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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (18754)	3/10/2003 5:41:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

<<...For all of the Bush team's cynical and ruthless political calculations, this war will not help them stay in power...>> Why He Can't Wait by Mark Weisbrot Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services Published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org "These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world." That was George W. Bush talking about Iraq last week, but it describes his own regime quite accurately. Just six days earlier, the White House announced that it didn't matter if Iraq disarmed: the goal was regime change. Now there is a "willful charade" if there ever was one. In one sentence, the Bush administration admitted to the world that the whole inspection process, the arguments over whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is complying with UN resolutions, were just a smokescreen. Many people had suspected as much, since "regime change" in Iraq has long been one of the Bush administration's goals. The administration had made a similar statement back in October, but then took it back, saying that if Saddam really disarmed then that would constitute a change of regime. Now the mask is off. Bush is going to war, no matter what Iraq does or does not do, no matter what weapons it has or does not have. So what if the documents that Britain and our government relied on to claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium turned out to be a forgery? Or if those infamous aluminum tubes, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, can't be used for nuclear weapons? None of this matters because George W. Bush has decided to invade Iraq, and he intends to do it very soon. More than the coming hot desert weather or moonless nights, he is in a hurry because he is losing support at home with each passing day. A big reason for his falling popularity at home is the economy. Last month we lost another 308,000 jobs, an enormous drop in employment, bringing the total job loss since Mr. Bush took office to more than 2 million. Manufacturing employment hit its lowest level since 1946. Democrats will soon be pointing out that, in Bill Clinton's first 25 months in office, the economy had a net gain of more than 7 million jobs. These kinds of things matter much more to most American voters than who is ruling Iraq, and the Bush team has its eyes on 2004. We have already had a recession in 2001, and the economy appears to be headed for another one. Business investment is still down about 10 percent from its peak in 2000, consumers have taken on record levels of debt and -- especially given the weak labor market -- are not very confident about the future. Our record, unsustainable trade deficit is another drag on the economy. State governments are, very painfully, trying to close a budget gap of $80 billion dollars over the next year. And while we are still feeling the effects of the stock market bubble that burst three years ago, there is another, similar bubble in housing prices. The collapse of this bubble, which may be imminent, could by itself tip the economy into recession. Meanwhile, the federal government has abdicated its own responsibility to provide some economic stimulus. The Administration is offering only what Mr. Bush's father rightfully called "voodoo economics" back in 1980: another rewriting of the tax code over the next 10 years to redistribute even more income to well-off households. The Bush team has successfully used the war since last August to displace domestic issues, thereby winning both houses of Congress and avoiding a cesspool of scandals (remember Enron? Harken Energy Corporation? Halliburton?). War is their savior, or so they hope. Their fantasy: first, the fighting is over very quickly. The media, especially television (their other savior) will rally around the war, oil prices will drop, the cloud of uncertainty that now hangs over business and consumer confidence will recede, and the economy will recover. Bush will be hailed as conquering victor. But the current troubles of the American economy will not be resolved so easily. And the post-war occupation of Iraq will likely make matters worse: everyone in the region (and most of the world) will want the U.S. troops out. Prolonged conflict, terrorism, and more clouds over the future of the world economy (oil prices, interest rates, investment) are the more likely outcome. For all of the Bush team's cynical and ruthless political calculations, this war will not help them stay in power. ____________________________________________ Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington D.C. (www.cepr.net) ### commondreams.org

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (18754)	3/10/2003 5:49:38 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Pat whoever wrote is a moron and it does not say much when you keep re-posting that moronic article time and time again.....

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (18754)	3/10/2003 9:20:18 PM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Saddam's just a Hitler with bigger mustache It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of the Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be Hitler lite because he has the same virulent anti-Semitism, the same callous disregard for human life and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache. Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today. Josef Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated UN mandates. Britain went along with France in the '30s, but now it seems the United Kingdom has learned from its historical mistakes. Then there's the Pope, who recently said any war against Iraq would be "immoral." Back in the '30s, Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically - at least in the beginning of his rise, when Pius was stationed in Germany. The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against communism, which the church greatly feared. Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns. Today, Pope John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with. Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban. Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized people. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq, and millions were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler. Back then, the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda. In 1939, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time magazine. I have the issue. The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no smoking gun. The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million in Europe. Millions of Jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers. How could human beings do this? Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found. Most had no idea what they were really fighting. Does anyone today believe Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Hitler? It astounds me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam unless other countries sign on. Why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate remain a threat to the world? If France, Germany, China and Russia would support the U.S. against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933, there would have been no World War II or Holocaust. Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people. The only way evil will be stopped is for just and courageous people to confront it. Originally published on March 10, 2003 nydailynews.com