Bailout - Let's make a deal - another pork barrel

[ghaverkamp]

My only point was that I don’t agree with the view held by strict constitutionalist that it is the end all, be all, document for the correct charter of humanity.

 

That view, IMHO, ultimately is rooted in US American arrogance. This belief widely held by US Americans that their nation is unique and special, literally called by something greater to be blessed and to be a blessing to people around the globe. To which I call BS. US America, and its constitution, doesn’t have the answer to everything. If it did we wouldn’t be in this global fincial mess we are at the moment for example.

 

Now I expect the next words out of someone’s mouth will be that had we just stuck to the principles of the constitution we wouldn’t be. The mess is due not to its flaws but to our deviation from it. But to that I ask, if those deviations were possible, doesn’t that in itself prove it was flawed?

 

This is such a wild combination of ideas, I can only imagine you're sitting around watching Loose Change while thinking it up.

 

There's nothing about the strict constructionist school of thought that holds the Constitution out as "the end all, be all, document for the correct charter of humanity." It's a philosophy of interpretation.

 

What's more, I'm not sure where you've come up with this idea that constitutions are about having answers to every problem a nation might face. Our Constitution provides a government structure. It makes no attempt to provide answers to the problems the government faces. Maybe there are constitutions that do -- probably in theocracies -- but they're unlikely to be successful. You need to separate your distaste for the United States from the Constitution.

[Matts_12GS]

There was a ruling handed down, I believe by the supremes, if not then perhaps it was that area's circus court (circuit...) which claimed that Florida's term limits for federal office holders (and thus all elected federal representatives/senators) was a suppression of the people's free speech in that they couldn't vote for who they wished, despite the provision for a write in vote.

 

If you're referring to the United States Supreme Court, you're presumably thinking of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, which was challenging an Arkansas term limits law, not a Florida term limits law. (Florida appears to have had one, but it didn't go to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

 

The Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with the First Amendment. Framing it as being about the First Amendment, in my mind, only serves to support a contention that there's some sort of "despotic" judiciary run amok.

 

Kennedy summed up the issue in his concurring opinion: "The majority and dissenting opinions demonstrate the intricacy of the question whether or not the Qualifications Clauses are exclusive."

 

You're the legal beagle, not me, I'll have to go and look into the ruling when I have more time. I'm not saying what you refer to is incorrect, I'm saying I think we're looking at different issues.

 

Like they used to say, film at 11.

[Matts_12GS]

This is such a wild combination of ideas, I can only imagine you're sitting around watching Loose Change while thinking it up.

 

There's nothing about the strict constructionist school of thought that holds the Constitution out as "the end all, be all, document for the correct charter of humanity." It's a philosophy of interpretation.

 

What's more, I'm not sure where you've come up with this idea that constitutions are about having answers to every problem a nation might face. Our Constitution provides a government structure. It makes no attempt to provide answers to the problems the government faces. Maybe there are constitutions that do -- probably in theocracies -- but they're unlikely to be successful. You've need to separate your distaste for the United States from the Constitution.

 

Who are you person logged in as Greg? I know I couldn't agree with him!

[SeanC]

That view, IMHO, ultimately is rooted in US American arrogance. This belief widely held by US Americans that their nation is unique and special, literally called by something greater to be blessed and to be a blessing to people around the globe.

I love what you consider "American arrogance" (but then, I also love French arrogance, British arrogance, Latin arrogance, etc. -- it's all part of our tasty cultural soup). Anyhoo, we are a unique and special nation for a number of reasons, but chief among them in my opinion is the fact we're the only nation I'm aware of founded on ideas rather than race, ethnicity or royal fiat. That alone IS "something greater" (by orders of magnitude), and our nation IS a blessing to people around the globe. "...Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." were the words Emma Lazarus gave to the big lady. We ARE them. We are descended of them. Their hopes and dreams for a better life are WHY we exist. No big surprise, then, that we accept more immigrants than any other nation -- over 1,000,000 per year -- and among the top ten nations accepting refugees, we take in more than twice the number as the next nine nations combined.

 

...

 

Yeah, there are a lot of immigrant descendants here who've forgotten whence they came, who may grumble about today's huddled masses, but so what? I'm sure there was a lot of grumbling when the ruddy, gaelic side of my family invaded the city of Brotherly Love in the 1840s. And even though we don't offer immigrants as many free gifts and short-term incentives as some nations do, the masses still peg the US as destination uno. Do you ever wonder why that is?

 

(Not to detract from Canada, who probably takes in more immigrants per capita, but that statistic alone doesn't really mean that much.)

 

To which I call BS. US America, and its Constitution, doesn’t have the answer to everything. If it did we wouldn’t be in this global financial mess we are at the moment for example.

