"IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THAT MONEY YANKED FROM OUR MARKETS WAS FUNDING THE TERROISTS? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE MONEY YANKED
"LOST " IN THE MARKETS IS DUE TO THE MARKET SYSTEM ITSELF? WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT HAS ALLOWED SHORT SELLING RATHER THAN AN
INVESTMENT BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF BUYING AND SELLING AND TAKING GAINS AND LOSSES."
I'll go on cause-and-effect. A market-correction was looming late in 2000. George Bush became president, we lapsed into recession in 2001. Now it's 2003 and we are still in recession and the stock market reflects our economic slowdown. During that time, foreign investment (FOR WHATEVER REASON) in the US dropped like a rock. Did the machinations of the Mr. Bush's foreign policy cause FUD and a subsequent withdrawl of significant amounts of foreign capital from our equity markets? Yes, I believe it did. Was it the only reason for the withdrawl? Probably not. Does the responsibility for this economic decline fall on the shoulders of Mr. Bush? Yes, it does. If Mr. Bush succeeds in reversing the current course of our stagnant economy, will all be forgiven? Yes, it will. Nothing succeeds like success.
"COVERT ACTIVITIES AND DIPLOMACY WERE NOT ABLE TO NEUTRALIZE THE TERROISM.."
This sentence needs to be placed in the present tense. Prior to 9/11 there was little involvement in anything resembling covert intelligence. Additionally, there was no real activist CIA, after the agency had been gutted by Mr. Clinton (which I think was terribly short-sighted). Finally, I wouldn't give much credence to the efforts of then-Secretary-of-State Albright, especially wrt the Middle-East.
In the present tense, the answer is a resounding Yes. Just read the daily newspapers.
"THE BELLIGERANT POSTURING HE DID WAS A PERFECT RESPONSE FOR THE SITUATION. HOW ELSE TO FACE DOWN SADDAM AND THE TERROISTS. "
The belligerent posturing began the day he took office, and was first given voice with a rejection of the Kyoto Treaty. It continued through the use of Steel Tarriffs, despite our involvement in NAFTA. It was easy enough for everyone in foreign government to see that a bully had returned to the White House after the benign and accomodating Mr. Clinton.
There is a looming question about individual state soverignty and the power of governance that has been accorded to the United Nations. Cynics call it the "Glass Menagerie on the East River" and the Bush Administration has seen fit, through their assertion of American dominance as the global superpower, to promote that viewpoint. One example is the war we are now fighting in Iraq.
The decision to go to war in Iraq despite UN disapproval is an indication of the level of concern Mr. Bush had for the problems in the Middle-East. Clearly it was something the entire administration agonized over for a number of months.
Nevertheless, the issue isn't going away. Governance of the planet Earth and the impact of our growing population and economies and their affect on the Environment are the biggest issues facing us in the next 50 years (IMHO).
"YOU HAVE ERRONEOUSLY PLACED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERROSISM ON OUR AMERICAN SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM OF PRODUCTION AND TRADE."
Your word "responsibility" is an unfortunate choice of words. It implies judgement, guilt or innocence. It is a condition of our system of capitalism.
That has been the case since the industrial revolution. Read your history.
We have moved way beyond Marx's 19th century accusations of "bourgeois imperialism", but it must be acknowledged that the movement of capital into primitive, pre-industrial societies causes a significant upheaval. It is not at all unusual for third world countries to react reflexively to this kind of incursion. Our country spent the last 50 years of the 20th century trying to stabilize Central and South America. Remember "Yanqui Go Home!!" ??
It will take a fair amount of time for the Middle-East to settle down, as well. In the end, we want stable, productive local economies throughout the Middle-East, where an educated workforce is ready willing and able to buy appliances, durable goods, home electronics, foodstuffs, and entertainment products/services from global providers.
As I said before, alienating these individuals is simply not in the cards.
We need a leadership in the White House that rises to the challenge of making this happen. Mr. Bush may be part of the solution (cleaning house), but we need the skills of statesmanship and global diplomacy (skill he does not possess), to move us forward.
Worldwide peace should cause the stock markets to explode. The opportunity for capital expansion is enormous. That is what I forsaw in the late 1990's before we hit this "speed bump". |
