Bush,A smashing London performance?

I think both George and Duck need to take into account the use made by the administration of 9/11. The fear of flying wasn't entire a natural "emotional" response but a reaction to tremendous publicity about safety and lack thereof. And Bush's foreign policy is driven by exaggeration (well, that's a polite way to put it -- distortion would be better) of threats. George -- I think you've swallowed this stuff hook, line, and sinker. And you're certainly not alone in having been deceived.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

I think it is fairly obvious that the dramatic nature of the 9/11 attack itself and the inevitable publicity surrounding it were more than sufficient to elicit the reaction that occurred.

You say that Bush is exaggerating, but others think not. recent events in Turkey suggest he is correct. What have you swallowed ?

0 Replies

Iran Seeks U.N. Assurance on Nuclear Arms Issue

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: November 21, 2003

VIENNA, Nov. 20 — An International Atomic Energy Agency debate about how to deal with the 18-year-long effort by Iran to conceal its nuclear programs got off to a sputtering start on Thursday, when the Iranian delegation said it would not commit itself to an accord that would open the nation to more intrusive inspections until an agreement is reached on how strongly the agency will condemn Iran for its past actions.
A meeting of the agency's board of governors was recessed after two hours.
The agency's director general, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, tried privately to persuade European nations to toughen the wording of a resolution under consideration by the the board to include specific references to Iran's nuclear "breaches" and a statement deploring its actions.
Iran has resisted those terms, and Germany, France, Britain and Russia have argued for a weakly worded resolution in the hope of encouraging Iranian leaders to open their program to further inspections.
As usual Hope springs eternal only to be dashed upon the shores of despair.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/international/middleeast/21IRAN.html?th

0 Replies

George -- I did ask before, but didn't get an opinion, whether you believed the incidents of terrorism in Turkey were greater between 9/11 and the Iraq war, that between the Iraq war and today. It seems to me that yesterday's terrorism against Britain in Turkey is a direct result of Bush's visit to Britain, cementing his relationship with that other rogue nation, Britain. (Much as I hate linking the two in such infamy.)

Au -- the US is a notorious, unilateral "dasher"!!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

dduck,

I don't think waiting for consensus is a sufficiently reliable way to deal with serious, emerging threats.

It is quite possible -- and logical -- to agree with what you said here, George, and still think our rush to war was ill-advised.

In fact, I think that is exactly the situation here.

Some situations simply dictate that you act -- and act immediately.

This was not one of them -- and that point was discussed at great length before our precipitous attack.

So coming up with something like this really is of no value.

0 Replies

Tartarin
Isn't it a shame that the US was not a dasher before Hitler started his reign of terror. Europe had it's "Hope" at that time also.

What will it take to lose that hope? Massive terrorist bombings?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

George -- I did ask before, but didn't get an opinion, whether you believed the incidents of terrorism in Turkey were greater between 9/11 and the Iraq war, that between the Iraq war and today. It seems to me that yesterday's terrorism against Britain in Turkey is a direct result of Bush's visit to Britain, cementing his relationship with that other rogue nation, Britain. (Much as I hate linking the two in such infamy.)
!

Firstly, I think the level of terrorism before and after 9/11 have been about the same. Before we had the very bloody destruction of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the Kobar towers bombing, the USS Cole affair, and of course the first attempt in taking out the WTC in 1993. Since 9/11 we have seen the Bali incident, the actions in Iraq, and now these two events in Turkey. Not much difference, except that now the world is better mobilized to respond.

If, as you suggest, the bombings are a "direct response" to the President's visit to London, what remedy would you suggest? No more visits? Perhaps a more conciliatory posture with respect to fundamentalist Islamists? (That would seem odd coming from you.) What??

0 Replies

Wasn't the question I asked, though. And yes, a more conciliatory policy in general would please the hell out of me.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, I doubt that more talking or consultation would have changed the decisions of the various governments involved. Each acted in pursuit of their self interests as they perceived them.

As I see it, the world is becoming smaller - I'm communicating with people from all over the world, about world politics. When countries first started working together to avoid war, there was much more distant between us. Now, we've all probably met an Iraqi person, and eaten a McBurger. We are now all in the same sandbox.

If we're going to play like nice with one another then we have to establish rules of conduct. We don't like some big bully marching in and stealing our toys. So, we can choose to form gangs and go round beating up anyone we don't like the look of, or we establish as set of fair rules for everyone:

Quote:

"...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

What I see the world needing, as it grows ever smaller, is a constitution laying out our unalienable Rights.

Iain

0 Replies

dduck wrote:

Quote:
"...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

What I see the world needing, as it grows ever smaller, is a constitution laying out our unalienable Rights.

Iain

Easier said than done Iain. Many failed democracies started with good words in their constitutions.

0 Replies

So the USA is a failed state?

0 Replies

Not yet, but the possibility is there. Sad

0 Replies

Steve, I concur. Globalization can and should mean cooperation, reliance on a common set of basic laws about human rights and should not inevitably mean exploitation of the weak by the strong. There is an fairly interesting article in a recent Nation about the bugaboo of globalization which made one point of the distinction between capitalism and globalism.

Here are a few paragraphs which might be of interest:

Quote:

Are globalized economies more unequal than nonglobalized ones? The consulting firm A.T. Kearney has been computing a yearly globalization index for Foreign Policy magazine. If you chart the relation of the index to country rankings for inequality, the results are not what a typical antiglobalization activist would expect.

The relation is far from perfect, but if anything, more globalized countries are less unequal than less globalized ones. Western European social democracies are more globalized than the United States but less unequal--as is Canada, to a lesser degree. South Korea is much more globalized than Brazil but less unequal; so is Mexico. The point is not that promoting globalization would promote equality, but that the foregrounding of globalization as the cause of inequality isn't a simple case to make. Income distribution depends more on domestic institutions like unions and welfare states than on internationalization.

Of course, this is hardly a rigorous exercise, and it compares levels at one given moment. Has "globalization" contributed to inequality? While it's an article of faith among activists that it has, it's actually quite difficult to prove the case either way: It all depends on how you define and measure. Most studies by economists focus on recent history--but over the long term, global income gaps have widened considerably. According to economic historian Angus Maddison's estimates, African and American incomes were roughly equal in 1600 (because the Americans measured were the native population), but with industrialization, they started diverging in earnest. American incomes were three times Africa's in 1820, five times in 1870, ten times in 1913, and twenty times in 1998. When was the moment of "globalization"?

Capitalism has always produced poverty alongside wealth, and capitalism has from the first been an international and internationalizing system--so it makes little sense to try to isolate the "global" aspect as the major culprit in the production of inequality.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031201&s=henwood

0 Replies

I addressed that to Steve -- shoulda been to DDuck -- sorry!

0 Replies

no probs tart over to you duck

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Steve, I concur. Globalization can and should mean cooperation, reliance on a common set of basic laws about human rights and should not inevitably mean exploitation of the weak by the strong.

I remember when I studied Robotics at college. The was at the time when workers were being displaced by this new form of technology. I was quite exicted at the prospect of having some of the strain of modern life (I was still only 17) taken from my shoulders. I thought it 'cool' that everyone would be better off and we'd all have to work less. Some years later, I learned that Capitalism isn't about making our living easier, it's about making the very few much richer and the many, are either lucky to have a job, or should be looking for a new one. I accept that America was considered a the land of opportunity, but in the last 100 years what percentage of the population has gone from poverty to riches? Damn few I'm sure.

Capitalism, in its pure form, is all about exploitation. Western populations have adapted to the system, over the course of history they've been afforded certain rights and protections. What we see with globalization is work being transferred to those countries were workers don't have rights. Capitalism seeks out the biggest margins: naturally, you find this where people are being exploited most successfully.

However, Capitalism spreads wealth - if there was nothing good about it, it wouldn't be popular. The poorest countries find they suddenly have prospects of a better life; more money means more food, better housing, better education, opportunites for travel. Over time peoples expectations also improve: children shouldn't be forced to work, safety at work begins to find support - in general, the standard of living increases. Then Capitalism seeks out better profit margins elsewhere. The process continues...

Now we find ourselves in a period of "globalization". We're starting to see the big picture of a small world. What comes next is probably going to be as significant as the break between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages of European history. Probably, more.

Iain

0 Replies

I'm still waiting to see him take on a dictator that doesn't have any oil.

0 Replies

Well, the argument (as stated by the capitalists, of course!) is that capitalism is good, socialism is evil. Whereas the truth is that either extreme is "evil" (if you're into that word). Social democracy + capitalism is a combination I can live with, as long as they are equals. It's up to us to maintain that balance. So bye-bye Bush and (over there) Thatcherism. Above all, we need to separate the concept of globalization/world community from capitalism. People should be in control of capital, not the reverse.

0 Replies

Moderately interesting to read Tartarin's article excerpted from 'The Nation' concerning 'globalization' and its beneficial effects on 'equality'.. Evidently the author finds some positive correlation between the degrees to which countries are 'globalized' and enjoy 'equality' (by some unstated definitions and yardsticks for measurement). As a result of this "far from perfect" correlation, the author quickly assumes the existence of a cause and effect relationship between them. This of course would not get one a passing grade in an undergraduate course in statistics, but is apparently good enough for Tart's rigorous mind.

The UK magazine 'The Economist' recently published some statistics on the distributions of wealth and incomes among the developed nations of the world. They were ranked according to two statistics; (1) "inequality' as measured by the ratio of the incomes of the top and bottom deciles of income in each country, and (2) average wealth as measured by the median income of all citizens. The very clear finding was that higher levels of inequality so defined correlated positively with greater average wealth, also so defined. (The U.S. came out #1 in both categories.) By Tartarin's logic then there is a necessary cause and effect relationship between inequality and average wealth.

Putting together these two absurdities yields the absurd notion that globalization yields equality which in turn produces poverty.

0 Replies

George -- for god's sake take a more careful look at the article. He precisely does not buy into the stats, saying they vary and are inconclusive. My mind may not be as "rigorous" as yours, but it's not looking for straw men either.

Nor do I post things which necessarily represent my point of view in every respect -- I post them because I think they'll resonate with at least some people in the discussion. Disagree -- I don't have a problem with that. But don't presume.

0 Replies

Bush,A smashing London performance?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know