Russia blasts U.S. for its domination and double standards in world affairs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_general_assembly_russia

This is the same type of thing I am hearing from more and more countries around the world. They know they can get away with it now that U.S. is faltering economically and our military is over extended. The chickens are coming home to roost.

The double standards are quite obvious, even to a child. One of the tasks that US took on, being a world police it is... is disarming the "hostile" nations.

Any intelligent leader would follow the example of North Koreans. The nuclear weapons possession is in fact the only remedy to the current US external politics. US will not dare to invade the North Korea in its current state, because of the nuclear consequences that follow.

Can anyone blame Iran for seeking the nuclear weapons program? If US is such a moral example, should it seek to shed nuclear weapons likewise? Of course not. So, that's where we have a delima of a police confiscating guns. If only police has guns and the supervisory power, then who polices the police?

We can clearly see the abuse of the US power for self benefit and self-preservation... yet how is it benefit the world? If the war in Iraq really helps the peace process in the Middle East... or does it further fuel the Islam-Christian conflict?

Sometimes we all should learn that old grumpy guy in the middle of the woods somewhere does not want to live otherwise. You may drag him out and dress him up in a suit and tie, but it will not change who he is... an old grumpy guy. But that's the way US is trying to spread the "democracy" around the world. They take into account what a certain amount of people want ... the view that favors the US, and then they tell that everyone else just hinder the democracy process. Now, look where the "democracy" is taking the USA today... it's near brink of moral/economic/social collapse. Can you blame other nations rejecting the kind of democracy that people like Bush are spreading? Is it really healthy?

This has been the US policy since the end of WW2. This is nothing new. In fact, it is very old. The only one on the federal level even talking about changing it is Ron Paul. So anyone that disagrees with this policy should have voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about :). Why divide people into camps? It's unfortunate that Ron Paul has to run under Republican flag, and I'm sure that he is well aware that if he sheds the Republican label he does not stand a chance. And its quite unfortunate, because people that are fed up with the current state of things have only one choice - to vote for the loosing party, of leave (which is not an option for many).

How is it different from Bolshevism, where a majority party rules and dictates how it's going to be to the minority? That's pluralism at its best don't you think? Its there an "opt out" button... besides not voting?

Unfortunately, you're absolutely right that it has been our policy for the last 50+ years. The problem is that most Americans don't have a clue what we are doing in the rest of the world, or they just don't care as long as their own lives are peaceful and plentiful. Ron Paul got a surprisingly larger number of votes than I would have expected, but I think more and more people are becoming aware of the things we are doing and are repulsed by it.

Our government is put into power by the people of the United States. If the vast majority of Americans want a major change as you suggest, let them vote for a candidate that represents that change. So far Americans have elected Presidents and a congress who were strong on promoting American interests around the world.

Now they have a decision to make between McCain and Obama. I look forward to seeing our choice.

Did you watch the debate? What did you think of Obama's remarks about American foreign policy? Did you hear what he said about Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, and did you agree with him?

I never said the vast majority of Americans want a major change. I believe most Americans don't have a clue about what we are doing in the rest of the world, and/or they really don't care as long as their personal lives are not affected.

As I have said several times before, I am disappointed in the views of both candidates when it comes to foreign affairs.

Yes I saw the debate. I like what Obama said about trying to increase dialogue. I agree with him that we erred greatly by not going after bin Laden in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked in Iraq - which he has maintained from the beginning. I tend not to agree with either of them on Iran. And I'm still pondering what I think about Pakistan.

It's fairly clear to me after looking carefully at McCain's life experiences and his votes in the Senate that he is truly expressing how he feels and thinks. He just tells what is really in his heart and on his mind. No hesitation.

If you go back into Obama's past, and if you watch and listen to how he speaks, I think it is clear that he is saying what he knows Americans want to hear. (Not all Americans but enough to get him elected.)

Why isn't someone like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or an outright socialist candidate the front runner?

My answer is that none of those would have a chance of being elected by the American people.

Even if I am wrong here about Obama, the main question is, why are both candidates saying what they are saying? Again, my answer is that they both know what the largest share of the American electorate want.

