Tabs,

You say the USA$$$ acts as the reserve currency for the world, after saying that it is backed by nothing. This could explain the world instability...
In reality, I see two things that back the dollar: 1) the work of the american people, who are constantly reimbursing the debt of the federal reserve. 2) The use of the dollar as the main currency for oil transactions. This is one of the reasons for the war in Iraq: the USA has a vested interest in preventing the use of the Euro in OPEC countries, which would cause the dollar to plunge.
As far as the effect of 9/11 on the financial system, it certainly did not improve things, but it is not the cause of the bad economy. Things started before that, remember the internet fiasco and ENRON. Actually, ask any republican who is responsible for the bad situation, and they will tell you Clinton, right ? I think excessive greed and irrational fear are the two causes of a bad economy.

Aurel

Good point about the $ being the currency used in oil transactions...thats just another reason beyond WMD's...the USA by going into Iraq was protecting it's national interest...

The use of currency is an abstraction. There is not enough currency floating in the world to pay off all the transactions made, nor the bank and brokerage accounts out there. The issue then becomes one of liquidity, the ability of the financial system to pay off on demand all the liquid assets out there. Thus if the bank runs out of money to pay off it's depositers then what value does that bank book have with all those $$$$ in it if you can't get them out.


Also U have to realize that any incoming President inherits the first 2 years of the economy from the previous administration...it takes that long for things in the pipeline to manifest itself. So it is grossly unfair to blame Bush the younger for the problems he inherited from Clinton.

Correct, and also fact. The economy (check just about anyone's 401k or IRA in 1999) began to tank at least 18 months before Clinton left office. Now I'm not singling out Bill for a bad economy, but don't run around blaming the current admin when Clinton didn't lift a finger to course correct, or try to curb growth the last 4 years he was in office.

To busy "legacy" building...

More Blix today...

Aurel

I wonder what Blix means by writing a "'nuanced view' of the period?"

Blix's explanation sounds like a lot of face-saving to me. Nonetheless, I think Bush is more on the spot than he.

Blix isn't running for reelection. But by then, it's a good bet U.S. voters will have forgotten about Iraq.

BLIX has had his 15 minutes on the world stage...

WMD... was a Marketing Gimick...the real reason is to show the world that the USA is a serious country..to be reckoned with....per Tom Freidman..NY Times...

France in the scheme of things is a 3rd rate power...they wana be a player on the world stage but time has passed them by... their only shot at the glory is if they can be a major mover in the EU...but Deutschland stands in their way for supreamacy.

Oh 2nd rate powers are...Russia, Germany, Britain, China, Japan, India...in no paticular order.

Have you ever been to France, Tabs ? Do you even know what you are talking about ? And how do you rank a power ? By the number of bombs a country is capable on dropping on a given city, or by the average weight of its citizen ?

France has used its freedom of speech, and many americans have not liked it. If France were a third rate power, you would not even have noticed it. France has a lot of history and influence in the middle east, like it or not. Did you even know that Bush just asked Chirac to send some troops in Iraq to help maintain order. It looks that our superpower is in some trouble right now: 48 deaths since the official victory, about one a day...

I am back from a trip to France, and I am sick of tired of morons who have never left their farm and call it a third rate power.

Aurel

Every colony that France ever had, once the French left has turned into a diaster...starting with Canada and ending with Algeria...

I wouldn't be proud of the French role in the Mideast..along with the Brits at the treaty of Versailles, France mucked up the whole place....typical for the French.

And pleze France is 3rd rate...economically behind everybody listeds as 2nd rate, militarily behind....behind is the operative word for France and the French....even California wine is better... pbbtsch why discuss this with a Frenchman...it's like argueing with a R Gruppe member... U get nowhere...completely biased indivduals.

PS...one death a day...so what thats 365 a year....thats not even a good holiday weekends car fatalities in the USA.

I believe there are things to like and even emultate (sp?) about France:

1) Collectively, the country is rooted by its language. There is a strong nationality of who the French are, that I like to think occurs when people speak the same language. IMHO, language, communication and being understood is tantamount to cohesiveness.

2) I am not entirely sure it's that bad being a 2nd or 3rd World Power. "Rate" is subjective. For one, if the economy isn't as strong as a "1st rate country," it will not suffer from the influx of peoples who are interested in their own gain and not the country as a whole.

3) Of what I saw when I went to France bolsters both Tabs and Aurel's argument: with them, however, I equate this to pride. The French seem proud to be French, and I feel there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I was so frightened to go to France knowing little of the language, I listened to every French on tape learning book I could find. I made out fairly well too. The French weren't nearly as fatal with me as I bastardized their language. They were quite patient, in fact. They recognized the effort.

