Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (12567)	2/4/2003 1:35:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Full transcript: Noam Chomksy on the anti-war movement By Matthew Tempest Tuesday February 4, 2003 politics.guardian.co.uk Noam Chomsky: The [peace] demonstrations were another indication of a quite remarkable phenomenon. There is around the world and in the United States opposition to the coming war that is at a level that is completely unprecedented in US or European history both in scope and the parts of the population it draws on. There's never been a time that I can think of when there's been such massive opposition to a war before it was even started. And the closer you get to the region, the higher the opposition appears to be. In Turkey, polls indicated close to 90% opposition, in Europe it's quite substantial, and in the United States the figures you see in polls, however, are quite misleading because there's another factor that isn't considered that differentiates the United States from the rest of the world. This is the only country where Saddam Hussein is not only reviled and despised but also feared, so since September polls have shown that something like 60-70% of the population literally think that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to their survival. Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason - namely that since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda trying to bludgeon people into the belief that not only is Saddam a terrible person but in fact he's going to come after us tomorrow unless we stop him today. And that reaches people. So if you want to understand the actual opposition to the war in the US you have to extract that factor. The factor of completely irrational fear created by massive propaganda, and if you did I think you'd find it's much like everywhere else. What is not pointed out in the press coverage is that there is simply no precedent, or anything like a precedent, for this kind of public opposition to a war. And it extends itself far more broadly, it's not just opposition to war it's a lack of faith in the leaderships. You may have seen a study released by the world economic forum a couple of days ago which estimated trust in leaders, and the lowest was in leaders of the United States. Trusted by little over quarter of the population, and I think that reflects concerns over the adventurism and violence and the threats that are perceived in the actions and plans of the current administration. These are things that ought to be central. Even in the United States there is overwhelming opposition to the war and that corresponding decline in trust in the leadership that is driving the war. This has been developing for some time but it is now reaching an unusual state, and, just to get back to the demonstrations over the weekend, that's never happened before. If you compare it with the Vietnam war, the current stage of the war with Iraq is approximately like that of 1961 - that is, before the war actually was launched, as it was in 1962 with the US bombing of South Vietnam and driving millions of people into concentration camps and chemical warfare and so on, but there was no protest. In fact, so little protest that few people even remember. The protests didn't begin to develop until several years later when large parts of south Vietnam were being subjected to saturation bombing by B-52s, hundreds of thousands of troops where there, hundreds of thousands had been killed, and then even after that, when the protests finally did develop in the US and Europe it was mostly focused on a side-issue - the bombing of north Vietnam which was undoubtedly a crime, it was far more intense in the south which was always the US target, and that's continued. It's also, incidentally, recognised by the government. So when any administration comes into office the first thing it does is have a worldwide intelligence assessment - "What's the state of the world?" - provided by the intelligence services. These are secret and you learn about them 30 or 40 years later when they're declassified. When the first Bush administration came in 1989 parts of their intelligence assessment were leaked, and they're very revealing about what happened in the subsequent 10 years about precisely these questions. The parts that were leaked said that it was about military confrontations with much weaker enemies, recognising they were the only kind we were going to be willing to face, or even exist. So in confrontations with much weaker enemies the United States must win "decisively and rapidly" because otherwise popular support will erode, because it's understood to be very thin. Not like the 1960s when the government could fight a long, brutal war for years and years practically destroying a country without any protest. Not now. Now they have to win. They have to terrify the population to feel there's some enormous threat to their existence and carry out a mircaculous, decisive and rapid victory over this enormous foe and march on to the next one. Remember the people now running the show in Washington are mostly recycled Reaganites, essentially reliving the script of the 1980s - that's an apt analogy. And in the 1980s they were imposing domestic programmes which were quite harmful to the general population and which were unpopular. People opposed most of their domestic programmes. And the way they succeeded in ramming it through was by repeatedly keeping the population in a state of