I'm curious as to what part of the Constitution you think failed that has resulted in our current global financial mess... You do realize it's not a cookbook, shop manual or Dummies Guide To Global Finance & Economics, right?

 

Now I expect the next words out of someone’s mouth will be that had we just stuck to the principles of the Constitution we wouldn’t be. The mess is due not to its flaws but to our deviation from it. But to that I ask, if those deviations were possible, doesn’t that in itself prove it was flawed?

A) What Constitutional deviation do you expect this Someone person will blame for the economic crisis?

 

B) Are you saying that if deviation from a law or principle is possible, that the law or principle itself is flawed? Say I deviate from common sense, as I'm wont to do on occasion, does that prove Common Sense is flawed? What did you mean by asking that question? Were you attempting to prove that logic is flawed by providing an example of deviation?

 

Confused but Interested.

[Ken H.]

You need to separate your distaste for the United States from the Constitution.

How? The Constitution is from which the United States of America sprang. It is the final authority, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, for all things that are the United States.

 

That’s like saying one needs to separate their distaste for Christianity from the Bible. Impossible.

 

I just get really, really sick of US Americans constantly strutting and trouncing around the world as if they’ve got the ultimate answer for everything. When clearly, and more & more broadly, they do not. And no more is that more evident that in the current financial meltdown. For which the blame falls squarely in the lap of the US. The US invented this mess, pure and simple.In fact more and more they’re the source of the problems, not the solutions.

 

And frankly, yes, it’s one of the key reasons we left.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

The Constitution is from which the United States of America sprang.

 

I'm trying to imagine that happening.

[ghaverkamp]

How? The Constitution is from which the United States of America sprang. It is the final authority, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, for all things that are the United States.

 

That’s like saying one needs to separate their distaste for Christianity from the Bible. Impossible.

 

So, the Bible is only meaningful to Christians? Only Christians read the Bible? No non-Christian has ever read the bible with any interest? Fascinating.

 

Just as the Bible -- in its various forms -- sets the stage for what Christians believe, the Constitution does nothing more than set the state for the operation of the government. Maybe you can pick out some of the vast array of repulsive things about the United States and point it out in the Constitution, so I can better see how there is no separation.

 

I just get really, really sick of US Americans constantly strutting and trouncing around the world as if they’ve got the ultimate answer for everything. When clearly, and more & more broadly, they do not. And no more is that more evident that in the current financial meltdown. For which the blame falls squarely in the lap of the US. The US invented this mess, pure and simple.In fact more and more they’re the source of the problems, not the solutions.

 

It must be horrible to be you, seeing all of these evils being perpetrated only by Americans throughout the world. Why, that devilish United States has even managed to "trounce around" the world and force everyone to take part in its economy! And because they were forced, by the evil that is America, to join in an economy that included the US, it's all the fault of the US. No other country has any blame whatsoever.

 

Please go outside and stroke the bunny rabbits and kittens that line Canada.

[SeanC]

I just get really, really sick of US Americans constantly strutting and trouncing around the world as if they’ve got the ultimate answer for everything. When clearly, and more & more broadly, they do not. And no more is that more evident that in the current financial meltdown. For which the blame falls squarely in the lap of the US. The US invented this mess, pure and simple.

Surely they have newspapers in Edmonton...? What are you basing such an extreme opinion on? The only other person I've heard state it in such terms was Russian president Medve-vatever. But I think that was just the vodka talking.

 

Not that we haven't invented a whole bunch of stupid ideas. You know, like the idea that low/no-income people ought to be homeowners, that we can increase home ownership an arbitrary amount (10%) by Presidential fiat, turn Fannie Mae into Fannie Godmother to serve the "underserved," create a subprime feeding frenzy and pretend all that risk would only pose a threat in the "unlikely" event of an economic downturn. Oops.

 

But how do you explain, say, Iceland's reversal of fortune? How does the blame for that fall squarely in our laps? Was their decade-long, debt-fueled binge the fault of the US (even though Iceland's banks steered clear of our toxic mortgage securities)? Iceland's banks expanded WAY more aggressively than did US banks, and when credit tightened and the krona took a dive, they were unable to finance the debt. Or maybe you think the aggressive risks they undertook only became disastrous because our actions caused credit to tighten in the first place? If so, that's a really weak argument.

 

In fact more and more they’re the source of the problems, not the solutions.

 

And frankly, yes, it’s one of the key reasons we left.

And speaking of Canada's economy, it's experiencing a rough patch too. Didn't the current administration just piss through a surplus? Whose fault was that?

[marcopolo]

And speaking of Canada's economy, it's experiencing a rough patch too. Didn't the current administration just piss through a surplus? Whose fault was that?

