Usa....usa

[Honorary Bloke]

For example on the issue of "rugged individualism" and minimum government control I would be in conflict with such views. Britain tried minimum control "laissez faire" in the nineteenth century and it failed. Britain and Oz believe it is a moral obligation to help the weak and underpriviledged with good health and education.

It is odd that this "rugged individualism" concept flourishes in America. When the wagons pushed West, how long would an individual last? The wagon trains were a good example of team work and protecting the weakest among the group

Back by popular demand!

Now where were we? Oh yes, first this business of rugged individualism. It has its roots in the foundation of the US as a repudiation of the European class system in which some were born noble and others could never hope to achieve success due to birth and the proscriptions of the way society was organised.

So, the belief that anyone should have the right to succeed on their own merits was a fundamental principle of the social contract. Rugged Individualism should not be confused with "every man for himself," which it is not. Cooperation (as in the wagon trains) with one's neighbors is not only common, but, in the case of rural areas, expected.

The US, albeit to an admittedly more limited extent, believes the weak and underprivileged should be helped. But who should provide that help? In the beginning (19th C.), such help was viewed as the exclusive role of private charities. Only in the 1930s did the role of government begin to include such things as pensions (Social Security) and government make-work programs.

But there seems to be a general view that the US does not offer any help at all, when in fact we have:

Social Security
Medicare for people over 65
Medicaid for indigents under 65
Welfare payments
Unemployment compensation
Aids to Families with Dependent Children (aimed at single mothers)
Food Stamps to augment food purchases
And other programs.

Where we fail is not so much at the poorest levels but at the marginally poor levels, where the wage is not sufficient to provide a decent living standard, but is too high to qualify for some of those programs. It remains to be seen if Obama (you knew we would get back to the OP's subject eventually, didn't you? ) can correct some of these faults.

[Manuka Jock]

For anyone interested in some background on Mr. Clark and the International War Tribunal here are the Wikipedia pages.
Hope this helps the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_War_Crimes_Tribunal

Cheers m2c1Iw ,
thanks for posting the links .
It truly is an International organization , and the members of the inaugural Tribunal were a cross section of the society of our planet .

Tribunal members

• Bertrand Russell (Tribunal Honorary President)- Peace Activist; Philosopher; Mathematician
• Jean-Paul Sartre (Tribunal Executive President)- Philosopher;
• Vladimir Dedijer (Tribunal Chairman and President of Sessions)- M.A. Oxon., Doctor of Jurisprudence; historian
• Wolfgang Abendroth- Doctor of Jurisprudence; Professor of Political Science, Marburg University
• Gunther Anders- Writer and philosopher
• Mehmet Ali Aybar- International lawyer; Member of Turkish Parliament; President, Turkish Workers’ Party
• James Baldwin- African American novelist and essayist
• Julio Cortázar (writer) Writer, novelist and essayist
• Lelio Basso- International lawyer; Deputy of Italian Parliament and Member of the Commission of Foreign Affairs; Professor, Rome University. President of PSIUP (Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity).
• Simone de Beauvoir- Writer and philosopher
• Lázaro Cárdenas- Former President of Mexico
• Stokely Carmichael- Chairman, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
• Lawrence Daly- General Secretary, UK National Union of Mineworkers. Socialist.
• David Dellinger- American pacifist; Editor, Liberation; Chairman, Fifth Avenue Parade Committee.
• Isaac Deutscher- Historian
• Haika Grossman- Jurist; Jewish liberation fighter
• Gisele Halimi- Paris lawyer; attorney for Djamila Bouhired; author of works on French repression of Algeria
• Amado V. Hernandez- Poet Laureate of the Philippines; Chairman, Democratic Labor Party; Acting President, National Organization of Philippine Writers.
• Melba Hernandez- Chairman, Cuban Committee for Solidarity with Viet Nam, now the Cuba-Viet Nam Friendship Association
• Mahmud Ali Kasuri- Member National Assembly of Pakistan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Sara Lidman- Swedish Writer
• Kinju Morikawa Attorney; Vice-Chairman, Japan Civil Liberties Union, a human rights organization.
• Carl Oglesby- Past President, Students for a Democratic Society; playwright; political essayist.
• Shoichi Sakata- Professor of Physics
• Laurent Schwartz- Professor of Mathematics, Paris University.
• Peter Weiss- Playwright; Author; Experimental Film Director .

