Thanks Bookie! I appreciate it.

It's nice to be back posting. I missed the "combat."

It's amazing how people in Europe see our press compared to how we do. Even the flap with CBS and Dan Rather pointed specifically towards left wing support from our media. People in other nations just don't see it.

If anything, our media in the US actually throws more on the table than they should at times. We've gone to the point that any information, no matter how critical to government, or people, is thrown out for dissemenation.

It's a mystery to me how anyone could believe our press is biased to the right.

Wolf

You put your finger on it as usual Wolf,

I could tell by reading the first paragraph of the article that it was biased against the U.S. I guess the name of the URL said that as well.

To me it's undaunting the lengths people who are opposed to anything the U.S. does are willing to go to find articles posted against us. They could save a lot of time and effort by perusing our television and newspapers.

Gazpacho,

Which brings up an interesting point. If people in Europe believe our media favors the right, and it actually favors the left, how far left are the people who bring this argument to the table? Obviously they have to be a lot further left than our own Democratic party which has drifted further left over the last four years.

So... what's out there to the left that makes us the "enemy" of all that's righteous? I'd sure like to know, because all I keep hearing is the anti-US sentiment, and not one shred of information that tells me why there's a "better way" out there, or that anyone else really has a viable solution to world problems.

Wolf

Gazpacho, I think this shouldn't (perhaps) be the tenth thread on ETA, and maybe one of the two or three running parallel simultaneously, but I understand as a comparison, it's valid to mention the issue.

The difference that you may miss is that whereas it's pretty clear for the world (seems that but for Republican Americans) that the destruction of Irak was an unprovoked act of war based on massive power by the attacker, the ETA fight is, for many of the basque, a fight for independence against an illegitimate government (invader, in some way), whereas for many others it is not, and anyway, the force is in the other side.

In other words, it's not the same when the big guy punches the small boy in the face to get the money of his lunch than when the small boy slaps him in the face in the vane effort to get it back.

Wolf and Gazpacho, we are told about, and shown your programs, and it's amazing.

Maybe you think capitalism won in the world, but it didn't, not in its purest form. In 1968, the only solutions the western europe found to prevent masses to join the Iron Wall was converting savage capitalism in social-capitalism, that is, offering people some advantages in pensions, 20/30 days vacations, unemployment pays, quality general and gratuite medical services, laws regulating work contracts, with indemnizations to workers fired for no reason related with their performance, ...

Of course, these benefits are paid with more taxes, that's the rule of the game played here, and I think it's the only one that gives people an oportunity to be happy and not exploited to death.

So, it seems that in the USA you just were in the rearguard and didn't get these advances, but people in the USA someday will demand them. That day, just as communism surrendered, the last remains of 19th century capitalism will, too.

IMO, because you are accustomed to such ruthless system, you are more right-winged, and less sensitive towards others' problems, for you have been rised in a society where it's being a loser or a winner. It takes a lot of effort to be a winner, and you can't feel sorry for the weak.

Oh Ignacio,

I think as your unemployment rises and there is no one to pay for the 20/30 day vacation, unemployment, retirement and the like, you will see who survives. Perhaps you can appreciate, as someone who was trained as an economist, that it is only people who are employed who pay taxes?

Surely, even in Europe, you can see the folly of taking the efforts of the productive to give to the unproductive....Well, maybe they don't teach that. They sure don't here.

And as far as feeling sorry for the weak? I can feel sorry for them from here to eternity and it won't put food in their stomachs. I would rather create for them a strong economy where even their productivity is needed. Gaining power by adding them to the welfare doles, is too self-serving even for this capitalist.

And, by the way. How do you win the world in the purest form?

Ignacio,

Despite all our "shortcomings" as a nation, and being ruthless, why is it that the US is the #1 provider of aid throughout the world? You'd think that the socialized nations of the world, like you've indicated in Europe, would be the first on line to help others in their time of need.

You'd think that the socialist positions that formulate what you refer to as being ahead of us, would be stepping up and doing something for the masses of people around the world. But, for some reason, it's the ruthless Americans who step up and are counted, while the socialized nations and people make comments about how our system has failed. At the same time, these people, and governments, with their social reform, do nothing of relative value to help these people, because they either cannot, or will not help them.

The destruction of Iraq? Did I miss something? Did we go into Iraq and destroy everything? Did we go in with the intent of killing everyone with chemical weapons, and WMD? We went in to remove Hussein from power. Although I agree that it was a mistake, because WMD did not exist, I don't believe that the UN's position would have changed even if Hussein had tested a nuclear device on the Kurds.

To put it bluntly, the majority of Europe was "in bed" with Hussein with under the table bribes, special oil deals, and a complete list of ways that Hussein himself was given kickbacks that allowed him to pay for his military, and his own life style, while the UN sat on their hands, willing to let Iraq rebuild their WMD capability, as soon as the inspectors had finished their work.

The US did attack Iraq for the wrong reason. Would I personally have supported the US going in had we known there wasn't any WMD? No. I wouldn't.

As for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Who is doing this, and who is paying for it? Obviously not the UN, and obviously nobody in Europe. Our "ruthless nation" is footing the bill, and to be honest, we know that Iraqi oil will never be ours no matter what those detractors of the US would say.

What's illogical about this whole argument is how you can talk about ETA's terrorism as being acceptable, allow Saddam Hussein to practice genocide, and then turn around and tell us, here in the US, how we ain't got it right.

Something's wrong with that scenario my friend. Something's seriously wrong.