 

I'll save Ken doing the research. The current Conservative government took over from the previous Liberal regime a couple of years ago. It did indeed inherit a healthy surplus; the country has been in surplus for a number of years, and was paying down its debt. In its wisdom, the Conservatives lowered the Goods and Services tax by 2 percentage points (from 7% to 5%). This had been one of their election promises. The federal government will still run a modest surplus this fiscal year, which ends in March 2009, but will likely run a deficit next year. The cut in the GST, and increased government spending by the Conservatives, is blamed by most economists -- including the parliamentary budget officer (an independent guy appointed by the government) -- for turning a healthy surplus into what will likely be a deficit next year (something the Conservatives said they would never do). In fact the parliamentary budget officer released a report just a couple of days ago that said quite clearly that the coming deficit was the fault of policy decisions taken by the government, and not world financial conditions.

 

By any measure, we have been spared the worst of this meltdown, but since our economy is so closely tied to that of the U.S., when you get a cold, we sneeze too.

 

As for the rest of the discussion, I'm not going to touch that one with the proverbial ten-foot pole.

[TyTass]

I just get really, really sick of US Americans constantly strutting and trouncing around the world as if they’ve got the ultimate answer for everything. When clearly, and more & more broadly, they do not. And no more is that more evident that in the current financial meltdown. For which the blame falls squarely in the lap of the US. The US invented this mess, pure and simple.In fact more and more they’re the source of the problems, not the solutions.

It must be horrible to be you, seeing all of these evils being perpetrated only by Americans throughout the world. Why, that devilish United States has even managed to "trounce around" the world and force everyone to take part in its economy! And because they were forced, by the evil that is America, to join in an economy that included the US, it's all the fault of the US. No other country has any blame whatsoever.

Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated into the collective!

[Ken H.]

So, the Bible is only meaningful to Christians?

I didn’t say that.

 

Only Christians read the Bible?

I didn’t say that either.

 

No non-Christian has ever read the bible with any interest?

Or that.

 

What I said was that it’s impossible to separate Christianity and the Bible. They are intertwined. As a metaphor of it’s impossible to separate the USA from its constitution.

 

It must be horrible to be you, seeing all of these evils being perpetrated only by Americans throughout the world.

I didn’t say “evils” I said “problems.” Nor did I use the world “only.” Your words, not mine.

 

…it's all the fault of the US. No other country has any blame whatsoever.

Never said that either. Other countries certainly bear some of the blame (for the current financial crisis). But I do stand by my statement that this is a problem created by the USA and whom bears the brunt of the responsibly.

 

And US imperialism for the last 50 years has created more problems in the world that it has solved. IMHO. The USA need to learn to mind its own business for awhile. Literally. It's been so damn busy meddling in everybody else’s country, in the meantime its own is falling apart.

 

[Matts_12GS]

…it's all the fault of the US. No other country has any blame whatsoever.

Never said that either. Other countries certainly bear some of the blame (for the current financial crisis). But I do stand by my statement that this is a problem created by the USA and whom bears the brunt of the responsibly.

 

And US imperialism for the last 50 years has created more problems in the world that it has solved. IMHO. The USA need to learn to mind its own business for awhile. Literally. It's been so damn busy meddling in everybody else’s country, in the meantime its own is falling apart.

 

This reminds me of Global Warming... pseudo-science that claims that man has sufficient control of anything on this big blue marble. Talk about arrogance...

 

And frankly, yes, it’s one of the key reasons we left.

 

Then man up and rescind your citizenship. Quit playing it both ways. Commit man, commit... Or, are you afraid of what might happen?

[Ken H.]

Then man up and rescind your citizenship. Quit playing it both ways. Commit man, commit...

There is a mandatory three year waiting period.

[SageRider]

Then man up and rescind your citizenship. Quit playing it both ways. Commit man, commit...

There is a mandatory three year waiting period.

To rescind your citizenship???

[Pilgrim]

And US imperialism for the last 50 years has created more problems in the world that it has solved. IMHO. The USA need to learn to mind its own business for awhile. Literally. It's been so damn busy meddling in everybody else’s country, in the meantime its own is falling apart.

 

Ken, I'd like your view on U.S. attempts at imperialism. Where? When?

 

Before you start I may save you some trouble in replying by telegraphing my response. For longer than the time you cite we were involved in a world war with an ideology, Communism. One of its fundamental precepts was that there were two parts to the world: first, the part already under communist rule, which was at peace, and second, the part that was not, which was a war zone with Communists governments as signs of victory. We were engaged around the world in that war zone, and thank God so, and thank God we won, at least for the time being. Some bad ideas have an eternal lifespan.

 

So yes, we meddled in many, many countries around the world, and we often got it wrong. Wars are like that; you often get things wrong, even with the best of aims and intentions. Our general modus operandi was to back the guy who wasn't a Communist, and never mind what else he was. We didn't, usually couldn't, pick and choose our allies for their delicacy of spirit and devotion to the good of mankind.

