|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted August 13, 2004 07:44 PM |
|
|
First of all I would like you all to take the very same questions and doubts you are applying to Colin Powell and ask yourself the very same questions respecting both Bush and Kerry. Perhaps if you will all do this then you will get a better perspective of how valuable Powell could really be compared with either of them.
Second, Svarog, I have gone back to your post and will try to review your questions on by one:
Quote:
...what makes you think that the same Powell who we saw serving under Bush for the past 4 years, will redirect the American policy from its current course significantly? Shouldn't we judge a man according to his actions?
As I have said, I have watched the manner in which he communicates with foreign leaders and I have also tried to keep up with the leaders' responses and opinions. Of the dozens of articles and websites I have visited, of all the speeches I have watched by Powell on the television and radio, of all the interviews I have seen and heard of Powell, I cannot name any single one. I am sorry; I know that is not an adequate response, but it is simply true. However, drawing from that continuing experience and based on my own observational database, I have concluded several things about Powell based on his own statements and responses.
First, I find Powell's demeanor highly credible compared to Bush, Kerry or most other politicans I can think of. He comes across as extremely rational, objective and somewhat detached. The apparent depth of his intellect and wisdom accentuate my positive assessment of his demeanor. In other words, he simply seems to be telling me the truth to the best of his ability at any given moment and within the orders and instructions of the White House. I know some of you younger people believe that nobody should hever lie under any circumstances. Unfortunately, in my experience that is not reality particularly when it comes to politicans and individuals holding political office. I have already told you I believe he was acting against his own better judgment but under White House Orders on many occasions. You either find that persuasive and thus forgivable or you do not. I cannot change your experience and and you cannot change mine. We can only offer up our reasoning to one another and either accept or reject it. My assessment of his credibility thus influences the following points:
He is clearly the only moderate voice in the cabinet. I get repeated signals from him that he has been the man pulling the reigns back on Bush. He has not come out and said as much. I am basing this conclusion on subtle expressions of intent in response to solid questions about the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is more intelligent, far more educated and culturally sensitive than any of the Bush cronies. Again, I base this on his continuing statements during interviews and speeches.
Quote:
What actions/accomplishments can be contributed to Powell that make you put your full confidence in his hands? Is it solely his skill and knowledge about that area? Then how about all those proficient generals and diplomats in history that lead "aggressive" policies?
When it comes to the delicacies of the terrorism front, I support a surgical, largely nonmilitary approach which would be almost completely atypical in terms of what we think of as conventional warfare. We also need to completely revamp the American security system in a nonconventinal manner in response to the nonconventional situation of danger we now find ourselves in. (Bush's recent appointment of another neoconservative cronie to the directorship of the CIA is IMHO the complete last straw and scares me worse than I could possibly tell you).
In my opinion based on my international studies, attacking countries as a means of fighting terrorism is counterproductive and could be just about the worst possible thing. If we fight any kind of actual combat at all in this terrorism phase of American history then it should be severely redefined and limited to extremely specific, surgical removal of well-identified cells and leadership individuals if at all. We need someone who is not only "schooled in warfare" but smart enough to refine and apply intelligent, strategically effective tactics, both military and nonmilitary, not bluster all over the place invading whole contries engaging in nation-to-nation warfare, when there are terrorist cells in practically every country in the world.
Powell happens to be a General, but is far beyond a mere war specialist. His diplomatic skills, intelligence and knowledge of international history and affairs, as demonstrated by his actions and words as I described above, are in my opinion indicative that he will be the most capable of devising a comprehensive strategy that involves multi-national cooperation in a team effort not only to subdue terrorist acts globally, but begin addressing the issues in the Middle East that lead to it in the first place.
From a strictly pragmatic standpoint, we must have an option that garners the sopport of the conservative element of the United States as well as the liberal element. There is no doubt in my mind that any candidate who plans to simply abandons the struggle against continuing terrorism will find no support in the conservative commuity, nor should it IMHO. As I said to Consis earlier, this situation is not simply going to go away. But we must have someone in the white House who can devise strategy for dealing with it meaningfully and effectively or we will only continut to make the problem worse.