Who , in their right mind , could dispute the verdicts of such an august body.



It is good to see that the quality of the members has been kept up .

Olga Mejia, Panama

President of the National Human Rights Commission in Panama, a non-governmental body representing peasants' organizations, urban trade unions, women's groups and others.

Sheik Mohamed Rashid, Pakistan

Former deputy prime minister. Long-term political prisoner during the struggle against British colonialism and activist for workers' and peasants' rights.

Dr. Haluk Gerger, Turkey

Founding member of Turkish Human Rights Association and professor of political science. Dismissed from Ankara University by military government.

Susumu Ozaki, Japan

Former judge and pro-labor attorney imprisoned 1934-1938 for violating Security Law under militarist government for opposing Japan's invasion of China.

Michael Ratner, USA

Attorney, former director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, past president of the National Lawyers Guild.

Lord Tony Gifford, Britain

Human rights lawyer practicing in England and Jamaica. Investigated human rights abuses in British-occupied Ireland.

Rene Dumont, France

Argonomist, ecologist, specialist in agriculture of developing countries, author. His 45th book, This War Dishonors Us, appears in 1992.

Bassam Haddadin, Jordan

Member of Parliament, Second Secretary for the Jordanian Democratic Peoples Party. Member of Parliamentary Committee on Palestine.

Dr. Sherif Hetata, Egypt

Medical Doctor, author, member of the Central Committee of the Arab Progressive Unionist Party. Political prisoner 14 years in 1950s and 1960s.

Deborah Jackson, USA

First vice president of the American Association of Jurists, former director of National Conference of Black Lawyers.

Opato Matarmah, Menominee Nation of North America

Involved in defense of human rights of indigenous peoples since 1981. Represented the International Indian Treaty Council at the Commission of Human Rights at the U.N.

Laura Albizu, Campos Meneses, Puerto Rico

Past President of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party and current Secretary for Foreign Relations. Honorary president of Peace Council.

Aisha Nyerere, Tanzania

Resident Magistrate of the High Court in Arusha, Tanzania. Researched the impact of the Gulf war on East Africa.

Peter Leibovtich, Canada

President of United Steel Workers of America, USWA, Local 8782 and of the Executive Council of the Ontario Federation of Labor.

John Philpot, Quebec

Attorney, member of Board of Directors of Quebec Movement for Sovereignty. Organizing Secretary for the American Association of Jurist in Canada.

John Jones, USA

Community leader in the state of New Jersey. Vietnam veteran who became leader of movement against U.S. attack on Iraq.

Gloria La Riva, USA

Founding member of the Farmworkers Emergency Relief Committee and Emergency Committee to Stop the U.S. War in the Middle East in San Francisco.

Key Martin, USA

Member of Executive Committee of Local 3 of the Newspaper Guild in New York. Jailed in 1967 for taking message of Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Vietnam to active duty Gls.

Dr. Alfred Mechtersheimer, Germany

Former member of the Bundestag from the Green Party. Former Lieutenant Colonel in the Bundeswher; current peace researcher.

Abderrazak Kilani, Tunisia

Tunisian Bar Association. Former President, Association of Young Lawyers; founding member, National Committee to Lift the Embargo from Iraq.

Tan Sri Ahmad Noordin bin Zakaria, Malaysia

Former Auditor General of Malaysia. Known throughout his country for battling corruption in government.

P. S. Poti, India

Former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. In 1989 elected president of the All-lndia Lawyers Union.

It would be good if we had a World Policeman of comparable honour , but alas , we do not .
Sadly , the guilty will go unpunished .

The final judgment of the
International War Crimes Tribunal can be found here
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim3.htm

[jerryc]

Back by popular demand!

Now where were we? Oh yes, first this business of rugged individualism. It has its roots in the foundation of the US as a repudiation of the European class system in which some were born noble and others could never hope to achieve success due to birth and the proscriptions of the way society was organised.

So, the belief that anyone should have the right to succeed on their own merits was a fundamental principle of the social contract. Rugged Individualism should not be confused with "every man for himself," which it is not. Cooperation (as in the wagon trains) with one's neighbors is not only common, but, in the case of rural areas, expected.

The US, albeit to an admittedly more limited extent, believes the weak and underprivileged should be helped. But who should provide that help? In the beginning (19th C.), such help was viewed as the exclusive role of private charities. Only in the 1930s did the role of government begin to include such things as pensions (Social Security) and government make-work programs.

But there seems to be a general view that the US does not offer any help at all, when in fact we have:
.
Where we fail is not so much at the poorest levels but at the marginally poor levels, where the wage is not sufficient to provide a decent living standard, but is too high to qualify for some of those programs. It remains to be seen if Obama (you knew we would get back to the OP's subject eventually, didn't you? ) can correct some of these faults.

Bob,

The 19th century was a turbulent period and one I have studied. What I find intriguing is that the US and OZ went totaly different ways in establishing the national chaaracter. The Aussie doesn't respond with deference to authority and whilst very much an individual, has a deep sense of "mateship" One of our national heroes is Ned Kelly, a police shooting, bank robber. He sums up the Aussie view of mateship very well. "A man would have to be a mongrel, not to stand by his mates."

The problem with 'individualism is that, like patriotism, it is a convenient shield for the unscrupulous to use. One single mother with a child cannot stand against the likes of Wal Mart which has a well documented history of treating it's staff badly. The one individual would be standing against an organisation armed with a battery of lawyers and accountants. Not to mention lobbyists with a route to politicians that she lacks. To understand a culture, one has to look at it's heroes.
Superman stood for "Truth, Justice and the American way." Dare I say it was because the workers had to have some dream, because reality was harsh?

"Rugged Individualism" or really lack of Government intervention was at the heart of the present financial crisis. In the 19th century Britain tried "laissez faire" leave things alone. It failed and Britain learned the need for the state to intervene. Despite the 1930's Depression the US has failed to learn that lesson. Bush and his advisors show a remarkably poor grasp of Economics, "No State interference. The Market is rational and is self regulatory." When they do pour money in (State interference? Isn't nationalisation comparable to Communism? Not when you nationalise a bank.")

But pouring money in the rich end was totally the wrong thing to do. Look what that insurance company (IAG?) did with some of it. Without delving into economics too far, the lower down the income scale you are, the less discretionary is that income. Poor man gets a dollar and the kids need food. Kids get the food. Rich man gets a dollar and he's most likely to stuff it in his pocket and forget it because he has a lot of dollars already.

Another area that baffles me is the insistance on low taxes. While I don't believe in a total welfare state, I do believe that everyone is entitled to a reasonable standard of dignity in day to day living, access to a good free health system and education.
Investment in health and education are vital to the economics of a country. "How many an unsung Shakespeare has pushed a plough?" There's so much more to discuss but mental indigestion caused by overindulgence is not good. Got a few round to go yet.

Jerry

[m2c1Iw]

A shift of empasis if I may.

The threat to the car industry and by extension manufacturing in general exists in both the US and Oz. To date both governments have announced incentives to encourage manufacturers to build green cars. Trouble is the financial turmoil has has brought about the imminent demise of the big three so there is no time to adjust. Mind you it's the consumer who ultimately decides what is built not the government.
At one time vehicle manufacturing was seen as important to a nations defence capability I am not sure that applies any longer.

Obama is faced with a difficult and expensive decision to support the industry amid cries of socialism or does he allow 2-3 million jobs disappear with the hope investors probably foreign pick up some of the pieces. The current administration appear to be flip flopping on how to spend the $750bil while the economy is staggering to its knees and no announcements on jobs.

Isolationism and tariff protection have been mooted as a path however impractical that is in these global times and it will be interesting to see how the US government react to the push for global financial controls. Kev has already announced the need, trouble is whos controls do we adopt, hopefully not Greenspans.

Mike

[Honorary Bloke]

The problem with 'individualism is that, like patriotism, it is a convenient shield for the unscrupulous to use.

With respect, everything is a convenient shield for the unscrupulous who, by definition, have no scruples. "The good of the many over the one" can be used just as surely to punish individuals or minorities, or to curb their liberty.

To understand a culture, one has to look at it's heroes.
Superman stood for "Truth, Justice and the American way." Dare I say it was because the workers had to have some dream, because reality was harsh?

Certainly, you may say anything you wish. And I suppose if you are putting Ned Kelly forward, you can put Superman forward as well. I might have chosen Jefferson or Lincoln, but suit yourself. Reality is generally harsh, in my opinion.

"Rugged Individualism" or really lack of Government intervention was at the heart of the present financial crisis. In the 19th century Britain tried "laissez faire" leave things alone. It failed and Britain learned the need for the state to intervene. Despite the 1930's Depression the US has failed to learn that lesson. Bush and his advisors show a remarkably poor grasp of Economics, "No State interference. The Market is rational and is self regulatory." When they do pour money in (State interference? Isn't nationalisation comparable to Communism? Not when you nationalise a bank.")

Possibly so. Discovering the right model for state regulation versus laissez faire is a work in progress. If the Poms and Ozzies had the right model in place, they would not be sharing in the financial pain to the extent they are. Globalisation means the rules all must share common characteristics and right now they do not. And what are those characteristics anyway? [See the current thread on New World Order.]

But pouring money in the rich end was totally the wrong thing to do. Look what that insurance company (IAG?) (AIG) did with some of it.

The financial continuum is not a tube with a Rich End and Poor End. More like a Frech drain with many holes to absorb the money.


Without delving into economics too far, the lower down the income scale you are, the less discretionary is that income. Poor man gets a dollar and the kids need food. Kids get the food. Rich man gets a dollar and he's most likely to stuff it in his pocket and forget it because he has a lot of dollars already.

You have stated a truism and implied that it is somehow wrong. The problem is not lack of discretionary income which, by definition, is discretionary. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs must first be satisfied. And the poor man who instead spends his dollar down the pub or on lotto tickets does not deserve any more discretionary income.

Another area that baffles me is the insistance on low taxes. While I don't believe in a total welfare state, I do believe that everyone is entitled to a reasonable standard of dignity in day to day living, access to a good free health system and education.

Fair call. No argument from me. But a good many Americans would argue with you.

A shift of emphasis if I may.

Of course you may, it's your thread.


At one time vehicle manufacturing was seen as important to a nations defence capability I am not sure that applies any longer.

Oh I think it still does, only no one wants to speak it aloud. This day should have been seen long ago and the government will have no choice but to intervene to some extent.

Obama is faced with a difficult and expensive decision to support the industry amid cries of socialism or does he allow 2-3 million jobs disappear with the hope investors probably foreign pick up some of the pieces. The current administration appear to be flip flopping on how to spend the $750bil while the economy is staggering to its knees and no announcements on jobs.

Getting the government moving under our system is like teaching an elephant to dance. Much patience is required and the result still looks cumbersome. In any event, the current investors in automobile stocks will not recoup their losses. If government takes a stake in the companies, it will dilute the shares.

I fully expect things to get worse before they get better. For example, falling petrol prices (at least they are falling over here), while welcomed by most consumers, only exacerbates the problem of oil supply in general and prolongs the agony.

[joe greiner]

This is a lot of new stuff to try to digest all at once. But I'm compelled to comment about the falling petrol prices. In the previous energy crisis, around 1979, there was a frenzy to develop alternate sources. Most alternates fell out of bed when prices dropped (whether by accident or design). I hope we're not again lulled into a false sense of security, and abandon the current efforts of conservation and development of more local resources. The next crisis could be the end of independence, IMHO.

Joe

[jerryc]

Bob,
Sorry but my computer has been down.

I've said before I'm not great with computers and being abl to arrange quotes In sections and order is beyond me so bear with the answer seeming awkward at times.

When I cited patriotism and individualism as shields for the unscrupulous you replied not by addressing my point but by diluting it with "everything is a convenient shield". That sort of sweeping statement whilst true does nothing to advance a discussion.

I used folks heroes as my example as a way to understand a culture because folk heroes are generated by the people and not thrust upon them by historical spin..You used Jefferson and Lincoln as possible heroes. Neither man is as clear cut a champion to the underpriviledged as my examples. Jefferson talked and wrote of liberty and of all men being equal but allowed concern for his debts to over ride his principles. He also considered blacks inferior to whites. Lincoln did not go into the American Civil War on the issue of slavery but to protect the Union. He found slavery abhorrent, but compromised his beliefs to political expedience. After the war he allowed some states to retain slavery as a reward for their support.

You ask if Poms and Aussies had the model of state intervention right, why are they sharing the pain of this financial mess? Sorry, you cannot lump the two countries together and you are confusing total global economics with one aspect which is the chaos caused by the Sub Prme fiasco which was totally caused by lack of government regulation.

First, Oz has a well regulated banking system and while banks have had problems, no Australian bank is in financial crisis. Merchant banks by their global nature fall outside of this regulation. As a result the Oz economy has not suffered the same banking disasters as un regulated countries. The Poms, under Maggie Thatcher, followed the American way. she was a great devotee of Reganonomics and as a result, the UK has suffered banking disasters similar to those of the US.