 

I'll point out that, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has moved away from many of the flaws seen during the Cold War, particularly the backing of unsavory regimes to achieve an end. Witness the war in Iraq. Under the old rules we'd have coopted Saddam Hussein with money (as we did in their war with Iran, which was our enemy) to make him bear down on terrorists wherever they were found. That would particularly have been in Iran, once more. We did not do that. Instead, we kicked him out and have, at great cost, tried to put a democratic government in place. The other way would have been easier. Success at the moment is arguable, of course, but I'd bet it will work out over the long run.

 

But at no place and time I can think of since the banana wars of the early 20th century have we done dirty to a country for the sake of U.S. imperialism, whatever that is to you.

 

What the U.S. as a nation suffers from is what I'll call involuntary imperialism. To the extent that we are imperialistic at all it is a commercial imperialism that comes about, not because we impose a desire for Coke and pizza on the world by force of arms or arm-twisting, but because the world demands Coke and pizza after they've had a taste. Thomas Friedman addressed it best in The Lexus and Olive Tree and The World is Flat. There is no parallel in U.S. trade practices to the British addicting the Chinese to opium . . . hmmm, I may have to take that back. The world watches U.S. TV and movies more than any others, and if ever I saw an example of dope, with all its deleterious effects on the mind, that's it. Okay, I give way on that point.

 

But the major point remains: sometimes imperialism is thrust, not sought, and that's what I see in our case.

 

Pilgrim

[Boffin]

Pilgrim, speaking as an outside observer, the US is seen as a country that seeks to impose its way of doing things other countries. Take your example of Iraq. The first Gulf war was backed by most of the world, including Arab nations, because it was seen as aiding Kuwait in restoring its sovereignty. The US was perceived as being interested in keeping friendly governments in charge of the oil supply.

The second Gulf war was, and is, seen as the US securing a future supply of oil. Saddam Hussein was already killing Islamic militants - they were the biggest threat to his regime - Unlike Afghanistan, Al Quieda was not welcome in Iraq and members would have had a very short life expectancy. The US-led coalition stepped in and took out the regime and was then seen to want to put a puppet government in its place. The US never asked the Iraqi people what kind of government they wanted - they would probably have settled for an Islamic theocracy.

This is not a statement of anything other than the perception of US (and British) action from the outside. Remember, it is only the perception that counts.

[ghaverkamp]

This is not a statement of anything other than the perception of US (and British) action from the outside. Remember, it is only the perception that counts.

 

There's only so much that can be done about perceptions. Perceptions of countries by citizens of other countries are clouded by nationalism, history, envy, bigotry, and then maybe facts relating to actions. I don't imagine the Chinese, French, or Russians much care for common American perceptions of them. Some are probably fair, and some aren't.

 

Like individuals, there's only so much value that one can attach to the opinions of others.

[smiller]

Like individuals, there's only so much value that one can attach to the opinions of others.

However it is at least worth noting when they are overwhelmingly on one side. Or perhaps the common nationalism, history, envy, and bigotry of so many other nations have led them all to the same erroneous conclusion.

[Gary in Aus]

 

I am not sure about reliability of the source of the attached link , it may just be a headline "grab".

 

http://bigpond.com/news/topstories/content/20081126/2429657.asp

 

I have been watching the nationalisation of the US financial industry and I wonder just how nationalised other sectors of industry will become. You may have to add another S to become the USSA

 

The under lying feature is just how much the US taxpayer can afford or is willing to pay . There is always concern that the least profitable components will be allocated to the taxpayer and the most profitable retained by the corporation .

 

As part of the nationalisation process it will be interesting to see how much control the government expects to have for it's contribution , how shareholders will be dealt with concerning voting rights and returns on their investments and if private corporation executive salaries are reduced/linked to publice service executive salaries.

 

Interesting television programme on last night titled "Heat" covering energy usage around the globe . It highlighted cultural differences between the US , Europe and Japan and their approach to energy production . One aspect it showed was the parochialism that existed within the US and it's inability to unify on future national directions with the self interest groups / lobbyists such as the ethanol producing grain growers of Iowa versus the coal producers of North Virginia versus the oil producers of Texas.

 

Each lobby group undermined the other to gain advantage and in the end nothing happened , they seemed pleased with this result !!!!

 

Anyway back to link attached , I am sure we will feel the flow on effects of the global financial crisis but to what extent ?

 

A very good friend of mine went bankrupt about a year ago ,losing $150 million in the collapse of his company , but he had built a house of cards with speculation and high debt ratios and it didn't take much for for it all to come falling down.

 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

You may have to add another S to become the USSA

 

 

 

That would be funny if it weren't true..

[Ken H.]

Then man up and rescind your citizenship. Quit playing it both ways. Commit man, commit...

