I won't bother to waste more precious ET web space by quoting his ridiculous cut and paste of Stephen Gowan's hilarious essay. Although he points out definite social problems that plague our country (prison population, educational inequities) he makes blatantly untrue statements (the US "occupies" S. Korea, more resource-stealing fallacies, bombing countries that try to "negotiate" - heh heh, Iraq I suppose?) that reveal him for the idiot he is. And you gotta love those pathetic assertions about targeting civilians and being the root cause of untold misery around the globe. Thank goodness the US is the world's only superpower and has the military that it does. What Mr. Gowans and those like him fail to appreciate is that he is able to rant and rave largely because the might of his southern neighbor defends the freedoms that allow him to do so. msfe and co. fail again to understand the most basic truth: if the US were to withdraw from world affairs and cease being a superpower and "global policeman," the result would be chaos and anarchy on a global basis, and on an unheard of scale. Just more pathetic "oh-the-US-is-the-root-of-all-evil" lunacy.
'Personal' Responsibility By Marc Ash t r u t h o u t | Perspective Monday 04 August 2003 Headline, front and center, Wednesday July 30 2003: "Bush takes 'Personal' Responsibility for State of the Union Remarks." What does that mean? Does that mean that George Tenet was lying when he said he was responsible? Or does it mean that George W. Bush was personally responsible for deciding that Tenet would lie? Apply the same standard to statements made by Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Does it mean that Bush now admits what is clearly obvious, that he knew the Niger reports had no merit but insisted on using them anyway, over the objections of the intelligence community and his senior staff? Or is that a touch more personal responsibility than he had in mind? We started a war; in fact, we launched the first "pre-emptive" full scale military action in U.S. history. The very intent of the statements Mr. Bush is now taking personal responsibility for, was to mislead. Those statements were delivered to the nation before a fully assembled Congress for the purpose of justifying war. The State of the Union Address is a constitutionally-mandated duty. An invasion of a sovereign nation on these terms is clearly a violation of international and U.S. law. Does "personal responsibility" mean that Mr. Bush is personally responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Or is Mr. Bush personally responsible for the deaths of 285 U.S. American and British soldiers? Both? Responsible for profits? I think we can find a higher degree of personal responsibility if we shift our focus. Let's have a look at the war profits. Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for making his associates in the defense industry wealthier than our ability to comprehend? His father is a principal in the largest, most profitable defense industry investment firm the world has ever known, The Carlyle Group. Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for lining Carlyle's pockets with billions in U.S. tax dollars? Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for the Halliburton Corporation's exclusive contract to pump Iraq's oil? Is Mr. Bush now taking personal responsibility for the jail-break, free-for-all, get-rich-quick-bonanza, mega-money-laundering-swindle that is the Development Fund for Iraq? Personal Responsibility Is personal responsibility a public relations slogan, or are there ramifications for those who are personally responsible? What is the downside for Mr. Bush if he is really held responsible? 285 men and women of the US. and British armed forces have given their lives so far for this wanton military profiteering. You can bet that they were personally responsible. The Iraqi people are personally responsible; their suffering is unimaginable. Does any of this really matter as long as a Republican-controlled Congress refuses to take any action to challenge Mr. Bush, no matter what the charge is? Is Mr. Bush today effectively beyond the reach of U.S. law? When Mr. Bush says he is personally responsible, does he really mean that ultimately you and I will be? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Ash is the Executive Director of t r u t h o u t. He can be reached at: ma@mail.truthout.org
Its true certain foreign bases wil probably close.The personal however, are just transferred.My best friend is making a killing on some property located a short distance from a base that is receiving the displaced personal from other base closures.Its really tweeking the supply and demand equasion in real estate.From last weeks news; there are approx. 450,000 in the armed forces.360,000 of those are based or on duty abroad. Make no mistake, the military is exspanding not contracting. A footnote to comments by myself on pg.3 or 4 in this thread,abouy war and the economy.Footnote;70% of the 2.4%gdp number was attributed. So actual GDP growth less military expenditures is .7%,.Considering all the interest rate cuts,tax cuts both corporate and private,bailouts in the form of low interest loans for airlines ,railroads,insurance companys,etc,etc., record consumption in homes,autos,and securities,and yet real GDP growth is pathetic.Considering the astronomical amount of stimulus required for these results,it seems as though the economies laundry list of problems is increasing in size.
re: liberation and democratization of Iraq George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948, " The US has about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction.We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
This single comment shows that you are incapable of understanding the situation and that your arguments are therefore invalid in their entirety.