Obama wouldn't have a ghost of a chance if he said that he wanted to stay out of Iraq right now and also out of Afghanistan and would allow Iran to have the Bomb.

You agree?

So yes, sadly, it is true that a majority of Americans are very happy being global strongmen with a double standard - or at least strongmen who don't want any other strongmen on the block.

I would be happy to pull all our troops out of other countries, bring them all home and use the money we are spending on defense to pay for universal health care.

However if the US wasn't on the international scene, does anyone thing we would see more wars between nations? Does the US involvement actually deter many wars from happening?

What I said earlier is that I think Americans are slowly becoming more and more aware of what we are doing in the world. I agree the majority of Americans still support candidates who will continue the status quo of relating with the rest of the world. But all I'm saying is that more people are becoming aware and not liking it as they see the results.

Oh, I sure don't want to believe that. I really want to believe that most Americans would be aghast if they knew what was happening, and would stand up against it. I do think more Americans are becoming aware, but the propaganda has been so ingrained that it is hard to overcome. And it is a little traumatic to realize that what you believed all your life is not exactly true. So it takes people a while to get it.

That's the big question. Supposedly, the intent of our interventionist policies is exactly that. But somehow we've managed to alienate much of the world in the process.

Having said that, I must say that I am frequently saddened by the number of Americans who think the strongman, double standard is just fine. I find that to be extremely shallow and short-sighted.

As you go back into American history, who are some of your heroes or heroines and favorite presidents? Who is your favorite American writer or thinker?

Shane, the entire pentagon strategies of today are based on "would have" scenarios. Are we to become a "minority report" type of preventive society and jailing people based on what they would have done?

Don't you see anything wrong with that? I hear much of Machiaveli's "prince", or Hobbes' "Leviathan" rhetoric in these ideas. Basically the idea that the "higher" moral good overshadows the "lower" one, and the lower one can be sacrificed at the altar of the "highest good". What about some basic moral standards?
Basically, the idea that American way is the best way, and we are doing a favor to everyone else by making them more American. It's neo-Emperialism. That's why USA is broke today, because it is overextended militarily.
The congress just approved a budget of a Trillion dollars for military. Don't they know how much money it is? Either they are trying to prepare for alien invasion, or they are trying to preserve superiority by means of military presence... because it's quite obvious that economy will no longer do.

I see a lot wrong with intervention policies. Like I already stated, I would love to see all our troops come home. We could use that same money for health care and do a lot more good.

QR frame:

Russia, with allies, will invade America, sooner than later. Boots on ground.

We will be as a bird, which peepeth from the dust of the earth.

rotsa ruck, guys :-o

Re: spending less on military: yeah, costs are skyrocketing and we're gonna cut our military.

I can see it now, come war, Americans waving their healthcare cards at the enemy, "bang, bang, you're dead."

Well, I guess that's not all that much of a stretch - given the seeming importance our citizenry currently ascribe to empty words... (Yikes! --Pogo)

Military connotes War. War is killing and breaking things... you can't do that with a healthcare card.

Re: we will never be able to make everybody in the world like us. We are insane and masochistic to submerge our own interests to that of others. We are obligated only to do the best we are able.

Per example: as I've stated before, we could not have done more for Saudi Arabia; yet, they have, generationally trained, funded, and sustained those who willingly die - consumed with the desire to destroy us. For those in Rio Linda, that's called 'exporting terror'. Ditto, but to a

lesser or more rational extent, even Europe - whose fundament we've pulled out the fire on more than one occassion - and continuing for the last 60 years ensuring/guaranteeing their safety from aggression (that they might have the monie$ to rebuild their own infrastructure and fund their own social programs). Tchah!

Have any of y'all been to Canada and had to listen to what they think of America? Yet we sustain 70% of their economy.

The wisest man alive sez, "CYOA."

What the blep-blep are we talking about?

Does America, net, prevent more wars than it starts? It's an imponderable, because prevented wars by definition don't start. Has America, since the Second World War, generally been a force for good in the world? Hard to judge: would Pol Pot have happened without America's involvement in the region? Would the massacres in Indonesia? It's hard to say.

What is not so hard to say is that America used to be a beacon for peace and hope and freedom in the world to many of us - it absolutely was that when I was growing up. There's still some of that, but Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and rendition and a number of other things have definitely eroded that. The claim has always been to a certain amount of moral superiority - American aggression was better than other aggression because it was carried out for the common good and with a moral code. That is what has been lost. Maybe American aggression was always just aggression, but it has been particularly naked during the first decade of the new century.

(Leaving aside what I hope is a certain amount of jest from jasd when he suggests there is no relevant standard for America but brutish and unenlightened self-interest.)

>>Does America, net, prevent more wars than it starts?<<

That information is probably within the purview of ‘Intelligence’ – State secrets, et al.

>>It's an imponderable, because prevented wars by definition don't start. Has America, since the Second World War, generally been a force for good in the world?<<

Mais oui, but of course. Even should the factors weigh unevenly, America has done more good than any other.

>>Hard to judge: would Pol Pot have happened without America's involvement in the region? Would the massacres in Indonesia? It's hard to say.<<

C’mon, Bravus, you might as well ask me if the moon is made of cheese; or if beings ever had habitation on the moon. The latter: yes.

>>What is not so hard to say is that America used to be a beacon for peace and hope and freedom in the world to many of us - it absolutely was that when I was growing up.<<

It does not matter what nation excels – there will be others who will cultivate a dislike for that nation – envy rules.

What amazes me is the flagellation I encounter amongst Americans. Oh my, we’re so evil! Ah gee, our space shots use so much energy! Waaa, I sees a pitcher of a porpuss that cried – an it waz us, did it! :-o

>>There's still some of that, but Guantanamo<<

Most were captured while directly involved in action against our forces – like, shooting at our boys and girls on the battlefield. Actually, kudos are due America for the provision of Gitmo as residence for enemy detainees. It’s kinda like Mandela – who was caught red-handed with thousands of ordinances; yet, he lived to head So Africa. Anywhere else, he would have been summarily executed. Same’s Gitmo.

>>and Abu Ghraib<<

I guess it’s my turn to say, “Oh my! the guy had his photo taken with undies on his head!"

>>and rendition<<

Happened under Reagan. That’s decades ago – and it authorizes the search, pursuit, and capture of anyone who has killed an American citizen anywhere in the world – that that perp may be made to stand trial here in the USofA. Not a bad policy. Israel’s been doing that as long as I’ve lived and no one complains. Complaints are reserved for America. [/gobsmacked!]

>>and a number of other things have definitely eroded that.<<

The incessant litany. I say to the rest of the globe, “Why are you always asking us to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, if you dislike us so...?”

>>The claim has always been to a certain amount of moral superiority - American aggression was better than other aggression because it was carried out for the common good and with a moral code.<<

Not always the epitome of genteelness; however, when they call – we’s there – and we pay the price. No whinin’, mewlin’, or otherwise whizzing our pants... God Bless America

>>That is what has been lost.<<

That certain Freudian envy. You can’t fight that. Even the V-pill won’t help.

>>Maybe American aggression was always just aggression, but it has been particularly naked during the first decade of the new century.<<

Hey, I’m not that indisposed to a certain bit of Imperialism. Check India. They still have the British hospitals, the same rails, the same strung wire lines, the same architecture, the same governing system, the same... India benefited and still does. Likewise, with American 'Imperialism'. Most of the modernization of the Far East is due to our own sacrifice and generosity.

>>(Leaving aside what I hope is a certain amount of jest from jasd when he suggests there is no relevant standard for America but brutish and unenlightened self-interest.)<<

When I need help I want the 800 pound gorilla, juiced and mean on my side. That used to be us. Sadly, for the rest of the civilized world that is coming to an end.

Every job I ever had was provided by the enlightened self-interest of this or that person, company, or corporation.

Do you think Australia is going to do more for the indogenes - other than holding a "Sorry" day? y'know like giving them back their continent?

Would I be unwise to hold my breath?

