I see this will probably end in flames.....so i'll say my stuff then run off. There are two sides to everything and certain people say this about america, certain ppl say this about america. America is guilty of just about every country in the world (including canada) is guilty of and that is trying to police everything. You cannot be peacemaker everywhere and if you do not like something, go and invade a country. That said, i have no position on any war. I don't support it or hate it. I just think people (powerful world leaders) need to realize that every action (no matter how good it is).....has a downside and will have some consequence. I think we need to think a lot more before we act in terms of a global or national conflict.

You've got a great point, I can't discuss what's really happening with economics means that much as I dont have that much of a knowledge about it .
But one thing is certain, American government wants to rule the worlds economy, and wants the government to run as how it is convinient for american themselfs, if they dont agree to run how americans want it to, they will not give or help whenever help is needed in means of econmoy.
This may not be on topic, but for whenever elections of some country, the Amercan gov't sents representatives in order to see that everything runs smoothly. What happened on the 2000 election ? they sent representatives to watch that everything goes well on other countries for their own interests, but dont care nor shows a freely voting system, as Popular Vote does not COUNT which is something I find extremely ridiculous.

Back to Bush and the war agains terrorism. Before the september 11th attack, Bush's rating were down the plumb. THe economic was allready going down, the tax cuts which he did were all what I call B/S as only wealthy people were benefited, to where most of the people probobly got a 10 dollar check, some got 200 bucks, then the government began to ask part of the money given back. Bush placed at risk the Social Security savings and the countries money reserves. I remember clearly how Bush asked every citizen to invest on shares, now, imagine if we had done so, how much money would we have lost ? ..
Something to use common sense.
Well, as I was saying, since Bush's rating were down to a 60 percent aproval as to what he was doing, the terrorism attack helped him distract the people from everything that was happening inside the nation, as a way of patriotism everyone supported him in order to get the bad guys back. Sadly, as I noticed, he used this as a blanket in order to forget all the other problems. It was found that the presidents administration had known that there was a planning of al Queda was going to attack, and that he didnt pay to much attention to it, coincidently, Cheney, the vicepresident, placed the country under red alert once again, as conress was asking for the papers that the Administration actually has... mmm once again diverting problems that could affect the president ?!?!?

AS time went on.. nothing was talked more then Bin Ladin.. then the nation was gradually coming back to normal, watching disgracefully how the market is goind down the toilet, as well watching the biggest companis going bankruptcy, something never seen in history since the great depression. This is Bushs solution.. he gather big companies ( that support him ) and went to his Texan ranch.. supposedly to solve the economic conflict, and wow, its magic, within 4 hours they supposedly solve what comes to be one of the biggest economic crisis.

Well, now the elections for seats on the senate are coming on november 1, and the president is loosing rating big time once again, back to its 60 percent, and he decides to, out of no where come in conflict with Iraq, but the person with the most intusiasm was Dick Cheney.. the vicepresident ? why ?! mmmm for my knowledge he is owner of some petroleum right here at home. Money does ring the bell ?

Wars actually help support whoever president is on at the time, as longest the president says all the nice words .. people, as longest it has to do with security, they will support him and his candidates, with Iraq, the president support went up to 80 percent, why ? because people in america THINK that by attacking IRAQ they will actually be save, but dont think further to what the reality may be, I really dont know, but for logical reasons, it all comes together as to what many agree.
The president just wants to go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and take power over the OIL reserves , which is 6 percent of what we consume today from that nation. But does the president actually think what the realy income and effect is by doing this ? Its he thinking the national econmic recession ? thats he think how has he affected the what used to be developing countries in South America and the rest of the world ? thats he think of the inoccent people that will actually die including our own soldiers ? ? ? does he THINK the impact of heaving big nations and majority of the people against US actions ? ?
mmmmm as I see it I doubtly think so ..
Its an obvious thing as Bin Ladin has said that he will once again attack back, why the heck did he leave him asside and totally forget about him and go and attack Iraq ? ?

One thing is for sure, Im counting down the days so BUSH gets out of all the power he has, and hope that his administrations decision dont cause the trouble that I and many know it will cause. Its sad to see how americans, on 2000 did one of the biggest mistakes ever.. = BUSH.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

those are some good points illusion. I think Europe is tired of war and realized that war disrupted all of their happy dandy lives.

I think america is trying to divert peoples attention from the economic slump by turning the focus on war. Nortel is now around $0.77 from quite a high price before. Nortel should be bumped into a penny stock and kicked hard in the ass for making consumers loosing so much money, while the CEO still makes bling bling.

war sux

wow, long posts

see, many of our problems have been caused by bush, as liquidX has outlined earlier...but just to reply. see, bush is a dumbass, but the US isnt going to die just ebcause of that.

-Iraq makes very little oil, so i dont understand how attacking it will cause the US to dominate oil supplies. The reaosn why we are attacking them is that they are believed to be procuring weapons of mass destruction, and if saddam gets them, it will destabilize the region, which will in turn destab. the worlds oil supplies. rememmeber, we should trust the CIA and the british MI whatever, since they know more than us.

to me, the first post in this thread reflects a view of a harcore pessimist. The us economy is structured in such a way so that there wont be a terrible collapse, nor will there be a meteoric rise. I can see why he/she thinks that way though. The poerid in the late 90s was an extremely large bubble, and many in the world and the US see that as sort of an ideal economy. The economy now is pretty bad, but it is more "normal" than that of the 90s.