When I say you are off beam with global economics , we enter a more complex arguement. Over simplified, as many arguments must be here, it is evident that when large consumer countries no longer consume there is a corresponding effect on the supplier, however well regulated that supplier might be. America consumes. America's housing bubble bursts. A company here in Oz does most of it's business in supplying the Anmerican housing market. Obvious result-- business drops off, workers laid off--I don't have to go on. the flow on effect is plain to see. Magnify this world wide and you can see however well regulated a country's banking system might be, it cannot be shielded from the effects of something it had no part of.

I must quote your statement in full here
"You have stated a truism and implied it is somehow wrong. The problem is not lack of discretionary income which, by definition, is discretionary . Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs must first be satisfied. And the poor man who instead spends his dollar down the pub or on lotto tickets does not deserve any more discretionary income.

Your argument here is difficult to grasp. I did not imply that giving to the rich and not the poor was wrong. I said plainly it was wrong and based it on simple economic fact. Food, shelter and clothing are the areas of need. I could add health and education also. To the poor they are seldom discretionary. You introduce a moralistic and judgemental argument which does nothing to advance your cause. Are you implying that the poor are more likely to spend their "gift" dragged out of honest middle class by "taxation" on pubs and lotto tickets?

Just as a foornote, Emanual Wallestein' World System Theory makes interesting reading. Among other things such as capitalism being a dynamic and that the centre of capitalism changes he stated that since 1980, the USA has been a hegemony in decline.

Jerry

[Honorary Bloke]

When I cited patriotism and individualism as shields for the unscrupulous you replied not by addressing my point but by diluting it with "everything is a convenient shield". That sort of sweeping statement whilst true does nothing to advance a discussion.

Exactly. Your statement that individualism can be used as a shield did not advance the discussion. I merely pointed that out by stating that anything can be used as a shield.

I used folks heroes as my example as a way to understand a culture because folk heroes are generated by the people and not thrust upon them by historical spin..

Ned Kelly is an Australian folk hero. Superman is a comic book hero invented to make money, not an American folk hero. Daniel Boone (real) and Paul Bunyan (fictitious) may be classed as folk heroes.

You used Jefferson and Lincoln as possible heroes. Neither man is as clear cut a champion to the underpriviledged as my examples.

You cited only one example, Ned Kelly. It is not unusual for people to "idealise" robbers and thieves when they appear to be taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor (Robin Hood springs to mind). But they are still robbers and thieves. We had Jesse James, just to name one.

Jefferson talked and wrote of liberty and of all men being equal but allowed concern for his debts to over ride his principles. He also considered blacks inferior to whites.

Mr Jefferson was a product of his times, as are we all. People can be looked up to without being perfect. We are all human.

Lincoln did not go into the American Civil War on the issue of slavery but to protect the Union.

I never said he did. He felt preserving the union was the most important thing, and the slavery issue could be worked out later.

You ask if Poms and Aussies had the model of state intervention right, why are they sharing the pain of this financial mess? Sorry, you cannot lump the two countries together and you are confusing total global economics with one aspect which is the chaos caused by the Sub Prme fiasco which was totally caused by lack of government regulation.

Do not be condescending, it's very unbecoming. You are the one who asserted Britain "learned' the need for state intervention, thus implying that they got it right. And since you seem to think OZ has it right as well, it is but a small step to lump the two together. You cannot have it both ways.

While the sub-prime problems were indeed the product of under-regulation, it was not only in the US but many countries.

The Poms, under Maggie Thatcher, followed the American way. she was a great devotee of Reganonomics and as a result, the UK has suffered banking disasters similar to those of the US.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago. You should not assert the British learned their lesson and then assert they did not. It is very confusing.


When I say you are off beam with global economics , we enter a more complex arguement.

You had not, until now, made that particular assertion. But since we have not really discussed global economics in this thread in any detail, and therefore you do not really know what my understanding or view of global economics is, I shall assume you are directing this comment at someone else.


Over simplified, as many arguments must be here, it is evident that when large consumer countries no longer consume there is a corresponding effect on the supplier, however well regulated that supplier might be. America consumes. America's housing bubble bursts. A company here in Oz does most of it's business in supplying the Anmerican housing market. Obvious result-- business drops off, workers laid off--I don't have to go on. the flow on effect is plain to see. Magnify this world wide and you can see however well regulated a country's banking system might be, it cannot be shielded from the effects of something it had no part of.