That's not the form of rendition I was talking about. Bringing people to trial in the US is something that I'd be very happy to see. Trials for the prisoners at Guantanamo would be a great place to start. I'm talking about sending people *out* of the US expressly to be tortured.


Who? When? Who since WW2 has America rescued? Name one people. (Ahmed Chalabi doesn't count.)

>>Trials for the prisoners at Guantanamo would be a great place to start.<<

Sheesh, isn’t it good form to hold detainees of war – until a resolution or the cessation of hostilities? Anyway, given those parameters as applying to the war on terrorism – those guys should probably be in Gitmo the rest of their lives.

>>I'm talking about sending people *out* of the US expressly to be tortured.<<

Dr Paul Joseph Goebels is alive and well in Hollywood! Ain there a song like that? Anyway, I agree that – should that be actually occurring on any scale other than minimally – it should be stopped. That said, that is in principle only – given the fact that all nations have, do, and will continue – to implement torture to an extent both large and small. It's a fact of life. Reality.

I do not condone the practice of torture other than in very severely limited circumstances: the hypothetical weighing of the needs of the many against the ‘discomfort’ of the one, or few – for example.

>>Who? When? Who since WW2 has America rescued? Name one people. (Ahmed Chalabi doesn't count.)<<

Y’know, we dumped Chalabi; and wouldn’t you know? he’s now a big shot in Iraq. Mebbe, we shouldn’t have been so hasty...

Well, the UN sent us to Korea; ditto, Vietnam - on our own nickel - at that! Few people realize that we didn’t go of our own volition but as participant in a UN ‘Police Action’ per Korea – and as an unfortunately shortsighted galumpin’ signatory to the SEATO document.

You know that I am responding indirectly. My responses are addressed toward the malcontent countries (and its citizens) of the world.

Jasd, the definition of a "terrorist" nowerdays is so loosely applied, yet the basic original idea behind terrorism is that it "is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". AKA... using fear to coerce people to comply. Does that sound familiar?

Secondly, you are talking about people as disposable containers that either hinder or advance a state. Who are you talking about when you say Korea, Vietnam, USA... These are imaginary constructs, borders of which are many times are drawn along rivers and shorelines.

That's why the "figting terror" rhetoric is repulsive to me, because in fact it spreads terror. Terrorism is perhaps causes less then .0001 % of deaths in the world. What ends up happening... by means of the media and govenmental reports and "alerts".... terrorism looks like the cause of all "evil".

I think that Americans need to really get out and travel a bit. Then they'll see that people around the world are not as different, and are driven by the same motives and forces. Some Muslims screaming "Death to Israel" today, is not any different from some Louisiana residents screamed "death to niggers" 50 years ago. And all of that was resolved eventually with no need for a war, or military intervention.

What we have today, is America (and much of the world perhaps) getting a Televised worldview... that looks like this:



And producers will not portray these extremists as a rogue KKK type of organization, but they put a face of entire religion on it.... and do it for political reasons.

Fear will only breed fear, and hate likewise will breed hate. Once upon a time US was above these tactics... now it's just a fairy tale of the past.

What's ironic, is these tactics fuel the rogue "jihadists" propaganda. If your house gets blown up by US soldiers... would you just sit and thank them for liberating you? I can guarantee you, that if you were in these people's shoes you will be the first one in line screaming with these radicals.

Radical "Islam" of today is a reactionary movement, just like Black panthers was a reactionary movement.

But, today we label the causes of such hatred as "what's good for them", and don't even try to understand these people. Our understanding comes from shredded video footage that only portrays "We hate America", and leaves out "here's why we hate America".

But the reality is, if we were to trade places... I suspect that the radical Christianity would be abound likewise.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I guess I don't know because I don't think like that. My heroes are people like Corrie ten Boom and John Wiedner, the Underground Railroad, etc. People who risk their lives to help others they don't even know. Also, people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul - I don't agree with them on everything, but they are not afraid to stand up for what they believe to be right, whether it's popular or not. John McCain used to be like that.

It was my understanding that we basically forced the Saudis to agree to conduct all their oil business in dollars, and they can hardly wait for the dollar to die so they can start using euros.