panic. So one year it was an airbase in Grenada which the Russians were going to use to bomb the United States. It sounds ludicrous but that was the propaganda lie and it worked. Nicaragua was "two days' marching time from Texas" - a dagger pointed at the heart of Texas, to borrow Hitler's phrase. Again, you'd think the people would collapse with laughter. But they didn't. That was continually brought up to frighten us - Nicargua might conquer us on it's way to conquer the hemisphere. A national emergency was called because of the threat posed to national security by Nicargua. Libyan hitmen were wandering the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader - hispanic narco-terrorists. One thing after another was conjured up to keep the population in a state of constant fear while they carried out their major terrorist wars. Remember, the same people declared a war on terror in 1981 that was going to be the centrepiece of US foreign policy focused primarily on central America, and they carried out a war on terror in central America where they ended up killing about 200,000 people, leaving four countries devastated. Since 1990, when the US took them over again, they've declined still further into deep poverty. Now they're doing the same thing for the same purposes - they are carrying out domestic programmes to which the population is strongly opposed because they're being harmed by them. But the international adventurism, the conjuring up of enemies that are about to destroy us, that's second nature, very familiar. They didn't invent it, others have done the same thing, others have done it in history but they became masters of this art and are now doing it again. I don't want to suggest that they have no reasons for wanting to take over Iraq. Of course they do - long-standing reasons that everyone knows. Controlling Iraq will put the US in a very powerful position to extend it domination of the major energy resources of the world. That's not a small point. But look at the specific timing. It's rather striking that the propaganda drumbeat began in September - what happened in September? Well, it's when the Congressional campaign began and it was certain that the Republicans were not going to win it by allowing social and economic issues to dominate. They would have been smashed. They had to do exactly what they did in the '80s. Replace them by security issues and in the case of a threat to security people tend to rally around the president - a strong figure who'll protect us from horrible dangers. The more likely direction this will take [after a war with Iraq] will be Iran, and possibly Syria. North Korea is a different case. What they are demonstrating to the world with great clarity is that if you want to deter US aggression you better have weapons of mass destruction [WMD], or else a credible threat of terror. There's nothing else that will deter them - they can't be deterred by conventional forces. That's a terrible lesson to teach, but it's exactly what's being taught. For years, experts in the mainstream have been pointing out that the US is causing weapons proliferation by its adventures since others cannot protect themselves except by WMD or the threat of terror. Kenneth Waltz is one who recently pointed this out. But years ago, even before the Bush administration, leading commentators like Samuel Huntington in Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal, were pointing out that the United States is following a dangerous course. He was talking about the Clinton administration but he pointed out that, for much of the world, the US is now regarded as a rogue state and the leading threat to their existence. In fact one of the striking things about the opposition to the war now, again unprecedented, is how broadly it extends across the political spectrum, so the two major foreign policy journals, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy have just in their recent issues run very critical articles by distinguished mainstream figures opposing the resort to war in this case. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences rarely takes a position on controversial current issues has just published a long monogram on this issue by its committee on international security giving as sympathetic as possible an account of the Bush administration position then simply dismantling it line by line on very narrow grounds - much narrower than I would prefer - but nevertheless successfully. [There is] just a lot of fear and concern about this adventurism, what one analyst called "sillier armchair fantasies". My concern is more "What's it going to do to the people of Iraq" and "What's it going to do to the region?" but these concerns are "What's it going to do to us?" Matthew Tempest: Will the propeganda rebound if democracy is not established in Iraq after "liberation"? NC: You're right to call it propaganda. If this is a war aim, why don't they say so? Why are they lying to the rest of the world? What is the point of having the UN inspectors? According to this propaganda, everything we are saying in public is pure farce - we don't care about the weapons of mass destruction, we don't care about disarmament, we have another goal in mind, which we're not telling you, and that is, all of a sudden, we're going to bring democracy by war. Well, if that's the goal, let's stop lying about it and put an end to the whole farce of inspections and everything else and just say now we're on a crusade to bring democracies to countries