I came back to BC & rebuilt my success (but nowhere near previous) they were once again there to remind me that I was just "Lucky", my response has always been "I make my own Luck".
It gave me a real insight into human nature (selfish to the core) which I now use for my future business dealings.

I see a parallel sentiment around the world toward the US.
When Canadian Business & movie & music stars are successful where do they move to?????

Makes you think a little doesn't it?

 

[Mr.O]

Anything but Benevolant?

On an individual level, one can stereotype the anti-American sentiments from notions of arrogance and other personality traits. I am willing to bet that most people of the world do not hate Americans at an individual person to person level. My guess is that, most likely, the anti-American sentiments result from U.S. foreign policy, which has been bloody, brutal and anything but benevolent.

Wasn't it some American general or some high level C.O. who said, "War's a racket"? I think this guy commanded the U.S. campaign into the Dominican Republic about a century ago.

This was writen by a VERY famous Canadian!
Written in response to America bashing in the early '70's

The Americans

"The Americans" by
Gordon Sinclair

Radio Station CFBR 1010
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Broadcast June 5, 1973

"LET'S BE PERSONAL"
CFRB, Toronto, Ontario
Topic: "The Americans"

The United States dollar took another pounding
on German, French and British exchanges this morning,
hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany.
It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian
thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans
as the most generous and possibly the least
appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers,
I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse.
Who rushed in with men and money to help?
The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon,
the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi
is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy,
were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in
billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of those countries is today paying even the interest
on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the Franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the
streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that
hurries in to help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples.
So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes.
Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions
of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries
are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion
of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to
equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107?
If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except
Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth
even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios.
You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles.
You talk about American technocracy and you find
men on the moon, not once, but several times...
and safely home again.

You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs
right in the store window for everyone to look at.
Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded.
They are here on our streets,
most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws ...
are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home
to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will...
who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'.
Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build
or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings
that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age,
it was the Americans who rebuilt them.
When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke,
nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help
of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans
in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during
the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian
who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around.
They will come out of this thing with their flag high.
And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose
at the lands that are gloating
over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these.
But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians.
And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting
in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over?
has taken it all and nobody...but nobody...
has helped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL SCRIPT
COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD.
(c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR
PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN)
A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC.
578 HYMUS BOULEVARD
POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC,
CANADA, H9R 4T2

My God, how have so many Canadians forgotten their HISTORY!!!!!

 

[silver1spider]

I remember a quote in a history class. The West doesn't have a monopoly on foolishness, nor the East have a monopoly on virtue. I believe it was Voltaire

This is my own personal view on China and its emerging role. China considered itself as one of the great civilization in the world. During the 19th and 20th century,it had lost much on its prestige, through WWII, civil war, failed communist experiments etc.(Many lives were lost). It wants to restore its glory. The Chinese are a practical people and I would content to be being a bit short sighted. (i.e environmental and foreign policies) Currently, it is in the interest of securing natural resources all over the world. Its companies are not hamper by moral legal statures against doing business with countries with dubious governments or poor human right records. When China was prevented from purchasing North American resource rights, it turned to Africa and South America.

In a way both China and US are acting as major international players. They are both looking to ensure their continual prosperity. It is not about equality and respect... but about dominance. But unlike the US, China does not care to feint a moral position (about spreading democracy or human rights) I think make its goals more tangible. There are of course native Chinese dissenters at home and abroad, but they are not in a position of power or will be acknowledged.

I do not think China will be sending troops to the Middle East etc... I do not believe it has the capacity or the williness to do so. It is not practical. It will possibly engage the Middle East through proxy players regardless of its political leaning. The US blunders in the Middle East will create opportunities for China, giving her new anti-US allies Of course China will have to learn international diplomacy parlance, but with its growing power it can and will reshape conventional international diplomatic rules as it see fits. (Much like the US "You are with us or against us.") Its political and military dominance will be focus on Asia(Japan, Taiwan, N and S Korea, and India)

But it will be quite interesting to see in hindsight (20 or 30 year from now) when bureaucrats/diplomats can speak freely...and documents are declassified.

I would suggest anyone to listen to a rebroadcast of CBC "Ideas" program on
"The Secret Files of the Cold War". Allies are not as close as you think, and enemies are friendlier than you would have belief. Fascinating stuff

 

[Mr.O]

Very enlightening

I remember a quote in a history class. The West doesn't have a monopoly on foolishness, nor the East have a monopoly on virtue. I believe it was Voltaire

I would suggest anyone to listen to a rebroadcast of CBC "Ideas" program on
"The Secret Files of the Cold War". Allies are not as close as you think, and enemies are friendlier than you would have belief. Fascinating stuff

Very interesting stuff indeed!

Although we should not be surprised that each Country has thier own agenda & spying, espionage & counter-intellegence are just part of playing on the world stage.
It's been going on for years & will continue for many more.