>I hardly think our economy is on the edge of collapsing. You've got to understand the economics of a Presidential election year. Don't believe everyting you read. Compare our unemployment rate with France. The housing market is choking on sub-prime loans because of greed and fraud, not George Bush.

Even the slumping of the dollar is mostly the "natural" correction needed by the fact that there is now a massive economy working only with the Euro as one common currency. Bush junior only helped along by increasing the US deficit.

>Bill Gates contributed more to the prosperity of the 90s than Bill Clinton ( whose major achievement was to leave Alan Greenspan in place. )
>
>Bankers - and specifically the Fed , currency speculators, junk bond traders, international cartels and just natural market fluctuations have a lot more to do with our economy ( and yours ) than weather or not 'public opinion' in Europe likes our president or not.

One the surface your argument seems correct. But compare the Gulf war with the Iraq war - Bush senior had created a very nice scenario for US economy with most of the then current war cost to be picked up by others (AFAIR Saudi and Kuwait paid most of it, albeit helped along by higher oil prices around that time: so you could argue that "their" part was refinanced globally<bg>) while Germany and Japan by some estimates paid together twice as much as the US. Most of the benefits from the Gulf war went afterwards to the US (perhaps aiding Clinton in reducing the US debt?) and the "cost" of the war was neither incurred in a vacuum nor totally without influencing the local economies at different levels. Now compare that to the Iraq war financed by heightening the debt - even if the war cost in percentages is small compared to the pre-80's wars of this century. The local public [/elite] opinon also influences the bankers by providing the background they unconsciously base their estimates of "worth" and "risk" on.

>Ironically, if we had really fought a 'war for oil' we'd be in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, we opted for nation building rather than old fashioned conquest ( where the Iraqis would have been sold to the Saudis by now as labor to replace the Filipinos and Indonesians with Arabic speakers ) and all the oil would be coming our way for $10 a barrel <g> If we were as evil as people think we are we'd be rich <s>

Sure - replace a clearly "foreign" worker force with expatriots speaking the same language, closer religious ties and a few having been in the Iraq army<bg>. Lebanon all over again, only this time in a region where there are large amounts of oil. Or was I to understand this a scenario to be wished for: to be able to send more help, which would then have to be paid for ? Oil coming your and everybodies way for >$80 and the US being reimbursed for help would be a much nicer deal, even if oil production during direct occupation was not much more in danger of sabotage/terroroist attacks than the current deployment of troops.

No, I don't think there is a plan to turn the US into a mercenary nation. But some trends like the massive discrepancy in military spending (ability) further such a scenario - also with the growing percentage of noncombatants in enemy casualties (are the "noncombatants" to be counted as "enemy" ?) fueling the perception of "american devils" in less thinking groups. Again, something so much out of the frame of reference of deciding minds in the US political and military groups (the US is not actively maximizing civilian casualties, but it is a clear side effect of protecting own forces through advanced technology, partially necessary because of instant press coverage) it has to be artificially put into the decision matrix resulting in errors.

I would love to listen to the equivalent of the Nixon tapes describing the POV's of Bush senior and junior on their personal take on things over there, their reasons for going the whole way or not.

regards

thomas