I'm not sure that that's right, but I'm probably wrong. I say that because I remember many years ago when I was going to school (High School). I had this teacher that told us that when ever traveling overseas we should exchange our money here in the US to whatever country we plan on visiting. And when coming back, to exchange our money back to US currency, in whatever country we are in. I remember him saying that as the years go by that our money will start losing its value slowly but surely, because we love to spent our money everywhere. And he said also because other countries prefer our money over there's. I never believed him, but as I reflect back it seems that he was pretty much on.

pk

>>...the definition of a "terrorist" nowerdays is so loosely applied,<<

Not by me :-o

>>...yet the basic original idea behind terrorism is that it "is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". AKA... using fear to coerce people to comply. Does that sound familiar?<<

Exactly. Roman decimations and Soviet Gulags, amongst other examples.

>>Secondly, you are talking about people as disposable containers that either hinder or advance a state.<<

In America, the State is supposed to be its citizens. Who else is the State to advance? That said, I take your point and presently see my State becoming an assortment of consortiums, conglomerates, etc. Frankly, I don’t like it – but see it as being prophesied in the Book of Daniel. I am not one to make a liar of Gd.

>>Who are you talking about when you say Korea, Vietnam, USA... These are imaginary constructs, borders of which are many times are drawn along rivers and shorelines.<<

Imaginary? Hardly. Korea and Vietnam displayed a capacity to shoot back. Imaginary constructs do not shoot back. The USA is Gd-blessed – however constructed

>>That's why the "figting terror" rhetoric is repulsive to me, because in fact it spreads terror.<<

So, when we engage radical fighting Islamists – we should invent new terminology? I’m one of those who take Jesus Christ at His word when He advises the purchase of swords/guns. I don’t subscribe to ‘doctrinal’ interpretations that He was simply wrong. Jesus Christ adjured us – not for nothing.

Breed hatred and hatred will find a target, it will find the means, and it will manifest or otherwise implement that hatred.

Sounds like Wahhabist Jihadism, tah me. ...spreading, all by itself. Now, my reaction to that, as it should be, is “spreading ‘terror’ “ – like, oh, pigs defile them? well, how about that!?

Like it or not, we are about to witness the most horrific aspects of the Clash of Civilizations – and it didn’t start with our nuking Mecca...

What’s that!?

>>Terrorism is perhaps causes less then .0001 % of deaths in the world. What ends up happening... <<

I really don’t care what percentages we talk about today. I can easily envision a coupla two-three radioactive devices set off in our major cities. Who’s gonna be talking about relative percentages at that point?

>>...by means of the media and govenmental reports and "alerts".... <<

What kind of alert preceded the USS Cole? before Twin Towers? Pentagon? ...Defcon pink? I missed that :-o

>>...terrorism looks like the cause of all "evil".<<

Much of it, at least. I don’t appreciate those who’ve exported terrorism as – witness the loss of our freedoms and the construction of concentration camps for American citizens.

Given these losses and what portends – how can one excuse the acts of International terrorism?

>>I think that Americans need to really get out and travel a bit.<<

Americans, in times past traveled very little, yet they bequeathed to us the greatest known civilization that ever graced this earth.

People generally make that statement when wishing to condescend. Would I have seen a better side of Mallik should I have more often visited Canada?

>>Then they'll see that people around the world are not as different, and are driven by the same motives and forces. Some Muslims screaming "Death to Israel" today, is not any different from some Louisiana residents screamed "death to niggers"50 years ago.<<

I think you digress. The difference is that one would be pretty well assured that the wingnut in Louisiana didn’t drive a truckload of explosives into the local shopping mall – he simply screamed and make a fool of himself.

>>And all of that was resolved eventually with no need for a war, or military intervention.<<

So, you’re equating ‘honky’ wingnuts with Wahhabi Jihadists?

>>What we have today, is America (and much of the world perhaps) getting a Televised worldview... that looks like this:<<

Sorry, I’m on dial-up.

>>Fear will only breed fear, and hate likewise will breed hate. Once upon a time US was above these tactics... now it's just a fairy tale of the past.<<

You keep dwelling upon “fear” and “hate” re America. What happened to such as: love of country, honour, Gd, duty, etc – as determining factors re Americans?

>>What's ironic, is these tactics fuel the rogue "jihadists" propaganda.<<

I recall that the Jihadist did not require our reaction before, nor do they now, nor will they in the future. Hate is bred into them from childhood.

That said, there are exemplary Islamists; however, we speak of the militants.

>>If your house gets blown up by US soldiers... would you just sit and thank them for liberating you?<<

I tire of the attempts always to lay all things awry at the doorstep of America. You forget the 19th province where this current imbroglio began? That Afghanistan is an International Community exercise?

>>I can guarantee you, that if you were in these people's shoes you will be the first one in line screaming with these radicals.<<

Good grief, where was their fervor when Saddam ruled?

>>Radical "Islam" of today is a reactionary movement,<<

Breed hatred and hatred will find a target, it will find the means, and it will manifest or otherwise implement that hatred.

You forget the many Islamists believe that Jihad is a ‘spiritual struggle’ to subjugate or rule the entire world for Allah.

How is that reactionary?

>>...just like Black panthers was a reactionary movement.<<

Go figure. Bill Cosby became the highest paid entertainer at that time. Shortly, Michael Jordan would repeat in the world of sports. Opportunities abounded. Yet we had a group of malcontents who declined to work-up the effort to succeed otherwise.

>>But, today we label the causes of such hatred as "what's good for them", and don't even try to understand these people. Our understanding comes from shredded video footage that only portrays "We hate America", and leaves out "here's why we hate America".<<

For crying out loud, we gave them (oil producing Islam) oil and money – the entire infrastructure, education, banking, protection – the whole salami. When they wanted to nationalize (read steal) the sum and results of our investments – we acquiesced to their desires. We could have buried them.

They could now be one of the greatest civilizations on earth – rather than a repository of hate.

Their choice. Sad.

>>It was my understanding that we basically forced the Saudis to agree to conduct all their oil business in dollars,<<

Umm, carolaa, our banks (dratted banks) approached Libya and Nigeria with a scheme to raise the price of oil – if they would sell only in dollar$. The banks first went to Libya and Nigeria because they were the world’s standard for oil pricing as the oil they produced was so pure it required almost no refining.

With deals in hand from these two countries – the banks proceeded to other oil-producing nations with the same – “we’ll help raise oil prices if you sell only in dollar$.” Well, enter OPEC and the creation of petro dollar$.

That deal enabled us to print, circulate, and eventually – deliver inflationary dollar$ offshore and kept them there.

--according to Jonathan May

such as it is.

So, we discovered oil for them, we drilled for them, we built the infrastructure - and ended up having everything nationalized. Okay.

We made them rich. What's their problem?

>>...and they can hardly wait for the dollar to die so they can start using euros.<<

Umm, a note of glee, eh? Okay.

For crying out loud, we gave them (oil producing Islam) oil and money – the entire infrastructure, education, banking, protection – the whole salami. When they wanted to nationalize (read steal) the sum and results of our investments – we acquiesced to their desires. We could have buried them.


??????? Are you serious???? :). You can't be. USA is some odd 250 years old. The civilization as we know it began in Middle East. Are you saying that USA built middle east as we know it???? Banking is Babylonian invention. USA is merely a baby compared to a country like Iraq.
The only reason that it was possible for it to outgrow itself into an Empire, is the dollar hegemony that the rest of the world was happy to finance. There's no logical reason why labor of American farmer with same skills will be valued over labor of Chinese(Mexican,Russian and etc). But because it did, it allowed US to export the dollar and to import cheap labor in form of goods... thus letting the US to get rich, mainly due to this illusion of wealth.

Granted that USA gave many of the wonderful and great inventions, as well as people to the world.... but so did the Middle East. And to reduce the entire Middle East to a certain faith group... is what perhaps so insulting to these people in the first place.

>>??????? Are you serious???? :). You can't be. USA is some odd 250 years old. The civilization as we know it began in Middle East. Are you saying that USA built middle east as we know it????<<

I think the subject is still in view: to wit, the underlined and bolded in my above quote.