Ths U.S. is not a pure market economy: it is somewhat regulated by the government. i highly doubt it will ever return to the state of the 90s, but seriously, what are the chances of "collapse"? the whole reason why we had economic crevasses was because of poor decision making by a FEW dumbasses, IE vietnam war, IE mass military buildup by ronald raegan. Sure,t here will be more competition later, but that will only better the US economy, for it promotes even greater efficiency and better decision making

the point of my post? i guess...the decision making of a few dumbasses will not result in the collapse of one of the largest and economically powerful nations in the world.

~4

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Illusion Second of all the American Empire is taking it's last dying breaths. ANY! Any! Empire that resorts to military action as a last resort is doomed to oblivion. And the US is no exception. America is siting on a mountain of debt and is a decaying economic power that has to compete with the European community, Japan, and now the emerging Chinese Super-Economy. It is only a matter of time before it splits apart. It's not a question of IF but WHEN!

I agree with this to some extent. Nothing last forever, and America can be no different. Of course, on a long enough timeline, it is unlikely that any country in the world will even still exist. I don't know that America is really in as much trouble as you portray, however. Certainly, the latest trends in the behavior, both domestically and internationally, of the United States government are a grim specter for the future prospects of the nation.

But since the possibility of a change in leadership exists at regular intervals, we can in no way be certain that this self-destructive pattern of behavior will be maintained long enough to permanently damage the US' international dominance. The debt is not as big a problem as you portray, obviously, because it existed in full force for the entire 1990's economic boon. Furthermore, the competitors you speak of all have serious issues of their own. The EU has a lot of potential, but its member nations have, and will likely to continue to have, problems properly coordinating their efforts into a single vision. Japan's recent economic collapse was more severe than the US' is likely to reach, and they have yet to make significant progress towards recovering. And I don't see the Chinese economy as being an international force as long as they remain communist. They are still a manufacturing economy, which is very primitive compared to the other nations you mentioned.

Lastly, I don't think that the US' recent proclivity for war is an indicator of anything at all, other than perhaps the lack of prudence on the part of our current leadership. The strongest cannot remain the strongest by passive behavior. Only by continuing to suppress threats to its dominance can it hope to maintain dominance. This is true within ANY power structure, not just international politics. So while I do not necessarily condone the invasion of Iraq, the philisophical principles behind it are sound.

The US needs sound leadership, and hasn't had it for quite some time now. The US has been in decline basically since the end of WWII in various ways, but I suspect it is merely a cyclic correction, and that it will begin to ascend again once the circumstances are right.

Cheers,

Arbiter

1) Bush didn't fuck things over for the US when it comes to the Middle East, Clinton did. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that.

2) America will not be around forever, everyone knows that. Quit trying to sound like an all-knowing smart ass. Is it on the decline? Who knows. I dont think so, but i have no facking clue. Personally, I think with the globalization that is going on, it won't matter what country you live in.

___________________
The father made fetuses with flesh licking ladies / While you and your mother were asleep in the trailer park / Thunderous sparks from the dark of the stadiums / The music and medicine you needed for comforting / So make all your fat, fleshy fingers fingers to moving / And pluck all your silly strings and / Bend all your notes for me and / Soft silly music is meaningful, magical / The movements were beautiful / All in your ovaries / All of them milking with green fleshy flowers / While powerful pistons were sugary sweet machines, / Smelling of semen all under the garden / Was all you were needing when you still believed in me.

quote:

Originally posted by davinox 1) Bush didn't fuck things over for the US when it comes to the Middle East, Clinton did. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that. 2) America will not be around forever, everyone knows that. Quit trying to sound like an all-knowing smart ass. Is it on the decline? Who knows. I dont think so, but i have no facking clue. Personally, I think with the globalization that is going on, it won't matter what country you live in.

Mmmm as I see you know nothing about politics, what proofs do you have that Clinton messed the Middle East situation ? when Clinton attacked was because HE had to .. there was proofs.. and he was forced to by the REPUBLICAAAAANS !
Now Bush goes and wants to attack Iraq just because he THINKS that has connections with AL QUAEDA>. now.. whats up with bin ladin ? did he becomes friends with BUSH all of the sudden ?

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by davinox 1) Bush didn't fuck things over for the US when it comes to the Middle East, Clinton did. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that.

seriously dude, you're pretty messed up in the head...
Clinton's actions regarding the Middle East were the most far-reaching and influential of any US President's! He got Arafat and Rabin to shake hands, he invited them for negotiations a lot of times, the way he was engaged in the Middle East -- and the way he sought compromise -- was way beyond anything else...

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX now.. whats up with bin ladin ? did he becomes friends with BUSH all of the sudden ?

I bet bin ladin is dead. If he wasn't, he'd have already put out like 30 tapes bragging about how the US can't get him.

Illusion -- I won't even bother replying to your vociferous anti-American diatribe, you're just like all of them... stubborn and dumb.

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX as well watching the biggest companis going bankruptcy

who enron? tyco? and all the other fraudulant compinies who lied and committed unlawful acts in business? you know what their companies deserved to be punished. that has nothing to do with Bush or his policies but rather greedy CEO's and other top notch business me willing to break the law in order to get more money

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.