Quote:
What I'm saying is: how can you be sure about the kind of policies he'd pursue, given the fact that the only policy that he's been in favor of so far is that of his "boss"?
Well I cannot be sure of anything, including whether any politician will pursue any policy even if he claims he will (they frequently do not keep such promises). But knowing Polwell's level of understanding of the situation I trust that he will approach it with a neutral effectivenes because it is evident to me he undestands that the U.S.'s current international policies of neoconservatism and neoliberalism are largely resented globally are failing as paradigms, and that a comprehensive revamping of the American international scene is required.
Svarog, you have drawn your conclusion about Powell's policies from your observations and it is an entirely reasonable one. I have drawn a different conclusions based on my observations and experience in the political arena. I submit that my conclusion is also entirely reasonable based on that experience. It has become increasingly apparent to me over the past two years that Powell has become completely disillusioned with Bush and his leadership decisions. Powell is an imminent professional, understands the ramifications (both domestic and global) of creating any appearance of a rift in the White House, and has therefore avoided directly disclosing the level of his displeasure. But I assure you, I have seen and heard evidence of that displeasure time after time. If you keep listening to him and if there is any way you can go back and review any interviews of him taken over the last two years, I think you will see what I mean. There was more than one newspaper article indicating Powell's displeasure on several occasions but I cannot remember what the details were; I only clearly recall thinking well that's not surprising. Once again, sorry I cannot be more specific.
My personal observations and judgements of this type of accumulated information are my primary evidence in support of my position. If your observations and judgements are different than mine, then I have little upon which to base further argument to persuade you otherwise, but you have little upon which to base persuading me in return.
Quote:
True, he did make efforts to soften the warmongering attitude of Bush administration, but that doesnt erase the fact that he worked for the same goal, only with a more tactful approach.
I might take this comment to indicate that you have observed some of the same tendencies in his method if operation as I have. Once again, as the Secretary of State, he had no choice, other than resigning, to follow orders. Resigning as Secreatary of State during such a critical period, when we were already engaged in warfare with two other countries, could have been even more destabilizing globally and counterproductive than staying and finishing what they had started.
It is absolutely critical to recall that the Secretary of State operates under the direction of the Commander in Chief and is not an independant office. The charater of the presidency can make this more or less true. Recalling that Bush has been perhaps more interventionist and controlling in nearly every office from the EPA on up, my guess is that he has micromanaged Powell's every attempt to act with any degree of independence. Once again, it has become clear that these two men do not see eye to eye with respect to managing the office of the Secretary of State, and my guess is this rift is much deeper than we have any idea since we know about it at all.
Svarog, I sort of feel like I've done it again -- like I have talked a lot again and still haven't answered any of your questions. I hope that's not true, but a large degree of my confidence in this man does come from accumulated observations that have repeatedly been confirmed through that continuing observation. This makes it nearly impossible to give you anything concrete.
Oh well, I tried.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 13, 2004 09:07 PM |
|
|
An Article Written On Powell
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030922&s=alterman
Check this article out. What do you guys think of it? I'd like to cross examine it with you guys if anyone is interested.
Clearly the author doesn't look at the bigger picture. What I'm trying to address is that Powell doesn't either.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 14, 2004 09:07 PM |
|
|
(Other than merely stating that this article appears to support both sides of the coin we have all been arguing, I'll wait for others to chime in -- esp. Svarog.)
Thanks Consis.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 15, 2004 05:54 AM |
|
|
*chimes in*
Hey Peacemaker, I’m sorry for making you write that much. 
I have understanding for your position, although the way you suppose Powell is secretly against the policy he officialy supports and pursues, based on some inexplicit indications in interviews, in my opinion is a risky behavior. You said that politicians often don’t keep promises given during election campaigns, but what to think of a man who hasn’t made any promises concerning the direction you and I hope he would act? It’s like putting words in someone’s mouth. It would be interesting to hear what kind of stance would he take in an election campaign, but that wont happen any soon.
My opinion on Powell based on my poor observations on him is positive. By the way, he was here in Skopje when the thing in Iraq started, cause the powerful Macedonia helped you in the Anti-terrorist coalition. (Oh, tears from laughter) Just the standard diplomatic clichés :We love you. You love us… Lets crush them.” Oh, that last one was not a standard, was it?
Anyway, from articles I’ve read, many experts suggest the same thing you suggest, that he’s the most moderate in that administration and the one with most brains. And that is as far as I know about Powell.
For my political (dis)taste, he’s still too far right. But for me, is there anyone who’s not? 
Since we’re so practical (I’m not cynical here; I agree with your justifications for his “betrayal”; only if that was betrayal and not a dedicated service to his beliefs), we might as well see the supposed situation of him being President through a pragmatic prism. And that is the one comment you haven’t addressed. You know that saying we have: “You shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you.” That has the status of almost a natural law in politics. Do you think that the practical Powell would isolate himself from his neoconservative Republican background? Do you think it’s possible that the leverage that launched him from a military general high to the position of President, would not influence his course? We had such a case here, in Macedonia, where the President was rejected from the conservative party that candidated him (and he was anonymous before that), because of his “pro-international” attitudes. But here, we can survive with everything. I don’t think USA can handle such a drift between the head of the State and the party that candidated him. What’s even more, I don’t think that the practical Powell would allow something like that to happen. I’ve always wondered why that man isn’t a Democrat. Seeing the composition of the voting Republican body AND the important Republican politicians, I think the winds of war will still blow on Powell, even if that goes against his own beliefs. Kinda like the situation now, only slightly inverted.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 15, 2004 10:37 PM |
|
|
Hey Svarog!
Thanks for your reply. You didn't make me write all that; I'm just long-winded and repeated myself several times LOL!!! If bort had written that post it would have been about five or six sentences long. You know what I always say: brevity is not my forte.
My favorite part of that article Consis provided a link to was the image of Powell throwing the papers up in the air and shouting: "This is bull****!" If that really happened, in one way I am surprised cause he's always so composed. But in another way I'm not surprised at all. It just confirms what I think about Powell.
On him being a Republican: I would like to respond by making what I think is a critical distinction between party politics and leadership capabilities. During the first century and a half of this country's life the two party platforms re-alligned on their various planks five different times. The system organically continued to re-adjust itself due to changes in social realities and developments. In my admittedly limited knowledge of the history of the White House, true statesmen (individuals of conscience; wisdom and real-world knowledge) who have taken the Office of the Presidency tend to take actions they think best for the country even when contrary to the party platform, and do not necessarily remain mere puppets for every little issue of the nominating party. This trait is what makes the U.S. more of a republic than a true direct democracy.
That has quit happening. Unfortunately, the American two-party system has stagnated severely for the past several decades. There has been no party re-allignment since I can't remember when, but it's been a really long time. It has come to represent an increasingly entrenched and ever-increasing polarization between two ever-more-hostile camps; one clinging more and more desperately to conventional, largely religious dogma and corporate control resisting any kind of change in response to evolving social realities, and the other becoming an ever-more fragmented, loose association of disorganized but frantic attempts to pry the government away from its own entrenchment to allow such change to come about.
IMO, the two current candidates are a charicature of the current state of the American two-party system. Bush is a Christian conservative in bed with huge corporate interests which currently have the WH by the nuts, if you will. John Kerry is a symptom of the larger democratic disease of party dis-intergration. Since we have so much trouble defining our party platform and what we stand for, we naturally choose an individual who does not appear to have any definable platform and appears to stand for nothing in particular except himself.
