2002-01-20 It is our fault. We encourage politicians in other lands to follow our example and to support the dollar. We support others only when it is in our interests, no matter what the cost and no matter who gets hurt. And when the others no longer suit our needs, we let them down, casting them aside like yesterday's trash. We don't care about others as long as we are doing well and looked up to and admired. Terrorism isn't new to the world, but it is new to the US. We didn't care if others were victimised by terrorists. We never lifted a finger to help.
But, when the US is finally attacked, then we come out lashing at anyone who appears to be an enemy. Why? Because our pride is wounded. We who thought it could never happen here are angered because it did. We were embarrassed and humiliated before the whole world and that is unacceptable. We are so determined to hunt and destroy our "enemy", we will do it at any cost, not caring who we trample on. We pretend to care, but we really don't. Argentina listened to American advice during the '90s and it backfired on them. Now, when they needed and wanted American help, America has ignored them. All we care about is revenge in Afghanistan. As a result we have alienated the people of Argentina. And possibly the whole of South America. Europe knows our days as a super power, commanding the respect of the world, are numbered. It is just a matter of time before we fall, and fall we will. Someone has to fill that vacuum, and Europe hopes it is the one to do it. And do it they will. That is why they are in such a hurry to unify into a nation, and unify they will, right before our very eyes. And Britain will be a part of that union, either by choice or by force. The new Europe will not tolerate a rebellious child too close to its heart. There may be other "unions" happening elsewhere in the world too, maybe in South America, maybe even in Asia. And when they rise, they will remember how America treated them when they were nothing and America ruled, and they will show no mercy. Mark my word. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-01-20 20:38 Subject: [USMA:17510] RE: America NOT responsible for their problems > I agree wholeheartedly. Americans may be a bit arrogant in some respects, > but you can't lay all the world's problems at our feet. For a good > perspective on the lessons of 9-11, see Tom Friedman in today's NY Times: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/20/opinion/20FRIE.html > > Nat > > > > > > > Hi guys > > > > If Argentine economy collapses or there is economic > > problem in Thailand or Indonesia, the blame is on > > their politicians and NOT on USA. > > > > The politicians in these third world countries talk in > > local language, but they love > > 1. US Dollar > > 2. Swiss banks > > > > Yes. They loot billions of dollars from their > > countries, convert it into USD and deposit it in Swiss > > Banks. So are the businessmen of these countries, > > who put their profits in the foreign banks. > > > > USA cannot be responsible for their problems. > > Now that Euro is there, they will convert some of > > their looted money into this currency. > > > > 1 day, the politicians/businessmen of the third world > > countries will realise what is the cost of 'HONESTY'. > > It requires a person like Vladimir Putin to clean > > every nation. > > > > As for America's arrogance, they have a correction > > mechanism which is 'democrary'. If they have corrupt > > businessmen, they will see more 'Enrons', otherwise > > they will prosper. > > > > As for the America's manufacturing sector, the answer > > is metrication, if they do, their efficiency will go > > up, otherwise they go down. > > Airbus has overtaken Boeing in orders in 2001 also. > > Japanese are pushing their lead in cars and suv's and > > these are just few examples. > > > > Its upto the Americans to learn the metric lessons and > > for the third world people to learn lessons on > > honesty. > > > > Madan > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Here's the article. > > > cm > > > > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:43:51 -0500 (EST) > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from a > > > washingtonpost.com user > > > > > > You have been sent this message from a > > > washingtonpost.com user as a courtesy of the > > > Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). > > > > > > To view the entire article, go to > > > Variables.HTTP_REFERER > > > > > > After This > > > > > > By David J. Rothkopf > > > > > > > > > Somewhere in the world today walks the next Marx. > > > But he is not a communist, and he almost certainly > > > is not an expatriate German slaving over his > > > theories in the stacks of the British Library. > > > Nonetheless, he or she will attempt to seize upon > > > the trends behind today's headlinesto shape a > > > competitor to "American capitalism" that the > > > disenfranchised in nations around the world can > > > embrace. > > > > > > She may be in the streets of Buenos Aires, > > > protesting an economic meltdown that has left her > > > family in the dust. He may have been among the > > > Palestinians celebrating at the collapse of the > > > World Trade Center or among the Indonesians marching > > > beneath banners bearing the likeness of Osama bin > > > Laden. He may be in Beijing working to become the > > > architect of reforms that might actually make > > > "market socialism" a sustainable concept. She might > > > be a Nigerian whose daughter is among the 25,000 > > > children worldwide who die every day because, in the > > > era of Perrier and artificial hearts, they lack > > > clean water, basic medicine or food. He might even > > > be a Russian seeking to reestablish that country's > > > leadership with an approach that is an alternative > > > to an increasingly self-interested, inflexible > > > United States. > > > > > > We may not know the region from which the next Marx > > > will hail or his particular approach. But we can be > > > sure that someone, somewhere will offer an > > > alternative vision. And as America stands astride > > > the world, the fact that so many of us, citizens of > > > the most successful nation in history, think that > > > such a threat to our values is impossible may be the > > > very thing that will allow it to come true. > > > > > > Never in the history of nations or ideas has there > > > been an extended period in which one view has > > > prevailed without challenge, particularly one that > > > is seen by many to be widening the gaps between the > > > world's comparatively few rich people and the great > > > majority who are poor. > > > > > > Rome was supposed to last forever, and fell. Kings > > > ruled by divine right, and fell. The British Empire > > > was the mightiest in the world but could not stand > > > up against the will of its subjects. The Industrial > > > Revolution was transformed when it generated a > > > clamor for workers' rights and unions and communism > > > itself. In business, what dominant brand has ever > > > remained unchallenged? As Swiss watchmakers and > > > American car makers, steel companies and television > > > networks all know, the seeds of disaster lie in a > > > triumph so great that it stifles the will to > > > innovate, to evolve and to attend to the needs of > > > the markets or peoples upon whom you depend for > > > success. > > > > > > The end of the Cold War was not, as some would have > > > it, the End of History. It was, instead, the end of > > > one challenge to capitalism. And if we do not > > > recognize the costs of the hubristic interpretation > > > of world affairs we have accepted during the past > > > decade (that we are right and all others must play > > > by our rules or founder), then we will be making it > > > easier for a new generation of challenges to arise. > > > > > > The harbingers of this looming threat are not just > > > in the dissatisfaction of the world's poor. They > > > also lie in the frustrations of America's allies at > > > this moment of our undisputed greatness. > > > > > > Recently, one of Latin America's senior diplomats -- > > > a known supporter of the United States -- asked me, > > > "What kind of message is America sending? In > > > Argentina, they thought they were playing by U.S. > > > rules, being a good friend to the United States, > > > helping you from Haiti to Bosnia. And what was their > > > reward? You turn away at their moment of greatest > > > need. They are not alone in this feeling." He went > > > on to say that many of America's friends in Latin > > > America and elsewhere think that we are good at > > > asking for cooperation, good at directing -- and not > > > so good at listening or giving. > > > > > > This is not a new view. But recent events have > > > exacerbated feelings of frustration with the United > > > States on these points. A European politician with > > > whom I spoke a few weeks ago complained about the > > > so-called Bush Doctrine, the president's "Whose side > > > are you on?" policy toward terrorism. This was not > > > his idea of what an alliance should be. "It's a > > > one-way street. You say we are either with your or > > > against you. And who decides? America does." When I > > > repeated this politician's reaction a few days later > > > to a group of senior Asian military leaders, they > > > laughed and nodded in agreement. > > > > > > At the moment, the U.S. government talks a good game > > > about engagement in the world, but the reality is in > > > large part disengagement and self-absorption -- just > > > the sorts of approaches that leave openings and > > > persuasive arguments for would-be rivals. > > > > > > The war against terrorism is worthy, but it is > > > really a war to protect Americans. From Latin > > > America to Africa to Asia, any one of which may give > > > rise to the next Marx, terrorists will wage their > > > campaigns with little or no direct opposition from > > > Washington. We talk of globalization but in the past > > > eight years, since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round in > > > 1994, Congress has primarily chosen a path of > > > protection on trade issues and has made few major > > > advances in the area of trade liberalization, with > > > the exception of China's accession to the WTO. In > > > the meantime, U.S. influence in international > > > financial institutions has advanced policies that > > > promote hard currencies and the interests of Wall > > > Street above those of local populations to such an > > > extent that they have triggered a backlash against > > > the "Washington consensus" -- a recipe for emerging > > > markets reform that stresses privatization, market > > > opening and trade liberalization. Indeed, to say > > > "Washington institutions" in most of the ! > > > world is to speak of rich man's rules. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong. I'm no latter-day Che Guevara > > > wandering out of the jungle. Quite the contrary. The > > > radical reformer to whom I think we need to pay the > > > most attention is none other than Margaret Thatcher. > > > She championed the idea of a "nation of > > > shareholders." When she became Britain's prime > > > minister, 2 million people in her country owned > > > stock. When she left office, there were seven times > > > that. That shift transformed a nation that had > > > viewed itself as consigned to stagnation and > > > frustration into a world leader in innovation > > > regardless of the political party at the helm. > > > > > > This is where most of the reforms of the recent past > > > have fallen short. This is where capitalism has let > > > down most emerging markets. This is where the United > > > States has created the greatest opportunity for > > > anger and backlash. In the 1990s, the International > > > Monetary Fund, banks andother advocates of the > > > interests of advanced capitalist countries went > > > around the world preaching the much-needed > > > "Washington consensus" reforms. But they did not > > > address the central issue bedeviling most emerging > > > and less developed economies: ownership. > > > > > > When governments sold their assets as part of > > > privatization schemes, they were bought by those who > > > had access to capital. These were either > > > multinational corporations or powerful local > > > business people with the assets and credit history > > > to borrow to buy -- in other words, the elites. When > > > borders were opened or new capital flowed into the > > > country, who benefited most? Those who already > > > controlled the majority of local assets. Call them > > > what you will: the<em> chaebol</em> of Korea, the > > > former apparatchiks of Russia, the kleptocrats of > > > Indonesia or the family-owned groups of Latin > > > America, the elites and their closest associates in > > > the international financial community benefited most > > > from the reforms of the '90s. > > > > > > But when troubled times led to austerity programs in > > > these countries, it was the newly laid-off workers, > > > small borrowers and others who were slammed when > > > currencies were suddenly and artlessly devalued. > > > Sure, plenty of big businesses faltered. But the > > > benefits of reform were generally greater and > > > problems far fewer for the elites. So, too, with > > > globalization: Rich nations have benefited more than > > > poor, while the number of those living in absolute > > > poverty (or indeed starving) has risen starkly. > > > According to Canadian Feed the Children, the richest > > > 358 people in the world have a net worth equal to > > > the combined annual income of the poorest 2.3 > > > billion. > > > > > > So, now again the cry of the populists is falling on > > > receptive ears. That populism may take the form of > > > the tragicomic economic policies of Eduardo Duhalde, > > > Argentina's fifth head of state since mid-December, > > > or the rhetoric of the increasingly paranoid and > > > erratic Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It may be the > > > regionalism > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ > > > > > > >
