I cannot understand the persistence of our US allies, who continue to state that present Georgian leader, M. Saakashvili, is a guarantor of regional security. Especially after recent South Ossetian conflict it has become absolutely clear for everyone in Europe that he is unable to ensure stability of the Caucasian region and restore normal relations with neighboring Russia at all. Neither D. Medvedev nor V. Putin will ever enter into negotiations with the politician, who has given sanction to killing Russian peacekeepers and mass shooting of peaceful population of the whole city!
Thus, the current US support of M. Saakashvili can prove us only one thing: the USA is interested in assistance of own Georgian protР№gР№ as a main initiator of various military conflicts in the region, which is so important for EU as one of transit corridors for ensuring European reliable energy security now.
It means that our US friends do all possible in order to isolate Europe from reliable transit routes, which will administer a shock to our energy security. As a result it will ruin EU economy in conditions of global financial crisis and rid the USA of its main economic rival in the world.
I fully agree with this comment. There are two clear red lines in US foreighn policy towards Europe. When the cold war ended, Russia was in chaos, and could no longer play an important role on the international scene. America became the sole player, there was no more strong opponent, and they controlled the world. However, when Putin came to power, he managed to get Russia back on its feet, and give it back its national pride. Since then, the US keep on trying to suffocate Russia again, and thus regain world hegomony, by forcing them into a new arms race: they build missile defence shields in Poland and Czech rep. ( to protect us from Persian missiles, so they say) and keep saying that Ukraine, Georgia, should join Nato and EU. By all means, Kosovo had to become and independent state, out of Serbia. Now the US is constructing in Kosovo a large military base, which they never could have done in Serbia, that has long and strong historical ties with Russia.
The second red line can be found in US policy towards the EU. A politically and economically strong European Union does not serve US interests. So Bush goes to Istanbul saying that Turkey should join the EU as soon as possible, as he says in Kiev. This impudent behaviour, sticking his Americain nose in our private European kitchen, serves just one goal: to paralyse the EU under its own weight, once very large but politically unstable countries - out of which one isn't even European - should have joined it.
There is a new sheriff in town, or haven't you heard? You can't blame your own inadequacies on Bush any longer. O-bambi is your man now. But be veeery careful what you say, because you be mean or disrespectful of Obambi makes you a racist.
As for Russia - they were arrogant and overbearing with $140/barrel oil. Now they are back where they belong with $40/barrel oil. In the bottom of the squat toilet, like everyone else.
Bush or Obama makes no difference - the US will serve its interests and they go against our.
Luckily America is broke, and will never recover, because at a time like that they've decided to built socialism, which is exactly what they need to be permanently fukced - thank God!
Don't let that vitriolic schadenfreude of yours push you over the edge of reason. Russia is ten times more fukced than the US. Are you really that uninformed or are you just in denial? Face it, dude, the US is the engine that flies the big plane and if the US engine fails, the whole world is fukced. Actually, China and Russia are stopping to buy US debt, so I don't know who is going to buy US debt now. The US government, probably.
US has major structural problems, and they just took the wrong medicine - Obama.
(not to say that the old fart was better choice)
I think this is the end of the US (and actually UK within Europe), as a major player.
The result of the US driving the whole world into a recession will be diversification, as soon as the shell-shock fades away...
Any one doubting that is in denial.
Do you know what were the factors behind the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 475?
Their political limitations and loss of revenue (from their richest provinces of Spain and North Africa).
I think the US has reached its end precisely because of its failure to revamp its political system. Here's the irony:
US has 21st century technology,(like the rest of the world) but it has a 18th century system.
Rome had 19 century Imperial needs, in terms of taxation and such, with 5th century technology, organizational and political structure.
Neither could survive.
In the case of the US their political limitations will lead to loss of revenue.
Here is how:
This is the only country where the Federal government (Senate/house) are 100 locally elected and not party appointed, or nationally elected.
With other words they are in charge of the Federal purse, but owe their loyalty to a local electorate somewhere - perfect case of conflict of interest.
They are the bankers, the depositors, and the borrowers from the biggest bank, known as the US Federal government - that right there spells doom!
1.2 Trillion deficit will only get worse, under a schizophrenic system as this one.
The only way they reach consensus is by dividing the the money they are in charge of, among themselves (their districts), and when not enough, find a way to uncover more funds, usually by borrowing, since taxation is harder sell...
That system worked great, in a world of their "founding fathers" (pre-income tax) but is totally useless these days.
The US needs to adopt some form of modern Parliamentary system or die.
Not to say that it isn't as corrupt, but with what they have now, even zero corruption spells doom!
"Do you know what were the factors behind the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 475?
Their political limitations and loss of revenue (from their richest provinces of Spain and North Africa)."
Really? I thought it was the size of the empire and the lack of fast and easy communications. It took too long for information to go back and forth between Rome and the provinces. It took 20-30 years for all those centurions to march back and forth from one end of the empire to the other, building infrastructure, roads, aqueducts, roman theaters, baths as they went. Romans would be gone from their land and their women for years and years on long marches. And it was also greed, corruption and last but not least, religion. Christianity reared its head and the Emperor Constantine by converting doomed the Roman empire with its pantheon of gods.
"In the case of the US their political limitations will lead to loss of revenue."
Now you are talking nonsense. What is going to lead to loss of revenue is people are not spending, businesses are not spending, jobs are being lost. Everyone is maxed out on their credit cards and home equity loans. When the proverbial consumer cuts back on consumption, revenues will be lost. The American consumer is spending less, saving more. There is no politics involved. The government can't spend its way out of this situation, since overspending and over leveraging is what led to it in the first place. The market should be allowed to take its course, and bad banks and bad companies should be allowed to fail. No bailouts if you ask me.
"I thought it was the size of the empire and the lack of fast and easy communications."
Nellie don't be a cow - that would qualify under "with 5th century technology, organizational and political structure" wouldn't it.
Wanna know something curious?
The last western Roman Emperor was named Romulus Augustulus (little Augustus), deposed in September 476.
That is funny, because he has the same name as the founder of Rome and of the first Roman Emperor.
The last Ottoman Sultan, deposed in 1922, was named Mehmed VI - namesake of Mehmed the Conqueror, who captured Constantinople on May 29, 1453, and was the fecto the founder of the Ottoman Empire.
"The cause it over leveraging - that's the illness. The result is the recession - that's the symptom."
Yeah you can oversimplify if you like.
What's the cause for over-leveraging then?
Don't tell me some some human traits, because that would be a housewife's logic.
There is a structural problem that will not be addressed, precisely because most are deaf to it, the way you are...
OK, genius, what is that proverbial "structural problem"? Most hot shot economists agree it has to do with over leveraging. Do you even know what that means? It means you are borrowed up the kazoo and your bank is lending 30 times more money than it actually has to lend. Structural problems? Over leveraging IS a structural problem, dude!
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan