First you deleted an important part of the above paragraph. I hope that was by mistake and not intent.
I have no interest in quoting every single statement in the article. It made a point and I responded to it. But if you feel that the other sentence must be quoted here you go -
"With U.S. and British troops poised to invade Iraq, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly opposed."
Happy now?
1 - An exaggeration. It certainly does not and has not done everything in its power to keep down other countries.
I disagree.....the US has done all it needs to do to keep its military supremacy. Could it do more? Yes, of course. Does it need to? No!
"All it needs to do", is not "everything in its power". If you have a problem with some specific thing it did then we can discuss each problem on a case by case basis.
Mostly about the US keeping its own military powerful, which is not abusive to any other country.
It is when the US undertakes preemptive wars.
I said "mostly about the US keeping its own military powerful". Which as I said is not abusive to any other country. Each war can be argued on its own merits but I can't think of any that was started by the US for the reason of keeping the US as the most powerful country in the world.
According to Bush, neither is Germany or France.
In many ways they objectively are not the equal of the US. However I don't see how Bush is relegating them to lower status or trying to control them. Actually it seems that they are doing more to try to control us then we are doing to control them.
Our system my be "the best road" at this time........ but no one knows what will come down the pike in the future.
If human nature substantially changes then something other then freedom and democracy might be best. I don't see that happening, and don't think it is useful or interesting to speculate about. In any case until and unless such a change happens freedom and democracy are generally the best way to go.
However, what IS clear at this time is that our model is flawed as evidenced by the large number of poor in our society
In an absolute sense democracy and freedom, including free markets have tremendously helped the poor. The poor are better off in countries with free or at least mostly free markets (no country has totally free markets and obviously there is no hard data about hypothetical situations), then in countries with unfree markets. The poor in the US would not be considered poor in say North Korea.
the environmental damage we have done and continue to do
The environmental damage in countries with free markets has been much less then that in countries with industry but without free markets. Also the wealth that free market systems generates allows us to afford to be concerned about, and pay more for, cleaner ways of producing goods and services.
the great disparities in incomes between peoples
The disparity is probably greater in free market countries however in unfree countries those who direct the economy do much better then those at the bottom so even if this is true it is exaggerated by many people who complain about it. In any case since the poor in free market countries are wealthier then the poor in countries with controlled economies I personally see little reason to change the system. I think its better if the poor have X and the rich have 1000x then if the poor have 1/4 X and the rich have 1/2 X.
Our particular success requires dominance.......we consume manu. products made by others and provide services to the world. The nations you cite above are producers of the products and/or commodities we consume.
No our particular success does not require dominance. It might require some nation or coalition of nations that is powerful enough to deter or destroy threats to the joint success with have with these other countries, but the fact that we are the main force to do that is more a burden on us then something that helps us with our success.
Yes we consume things they make and they consume things we make. We do have a trade deficit but we pay for what we import.
If you are correct why are the French and Germans treated as outcasts?
They aren't. There is a difference between having a disagreement with or even a tiff with other countries and treating their governments or their people like outcasts. Outcasts would be more like how we treat N Korea, or how we treated Sadam's regime, or Al Qaida or to a lesser extent countries like Libya and Cuba.
One doesn't need to argue......Rumsfeld is an abrasive asshole who gets some but not all things right and has turned off too many people.
Even assuming that is 100% true doesn't make your point (or really the point of the author of the article that you quoted).
No the Bush administration's ideology is far from market "fundamentalism" in economic matters. I wish it was a bit closer but its closer to the democrat's ideas about the economy then it is to laissez faire.
I am unclear how you can tell.
Its easy to tell. Just look at the administrations record. There has been no great reduction in regulation. Trade has not become freer, in fact in certain cases it has become less free. Taxes have been reduced but they are still complex and provide incentives for some things and disincentives for others, and they are still far to high to be an example of free market fundamentalism.
It is a huge and wasteful use of our revenues.
So you think we should reduce our military power to the point where we no longer have the most powerful military??
Tim |