>>Banking is Babylonian invention.<<

You know, you are practically the only person I’ve met, read, or heard – who is aware of that fact.

>>USA is merely a baby compared to a country like Iraq.<<

That is what is so great about this country – what we’ve accomplished in that short time.

>>The only reason that it was possible for it to outgrow itself into an Empire, is the dollar hegemony that the rest of the world was happy to finance.<<

I think, that when we owned and controlled over 70% of global value – we were a hegemony. Today, we have bladder control problems. I fear what might happen when our money fails and the full faith and credit of the American people, as represented by the legal tender aspect of our money, is tested at the Hague. The combined

forces of the International Community may be at the disposal of the UN – at that time.

>>There's no logical reason why labor of American farmer with same skills will be valued over labor of Chinese(Mexican,Russian and etc).<<

Where would that determination be made?

>>But because it did, it allowed US to export the dollar and to import cheap labor in form of goods... thus letting the US to get rich, mainly due to this illusion of wealth.<<

How rich can a person get buying cheaply made Chinese goods – such as cotton shirts, sock, etc? For years, we bought the shoddiest of manufactured goods from China while we transferred our technology to them. Our machine shops. Entire airplane manufacturing plants. Intellectual properties. Patent rights. We even helped them redesign their space-launch vehicles. In return,

we opened our markets to them. Ipso... capital flight. A trillion dollar$ so far. Whilst they form alliances with nations who are overtly our enemies. ETC.

You’re right about “illusion”.

>>And to reduce the entire Middle East to a certain faith group... is what perhaps so insulting to these people in the first place.<<

But it’s factual. Have you not seen the killings of those converting from Islam? The MidEast is ONE 'exclusionary' “faith group”.

Not so fast. My larger family contains – Muslims.

I see many of your points. But in fact, if I'm the first person who you read that Banking originated with Babylon priesthood, then you might not be reading enough .

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac19

The reason that money is failing and America is going broke is precisely that... it over exported money in form of loans (to china and middle east) and thus enjoyed a rich domestic economy with strong military as an expensive, yet run by borrowed money asset.

So that money that you are claiming US "bought" the middle east, was actually worthless to begin with (beginning in 1971, following the Breton Woods), just like any make believe currency that is backed up by nothing but the ability of the government to pay back. Since then, ALL of the money supply of the United States existed in form of DEBT.

Money comes into existence when the loans are made, and money is destroyed when the loans are payed back. So we have banks which prosper enormously by means of fractional reserve banking, and people who live like (and at times better) than royalty... until they can't afford to pay interest. In which case they learn from the banks to take out more loans to pay out the old ones with no hopes of paying back the debt.

As a result the national monetary supply is expanding exponentially, rendering the currency worthless because the products base and demand were not growing to catch up with exceeding money supply.

Not only I see such system as IMMORAL, because it robs its own citizens, and people of the world of their savings via inflation... But it also let US enjoy that "prosperity" over a very short period of time. I also allows a small class of people who manipulate money to grow emmencely rich by making, keeping track, and calling on loans.

You are absolutely correct about US running out of assets to put as collateral, as it already collateralized the labor of its citizens, and most of the national property, which are now not enough to even cover the interest payments on the enormous debt.

Neverless, those "assets" that US gave to the oil producing countries of Middle East, of course came with Oil being sold in dollars, which was one of the reasons that dollar took off on the international markets... and allowed US enjoy the life of "prosperity" that it enjoyed for a while. As far as I see it, you have those Islamists to thank for buying back some of that bad debt and keeping the dollar afloat for that long. Without them trading in dollars, the international market would dump the dollar much faster.

What are we accomplishing here? It seems we are just pushing Bolivia to join our enemies. And for what? Because he won't do things our way? (Look up John Perkins on YouTube.)

"US Suspends Trade Benefits to Bolivia

"In news from Latin America, the Bush administration has suspended longtime trade benefits to Bolivia as tension continues to rise between the two countries. Washington cited the failure of President Evo Morales’s administration to cooperate in the so-called war on drugs as the main motivation for the move. Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia have received duty-free status for most of their goods under a program dating to 1991 to help fight the illegal drug trade. But now Bolivia will have to pay more to get exports like textiles into the United States. Morales said Bolivia would immediately start looking for new outlets for exports.

