´óÏó´«Ã½

If you are going to use foreign terms in your email "In tonight's programme", it might be a good idea to ask someone who knows the language concerned to give your effort a quick proof-read.

Not bete noir, but bĂŞte noire

Mr Bremmer used a measure of stability as how well a country could respond to a catastrophic event such as a tsunami or electoral crisis.
After Hurricane Katrina it seems that the USA is far less able to deal with such a shockwave, does this mean that America has become less stable with Bush at the helm?
If so, where is it on the J-curve?

the book and its analytical 'theory' would simply be laughable were it not for the fact that senior members of the US administration were amenable to its childish interpretation of world events; surely this should have been the angle taken by newsnight, rather than actually giving the book and its author any credibility.

I think it is extremely biased to suggest that people say in Cuba live an awful life compared to people in the States, that is a matter of opinion and what values one personally holds dear.

And to say that all left wing states naturally mistreat their people is incorrect. Remember, Russia was constantly at war with the west and had to spend a massive amount of money and resources fighting a war that could have gone into improving peoples lives if there had been peace. It may have been more like China is today?

I do agree with his theory in general, but the severe rhetorical bias towards values which America supports is clear. The aim at the back of his mind is still to get everyone singing from the American Hymn sheet, the arguement for not doing so is not a moral one, but purely concerned with economics and issues of national security.

At postin no.4:

"...the severe rhetorical bias towards values which America supports is clear. The aim at the back of his mind is still to get everyone singing from the American Hymn sheet, the arguement for not doing so is not a moral one, but purely concerned with economics and issues of national security."

Maybe so. But perhaps an attempt at reframing is a step away from hopeless and deadly intransigence, so that some sort of 'discussion' (if not exactly, debate!) could be enabled?

Whilst the book is interesting, a far more profound analysis is provided by René Girard, from his study first of literature, and then of biblical stories. He describes the ways in which violence is held in check.
A parallel "J curve" is being worked out within families today, particularly amongst those who have grown up with a culture of patriarchy, arranged marriages and control of younger and female members of the family. Those who seek more freedom can find, as the BCC has highlighted, that the person who doesn’t conform may risk being murdered by their own family.

A 3 dimensional curve might suit the purpose better… or even more dimensions than the "J curve" permits.

The rest of the World does actually live a 3 dimensional existence - rather than in a US 2 dimensional model. US values do not necessarily apply to the rest of humanity and the sort of ambitions they hold dear.

Cuba, Venezuela and other Latin American States have needs for their people other than than those of North Amerika.
Some may hanker for the US Energy driven economy, but in reality have more practical problems like health and nutritian. This otherwise means forming alliances than without the US and not being exploited in the interests of Uncle Sam.
Unfortunately, if any States do decide to act in their own interests - the US decides to react with force.

As for the main part of Europe - the priorities are more diverse. So the need to hang onto the coat-tails of US ambitions only exists with the likes of Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher.

Many thanks to Tom Ambrose at posting no. 6 for this recommendation.