The Post-American World

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps a subject we'd all rathe ignore but one that better recognize. gwb ignored Bin Laden. It is up to you whether to ignore this one.

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. When a book proclaims that it is not about the decline of America but the rise of everyone else, readers might expect another diatribe about our dismal post-9/11 world. They are in for a pleasant surprise as Newsweek editor and popular pundit Zakaria (The Future of Freedom) delivers a stimulating, largely optimistic forecast of where the 21st century is heading. We are living in a peaceful era, he maintains; world violence peaked around 1990 and has plummeted to a record low. Burgeoning prosperity has spread to the developing world, raising standards of living in Brazil, India, China and Indonesia. Twenty years ago China discarded Soviet economics but not its politics, leading to a wildly effective, top-down, scorched-earth boom. Its political antithesis, India, also prospers while remaining a chaotic, inefficient democracy, as Indian elected officials are (generally) loathe to use the brutally efficient tactics that are the staple of Chinese governance. Paradoxically, India's greatest asset is its relative stability in the region; its officials take an unruly population for granted, while dissent produces paranoia in Chinese leaders. Zakaria predicts that despite its record of recent blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong, buoyed by a stellar educational system and the influx of young immigrants, who give the U.S. a more youthful demographic than Europe and much of Asia whose workers support an increasing population of unproductive elderly. A lucid, thought-provoking appraisal of world affairs, this book will engage readers on both sides of the political spectrum...........

More: http://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/039306235X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

I've never really liked Fareed Zakaria, but I'm certain he is onto something in this good piece of literary truth.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[April15]

This is not a revelation to me. Big business is not worried about consumers in any nation, only the nation that has the greatest profit margins. The us is losing ground and will very shortly be left out.

[midcan5]

It is certainly a shame for our country that during these times of transition and turmoil we had an incompetent as president. America's movement away from science and away from participation in the world has started us down the path to third world nation status. Let's hope Obama can turn this around. A McCain Palin presidency would be a further dumbing down of a nation that once prided itself on leading but now is lost in corporate control that sends our jobs work and knowledge to the cheapest bidder.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[Kathianne]

It is certainly a shame for our country that during these times of transition and turmoil we had an incompetent as president. America's movement away from science and away from participation in the world has started us down the path to third world nation status. Let's hope Obama can turn this around. A McCain Palin presidency would be a further dumbing down of a nation that once prided itself on leading but now is lost in corporate control that sends our jobs work and knowledge to the cheapest bidder.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
Gee Midcam, seems the Left is mixed up. Is Bush for internationalism regarding jobs and such or just a xenophobe as you are alluding to?

[Kathianne]

A bit more:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/kristol_the_washington_post_di_1.asp


Kristol: The Washington Post Distorts Palin on Page One (Updated)

Here are the headline and the first two paragraphs from an article posted online that apparently will be on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post:


“Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush"
By Anne E. Kornblut
 Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.”

Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.

People can debate how intimate that connection is, and how much of the fight in Iraq is now against al Qaeda in Iraq--but it’s simply the case that Palin is not saying what Kornblut says she is, and that the Washington Post is, right now, leading its paper with a clear distortion of what Palin said.

Update by John McCormack: It appears the Washington Post has tried to (partially) walk back Kornblut's distortion that Palin tied responsibility for 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's regime. The second paragraph of this story, as noted above, originally read:


The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary."

It now reads:


The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

The Post still ascribes an idea to Palin that she evidently wasn't promoting. It's nice that the Post threw in the sentence: "But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

But the Post still does not acknowledge that that linkage between al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq is precisely what Palin was referring to.

[Psychoblues]

Seriously, kat, are you that desperate? What does that have to do with the book by Fareed Zakaria that this thread is intended to discuss? Is your ridiculous and inappropriate defense of McPhalin/Bush going to be your standard MO from now on?!?!?!???!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Yurt]

psydeshow:

do you really want a post american world?

[Psychoblues]

What a ridiculous question.



psydeshow:

do you really want a post american world?

Did you read the review or possibly the book? Both bear credible comment and so far you're just tryin' to be funny. Clue: you ain't funny.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: