I disagree, neo-cons are the main perpetrators of free trade and open border trade policies. The less regulations and barriers to trade the easier it is by extension for the West to continue its way of life and extract resources and product from foreign economies, as well as procure cheap labour. I'd say it is working effectively, as Canada and the US are headed towards unprecedented levels of economic integration with regards to border security and both are already benefitting from cheap Mexican labour. By benefitting I don't mean average small town families losing jobs because Chrysler shut down X number of factories, I mean the stockholders and shareholder seeing profit, whatever the means.
So you are for free trade? I can see now where we are having a disagreement on. Free trade is a good thing, to a certain extent. Getting rid of jobs that nobody does, or is outdated is good because it opens up new jobs, and expands the economy. However, when you have over 50% of your production made in China, that is when things get very hairy really quick. Not only does it cause problems in the long term for a free market economy, but it literally puts some countries in a bind. It is ridiculous that the US has been practicing this method for the past decade. It will literally be the death of us. All we have left now is buying power, and soon that will be on the auction block as well. We have let the corporations have too much freedom, and that is not a good thing. It doesn't make a better economy or better capitalism, it only leads to anarchy and chaos in the long term. Free trade is good, but it needs to be limited. Otherwise, the Western way of life won't last much longer.
The average Canadian isn't worried about Mexicans unless Mexicans start arriving in mass numbers here and screwing with our way of life. I don't see any socio-cultural barriers to the integration theory. As for political discontent, relations between Canada and the US are their warmest in years. We're balls-deep in Afghanistan, working with the US on border security via SPP meetings, developing our oil sands and maritime offshore resources and ensuring US access to oil, etc.
The last step is to add fresh water to the free-trade equation so the golf courses in Arizona don't go under.
Of course the Mexican issue is not
your problem. It's
our problem. We are already having a tough time paying for these people who don't pay back into the economy, and use up welfare like it is going out of style. Many hospitals, clinics, and the like have had to shut down in the border states because they can't take care of or fund the 37+ million illegals that are flooding into this country. It is already creating some racial tensions in some parts of the country. If we had a NAU, it would give Mexico an even bigger excuse to turn our country into a bread line, which would extend the problem all over the place in the US, and not just primarily in the border states.
As for your comments on relations between Canada and the US, they are warm for the most part. Still, there are quite a few people who don't like us, and if issues arose over resources it could cause problems later on down the road. You obviously feel that there will be no problems, but I disagree. Our government isn't the best at sharing power, and I am pretty sure Congress will try to start anything to line their pockets with cash with Canada, as I'm sure the Canadian government will do the same. What is a good partnership, could turn sour in the long haul. It just depends on how well two bureaucracies are willing to work together. Furthermore, there have been statements made that the UN would love to play the mediator in this partnerships which would cause even more problems. If anything, the word of the UN should never be trusted. This should bring some concern to people regardless of whether they play a role or not. You don't know what the final construction of the partnership would be like, so don't play it off like you do. It would be worse off than you think (which is kind of what Pachipro was hinting at with his conspiracy theories).
I can definitely appreciate this. Poor and have-not provinces in Canada also fight with the federal government over surplus sharing and equality. I'd imagine it's much the same in the EU. Again, is it in the best interest of these countries to side with the Russians again and risk political and global alienation, not to mention exit one of the worlds largest free trade zones? Or should they stay with the sweeter deal which is the prospect of eventually improving their economy and benefiting from the protection of NATO?
Within the scope of politics and economics, I just don't see a break up of the EU benefitting anyone in the short term. It's not a vote for the EU so much as it's an arrangement of convenience and a vote against taking a step backwards. Even poor countries like Romania have seen their GDP increase since joining the EU.
Yes, but the industrialized nations are the ones in trouble. Low birth rate, gap between the young and old, massive influx of immigrants both illegal and legal who have been disenfranchised, high welfare costs, paying for the former Eastern Bloc nations, the list goes on and on. There are just too many problems the main players have that are not being addressed. Since each country's economy is locked into the EU as a whole this can cause disastrous problems in the long term. I agree that the people should take the EU deal over being a part of Russian again, but unless these pressing issues are addressed, the bad will eventually outweigh the good. I don't believe in a break up, I'm just saying that you can't put these things off. So what if France has its own independent power source. It doesn't mean anything if they can't afford it in ten years. That's why I keep saying don't put all your eggs in one basket with the Euro. It could out like the US dollar later on.
As for NATO for protection, I wouldn't hedge my bets on them too much. Hell most of the nations involved teach their individual militaries in "peace keeping" and "administrative" roles over national defense. It really shows with the ones involved in the war in the Middle East too. I'd rather put my money on outside militaries like yours and our over the French. I'm just saying.
I would agree with you here. I think there is definitely a rising chorus of discontent in America because of the every-day impact these policies. There was also a lot of protest when Bush stole the election in 2000 but that didn't stop things. There was a lot of hand wringing before you went to war both in Afghanistan and Iraq, both missions were failures unless you include the contracts given to Haliburton and the positioning of US bases so close to Iran. Point is, I don't think the discontent is having an impact. It is good to know it exists though.
Afghanistan and Iraq were failures? Excuse me, but neither war is over with yet. Come back to me in 30 years, and then we'll discuss why they were failures or not. Actually the impact is pretty noticeable. People are starting to put actions into their own hands, especially down on the border states with all the illegals. Furthermore, people are becoming increasingly aware of the world here, and are demanding answers on getting stuff done. As for the private contractors, people are also calling those into question as well. With investigations underway, Americans day by day are getting a different picture of the wars in the Middle East compared to what Congress and CNN have been painting. The mentality of the wars here in the States are like this: win the war and lets go home. That's it. In other words, let the military do their damn job, put a stable government in place (which doesn't have to be some representative republic), and get the hell out of dodge. Only time will tell whether or not this thing will be a quagmire or not.
Ultimately the scales haven't tipped yet though.
Wait until after the presidential elections of '08, and then we'll discuss this further.
If the FED operates the way you say it does then that would make sense, keep the economy afloat while the real money lenders and power holders, aka the central banks and corporations, are filling their pockets and ensuring the spoils of the wars they started go back to American companies.
Since the central banks and money lenders are borderless, it's not outside the scope of possibility and reason to assume that regardless of the impact on the American economy, what nets them the most global profit overall won't still be done. Playing with lending rates, introducing liquidity into the market, cleaning up the credit crisis; all designed to keep the average American afloat. But ultimately, if an integration of currency and borders is the only solution, you do it. There are two choices, bubble pops, or stuff even more gum in your mouth. This won't happen tomorrow, but it will eventually happen. The EU didn't happen overnight either.
Actually, the reason why things are happening the way they are is because for almost the past two decades the US was on deflation due to the collapse of the USSR. However, with over half of our production of goods being made in China and the emergence again of Russia, things are starting to wind down. Their isn't a need for a NAU, nor is their a desire to have one. Furthermore, the FED concentrates on the US economy and its dealings, not the global. Furthermore, the FED has a leash around the central banks too. There are lending rules that the central banks in this country must abide by, or risk losing their profits. The reason why the US hasn't gone under despite things that should have made it do so years ago was due to the FED. Greenspan and the people after him are about the only ones who give a crap about keeping our country in one piece. After all, their money is on the line too.
As for a legal tender, the US Government is the only entity that can regulate it. The FED is nothing more than a quasi-governmental corporation that regulates the buying and selling of US investments, and keep the economy in check. Since both groups go hand and hand so well with one another, it is hard to see a NAU happening even if that was the only option to some. The FED has too many security checks and self-interests in the US to do it.
I don't remember saying you're too gullible to think for yourselves, I do think I alluded to the fact that you don't generally have the right tools and information to do that with. It's not a lack of capacity but a lack of resources. Anyone can see the difference in reporting style, content, level of censorship and corruption in media outlets like Fox and CNN (the most popular ones) compared to newscasts like the British BBC, Canadian CBC, and so on. You can't really blame the average American for thinking Saddam had WMD and was a member of Al Quaeda, for 3 months before Iraq that's all they were told. Did the major media outlets investigate that and find out whether it was true or not before reporting it? Or at least offer opposing views of reasonable strength to balance the reporting? Or were they just passing the Bush administrations assurances along as biblical truth?
Actually, the average American citizen didn't know what to think before the wars. 9/11 happened and all we wanted was the morons in the government to pay for their mistake of letting it happen, and to take out Bin Laden. Everything after that point was too dizzying, and now we are where we are. Because of that, Americans just want to win the war and have our troops come home. One thing is for certain, a Western collation entity is needed in that region due to Pakistan and its nukes, and all the oil interests as well. I'm sure if we weren't over their right now, things would still be heating up at the same rate, if not worse.
The reason why the world hates US if we are to use your words is because US goes around killing people. For instance during the Iran-Iraq war one million people died. US was feeding Saddam to bomb Iran. Kids who grew up during the Iraq-Iran war get traumatised when sirens go off because the town you live in is about to get bombed. Before that the CIA together with UK orchestrtaed a coup to install the Shah. The US Embassy was used as a place to interrigate and torture people who opposed the Shah. That is why there was the hostage cricis in the US Embassy in Iran.
While I do agree that many people in Iran are against theocracy. And many say that it is worse than the Shah who overthrew the democratic elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh.
Had it not been for the coup in the 50s I am sure Iran would be very different than it is today. The irnoy of it all is that back then it was about oil too. Mossadegh wanted to nationalise the oil wells which the Multi Nationals thought was a very bad idea. The irony of it is that many of the same companies in Iran in the 50s are playing a vital role in todays Iraq.
1. Indiscriminate fire is a part of war. It will
always be a part of war. Whether you like it or not, innocent people die in wars. Furthermore, our track record for innocents/terrorist being killed ratio is better than it was in WWII. Since WWII less and less innocents are dying in wars that the US are in. Why? It is because we train our troops better and better. Did you know a soldier in Iraq can't fire his rifle off without filing paperwork before and afterward. It's true. The US military likes to keep accurate records of their soldiers to prevent mass accidents of friend fire from happening. BTW all those stistics are crap. They have been proven to be trumped up since day one because of the methods people use to get them.
2. There is more to the Iran picture from the 1950's than you know. There were other factors and political interests involved during that time, but that was the past and this is the present. It is time to look toward the future instead.
-Doc