that are suffering under miserable leadership. Actually that is a traditional crusade, that's what lies behind the horrors of colonial wars and their modern equivalents, and we have a very long rich record to show just how that worked out. It's not something new in history. In this particular case you can't predict what will happen once a war starts. In the worst case it might be what the intelligence agencies and the aid agencies are predicting - namely an increase in terror as deterence or revenge, and for the people of Iraq, who are barely on the edge of survival, it could be the humanitarian catastrophe of which the aid agencies and the UN have been warning. On the other hand, it's possible it could be what the hawks in Washington hope - a quick victory, no fighting to speak of, impose a new regime, give it a democratic façade, make sure the US has big military bases there, and effectively controls the oil. The chances that they will allow anything approximating real democracy are pretty slight. There's major problems in the way of that - problems that motivated Bush No 1 to oppose the rebellions in 1991 that could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. After all, he could have been overthrown then if the US had not authorised Saddam to crush the rebellions. One major problem is that roughly 60% of the population is Shi'ite. If there's any form of democratic government, they're going to have a say, in fact a majority say, in what the government is. Well they are not pro-Iranian but the chances are that a Shi'ite majority would join the rest of the region in trying to improve relations with Iran and reduce the levels of tension generally in the region by re-integrating Iran within it. There have been moves in that direction among the Arab states and Shi'ite majority in Iraq is likely to do that. That's the last thing the US wants. Iran is its next target. It doesn't want improved relations. Furthermore if the Shi'ite majority gets for the first time a real voice in the government, the Kurdish minority will want something similar. And they will want a realisation of their quite just demands for a degree of autonomy in the northern regions. Well Turkey is not going to tolerate that. Turkey already has thousands of troops in Northern Iraq basically to prevent any such development. If there' s move towards Kirkuk, which they regard as their capital city, Turkey will move to block it, the US will surely back them, just as the United States has strongly supported Turkey in its massive atrocities against the Kurds in the 1990s in the south-eastern regions. What you're going to be left with is either a military dictatorship with some kind of democratic façade, like maybe a parliament that votes while the military runs it behind the scenes - it's not unfamiliar - or else putting power back into the hands of something like the Sunni minority which has been running it in the past. Nobody can predict any of this. What happens when you start a war is unknown. The CIA can't predict it, Rumsfeld can't predict it, nobody can. It could be anywhere over this range. That's why sane people refrain from the use of violence unless there are overwhelming reasons to undertake it - the dangers are simply far too great. However it's striking that neither Bush nor Blair present anything like this as their war aim. Have they gone to the security council and said let's have a resolution for the use of force to bring democracy to Iraq? Of course not. Because they know they'd be laughed at. Bush and his administration were telling the security council back in November very openly and directly that the UN will be "relevant" if it grants us the authority to do what we want, to use force when we want, and if the UN does not grant us that authority it will be irrelevant. It couldn't be clearer. They said we already have the authority to do anything we want, you can come along and endorse that authorisation or else you're irrelevant. There could not have been a more clear and explicit way of informing the world that we don't care what you think, we'll do what we want. That's one of the primary reasons why US leaders' authority collapsing in the World Economic Forum poll. Other countries will presumably go along with the US war - but out of fear

To: lurqer who wrote (12567)	2/4/2003 1:43:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

THE NEO-CONundrum lurqer, I guess what I fear is not only are the neo-cons heading us in the wrong direction, but they are also going to bungle the job. There isn't an honest observer left on the planet who doesn't say that Bush is simply working a con game. With the American public being duped, and the world about to enter into dangerous times of destabilization similar to the dawn of WW I, when those who would rearrange the world order for their own gain became instead the victims of circumstances beyond their control. -Ray

To: lurqer who wrote (12567)	2/4/2003 2:09:54 PM
From: techguerrilla	Respond to of 89467

The Bush team ..... ..... NeoCON? Haha! They remind of pre-WWII Germany. Bush is a lot like Ronald Reagan except that he doesn't have the Soviet Union to aim at. He also lacks Reagan's modicum of subtlety. Bush is a total ass. I still can't believe the U.S. public is falling for this insanity. It just goes to show you the level of stupidity of the populace. "I don't believe they are anywhere near sharp enough to achieve their goals." "They are also going to bungle the job." Duh! /john

