Chuck

I may have gone OTT with my response and I apologise. However, you don't 
live in a country which is divided because of the gratuitous and 
unwanted interference by the US. I do. And it is still divided 33 years 
later. OK, I agree that the circumstances behind this interference 
started a lot earlier, perhaps even before the USA became the USA, but 
the powder keg was lit by the US Secretary of State who later admitted 
that he had committed an illegal act (even against the advice of the 
State Department consensus), including ordering the assassination of a 
democratically elected head of a sovereign state, fortunately bungled. 
(Documentary proof of all these statements is available.)

In the wisdom of my ancient years, I have witnessed how manufacturing 
arms inevitably leads to conflict and most often turns against the 
nation doing it. This conflict may be verbal to start with, but often 
becomes belligerent. My view has slowly turned over the years from arms 
races towards preventing the need for arms races. My unattainable (at 
least in this century) Utopia is total global disarmament, including for 
defence. There are many countries in this world that have little or no 
armed forces and form no alliances, yet live in peace with their 
neighbours. If a problem arises, it is nipped in the bud by direct 
talks. This is how it should be, not the childish playground attitude of 
if you do not give me your apple, I'll punch you on the nose.

As for economics, In the last four years, the USD has lost 35% of its 
value against the Euro. Other currencies have followed the same trend 
(e.g., I could buy about $1.70 for a Cyprus Pound a few years ago, today 
it would get me $2.24). This is why you are now paying $70/bbl for oil. 
The outstanding Public Debt as of 25 Aug 2007 at 07:06:42 AM GMT is:
$8,982,165,956,451.17. The estimated population of the United States is 
302,800,356 so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,663.66. The 
National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.44 billion per 
day since September 29, 2006! And the only reason the DJ has risen to 
its current levels is because foreign investors, on which the US economy 
depends, are getting more dollars for their euro, rouble, pound, franc 
or rand (or barrel of oil). I have some equity and bond mutual funds in 
US Dollars and I can assure you that neither has appreciated, converted 
to my local currency, this century. And you say the US economy is 
booming! Bravo in your ivory tower!

Brian



Charles Dolci wrote:
> Brian:
>    
>   I thought long and hard before I finally decided to respond to your post of the 23rd. I knew that it would be hard to remain civil, but I�ve decided to throw caution to the wind. 
>    
>   Brian, you and I agree on one thing � you are not qualified to speak in the area of politics, nor history for that matter. 
>   I had a hard time trying to figure out the point of your posting.  At the end you claim you do not dislike the US or its people, but then your entire post attacks the US.  Forgive me for doubting your sincerity. It seems that the sole purpose of your posting was to vent your displeasure with the US. 
>    
>   Regarding your military service � I am sure the people of the country (whatever that is/was) you served are very grateful for your service. Perhaps you witnessed first hand the horrors of war. But that lends neither credibility nor weight to your present arguments.  Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle -- before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime "get out of jail free" card, exempting one from responsibility for what he or she does thereafter. Neither does it exempt one from the responsibility to be honest. 
>    
>   Regarding your abhorrence to conflict I think John Stuart Mill said it best �War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." 
>    
>   I find interesting (nothing more, nothing less, just interesting) your opinion (to which you are entitled) that WWI was the �worst war�. WWII saw much greater devastation and loss of life, both civilian and military, over more of the globe than WWI. WWII saw genocide on a mass scale both against the Jews by Germany and the peoples of Asia by the Japanese, millions of refugees displaced by both Germany and the Soviet Union, rape by Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union, on a scale that is unimaginable. 
>    
>   You also say �the death, the wanton destruction, the rape, the pillage, the torture, the hunger, the waste, all funded by the public.�  OK, but everything any government does is �funded by the public�. So what is the point?  It was also �public funds� that financed the defeat of Hitler and the Japanese militarists and kept Europe, China and Japan fed during and after the war � largely by American �public funds�.  Although, we are not completely at odds on this  point,  since I find myself in agreement with you and I think that the U.S. should never have become involved in WWII in Europe � that part of the war was none of our business and it was just blatant American imperialism and a thinly veiled guise to grab territory.  It is absurd for the U.S. to expend �public funds� and �the flower of our youth� chasing after every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.  You see, I too abhor conflict. 
>    
>   Can you please clarify for us and give some specific examples to support the claim that �Most of today's conflicts, except possibly some in Africa and in the Caucasus, have been sparked by interference in the sovereign rights of states by the USA and that has been the cause of the rise of Al Qaida.�  May I presume you have some statements by the leaders of al Qaida in which they enumerate these �interferences� and that you will share them with us all?  BTW, don�t you think France and England redrawing the map of  the Middle East after WWI, the British and French mandates and how they carved up that region and set up the governments obviously had a role in the frictions seen today?
>    
>   Further on US interference in the affairs of others, my history on this is a bit hazy. Let�s see - there was American interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan when the US helped the locals (Muslims) defeat the Soviet Union, and there was that business in the 90�s when the US, with the aid of other Middle Eastern states (and some European powers � i.e. the U.K.), threw Saddam Hussain out of Kuwait after he invaded that country. And I have a vague recollection of more �interference� when Clinton bombed the Balkans to save Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo and end the �ethnic cleansing� happening there.  Yeah, maybe you are right, Brian. America does interfere too much in other countries� affairs. 
>    
>   Let�s also talk about Zimbabwe � which has no oil. Of course, neither does Darfur. Nor did Rwanda. (Speaking of Rwanda, they did not use modern weapons to kill each other by the hundreds of thousands � good old fashioned machetes worked quite nicely).  I don�t recall the EU or France or Germany or England, or anyone else for that matter, tripping over themselves to rush in and stop the barbarism that happened and is still happening in those countries.  So the US has failed to interfere in Zimbabwe because it has no oil; what reason has the EU and its member states given for not interfering?  Of course, when the US does act to stop self induced famines and genocidal civil war, as in Somalia, it is roundly criticized.  Again, here I agree with you, conflict is bad, certainly much worse than civil war, mass murder and famine, so the US should not have interfered in Somalia
>    
>   You continue with �Not to mention that if the money ploughed into these conflicts had been spent on social issues, the US economy would have been booming, instead of which, the dollar is hovering around an all-time low against other currencies, the national and personal debts are at their highest ever and your balance of payments is strongly negative - and your country's reputation outside the USA is as low as the economy.�
>    
>   I don�t know what you mean by �would have been booming�. Brian, the US economy IS booming. It is incredibly strong - the stock market is at record highs and unemployment is at or near modern (i.e. post 1920s) record lows.  The reality is that unemployment is actually lower than the official record. There are 12 � 20 million illegal aliens in this country who are here primarily because they have found work here.  So not only are we fully employing our native workforce we are employing half the workforce of Mexico.  Why would these people be risking life and limb to come here if there weren�t jobs for them (plus a host of social benefits that they could never get in their home country � all at the expense of the American taxpayer � thank you very much)?  The unemployment rate in the US is presently around 4.5%. Throughout most of Europe it hovered around 10% for most of the last couple decades, only recently dropping to around 8%.  If there was an 8% unemploy
ment rate in
>  the US the people here would be screaming.  Poverty (as measured by any global standard) is virtually unknown in the US.  
>    
>   You say that �the dollar is hovering around an all-time low against other currencies�. Do you have any facts to back that up?  If so, let�s see them. Besides, what is the relevance of exchange rates to this discussion, or anything else for that matter? I invite you to give us the �ideal� exchange rate for the dollar against other currencies?  Keep in mind that a high exchange rate means that American goods and services will be less attractive to overseas buyers � which is not good for the US economy. However, I do want to see your sources. and the standard you use.  
>    
>   You say America�s �balance of payments� is strongly negative.  Maybe, but what does that mean?  It means one of two things, either 1) the creditor nations (mainly China, Japan and Europe) are really, really stupid for putting their money into a country that is, as you would have us believe, on the brink of financial ruin, or 2) they are smart enough to know that the U.S. and the dollar are the safest place to put their investments and will yield the highest/safest return.  If the creditor nations thought that the US was a poor bet they would not be selling us their goods and services and accepting dollars and they would not be buying up US government securities.  
>    
>   Besides, this �balance of payments� business is just a shibboleth. To borrow an example from the economist Walter Williams  - I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me, and I bet it's the same with you and your grocer. That means we have a "trade deficit" with our grocers. Does this perpetual grocer trade deficit portend doom? If we heeded Brian, one might think so. But do we really have a �trade deficit� in the first place? Let's look at it. 
>    
>   In the grocer example, there are two accounts that I hold. One is my "goods" account, which consists of groceries. The other is my "capital" account, which consists of money. When I purchase $100 worth of groceries the value of my goods account rises by $100. That rise is matched by an equal $100 decline in my capital account. Adding a plus $100 to a minus $100 yields a perfect trade balance. That transaction, from my grocer's point of view, results in his goods account falling by $100, but when he accepts my cash, his capital account rises by $100, again a trade balance.  Moreover, I have gained something that I value at $100 (the groceries) and the grocer has gained something he values at $100 (my slips of paper � or as is more common, my credit and promise to pay cash at some later date)
>    
>   The principle here differs not one bit if my grocer was located in another country as opposed to down the street. There'd still be a trade balance when both the goods account and the capital account are considered.  The deficit in the US goods and services account, sometimes called current account, is matched by a surplus of equal magnitude in our capital account. A large portion of surpluses in our capital account consists of U.S. Treasury debt instruments held by foreigners. If they did not trust the US economy and our government they would not be trading their products in exchange for pieces of paper in the forms of US currency, stocks and bonds. Do you really think the governments and investors of  China, Japan and Europe are really that stupid? 
>    
>   �National and personal debt being at an all time high?�  Sources please.  Relevance to anything please.  
>    
>   Personal debt at a high point? Maybe, but again, Brian, just what is the �right� amount of personal debt?   Just what is the right amount of debt for you? For me? For Gordon?   The point in life when I had the greatest amount of debt was during my peak earning years and that level of debt was not a problem. Now that I am no longer in those halcyon days, my debt is near nil. Who says that the level of personal debt in the US is �too high�?  Who makes such moral judgments?  What has that to do with anything?
>    
>    
>   Chuck Dolci
>    
> 
>