There is a mandatory three year waiting period.

To rescind your citizenship???

To apply for a Canadian one. Yes, three years after landing (moving here) before you can apply.

 

And unless I want to be like the movie where the is guy stuck in the airport (Tom Hanks, can't think of the title at the moment) I've got to be a citizen of somewhere.

[Ken H.]

Ken, I'd like your view on U.S. attempts at imperialism. Where? When?

The US is not imperialistic? Oh come on, the US has military bases in some thing like 62 countries around the world. Each designed to “protect US interest in the region.” I.e. – attempt to force the US’s will on others through displays of military might. If that's not imperialism, I don't know what is.

[Ken H.]

This is not a statement of anything other than the perception of US (and British) action from the outside. Remember, it is only the perception that counts.

 

There's only so much that can be done about perceptions. Perceptions of countries by citizens of other countries are clouded by nationalism, history, envy, bigotry, and then maybe facts relating to actions. I don't imagine the Chinese, French, or Russians much care for common American perceptions of them. Some are probably fair, and some aren't.

 

Like individuals, there's only so much value that one can attach to the opinions of others.

Perception is everything. Actually it’s the only thing. All conclusions as to what “is” spawn from observations, then interpreted and formed into perceptions and opinions. And they are formed over time by observations of actions (of others.) You can’t say something is incorrectly perceived to be such-and-such, when people (in particular multiple people)have observed this-and-that which leads them to their perception(s). There is an unbreakable cause-effect.

 

Applying “value”, or not, to other’s opinions/perceptions (of oneself, one’s country, etc) is just (IMHO) another way of saying whether one gives a damn or not what others think (of yourself, your country, etc.). And if you don’t put any value on that, then ultimately it will come back to haunt you. Turn about is fair play. (To abuse yet another metaphor!)

 

 

[Ken H.]

I am not sure about reliability of the source of the attached link , it may just be a headline "grab".

 

http://bigpond.com/news/topstories/content/20081126/2429657.asp

"The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is predicting that Australia will be one of only a few countries to avoid a recession in the current global downturn."

 

Personal opinion - Baloney. No man/country is an island. (Metaphorically speaking.) Any part of the world that thinks they can avoid being effected by events in the rest, truly has their head in the proverbial sand. IMHO. Please report back your GDP numbers in two years and we'll see if they were right or not.

[Ken H.]

We were engaged around the world in that war zone, and thank God so, and thank God we won, at least for the time being. Some bad ideas have an eternal lifespan.

 

So yes, we meddled in many, many countries around the world, and we often got it wrong. Wars are like that; you often get things wrong, even with the best of aims and intentions. Our general modus operandi was to back the guy who wasn't a Communist, and never mind what else he was. We didn't, usually couldn't, pick and choose our allies for their delicacy of spirit and devotion to the good of mankind.

OK, I'll even (for the moment) grant you that our intervention/meddling around the world was justified then.

 

But that was then, and this is now. The cold war is long over. What the _ell are we (the USA) still doing in all these other places if not trying to impose our will/way on others? And that attempted imposition of our will is imperialism IMHO.

[Gary in Aus]

"Personal opinion - Baloney." just about says it all .

 

{I had to look up what baloney was or is, if you read whats in it I wouldn't suggest eating it}

 

If I had to choose between processed meat product and the OECD to receive advise I would suggest that the OECD beats processed meat products everytime. If a hot dog talks to you ignore it.

 

I would also suggest reading all of the article which predicts "that Australia will be one of only a few countries to avoid recession in the current global downturn" it does not say that we will not be affected by it and the article actually states that we can expect an increase in unemployment and a drop in house prices .

 

To those astute enough to relate the collapse of my friends business as outlined ,to the current global financial situation, it would be obvious that we are already being affected.

 

There are degrees of effect dictated by amount of exposure , debt , the soundness of a countries financial systems , the ability of government , the ability of corporations , laws , media ,community expectations and a host of other factors.

 

The impact will vary from country to country and how they deal with it. We are being told we are on the less damaging end of the ride.

 

And I know your were speaking metaphorically but not only are we a country that is an island we are also a country that is an island as well as a continent.

 

 

[Pilgrim]

Ken, I'd like your view on U.S. attempts at imperialism. Where? When?

The US is not imperialistic? Oh come on, the US has military bases in some thing like 62 countries around the world. Each designed to “protect US interest in the region.” I.e. – attempt to force the US’s will on others through displays of military might. If that's not imperialism, I don't know what is.

 

You got it kind of right. You know what imperialism is by definition, but not in application.

 

Rome was imperial. It did not withdraw from Britain at the request of the native Britons. The U.S. is not imperial. It did withdraw from a critical, very expensive presence in the Phillipines (for one example)at the request of the Phillipine government.