"Evo Morales: “I’ve asked the economic team and foreign ministry to urgently open markets with China, Iran and Libya. It’s just a question of producing more and starting negotiations.”

[Democracy Now!]

If image is worth a thousand words...

>>I see many of your points. But in fact, if I'm the first person who you read that Banking originated with Babylon priesthood, then you might not be reading enough .<<

Indeed. I should read more; however, you probably missed my “you are practically the only person...”. That noted, I’ve previously posted to that fact

on this forum.

Makes one wonder about the Vatican-is-Babylon bruit...

>>So that money that you are claiming US "bought" the middle east,<<

I don’t recall saying that the US “bought” the Middle East.

>>...was actually worthless to begin with (beginning in 1971, following the Breton Woods), just like any make believe currency that is backed up by nothing but the ability of the government to pay back.<<

I remember France converting dollar$ for gold – forcing Nixon to close the gold window. And I remember the dollar becoming the reserve currency of so much of the world.

>>ALL of the money supply of the United States existed in form of DEBT.<<

Largely, I agree. I would tend to emphasize the fractional aspect of debt and its velocity.

I think the fact that China remained the largest credit/debt-free population (one-sixth of global population) that American and International Banks drew her into its sphere – beginning with the Nixon Administration – and realized by the tremendous influx of Western Capital. Every dollar extended as credit went on the Bank’s digital tapes as a dollar asset enabling them to lend upwards of 90% value of that same dollar with a velocity of upwards of thirteen times a year. Good for the banks and good for those desiring to see our factories shipped overseas in return for goods better manufactured here.

Preceding, David Rockefeller made an exploratory visit to China. Returning to America, he addressed our Chambers of Commerce, manufacturers, financial groups, etc – with guarantees of a stable work force – which translated to: no strikes, no OSHA, no health benefits, no sick leave pay, no..., etc. Capitalism at its finest. Perhaps, that is why

wherever communism was established – the heavy hand of capitalism was hidden, lending that not-so-friendly push...

For example: Chiang Kai-shek had encircled Mao and was about to deliver the coup de grâce when Marshall (yes, that same Marshall of the Marshall plan of European fame), well, to paraphrase him,

“I cut that b&%#*&d off at the knees.” He did so by cutting off all ordinance and materiel – no fuel, no ammunition, no artillery shells, etc. Marshall saved Mao’s sorry fundament – ipso..., Communist China.

(Communism, in fact, is capitalism arrived; that is, the establishment of monopoly)

>>Not only I see such system as IMMORAL, because it robs its own citizens, and people of the world of their savings via inflation... But it also let US enjoy that "prosperity" over a very short period of time. I also allows a small class of people who manipulate money to grow emmencely rich by making, keeping track, and calling on loans.<<

I think one perusing Writ finds that Gd, likewise, finds such a system immoral. He made it a capital offense – and ‘Babylon’ made it a cup of abominations and filthiness...

>>Neverless, those "assets" that US gave to the oil producing countries of Middle East, of course came with Oil being sold in dollars,<<

Subsequently, yes; however, at the points of nationalization – there were no quids pro quo.

>>As far as I see it, you have those Islamists to thank for buying back some of that bad debt and keeping the dollar afloat for that long.<<

That “bad debt” is only ‘bad’ as long as it cannot be turned into hard assets and if held through its depreciating cycle too long – which is what those ‘sovereign wealth funds’ are all about.

It’s kinda like that children’s game where the ‘bad card’ keeps getting passed around. The trick is to not be the last one caught holding it.

>>Without them trading in dollars, the international market would dump the dollar much faster.<<

It is rumoured that the dollar may be split into a two-tier system – one ‘in country’ with the other never seeing our borders. Guess which one would first prove utterly worthless?

Addendum: I am somewhat dubious re the extent which the Islamic participants had in the Twin Towers bombing, the Pentagon, and the Penn field. That said, to expand requires another format.