might america - a "third world" country ?

who decides whats first, second or third world ? aren't we ONE WORLD ?

anyway, back to the topic ..i came across this interestin article written by an editor in chief of the asian age ..read on

"There are too many internet terrorists scurrying around planting stink bombs in the very heart of the Green Zone where US President George Bush's credibility lives.
One of the most entertaining stink bombs that came my way compared the rain havoc in Mumbai in July with the rain havoc in New Orleans in August: 18 inches fell in New Orleans, 37 in Mumbai.

Mumbai has 24 times the population of New Orleans.

In 48 hours, 37 people died in Mumbai and a hundred in New Orleans. In 12 hours the Indian Army and Navy were in Mumbai; it took 48 hours in America. Now which, asked this mischievous sender, is the Third World country?

Four years ago, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were the undisputed masters of the response to arbitrary, provocative, barbaric terrorism. They strode the moral high ground.

Today a hurricane laps around the feet of King George Canute and erodes the sand below his throne while he helplessly orders the waters of New Orleans to recede.

A question does not become a fact; America is not a Third World nation. But a question is always a part of an early warning system. The test of leadership is the distance between slip and tip-over.

For once you've lost your balance, descent is so much faster than ascent.

New Orleans is expected to cost $150 billion (Dh550 billion). That is not all that much for the world's richest economy. But $15 (Dh55) can become difficult to find when a tycoon has crossed his credit limit many times.

Hidden dirt

The most powerful businessmen, owners of the finest brands, know this or learn it to their cost. The cost of the conflicts that Bush has taken his country into is not measured only in hard cash; it is being measured in wet blood.

Mahatma Gandhi used to say that all the hidden dirt of society flows into the hut during a flood. Hidden dirt of all kinds is flowing into American consciousness after New Orleans.

The waters have to recede; the dirt will stay in the memory. New Orleans was not just a natural disaster. It was a mirror in which America saw the inherent inequality of the Bush world-view.

The mind that protects the profits of oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people is not so different from the mindset that persuades a powerful leader to head west towards a fundraiser while thousands die in the east of his own country.

George Bush has an accountant's view of the world. On one side is a list of assets: friends, generally respectful and always obedient in a moment of need.

On the other side is the column of liabilities: enemies, always evil, violent, barbaric, backward and without the redeeming virtue of having had a renaissance.

Reality, sadly, has more colours than black and white. A state of war is also a state of mind and it is a poor leader who thinks that any conflict is a black-and-white confrontation.

On the fourth anniversary of 9/11 Bush and Blair must address one question: why have they lost so much respect across so much of the world? This collapse of trust has taken place in their own countries as well.

Why were they trusted to lead a war against terrorism once and are now regarded as the Punch and Judy of a particularly nasty tragedy?

They don't need to establish a commission to find the answer. They can take a hard look at the difference in the world's reaction to the two wars that they launched, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq.

I cannot think of a nation that did not support them, particularly after the Taliban in Kabul did not hand over Osama Bin Laden for trial. Pakistan, Afghanistan's closest ally, sacrificed its strategic interests: India and Pakistan were on the same side.

By the time Bush and Blair had forced the hands of the clock towards Saddam Hussain's Iraq, the most powerful nations of Europe, France and Germany, both their people and their governments, had publicly rejected the rationale for war against Iraq, at that time.

The last phrase is important, because if Hans Blix, the UN inspector, had been given time he might have proved that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe that is why he was not given time.

Four years later, even the legitimacy of the presence in Afghanistan has been eroded as it begins to look like an occupation. In Iraq, there is no doubt: it is an occupation. Bush should have listened to the man he sacked after re-election, Colin Powell, his former secretary of state.

Powell supported the massing of troops on the borders of Saddam Hussain's Iraq, but he was a reluctant warrior. He did not want to tip-over into a war with all its unforeseen consequences (rarely have there been as many unforeseen consequences as in Iraq after Bush got onto an aircraft carrier in order to declare victory).