 

Japan and Germany attempted imperium. They destroyed when they came, and they destroyed when they left. The U.S. (and the allies, but they are not part of this charge of imperialism Ken makes) defeated Japan and Germany. It occupied them far more gently than most occupations have ever been done, and rebuilt them. It gave up the occupation without protest. You may see it as to our discredit, but Douglas McArthur imposed a democratic constitution on Japan that seems to have served them well.

 

Do we influence other nations? Yes, but that's hegemony, not imperialism. Even then, though, we don't impose our influence by force except rarely, as in Iraq. We have all but abandoned influence in Latin America; witness Venezuela. And Africa. Oh, wait. We did attempt to inflict our will on South Africa through sanctions over apartheid. Shame on us. And Asia - oops! I err. We sent a carrier battle group to Thailand right after Christmas a couple years ago.

 

And so on. Yes, we have a military presence in many countries. With the exception of Iraq, it is at the request of the host nation, and we'll leave those countries, and Iraq, when they say so.

 

You claim that we imposed a puppet government on Iraq. Not so. We imposed a transitional government that surrendered power to a government elected by Iraqis in December, 2005. Over 12 million Iraqis literally put their lives at risk, got their thumbs dyed blue, and voted. We sponsored democratic government there but we did not impose it. What they adopted is democratic, but no copy of U.S. forms. Maybe they'll make it and maybe they won't. It was touch and go for the new USA, too, for a few generations. If they survive then they will form the beachhead for the real solution to terrorism, which is democratic government.

 

Pilgrim

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim, speaking as an outside observer, the US is seen as a country that seeks to impose its way of doing things other countries. Take your example of Iraq. The first Gulf war was backed by most of the world, including Arab nations, because it was seen as aiding Kuwait in restoring its sovereignty. The US was perceived as being interested in keeping friendly governments in charge of the oil supply.

The second Gulf war was, and is, seen as the US securing a future supply of oil. Saddam Hussein was already killing Islamic militants - they were the biggest threat to his regime - Unlike Afghanistan, Al Quieda was not welcome in Iraq and members would have had a very short life expectancy. The US-led coalition stepped in and took out the regime and was then seen to want to put a puppet government in its place. The US never asked the Iraqi people what kind of government they wanted - they would probably have settled for an Islamic theocracy.

This is not a statement of anything other than the perception of US (and British) action from the outside. Remember, it is only the perception that counts.

 

Boffin, I appreciate the outside view. Thank you. This is addressed to holders of certain perceptions, not you directly. I don't know what your perceptions are.

 

You are right about perceptions of the U.S. by other nations. It's not that I don't care about their bad opinion, but when bad opinion is based on false precepts, the answer is to try to adjust the knowledge base, not defer to the bad opinion. Some people, though, simply won't have their minds changed, or even reconsider their opinions, by anything. That particularly true of Bush-haters and U.S. in general haters.

 

Iraq is the premier modern example, of course, and the U.S. failed miserably in explaining about it. To the extent that real, valid explanations were offered, the world preferred to ignore their reality and the threat that reality presented. That last sentence leads us into ground that has been repeatedly churned, over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not. You point out that perceptions matter. The perception of every significant intelligence agency in the world was that Iraq had them. Do feel free to dismiss that assertion, but don't feel compelled to justify your disbelief. As I said, it's all been covered before.

 

However, anybody who thinks we invaded Iraq for the sake of an oil supply is, uh, misguided (that's a kinder characterization than I'm really inclined to use). First, the world was getting all the oil it needed, and second, invading Iraq has cost us far more than buying more oil from them would have. There is no economic case to be made for that war. It also wasn't fought because we really believed AQ was working there, and nobody here in authority said so, popular assertions to the contrary.

 

The U.S. spent six months trying persuasion, and to build a coalition; it did not charge right in with six-guns blazing. Britain, and many other countries, chose to help. France and Germany, clearly due to corrupt associations with Iraq, tried to impede the action. Most Arab countries supported it, especially those closest to Iraq. Others were, at worst, silent.

 

"Iraqi people . . . would have settled for an Islamic theocracy." Probably not, although if government had been left to a strong man that might have been what they got. Instead, they voted for what they got. As I said to Ken, over 12 million people risked their lives to vote (remember what was happening there, then? They were threatened with being killed for voting.) for a democratic form. Perhaps "Islamic Theocracy" should have been one of the choices, but Iraq has been a far more secular nation than most in the Middle East.

 

The world welcomes Barack Obama with loud huzzahs, and truly, it is heartwarming to see it. But, we'll see how the world feels in a year or two when it's been discovered that nations act certain ways because that's what circumstances dictate, and things haven't changed all that much.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

 

[SeanC]

Kent, you're responding to untenable charges powered by emotion with reasoned arguments supported by fact. What do you hope to accomplish by that?

 

If someone believes the US is an imperial power because it, quote, protects its interests, unquote, or because it has a military presence in countries (whether by request, treaty or terms), etc., you're not going to change such beliefs with any amount of reason or fact. See, the belief doesn't actually require whatever follows the "because" part. It's a perception after all, and to anyone who considers perception to be everything, well, that means no amount of anything is going to change it.

[Dave McReynolds]

Iraq is the premier modern example, of course, and the U.S. failed miserably in explaining about it. To the extent that real, valid explanations were offered, the world preferred to ignore their reality and the threat that reality presented. That last sentence leads us into ground that has been repeatedly churned, over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not. You point out that perceptions matter. The perception of every significant intelligence agency in the world was that Iraq had them. Do feel free to dismiss that assertion, but don't feel compelled to justify your disbelief. As I said, it's all been covered before.

 

Every significant intelligence agency in the world may have had the perception that Iraq had WMD, but we, with a very few allies who offered anything more than token support, chose to act on that perception. The questions I'm sure the rest of the world was asking, which I don't think we ever satisfactorily answered, was why did we chose to act based on our unverified perceptions in the case of Iraq, when we didn't choose to act in the case of others who pose an equal threat, such as N. Korea? And, in the absence of Iraq having any effective delivery system, even if the perceptions of WMD's were proved to be real, what was the immediate threat to the US that couldn't be addressed by continued inspections and the threat of future missle attacks?

 

In the absence of any convincing explanation, the world was left to speculate, and probably decided our reasons were as follows:

 

1. We thought we could get away with it.

 

2. Oil (whether we have subsequently profited from it or not does not have any bearing on whether it was a prime factor in our decision to invade Iraq)

 

3. Israel

 

I don't think your explanation above, or any other explanation I've heard, has altered those perceptions.

[marcopolo]

Iraq is the premier modern example, of course, and the U.S. failed miserably in explaining about it. To the extent that real, valid explanations were offered, the world preferred to ignore their reality and the threat that reality presented. That last sentence leads us into ground that has been repeatedly churned, over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not. You point out that perceptions matter. The perception of every significant intelligence agency in the world was that Iraq had them. Do feel free to dismiss that assertion, but don't feel compelled to justify your disbelief. As I said, it's all been covered before.

 

Every significant intelligence agency in the world may have had the perception that Iraq had WMD, but we, with a very few allies who offered anything more than token support, chose to act on that perception. The questions I'm sure the rest of the world was asking, which I don't think we ever satisfactorily answered, was why did we chose to act based on our unverified perceptions in the case of Iraq, when we didn't choose to act in the case of others who pose an equal threat, such as N. Korea? And, in the absence of Iraq having any effective delivery system, even if the perceptions of WMD's were proved to be real, what was the immediate threat to the US that couldn't be addressed by continued inspections and the threat of future missle attacks?

 

I don't pretend to speak for every Canadian, but I would say the decision to invade Iraq left many of us scratching our heads. Our government decided not to participate after assessing the situation, including the intelligence (the U.S., Canada, the U.K and a few other countries have had an extensive intelligence-sharing agreement that goes back to WW II). We reached a different conclusion about the threat posed by Iraq. The Canadian government took this decision, despite knowing that Washington would be none too pleased and that there would be consequences, subtle, or otherwise. At the same time, our government also made a point not to criticize the U.S. position. We were then left to wonder whether there were motivations that were left unspoken, since the ones offered publicly did not stand the test. We also could never understand why Tony Blair decided to take part, but that's another story. I'm sure Boffin, or others from the U.K. might weigh in on that one.

 

On the other hand, Canada did decide to send troops to Afghanistan starting in early 2002. We are still there, fighting alongside Americans in and around Kandahar. To date we have lost about 100 soldiers, one diplomat and two aid workers. With a few exceptions (the U.K, the Netherlands and Norway come to mind), we are supremely annoyed with most European NATO members who have so far refused to let their soldiers in Afghanistan do any real fighting. The only reason I mention Afghanistan is to make the point that saying no to Iraq was not some sort of knee jerk reaction.

[Ken H.]

You claim that we imposed a puppet government on Iraq.

That wasn't me. Someone else said it somewhere in this thread I think, but it wasn't me. A discussion about the pros, cons, validity or not of the reasons behind Iraq, etc. is one place I'm not going to go here. (I swear moderators!)

[Ken H.]

that's hegemony, not imperialism.

Hummm… Webster defines “hegemony” as:

 

1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.

2. leadership; predominance.

3. aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

 

(Bolding mine.)

 

And ‘imperialism as:

 

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

2. advocacy of imperial interests.

3. an imperial system of government.

4. imperial government.

 

(Again, bolding – mine.)

 

A subtle, but granted, definable distinction. But the core purpose is the near the same - Attempting to impose ones will on others.

 

 

If the US wants to convince the world that its ideologies, policies, methodologies, etc are the best there is, it needs only do one thing to be successful – Be the supreme shining example of such. And for much of the 20th century that was so. But as the US makes more miss-steps, and falls behind in more and more areas, a skeptical world becomes more, well, skeptical. And looks more and more elsewhere for answers. In the meantime the US more and more takes the bully approach. “We are the best, now damn it – believe it!’ In effect.

 

If the US (still) had the healthiest, best educated, most prosperous, happiest, least crime ridden, most technically advance, most creative, and more, people in the world; there would be little room for arguing with what the US belives in. But they don’t. So the US’s credibility in the world is (sadly), for the most part, gone. (Or at least "going".) And certainly this latest MBS fiasco is going to damage it even more. I can’t belive at this point anybody is even willing to buy the US’s debt.

 

[Ken H.]

{I had to look up what baloney was or is, if you read whats in it I wouldn't suggest eating it}

Oops, sorry. When the term "Baloney!" is used here it is often meant in the context of - "A statement or argument which I dismiss as without validity or merit."

 

Where the term originates from, I have no idea!

 

{And I know your were speaking metaphorically but not only are we a country that is an island we are also a country that is an island as well as a continent.

Yes, the metaphors sometimes get lost across the distance. On of the hazards of this form of global communications I guess. "No man is an island" is often used to mean - No one person, or country, stands alone. All of us are affected by all of us.

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

This mornings newspaper headline says 7 trillion dollar bailout. The USA has about 350 million people. Why don't they just give me my 200,000 or so and I'll put some in the bank so the bank has money to lend, invest some so companies can do R&D and make more stuff, and with the rest I'll buy an American made something or other. Wouldn't that spur the economy back to health?

[Ken H.]

Call me simple minded, but I still don’t understand how these bailouts actually solve anything.

 

I mean, if I’m a homeowner that can’t make my mortgage payment today, how does the federal government now (in effect) owning my mortgage make me able to make the payments tomorrow?

 

If I don’t have any money, or credit, to buy a car today, how does the federal government owning 6% of GM (or whatever it is proposed to be) give me money, or credit, to buy a car tomorrow?

 

Aren’t we just moving the problem around? From the backs of those who do have a loud enough voice to complain and get action, onto the backs of to those (commom taxpayers) who do not?

 

I asked the question before – OK, so the feds bailout GM (and maybe the other two) so they can keep building cars… What are they going to do with all of them??? Crush them having new never been driven to keep the demand to build them up?

 

[Harry_Wilshusen]

Call me simple minded, but I still don’t understand how these bailouts actually solve anything.

 

I mean, if I’m a homeowner that can’t make my mortgage payment today, how does the federal government now (in effect) owning my mortgage make me able to make the payments tomorrow?

 

If I don’t have any money, or credit, to buy a car today, how does the federal government owning 6% of GM (or whatever it is proposed to be) give me money, or credit, to buy a car tomorrow?

 

Aren’t we just moving the problem around? From the backs of those who do have a loud enough voice to complain and get action, onto the backs of to those (commom taxpayers) who do not?

 

I asked the question before – OK, so the feds bailout GM (and maybe the other two) so they can keep building cars… What are they going to do with all of them??? Crush them having new never been driven to keep the demand to build them up?

 

Careful Ken, You're starting to sound like a TRUE conservative capitalist.

 

Harry

[Ken H.]

Careful Ken, You're starting to sound like a TRUE conservative capitalist.

Well in a lot of respects I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

 

I don’t know if that dichotomy can be reconciled or not, or if I’m just schizophrenic!

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

90 days ago, we were pounding the keyboards over the bailout.

 

Here is an account of this short historical period. Though we don't know where or how the story will end, I doubt anyone who reads this piece would be encouraged.

[Whip]

Now I know why none of the bailout BS was making any sense to me.

 

They really don't know what they're doin.

 

[Ken H.]

I doubt anyone who reads this piece would be encouraged.

Or reading this one. A substantial portion of the money is already missing - Where's the bailout money going?

[steve.foote]

John, that's an excellent article. It explains very well how the relationships between business and government are mostly ineffective and often corrupt.

 

I agree with almost everything he says up to the last paragraph. It's somewhat surprising to me how essential debt is preceived by our society. Would it really be impossible to be successful as a nation if the entire population had to pay cash for their automobiles? Their TV's? Motorcycles? Is it really impossible to build companies without debt? How did we ever get to this silly notion that the free flow of debt is the only way to repair our economy? And, that more debt is the solution for the excessive debt we already have.

 

In 1992, the campaign slogan was, "It's the economy, stupid." Today it's, "It's the debt, stupid."