Also, in the U.S., while I think it more of a rarity than it should be, I know there are moderate, level-headed members of the Republican party, just as there are lunatic fringe elements in the Democratic party. While IMHO the current administration represents somwhat of a right-wing lunatic not-so-fringe,I'll just bluntly say they're not all like that. Many moderate people I know including me and my husband and many of our friends could probably ally ourselves with the saner elements of either party, but only choose one of the two so that we can vote in the primaries. (I THINK that's how it works -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong). Frankly, I am embarassed to confess alliance with either one of them.
So in other words, if you have the impression that all American Republicans are lunatics, while I can understand why you would currently have that impression, it is not necessarily true. Powell is not a fanatic in either direction; he's far too smart and objective for that. As for your concern about Powell detaching himself from the party who endorses him, you must consider that one of the reasons he would probably win is because so many individuals from both parties support him due to his more moderate approach.
Also IMHO, the worst problem with the Republican party in terms of global concerns is the fanatical conservative approach to international affairs and the use of conventional warfare in response. While I might not like it, I can live with a moderate Republican in the White House in exchange for my country not being the root cause of World War III, if the moderate conservative is a Powell-type statesman. I have a terrible gut fear that the foreign policy of my country is causing more of the very same problems it claims to be trying to solve. This is our main problem right now. It is this issue which is at the heart of my support for Powell. Sure, a moderate conservative in the While House might not support the type of domestic programs I want him or her to. But if we don't get our doo doo together on the international front we're very likely to have much bigger worries.
In response to your question about why I think Powell would break from the Neo-conservative Hawks he currently works with, you need only invoke the image of him throwing the papers up in the air and saying, "This is bull****!" No other single act could have possibly underscored the likelihood that my take on him is right on the money.
Frankly I think if you had a conversation with Powell he would be able to describe how affiliated or not he really is with his registered party. But I have no doubts you would get the full poop on that if he ever did actually run, and that the poop you would get would be the straight poop.
I don't want you to get me wrong. I might change my mind based on what I might hear if Powell ever did actually run. I try not to be entrenched and keep my mind open. But the signs of his statesmanship are all there and I have reason to think a great number of people from both parties would endorse him if ever given the chance to actually hear what his candidacy platform was.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 16, 2004 04:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I would simply like to say, very quickly, that World War III will be the U.S. against China, not the Islamic world against America and its allies.
 You would've gone better without saying that.
And if such thing ever happens, it will be because of opinions like yours.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 17, 2004 05:58 PM |
|
|
Fareed
For any of you who is not familiar with Fareed Zakaria, he is (IMHO) one of the best informed and well-reasoned analysts on the Middle Eastern crisis. I strongly suggest you all get a copy of his book, "The Future of Freedom," and read it carefully.
For now here's a recent article by him:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek/
PEACE
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 18, 2004 11:47 AM |
|
|
According to Burkes peerage, he will NOT be elected anyway. Apparently, before each election in the states the people there study the family trees of the major candidates and determine how closely they are linked to the British monarchy, other royal houses, lords etc. On the last 42 occasions, every election has gone to the candidate with the most "blue blood" (ie closest relations to the above types of people). Bush had more than Gore and so on. Well apparently, Kerry has more than Bush. Who would have thought it, they still listen to royalty!
(please note I am not joking, there was a newspaper report about this yesterday and it is genuinely true!)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 18, 2004 03:43 PM |
|
|
Oh?
So if I get the chance to smooch the rump of the 2004 election winner will I then be elegible for knighthood? And another thing, does this mean we'll be adopting the Bloody-Mary as our new foreign relations symbolic beverage?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 18, 2004 04:21 PM |
|
|
Non-British people can only earn a Honorary kingthood
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 18, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Aug 2004
|
Even Better
Quote:
Honorary kingthood
Isn't that a higher office?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 19, 2004 12:19 AM |
|
|
Nope, knighthood's are much better when they're full ones
The title "honorary" is to say that you should feel honoured that we would temporarily make you British 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted August 28, 2004 06:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Aug 2004
|
Wish I Could Speak To A Greek Person
 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/28/greece.powell/index.html
I donot understand the reasoning behind such a protest. I would like to listen to what the protestors were trying to say. I want to learn of the reason for why they hate Powell the way they do.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 29, 2004 01:28 AM |
|
|
The protests were organized by the Greek Communist Party. The GCP has a significant number of people supporting it. The Communists hate American imperialism, as well as other left-oriented Greeks. Powell is a symbol of American government and therefore of American imperialism. Period.
I would've gone to protests too, if had been there, Consis.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
SIrDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 30, 2004 11:06 AM |
|
|
well there are amny reasons and i could write for a long long long long...long time but he just musn't be reelected! I'm nit saying that kerry is some superman but at least he isn't controled by the fundamentalistic, militaristic right wingers!
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 31, 2004 07:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 31 Aug 2004
|
Republican National Convention(in New York)
First night completed and a few more to go. I observed Giuliani and McCain speak. I was well taken by Senator McCain while Giuliani sort of rubbed me the wrong the way, if you get my meaning. Frankly, the former mayor wouldn't stop jabbering  about how great Bush was. He simply kept droning on and on.
There was one thing he was correct about when speaking of John Kerry. One simply cannot ignore his voting record in the senate. I personally feel very strongly that one's military record does not unilaterally qualify one for the presidency. Why Kerry shyed away from this I may never know but the republicans are sure to remind us all of their account of his record.
And speaking on his record of voting, the republicans act as if we citizens are fools enough to believe that Kerry voted against armor and other such necessary requirements for our troops. I mean seriously do the republicans honestly think I would believe such nonsense? What a load of garbage. Both I and any other graduate of the 10th grade of highschool knows that every bill has many attachments and proposals. To single out a very small segment of a much larger and complex $87 billion bill while conveniently leaving the rest out is selectively and subjectively presenting the facts if you ask me! What an insult to my intelligence! I'm sure there may have been some sort of stipulation attached to the bill that Kerry found unacceptable. What bothers me is that by making his d.n.c. speech focus on his Vietnam record he has practically handed his senate voting record to republicans to portray as they please.
I simply won't be voting for Kerry but it isn't because of the republicans' portrayal of the man. I won't be voting for Bush on principle. My principle is that I think this country needs great change. I think we need the kind of change that only Hillary Clinton can offer. If this means Bush wins then so be it. I'll fight all of his constitutional amendment proposals tooth and nail but at the very least, I know he will keep the country safe. Thus far we have not been attacked since 9/11. I know this is because of Bush. Economy wise, I'd say we're strong enough to endure another final four years of this ignoramous at the steering wheel and I should be quite elated to see him go when his time comes. In the mean time Kerry has to realize that he simply is not going to garner the support from my vote for his election. He has yet to prove to me that he will be a better president than Bush. He may be better in some areas(especially foreign affairs) however he surely lacks in many others. National strength is not his forte, never has been and never will be. I like his ideas for newly proposed healthcare options making it more affordable and cost efficient but right now I think our country needs to feel safe to do things it needs to do.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 31, 2004 06:25 PM |
|
|
Consis/Svarog: On the Greek protest against Powell, Svarog is clearly right on point. Of course this would be the case since Svarog is one of the individuals who take the position represented by the protestors.
Consis, remember my post in that thread about why all the American-bashing? The one that made you so mad until I explained it to you as a prevailing perception of the U.S. worldwide as an imperialist juggernaut?
Well, right or wrong, whether or not Powell was simply the administration fall-guy for the war in Iraq, he stands for America in his official capacity and it is the United States itself that the individuals in question find so objectionable. So it really has nothing to do with Powell personally, but rather specifically him as the Secretary of State for the U.S. in these wars.
On a slightly different subject: To those of you considering voting for Kerry. I would like to submit a concern of strategic significance in what you are contemplating. This concern rests primarily on the issue of Kerry being an intellectual lightweight in international affairs. This area of study is one of the most complex and difficult to grasp and requires years of high-level study in addition to some endemically objective traits on the part of the student. The international practicioner must further be able rise above partisan politics and truly know the intricacies of several areas of study, and be able not only to play the international strategy effectively, but create and re-create it in a dynamic and responsive way. If you think John Kerry (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) have and clue about this area then think again.
No matter who you blame for it, we've gotten ourselves into a real mess internationally that will require the most delicate of extractions in order to avoid gurther damage and the resulting increase in anti-American sentimants that lead to terrorism in the first plavce. If we put a lame lightweight Democrat in that office this term, just think about what will happen in four years after the disasters which are extremely likely to happen on the international front.
The Republican backlash may very possibly result in an even more extreme neo-conservatism that makes Bush look like a moderate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted August 31, 2004 10:53 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 Sep 2004
|
Yes Well....
My vote for Hillary Clinton will be putting George Bush in office for four more years.(please stop chanting that phrase!) However I must regress to PrivateHudson's point that any country whom the world perceives to be most powerful will inadvertently draw that sort of criticism upon itself.
If it's all the same to you Peacemaker, I'd suggest you keep your focus on internal affairs rather than foreign. Our state of foreign affairs is not the determining factor in the problems we face here at home. In other words, I think we need to worry about ourselves before we start to worry about our foreign relations departments. Here inside our own country do we have a plethora of unendable problems and discords. It is here that we must first focus our attention and then only seek the world out through united nations resolutions for global humanitarian missions.
This whole "war on terror", as characterized by Bush, seems to lean towards drawing lines in the global sands that seperate the free nations of the world. "Either with us or against us" is totally inappropriate in my opinion.  I do not consider that to be a favorable route for foreign relations to take. I might remind you that Giuliani repeated those words last night at the r.n.c. These words are seeds of global secularism in my opinion.
I think we should all be focusing on our economy and healthcare system at the moment. I do want to feel safe and that is why I can handle another four years of the Bush empire. But after that I shall never vote, either directly or indirectly, for another Bush as long as I live.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 01, 2004 05:38 PM |
|
|
Consis --
I agree that Bush's handling of this situation is akin to drawing lines in the sand. One of my biggest gripes is the way he is handling the "the war on terror." (I'm not sure about your comment concerning "secularism," however. This term references non-religious aspects of society, and I'm not getting the connection.)
However, I disagree that I or anyone else should not focus on the international issue at hand. As I have said many times, we now have our boot planted firmly and with increasing unwelcome in two nations of a region that harbors extreme resentment toward our presence and influence. The fanatics who are bent on the downfall of the western world are only fuelled by this resentment. Continued mismanagement of our extrication from this delicate situation will increase global instability. I know you think this is not as important as I do. I, however, am certain of its importance.
Bush is a neo-conservative zealot. Kerry is an international lightweight. Either of these men in the White House right now will be very dangerous. I both hope and wish to be wrong about this, because it's pretty clear one of them will be the next president. However, I have a very grim prediction that the aforementioned growing instability will play itself out during the coming term and prove me right. I only hope it isn't in your front yard, or mine, or at one of our children's schools, that this grim prediction manifests itself.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted September 01, 2004 06:16 PM |
|
|
Did you guys know that US jobs are being moved to callcenters in india because they have lower wages and similar competence?
There are 800 million Indians getting close to the education level of the US, and 1.2 billion chinese getting there too. They work hard, and save their pennies. More and more jobs will be moved over time, and it will affect the echonomy.
They work harder than us, many of them are better educated than americans, and 60% of them claim their greatest wish is to work hard and get rich. Soon they will have similar skills at a fraction of the prize of our wages.
I think there might be a financial problem in the US pretty soon. Add to this that neo-conservatism doesn't work, and you get one messed up future. Something tells me you need a smarter guy than Bush in charge (is he really a C- student? omg)..
Btw chances are that they will devalve the dollar soon and raise the intrest level to attcrat foreign capital into the US, so get prepared
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
