http:// http://www.easystm.com

If I believed that America would be defined by the Bush Administration for any length of time, I would have emigrated already! Since Reagan, the conservatives have managed to convince the middle that they have a monopoly on everything that is good and holy. With this war (and the response to Hurricane Katrina, and dozens of other outrages), the Bush conservatives have shown themselves to be arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and have a thorough disregard for the Constitution and the lives and well-being of our troops (and of many more citizens, too.)

The impeachment of Bush and Cheney would immediately start America’s restoration in our own eyes and to those of the rest of the world. If they get to run out the clock, our next Democratic president will have to start that process on January 20, 2009. I sure hope that reinstating science’s role in informing policy will be part of that restoration, as well as a greater appreciation of our Constitution.

I would say history shows Le Pen’s Front National to have been the main winner in your case study.

When it is nationalism – go that way, everyone will be better off
When it is globalism – go that way, everyone will be better off

When the Brits anchored in Manhattan harbor in 1664, the Dutch basically said: we are here to make money, who cares what the flag says

That is the way to go…

Here’s the amusing part:
The Chinese obviously trust us more than we trust us – they keep taking our IOUs.

All part of the greater fool theory….

This just in from my blogmeister via Talking Points Memo ( Josh M Marshall):

U.S. hardens line on talks between Jerusalem, Damascus

It says: The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.

The American argument is that even “exploratory talks” would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there.

As the Syrians ask for talks during this time when it is holding better cards ( thanks to the Lebanon and Iraq Wars- nevermind the Hariri thang) they continue to help Hezbollah arm apparently. RC21 is correct however we can see what directions things are going in at least for the next couple of years as the US administration seems to believe it can call the shots.

Perhaps the Israeli’s will disobey and explore what is after all in their own interest, unless Olmert, like Bush, thinks he can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat ( in another round).

from the article, voices of emboldened Syria:

Three Syrian political analysts and politicians were interviewed on national television and denied the report on Syrian arms procurement and testing of ballistic missiles. However, all three emphasized that if there is no progress toward peace with Israel, then it is the “natural right” of Syria to take other types of action in order to liberate the Golan Heights.

Muhammed Habesh, a Syrian legislator, in an interview with the Al Arabiya satellite channel, said that “if Israel attempts to do something stupid, it will pay a hefty price for it.”

Talking Points Memo comments with this question-quote linked from Andrew Sullivan:

What’s more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That’s not the America I love – but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.”

Who can give an answer to that question that they’re proud of?

Good job.

Our own American revolution started with the French and Indian wars during the 1750’s and we really did not come about as a true independent nation until almost 30 years later.

Israel has been able to deny having nuclear weapons. It’s more of an issue now. The idea of a nuclear-free Middle East ( with Iran threatening and other states now reacting) has surfaced and perhaps can be seriously discussed. That would be positive.

Chris corrected that – he is good at smoothing this stuff over !

China as a superpower?
Mr Tsang plz define superpower….

I guess that the point is that you must wanted to be part of the game to be a player and thus a winner. Everyone else is just benefiting from the side bets. Or getting shot when one of the players pulls out his guns and starts shooting wildly when the game doesn’t go his way.

The one thing that is clear to very many people in this war is that there are not two sides to the war. I had an bit of an understanding of that during my later youth and early adult during the Vietnam war, but still don’t understand all the factions and all the bystanders swept into the chaos. And while I am sure that there were many sides to the Korean War, WWII, WWI, and even Das Boot of a few years ago, and Clint Eastwood’s recent efforts, fail to reveal any of that.

How was China swept into the world wars by outside forces in these three wars (Korea, WWII, WWI)? And of course, how will China be seen in history for this Iraq war, which is sweeping in Iran, which because of Bush’s foriegn policy is proving an opportunity for China to gain access to Iran’s oil.

I’m not interested in the possible course of these side bets in the Iraq war, but wonder if this war is different only because the press in all its varied form has much greater access to both the sources and to the media consumers. Is the Iraq war fundamentally different from prior wars, or have all the other wars had similar side bets with their winners and losers?

To answer my own question, I think that the Zionists won their side bet as a result of WWII, and would probably have won no matter whether Hitler won or lost.

Perhaps having eye-of-the-needle meditations? I doubt it with skepticism…

As for prognostications regarding this current adventure, I’m still wondering about this: Richard Perle: Thank God for the death of the UN “Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him…”

I believe context and agenda are essential in understanding winner/loser scenarios and this is even more important in trafficking historical data and promulgating claims about the future. Without reminding ourselves that context and agenda will usually inform interpretation, I believe this exercise to be somewhat hollow. However, this does not mean I believe the exercise can be done vacuously without any ontological import or philosophical underpinnings. Just means picking winners/losers is usually smoke or opaqueness for deeper meaning. And this question for this show doesn’t seem to even invite a more nuanced, zero sum approach, which over the long haul may have some value.

Weapons makers and sellers win.
The dead and their families lose.

Short-term: oil owners
Long-term: economics of green technologies