Personally, I've forgotten the whole French aspect of Iraq. I do think the US is in the hot seat though concerning WMDs. The only out is the news organizations choosing not to cover the WMDs lack of recovery. Bush et al are steering away from that, choosing to instead entertain the Pakistani President and have campaign fundraisers. Powell, as we speak, is fuming. And Condoleeza Rice, in my view, has been stifled. I wouldn't be surprised if she soon resigned.

Just like 3000 deaths in the World Trade center is not much compared to the 16000+ deaths by firearms that occured last year in the USA...if you are into relativity considerations.

For the rest, YES I am proud to be french. Aren`t you proud to be american ?

Aurel

Aurel: if your question is directed to me, the answer is yes.

Because in the long run, there are few issues one can hold up to the U.S. in a negative way. Yeah, so there is Vietnam and Watergate. Now there is Iraq. But that's not an American problem. That is a special interest problem. Neither go hand in hand.

Non-Americans throughout the world love Americans. They want our Levis, our Apple Computers and our Hummers. They want our junkfood and our lovely American women. They also want John Wayne, or want to be John Wayne. Oh sure, on the sidewalk cafe, John Wayne is disdained. But in private, the world loves the guy. He and Clint Eastwood.

We have what the world wants, and those who hate us are in such an overall small minority, that it seems ridiculous to even give them air time. But we do. We have a legitimate edge of paranoia, particularly after 9/11.

As for myself, I know this country and feel comfortable here. There's much more freedom here too, though the prism of "freedom" has to be twisted about to see exactly how much more there is on this soil than elsewhere.

My question to you is aren't you proud of yourself that you have made it here and are now living in America? You should be. People have died for you to sit where you are and respond to this thread...

dd74,

My question was rather directed to Tabs, but your reply was interesting. I agree there are many things americans can be proud of, and I am myself very proud to have made it here and to enjoy these things. It is even ironical because I never really wanted it, it just happened...

Although, I could be sitting to this computer and replying to this thread from France too...

You are right about the fact that USA does not have the monopoly of freedom. It is funny to see how most americans beleive they are the only ones to be free.

Ultimately, I believe that patrotism and nationalism are stupid concepts, source of wars and division. Unlike immigrants form third world countries, the french do not feel like putting a big flag on their pick-up truck (which is usually not a pick-up truck), and enroll in the navy.

We also allow ourselves to be critical to the US, even if we live there. Let us say that we challenge your freedom of speech to make sure it really still works...And finally, pride comes from inside, from personal achievements, history or familly roots, not from a flag, be it french or american. I also consider myself as much home here or in France. The world is my home. Nobody owns it.

Aurel

"monopoly of freedom"
"Freedom" is a relative term. So is "opportunity."

California, even with it's regressive tax and political structure, kicks Frances behind. ...."behind (again) is the operative word for France" ;)

In the USA, the collective we put our local basketball teams flag on our cars as well.

George the 2nd can't get along without Ms. Rice....she was there long before he even became Prez...

Iraq was not a USA mistake....it was a demostration of our power, the mistake was not finishing Sadam in 1991. Osma said, Americans are weak, we have no stomach....those are the operative words.

Are we weak...or do we still have staying power? Look at it from the perspective of a region that is know for it's Barbarism.

Forget Bush in this equation, any American President after 911 would have had to take strong action...or America would have fallen...the Iraqie question would have to be solved sooner or later and Sadam wasn't going to go peacefully....I don't care how you cut it he was and is a thorn in the side of the USA...a destabilizing influence in the region that thumbed his nose at the USA and the UN. Only the French were making money with him so they were willing to opose any moves on the part of the USA to stabilize the region.

"Strong action" and "effective action" are mutually exclusive.

Let's say I have a bad day at work, come home, and kick the snot out of my dog. That could be considered strong action (at least Fido would think so!) but it's not effective action. The Flag Waving sheep don't understand that. We could have bombed and invaded Antartica and it would have had the exact net effect on reducing terrorism as invading Iraq. Actually - it would have been better for 2 reasons: 1) we wouldn't pissed off n more people of the muslim world; 2) we wouldn't be enrolled in the "Body Bag of the Day" club.

When the "effective action" is "a show of strength" --then; "Strong action" and "effective action" are NOT mutually exclusive.

. . .but then, I suppose your just trying paint the picture that effectivety does not come thru strength. . . hmmm . . . and youre the one with the 3.6!

Okay, is it my imagination, or have a lot of Republicans come out against Bush lately because of the "chaos" in Iraq and the lack of found WMD?

I speak of the interview Aaron Brown had with Chuck Hagel (R) Nebraska, who said things are a little better, but there is a rising and congealing force that plans to pit itself against US Forces.

Secondly, Hagel says, more or less, Bush did not fully disclose themselves and their Iraqi efforts (read: lied?) to the US people.

Hmmm....

There is a good summary of all the lies that have been told to us by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction. Really, are there any naives here who still beleive the war in Iraq was about WMDs ?

Aurel