Powell argued that intimidation had to be tried before the shooting started. But Bush and Blair were in heavy league with hubris.

They thought that defeating Saddam was a stroll into Baghdad. That might have been true. But they did not realise that defeating Saddam was not quite the same thing as defeating the Iraqi people and that the people would mobilise once they saw the war for what it was.

It became explicit when the records of the oil ministry were more important to the occupation forces than the treasures of the national museum.

Or Bush might have thought about his father's view of war when he successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait. Nation-building, said Bush the Elder (and Wiser), was not something that American troops could do for Iraqis.

To destroy a dictator as evil as Saddam might be important, but the world has to devise means that are morally acceptable.

A moral cause cannot be sustained by immoral means. A war for freedom tends to lose its legitimacy when it ends up in the profit sheets of a Halliburton.

War is a course of last resort. It has a justification when it has a moral basis. When it becomes an occupation then those who oppose it acquire the moral strength.

Bush and Blair surrendered the moral edge in Iraq that they possessed against the Taliban. To dismiss the response of the desperate in Iraq as terrorism, as Bush and Blair do, will not get them anywhere.

It will certainly not convince the young people who are ready to die in a battle against those they perceive to be conquerors rather than liberators.

Even those who welcomed Bush and Blair because they hated Saddam and his brutal dictatorship have joined the war against the perpetrators of "collateral damage", the pretty phrase for excesses against civilians in Iraq.

T.S. Elliot wrote, famously: "This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper."

This is the way some presidents and prime ministers end, not with a halo but as a joke, destroyed by a stink bomb."

 

well like a thread that ihmurra made a few days ago and what i brought up on a post of mine there... if you think about the island of easter island. much smaller scale. if you think about the ancient societies that were just as powerful as the u.s. and are non existant or virtually non existant now...

history repeats itself. things happen the way they happen, no matter what... the u.s. wont always be the "most powerful nation". it's not possible and there are signs everywhere.

 

wow , this is the most captivating thread i came across in a while, well alls said and done. i just wish the youth of today had the values of what a conservationist may have in mind for a safer and more humane future. .. rather than empty music and brain numbing tv.

word brother that was word.

Problem is the best minds of our time are to brainwashed to tell truth from hidden lie and the bounderies of right and wrong,

i too came across such a description, Gwynne Dyer- a journalist- termed New orleans as a part of America too cut off from mainsream society such that the term fourth world applies better because the third world is much more organised in their crises. LOL

if this is what happens in modern democracy then what exactly are we looking at? the usurping of people power for a capitalist gain at the expense of the people? treminds me of a feudal or rather barbarian saga.

peace and love
xxx

 

I didnt read everything, but the balance of power comes and goes. one day uzbekistan might be the big giant power in the world

 

i must say, it was rather unfortunate to see a "bangladesh" in the middle of america

 

i did not read most of it because i could guess at its content by the first analogy given. mumbai had more rain and fewer ppl died. so what? did you consider that maybe the rain wasnt the main cause of death in new orleans. maybe there was a 27 foot storm surge that swamped a city below sea level, stressing the levees, and causing them to collapse, releasing the contents of an enormous lake?

 

I think the analogy holds however. We have a leadership that is focused on paying the debts that the individuals in power ran up in their pursuit of power. They are not focused on the welfare of their people. The 82nd Airborne at Ft. Brag boasts that they can put fully equipped boots on the ground anywhere in the world in 72 hours. Had that type of asset been mobilized for the city of New Orleans starting when the National Weather Service gave out their extraordinary disaster forecast many lives would have saved. The focus of the state is to act is such a way as to preserve itself.

 

..now that's just great, isnt it! did YOU consider that maybe the 27 foot storm surge that swamped the city wasnt the main cause of death and destruction - but the fact that the politicians (includin the once-appointed, next-elected (?) president) decided on cuttin the budgets and not givin the levees the attention it deserved and was cried for. or the fact that the architect of 'collateral damage' has little or no experience at respondin to savin the lives that were slippin away

commander in chief, yea!

 

umm, yea