Ignacio,

Now I'm really confused. If I work and receive only 1 euro per day I'm exploited by my employer. If I earn 2 euros a day and have to hand over one to my democratically elected government in the form of taxes, aren't I equally exploited? Yeah, but how about my 20/30 days of vacation......well, first I have to have a job.

I guess I would have to be a sophisticated European instead of an uncouth and ruthless American to appreciate the nuance.

I know you're not stupid since you're very well spoken and I appreciate your posts. But don't you think some of your premises may be flawed?

Sorry guys, it's not that I don't want to answer any of you, but here it's about 1 PM and I have to wake up early tomorrow, and will be away.

Just some lines:

Wolf

Irak was destroyed for wrong reasons: First they hosted Al-Quaeda (intentionally? wrong), then they had WMD (intentionally? wrong), now that Saddam was a bad guy and deserved it.

I say the USA or anybody don't have the right to kill so many people, invade a country, destroy its economy sending people to starvation, steal their resources (oil), not care of safety, and pass a bill for this, bully their allies or neutrals, ..., just because they don't like the very guy they made the way it is because of their convenience as a pawn to face the iranians.

Logically, that who destroys is obviously who must pay, it's the least they can do. And the account won't be even.

As for the money the USA gives, it's not really a gift but most of the times a pay for their bases or for supporting their allies, who implement USA policies, like Israel.

And the EU gives a lot of money for charity along the world, with no political objectives most of the times.

Gazpacho:

Nowadays, with the new technicques for agriculture, industries and so on, developed countries have excess of supply crises.

This means that they produce a lot (low salaries and low cost of raw materials, along with efficient processes), but they cannot sell the production because people can't buy it.

They can't buy it because of low salaries and because other countries have sall incomes because of the price of raw materials they export.

The 1930 crises was solved by John Maynard Keynes through giving the advice that more money should be given to the poor (unemployed, retired, workers), not out of charity but for them to be able to buy the products they made and preserve their jobs, and the countries industries working with an effective demand.

It seems you soon forgot the lesson, for since then more and more exploitation and less and less rights and fundings go to these collectives. And the rich are richer than ever.

Nowadays, maybe 20.000.000 people, maybe 100.000.000 (insert the number you prefer) could make the production for the whole world, but only those who are working, and are lucky to have a good job can have a life, and most times after long hour day's jobs that make them not have a family or have it and not see it.

The rest of the people, that it, most people from underdeveloped countries, who are unemployed, the unemployed people in the richer ones, the retired, the students, the "housewifes", a lot of people, have not much money to consume.

One day, maybe thatt the work done in a factory of cars where they made one car a month, working 30 people, and now makes 30.000 a month working 3.000, will make 300.000 with only one person who will push a button.

What will the rest do then. Who will pay for the roads, the educations, Public Health, ...?

Now, it's the time that those who get more and more money from the sales they make, give back to the society a great part of what they take through taxes, that will pay the living of the rest of the people who woud like to be there pushing the button but are unemployed instead.

But that is not possible if you can construct the cars in other country with semi-slave workforce and sell it in yours, becsause these firms who would pay lots of taxes and contribute to social welfare would have to move or die.

So the only solution for a fair treatment for workers and people, (because big firms send more people to teh worker's lines through ruining small businesses) is having a protectionist tax barrier towards those with "slave" or underpaid workforce and be a free area inside... just what the EU is!

This is the only way for a fair treatment, and it's ampliation the hope for many countries in the world. I wish some day it will include the whole world and will no longer be called the European Union but the World Union, and all the people have what they need to live on and have a family and not starve, and commercial barriers can be deleted.

I apreciate all intelligent commentaries no matter how educated one can be. I don't think I said you were stupid or anything else. And, of course, I wouldn't call that (or imply that) to Wolf either. It's just people who simply write faster than think that makes me think I am spoiling my time tipyng.

PD: See, I begun before 1 and it was 1.20 when I ended.

Uh....got to love those simple answers to simple questions.

Don't more people mean less resources? More production lower cost?...and...slaves making automobiles?..Collectives in a capitalist society?..Oh, dear. They teach things a lot different in Europe...No wonder we can't agree. Ugh.

You stated something above that would imply that under capitalism there are winners and losers. I disagree. Capitalism is a win-win situation that has by it's very nature to create wealth.

If I am correctly reading what Ignacio just wrote, then I think I basically agree with him. A couple of points which might be of use here:

1) the bulk of the wealth, of the business transactions, and employed workers come from SMALL BUSINESSES, not the large corporations. (I believe it is something like 70% or 80%. I have the info somewhere, just have to research the source.).

2) the current Administration in the US, and many throughout the so-called "first" and "second" world are actively supporting the WTO's objectives. These include laws which would implement the overriding of national economic and environmental laws if they were to in any way interfere with corporate profit-making. For example, there is a huge salt-making operation on the Gulf of California in Mexico which is changing the level of salinity in the Gulf, causing great environmental damage. Any Mexican laws which might prevent or even try to moderate the plant's effects are automatically overrulled by the WTO agreement. The Gulf is dying because of it? Too bad, the plant has a guaranteed RIGHT to continue to make its profit anyway!

My point is that a minority composed of large politico-corporate adventurers are codifying the virtual, no, make that the actual, enslavement of the world. Enslavement is a harsh word, and I use it purposefully. If you do not like the kind of society that N. Korea now has, or Afghanistan under Taliban rule had, then you have two choices: allow it to continue and eventually lose your automony (what little you still have), or resist. To paraphrase a famous saying: "It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees!"