A good summation with which I shall, tentatively, agree.

I must quote your statement in full here
"You have stated a truism and implied it is somehow wrong. The problem is not lack of discretionary income which, by definition, is discretionary . Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs must first be satisfied. And the poor man who instead spends his dollar down the pub or on lotto tickets does not deserve any more discretionary income."

Your argument here is difficult to grasp. I did not imply that giving to the rich and not the poor was wrong. I said plainly it was wrong and based it on simple economic fact. Food, shelter and clothing are the areas of need. I could add health and education also. To the poor they are seldom discretionary. You introduce a moralistic and judgemental argument which does nothing to advance your cause. Are you implying that the poor are more likely to spend their "gift" dragged out of honest middle class by "taxation" on pubs and lotto tickets?

I will try to make it simpler, then. No, I was differentiating between discretionary spending and necessary spending. (BTW, income is not discretionary, spending is, but I won't quibble.) You are the one who dragged it in, for reasons not clear to me yet, but if you are implying that the federal "bailout" money should be spent to buy up bad mortgages to prevent foreclosure on homes people had no business buying in the first place, well, that is your position but not mine. And before you say "but the bad old bankers tricked them into it" let me agree that the bankers did try to do that, often succeeded, and should be held to some account. But at the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions.

Let me state there is much that is wrong with various areas within the US system of government and economics. I am not trying to defend every action of the US government, although I feel I have been put in that position willy nilly. We are not perfect. OZ is not perfect. But both are better than many other places.

I see in The Australian that the government is considering backing credit to car yards to "save" the dealers. Interesting logic.

[Manuka Jock]

You cited only one example, Ned Kelly. It is not unusual for people to "idealise" robbers and thieves when they appear to be taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor (Robin Hood springs to mind). But they are still robbers and thieves. We had Jesse James, just to name one.

There is more , far more , to the Ned Kelly history , that most stories would have you believe .
Were it today , the major players responsible for the injustices that set the saga in motion , would have been weeded out , long before .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly

[jerryc]

Let me state there is much that is wrong with various areas within the US system of government and economics. I am not trying to defend every action of the US government, although I feel I have been put in that position willy nilly. We are not perfect. OZ is not perfect. But both are better than many other places.

I see in The Australian that the government is considering backing credit to car yards to "save" the dealers. Interesting logic.

Bob,
I feel the time has come for me to bring down the curtain on my part in this discussion. Like you, I feel I was thrust into the gladiatorial arena almost against my will. I am not given to extravagent gestures, suffice to say you are OK and I have enjoyed our exchanges.

To sum up my side of things, I could not agree with you more about perfection. No country can stand the blowtorch of true and factual history and the reason we change governments is that we are dissatisfied with what they do. Without entering into detail, I cannot look back on our previous government's performance with any pride.

However the USA has been in a position for many years that invites censure. You cannot be the self proclaimed policeman of the world and trumpet that you stand for "Democracy" and not be scrutinized closely.

The face of America stems from the top, for good or ill and too often it has failed. The US maintaines a strong military presence throughout the world. This places servicemen in the position of being "ambassadors". Unfortunately the Pentagon fails to understand the situation and acts arrogantly. In any armed service there are bad apples, it's the nature of things, It is how the top brass handles problems that is at fault. Badly handled situations reflect on the ordinary serviceman who, by and large, does a good job. It is regretable, but true that the serviceman bears the blame and hate that poor management creates.

With the present economic crisis causing great pain, it does little to enhance the US' status in the world for George W to blithely state that the US financial system of low to no regulation is fine and he sees no need to change it, despite many other countries calling for change. George would not say that off his own bat. Somewhere an advisor has pulled the strings.

To answer the car yard comment. GE is the major lender to dealerships who have to buy their stock from the manufacturer. If they can't get loans then the manufacturers suffer. I notice today that the big three car manufacturers in the US have gone demanding money from the Government and the dealers are there too.

This thread started with the comment from Mike that "There's no doubt it's not only the American citizens that are looking forward to positive change." I said before that Barak Obama has lived outside America during his formative years and this could be a great instrument for change-- if the system allows him room to manoevre.

Jerry

[RETIRED]

I think that many good arguments have been put forward on all sides. I also concur that this thread has run its course.

Thank you all who contributed.