Bullet points

If you posit that France and the US, acting together, could have deposed Saddam Hussein without war, I think that puts the onus of failure on France for not playing along.

As long as the WH has seized the unliateralism lesson, that wuld be something.

Massive devaluations work

Yep. And US debts being denominated in dollars, we get the default thrown in for free.

I’ve thought for some time that fear-mongering over the US current-account deficit was massively overblown, at least from the parochial American standpoint. The losers from a dollar crisis would be almost entirely abroad. And the accompanying inflation, by reducing the debt-service burden (of households especially, but businesses too) would be highly stimulative.

The downside of course would be the possibility of a new international financial architecture not based on the dollar, meaning we probably would not get to pull the same trick again.

Lots of comments come to mind, so time to clear them by just noting that D’D is consistent, and not unduly biased in small samples.

Paul: say what?

In any event, upon further review I can spot where my reasoning is not quite on point, but then again the comparison between Iraq and Lebanon is not quite on point, so what’s the point?

>> Massive devaluations work

Not the kind of finding one mentions in any institution in which the French have an active role.

“The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?”

Sounds like a pretty ugly indictment of France if that is all there is to it. Apparently if France would stand up against dictators, they would fall. That is what you are implying right?

Some more exciting repercussions of the Iraq invasion:

‘Largely unnoticed with the focus on the war and insurgency in Iraq, and overshadowed by an upsurge in violence in Saudi Arabia, terrorist violence is also on the increase in neighboring Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government had been concerned that the preparations for the invasion of Iraq that began in late 2002 would spur an increase in violent attacks directed at either U.S. or coalition troops. During the run up to the invasion in March 2003 the Kuwaiti government ordered a large area along its border with Iraq vacated, and worked with Americans and others to keep the visibility of foreigners at a low level. In spite of this, there were several violent altercations between locals and individuals associated with military preparations for attacking Iraq. Several persons were injured and at least two died….’

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1148/Terrorist_Violence_in_Kuwait

Etc. etc.

And yes isn’t it funny how those who trumped the US’ new commitment to democracy never mention the exciting tale of Haiti?

‘Tuesday marked one year since Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled to exile in South Africa, and the world still doesn’t know the truth of what happened, insists U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee.
Lee, D-Oakland, and a few others in Congress believe the United States at least passively aided the coup that ousted Haiti’s democratically elected leader. They want answers.

“We would oppose the overthrow of our own government, and there must be no doubt that we would oppose the overthrow of other democratically elected governments,” she said in a news release. “Yet today, grave doubts remain about the role the Bush administration played in the removal of President Aristide. This is a fundamental issue of democracy, and the American people deserve to know the truth about just what happened.”

Lee two weeks ago reintroduced The Responsibility To Uncover The Truth about Haiti Act to create an independent commission to probe the coup.

Haiti remains wracked by strife….’

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2592551

Or Venezuela?

‘The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the ‘dirty wars’ of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time. Washington’s involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success….’

http://www.lovearth.net/venezuelacouplinkedtobushteam.htm

The important thing to note is that when the USA acts alone, a hundred thousand people die. When it stands together with France, putting the rogue state on notice that it can’t depend on its historic friends, we win without firing a shot. And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?

LOL. What a dumb statement. Countries aren’t assembled in a factory, all 100% alike. If unilaterlism caused “100 thousand deaths” (pretending for a moment the farcical Lancet study is true) then multilaterlism doesn’t necessarily mean the opposite. Witness Afghanistan. Witness North Korea.

Apparently if France would stand up against dictators, they would fall. That is what you are implying right?

No, I’m suggesting that plans which emerge from international co-operation are both more sensible and more effective than plans forced through unilaterally. For example, The Police made better records together than Sting has managed alone, but you couldn’t therefore conclude that “Dream of the Blue Turtles” would have been a better record if it had Stuart Copeland drumming on it.

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, (X’X)^(-1)X’X will be illegal.

Why does econometrics use such awful notation? X’X for a sum of squares? If the concensus is that you really do not want to use the notation mathematicians have invented as a means of preserving clarity, could you at least consider Einstein’s summation notation?

Notation should make ideas clearer, not obfuscate them.

…thus helping to avert or at least postpone the impending ink crisis.

‘pretending for a moment the farcical Lancet study is true’

Way hay! Another statistically illiteroid! Let’s get them all together and…….. i don’t know……don’t let them out until they tell whether some corrolations in a dataset are statistically significant or not.

Or is that too cruel?

Based on what? Are you that sure a rebellion the US couldn’t keep under control with its understaffed military, like in Iraq, wouldn’t have broken out?

“Or to move onto more modern times, surely British actions in Northern Ireland in the 1970s were asking for an invasion of the province by Dublin (which is not, in fact, such a far fetched idea).”

Speaking from London I’m sure I’m not alone in saying “if only”.

Lebanon […] And this is a victory for unilateralism in foreign policy?

You can read it as such. No rational US President would invade Syria. But Bush has shown in Iraq that he’s a nutter who is quite prepared to disregard such niceties as a dispassionate analysis of costs and benefits. This gives his arguments with Syria – and others – greater weight.

This kind of over-reaction can actually work out as costing you less over time, too. Deeply morally dubious, but funnily enough not in an Enlightenment-style greatest-good summation.

Is that a polynomial curve, or are you just smirking at me?