To: lurqer who wrote (12567)	2/5/2003 4:24:51 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Support War? That'll Be $2,500, Please What's a Few Zeroes Among Friends? by EDWARD J. STEELE CounterPunch February 3, 2003 counterpunch.com You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store --"Sixteen Tons," Merle Travis So you support the impending war against Iraq, eh? Ok. That will be $2,500, please. Don't worry about sending a check just yet. We will payroll deduct. Oh, and that's just for this year. Then we have to rebuild Iraq, of course. Though we will need another $15,000 from you for that effort, the good news is that it will be spread out over the next decade or so. For now, we'll just add it to your share of the national debt, which is - let's see now - about $387,500 as of today. And then there will be interest on the debt, of course. That totals $19,375 per year on your share of the current balance, assuming 5% interest. As usual, we won't be bothering you to pay off any of the principal for the foreseeable future. What? You don't have it? You didn't budget for it? Don't worry. After all, we don't. In the immortal words of Joe Black, these things have a way of working themselves out. The US population totals 290 million. Though there are 98 million taxpayers, there are 80 million households. Each household consists of 3.63 people. The figures quoted above are per household, a more realistic way of looking at things, I think, since my thirteen-year-old girl simply doesn't generate much in the way of tax revenue. Simply saying the war on Iraq will cost $200 billion has no impact on any but the most inveterate policy wonk. It's really tough to relate to a billion, you see. When I was a kid, pennies counted. Nickels and dimes were money. Dollars were the province of grownups. Of course, then you could send a letter for 3 cents and get a double-scoop ice cream cone for a dime (real scoops, too, not the puny things peddled for a buck apiece today). New cars cost $400...tax included. The only reason we had a concept about millions back then was due to John Beresford Tipton, whose minion each week delivered that sum, tax free, to some poor schmuck whose life subsequently became wrecked by an endless stream of mansions, yachts, servants and hangers-on. That was Fifties TV's "The Millionaire." Billion became a concept during the Sixties, thanks to Viet Nam. Of course, most of us know that the world population has doubled recently, to about 6 billion people, most of whose little fingers are hard at work right now, churning out snorkels and snowsuits for Wal-Mart. I honestly don't recall when trillion came into usage. Sometime in the Seventies, I think. It's in full vogue now, however. US gross domestic product (GDP) totals $10 trillion, fully a third of the entire world's GDP (though we number only 5% of the world population). The stock market declined $7 trillion over the past two years (your household's share was $87,500, by the way). It will cost $1.2 trillion to rebuild Iraq, just about half the US national budget each year. What's the next level? Had to stop and think, didn't you? I suppose it is quadrillion, but I'm not certain about that. I still have trouble with millions, to tell the truth. That's why it's easier to think in terms of these national and world figures after they have been boiled down to my share. Mind you, the space shuttle that just blew up cost your household only $32 ($2.1 billion to build plus $470 million for a single launch), but that doesn't include the loss of life. Of course, the $17,500 you will spend knocking down Iraq and then picking it back up doesn't include the cost of human suffering, either. What is your son worth to you, if he is over there right now? What about all the Iraqis about to die? $600 billion budget deficit for 2003? Huh? Well, I can clearly understand that figure when I realize that my little economic unit (household) is responsible for $7,500 of it. Of course, add in the $200 billion Iraqi war and the $100 billion economic stimulus package that Bush the Second is pushing, and my share of the deficit (and yours) grows to $11,250. And that doesn't include interest. Or the billions to fight AIDS in Africa. Or all that other stuff Bush outlined the other night. Now, I don't know about you, but I would have trouble if I spent $11,250 more than I earn each and every year. Things are different when you get to print the money, of course. It helps when you are the world's only superpower, too. You might be thinking that lots more is being spent on your household's account than you personally pay in taxes, so you're ahead of the game. Tax on, MacDuff! We be making out. You would be wrong. Sure, some pay more and some pay nothing, but the average American household is right in there on these figures. Especially those to whose eyes these words are phosphorescing out right now. You see, a goodly amount gets siphoned off before you ever get a chance to fork it over via payroll deduction. Your household's share of the total GDP of America is $125,000 per year. Increasingly, that's flipped burgers and service charges, but it still includes a rapidly-shrinking amount of real manufacturing. Think of dirt and other things going in one side of a building and cars rolling out the other side. Lots of that gets taken in the form of taxes you never see, not to mention corruption and outright theft. Your annual salary is what is left after those items. Then the real taxing begins. Your share of the federal budget each year (and this does include the interest) is $26,250, some of which got snagged ahead of your paycheck. Then there are state income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes and license fees and...you get the idea. This new Homeland Security Department is costing you $462 in its first year alone. Feel safer? I could go on and on in this vein, and probably should, but the point now should be obvious. All these huge governmental program costs are real and substantial and being paid directly by you and me. And each year, we fall farther behind due to the deficit spending. There is a natural consequence of this progression and it results in you owning nothing and those who collect the interest on the debt owning everything. You see, each year you pay $19,375 interest on the national debt (5% interest) and $14,375 (5%) on the nation's private debt ($287,500 total is your share, by the way...plus your share of the national debt, your total indebtedness is $675,000). Does the private debt interest sound a lot like your mortgage? That is no coincidence. Unlike your mortgage, however, the national debt grows by $600 billion each year, with no principal paydown...ever. Those payments go to the banks and other investors, of course. Due to the annual trade deficit, the amount by which we import goods for which we incur more debt because our exports aren't enough to balance off the two, the interest increasingly flows out of the country. Your share of this year's trade deficit is $6,250. So, of the total budget deficit ($7,500 is your share this year), $6,250 ends up owed to foreigners. Yes, it is this easy. No, it isn't apples and oranges. Maybe oranges and tangerines, but the effect is ultimately the same as if it were all oranges. Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Eventually, all American debt would be foreign owned. Right now, it's only about 40% in foreign hands. Eventually (and this day is much closer than you could possibly believe), the interest on the debt would consume every penny of the GDP. I say "would" only because the chickens will roost long before then. War might be the answer, you think. After all, it bailed us out of the Great Depression. Well, probably not (and neither did FDR's socialism run amuck, either), but that's another story. Remember, war consumes productivity and destroys capital. No free lunch, don't forget. There's only one single, logical, end result. The US dollar will become worthless. That's the only way the government (you and I) can possibly pay the interest, even, let alone the outstanding indebtedness. Hyperinflation. Already, the dollar has gone down 95% in a single century (thanks to the Federal Reserve, but that is another story altogether). 90% of that has occurred in my lifetime (3 cent stamps in 1950 and 37 cents today, don't forget). The dollar declined 30% just in the past year, in case you weren't paying attention. Notice the trend - it is not your friend. Expect the hyperinflation after the current deflationary period ends. Bush's neverending War on Terrorism is designed merely to be the distraction. A lot of foreigners will be stuck badly when paid off in dollars that are worth a hundredth or a thousandth of what they are today. Unfortunately, so will most Americans, who ultimately hold the rest of the debt in the form of stocks, bonds and cash. We're still in the real estate bubble. Actually, it is a mortgage bubble, truth be known. Refinancing with equity pullout is what is keeping way too many of us afloat at the moment. That is about to end. The die is cast and there is no way out. No way. There is absolutely no way to pay the piper without making our currency worthless first. There is no other way to pay the interest, either, once the rates start to rise again. That's why Bush the Second is spending like there is no tomorrow. He knows there isn't. Even before Bush, government was ballooning. Since 1998, we have lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs, thanks to NAFTA and GATT. During the same period, 1.7 million new government jobs were created. Bush is on pace to surpass those figures by a country mile. No free lunch, don't forget. Government consumes production. More deficit spending. More debt. In just the past 20 years, government debt has gone up nearly 400%. That sounds like a lot until you learn that private debt increased by almost 500%. If you have the ability, put some of your assets, especially anything denominated in dollars, such as stocks, bonds and savings accounts, into something that will hold its value: tractors, durable goods, cattle, gold, silver. You know. Not collectibles. Your Pokemon card collection won't be worth squat after the crunch. That way, you will end up with something when the dust settles. Trust me, our masters have already done this in spades. You won't even be able to buy groceries with your Social Security check. The Great Depression will have a new, lesser, name before the upcoming economic carnage subsides. And I don't expect that to happen during what is left of my lifetime. America will fail economically, whether or not it is ravaged by foreign countries in retaliation for our imperialism or being stuck with worthless dollars...more likely, both. Meanwhile, pull up a chair. Break out the beer and make some popcorn. The war is on TV, after all. You're paying for it, so you might as well enjoy it. While you still can, that is. Edward J. Steele can be reached at: steele@conspiracypenpal.com Copyright ©2002, Edgar J. Steele