Dear davidf,

Happily in agreement in much of your post but to dent the hubris just a touch it should be acknowledged that when you are the big kid on the in the playground life can be pretty good. If you have the biggest stick who is going to take you on?

I'm not sure a small country in deep poverty would have had the courage to arrest the head of the IMF.

The threat of international terrorism certainly took a gouge out of the freedoms enjoyed by America's citizens. But as a threat goes it was hardly the same as Iran being attacked by Saddam (with US backing). Generally the more vulnerable to attack a country sees itself the more they deem repressive measures essential to keeping themselves safe.

Dear csteele,

The US supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Bush2 lied the US into the latest Gulf War. "George Bush's War" by Smith tells about Bush1's responsibility for the first Gulf War. Eisenhower ordered the CIA inspired overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran which brought the Shah to power. The US record in both Iran and Iraq has been very flawed. Compared with perfection it falls far short. Compared with its two main rivals in the twentieth century, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, it is wonderful. Both those countries were powerful and horribly repressive. Citizens had few rights against the powerful.

I was responding to Poirot's statement: "The West is an insatiable and deceitful force in many parts of the world. If the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO can't extricate the riches it desires, it fabricates a common threat and goes in militarily."

Apparently some of the recent Arab protests and revolts are due to the fact that they want a more democratic system something like the US.

After WW2 instead of a punitive peace for Germany, Italy and Japan the US built those countries up and ended the cycle of European wars between Germany and France which drew much of the rest of the world in. Much of the structure of international cooperation such as the UN and various international agencies has been due to the support of the US. Bush2 stepped back from that policy, but Obama has reversed some the Bush policies. Obama is far less aggressive and in Cairo admitted US errors.

I am for the separation of religion and state. The state benefits by the separation since it creates a freer society which does not force any religious belief on the people, and religion benefits since it is freer to criticise the government. Religion has flourished in the US due to the separation. In Australia there are fundamentalist chaplains in the public schools and subsidies for religious schools. That is another way in which the US system is better in my opinion.

I did brag about the US but in response to an attack

David f.,

Of course the U.S. offers many values to the world, but the fact remains that in recent history they have been the great power and they pull the strings. csteele's point that many less powerful countries wouldn't have had the gumption to arrest the head of the IMF is pertinent.

Time magazine asserted that: "Americans aspire not to give preferential treatment to the the powerful when they are accused of breaking the law,", and a Treasury spokesman said "The reality is that he was leaving anyway...."

The U.S. had already had internal talks as to who would replace him.

You pointed out that the unrest in Arab countries is them hankering after a democratic system - that may be true, but it's also true that these countries have been the target of stringent control of the IMF and World Bank for well over a decade. Egypt has been one of the top world reformers economically speaking and was the darling of the World Bank for its efforts. The problem is that all the profits from privatisation and the like were funnelled, not to the Egyptian people as such, but to the Egyptian hierarchy and to corporate entities beyond their borders.

Although, these two organisations supposedly represent an international collective, the reality is that they are Western controlled. According to Time, "The tradition is that the Americans get to choose the head of the World Bank and Europeans select the IMF head..." These orgainisations give the West an overriding influence in the affairs of many poor countries, often with little benefit to their populations.

http://anilnetto.com/corporate-led-globalisation/imfworld-bank/egypt-followed-imfworld-bank-ideas/

lets not let the money changers..get off so easy
as the austerity measures we 'had' to have
..bite us into a collective poverty..

the greed of those who run the money scam is endless
[lets not forget it was sadman insane..wanting his oil money in euro's
that saw over one million of his people murderd...and their infastructure bombed into dust]

in the same vein...look at libia
he wanted african gold dinars...to be the means of exchange
to buy his oil...

[lest we forget the deaths
of those who rejected the money changers...
jesus..[the elites hated him..][without the money changers incident..he would not have been murderd[and revealed the lie of judgment/reserction days

from ceaser..to jfk...and sadam insane
the money changers love murder
allmost* as much..as they love money

[by their works will we know them]

those who murder are far from good
no matter how much they spin it to the greaters good
[to wit them being the greater...have earned the greater good]

as to the rest of us
we get ours next time
in the next realm..[sadly so too those who love money]

lest we forget the new covenant
more [of the same]..shall*be given...!

there aint no money in heaven
only the credits we...actually DID

we..[earned]
[here/now]

that we do/did to the least
we do/done..to good[god]

Dear Poirot,

As the dominant power the US acts the way you described. They pull the strings. I think the reality is as you described it. I know you don't like me bringing in the corpses, but that is the reality of the competitors to the US, Nazi Germany and the Marxist Soviet. The United States has also produced corpses with its support of death squads and other instruments of its power. I don't think it is as bad as the alternatives.

It looks like China will be challenging the US. Maybe Chinese domination will be less oppressive. I think as long as we have a nation state system the most powerful nation or nations is going to be oppressive. Can the system be changed?

csteele's point that many less powerful countries wouldn't have had the gumption to arrest the head of the IMF is pertinent. However, the two main contenders for the position of world top dog, Nazi Germany and the Marxist Soviet, would have cared little about the abuse of the chambermaid. Some world figures are immune to justice in any country. I can’t see Benedict XVI or his predecessor being arrested any place for their coverup of paedophilia.

I hold no brief for the IMF and the World Bank. They have been instruments of oppression. A command economy works but not very well. We could have a system where there was a high standard of living for most people along with a large measure of freedom for most people. That has been achieved in the Scandinavian capitalist countries. I see no reason that it can’t be achieved in other countries. Something will probably replace capitalism, but, at this time, I think it’s the best system around.

David f.,

Of course, there is every reason to doubt that the Scandinavian standard of living could be available to the majority of the world's inhabitants. A higher standard is possible, but not to the height that capitalist countries experience - especially where out and out opulence is evident. Were the West to cut back on its waste and excess and offer poorer countries more of a leg-up instead of outright exploitation, I would be more inclined to agree with your assertion.

Also, in light of the events in New York, it just crossed my mind that with the IMF being more of European controlled entity, it could be the beginning of a power-play between the U.S. and the Continent for more influence regarding the leadership of that organisation.