Interestingly enough, so many of the folks who claim to not be able to stand America would do almost anything to: a) get here b) share in our benefits and fruits c) have our protection from those who wish to harm on them Do you know where the world would be if we'd decide to agree with your concept? What would be the outcome of your masses out there should we: a) send no relief because we could use (and appreciate) it better b) not send our tax dollars out there because we need them here c) forbid and make illegal our US companies from doing any major business with any non-American aligned country d) forbid and make illegal ownership of any American entity by anyone (or company) not controlled by at least 90% American "Born" shareholders as we should benefit first and foremost from things done in this country e) bring back 90% of all the internationally stationed military to establish a better perimeter defense here at home f) promote and fiscally reward American companies "Extensively" who can unequivocally prove compliance with a new "Employ only folks with US citizenship" rules g) establish a new company paid "foreign trade tax" so that any goods sold overseas were taxed on this side of the water to recover any perceived lost spending power These practices should lead to spurring new companies/entities in the rest of the world to replace old nasty American capitalists. Their new self-investment and internal growth would be a good thing for everyone. I'd rather they develop their own lands NOW rather than leave them, come here, and long for the day when they can return. Couple that with a new "Limited Immigrants" program with real tangible numerical goals and you might have something. Sort of based on establishing that you must have a temporary citizenship approval BEFORE you come here. No initial approvals on this side of the water. And even then (once here), there should be at least a four year reporting program (with unequivocal "return-to-your-country" teeth in the penalty) in which you must show/prove your need, desire, interest and wishes to become an AMERICAN. No, it's not beneficial to a foreigner who is just here for some of the benefits. And it isn't a roll-over plan where you get multiple extensions to test out the new country's fit. And it - MUST BE APPLIED TO ALL WHO COME HERE!!! SAUDI's included! Even though we might improve our lot here in doing so, I'm sure we would further dominate the world with all the natural benefits here. That would further widen the gap between us all, and yes it would be all our fault for over-achieving again (Guess that means they would hate us even more). Countries removing investment here would cause some discomfort for a time. Do you realize that we are a major profit center for so many around the globe? Poor Toyota, Mercedes, Nissan, Sony, Mitsubishi, Nokia and the like. They now would have to try to sell massive amounts of cars and other products to, ???? The shear loss of America as a major trade outlet (as some would advocate) would surely doom many peoples out there. And what a boon for the new American entities that would step up and fill the gaps here at home. The need for new facilities and a growing American based workforce would do wonders for the economy here. Any country that decided to embargo would surely spur new American outlets to form thereby strengthening our fiscal economy even more. No cheap and easy oil you say? While they might appear stupid, the oil true producers really aren't. Remember, they are fiscally linked in there. They depend on (must have) the sale of that black stuff too! They are addicted to that capital flow for their own power. New drilling at home, more purchases from Mexico, Africa, and a newly revised and enhanced South America would prove a formidable stabilizer. Sure, there would be short term grief, political posturing and open protests here at home. Our prices for the liquid stuff might even fall in line with what the rest of the world pays for it. But spelled out to the American peoples properly and tied to the resurgence in SERIOUS alternative fuel research.... What you speak of just might work for us selfish, self-centered, lazy, luxury seeking American born capitalists. But please remember, "YOU have to be very careful right now about what you ask for. In these times, with our feelings of puzzlement and confusion on all the international posturing and the feelings of betrayal that don't get ANY concern or reporting over there, you just might get it!"
Aznar faces 91% opposition to war Saturday March 29, 2003 The Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, the third man on the international stage beside George Bush and Tony Blair in the run-up to war, was staring at political disaster yesterday as anti-war demonstrations spread and opinion polls revealed 91% of Spaniards against the war. Madrid, Barcelona and other cities resounded to the noise of people beating pots and pans out of their windows on Thursday night in the latest of a series of anti-war demonstrations that have also seen violence between police and protesters. The Alhambra Palace in Granada, symbol of Spain's Islamic past, switched off its lights during Thursday night's protest and, in Barcelona, firefighters sounded their sirens in support. The scale of opposition to war has forced the People's party government on to the defensive. Mr Aznar has not dared to back his pro-Bush stance before the war with combat troops. Even the sending of 900 troops for "humanitarian work" has provoked the fury of the anti-war camp. The most recently published opinion poll on attitudes to war, by the state's own official pollsters, showed 91% opposition. Recent polls of voting intention show that, over two months, the People's party has gone from running neck-and-neck with the anti-war socialists to trailing them by six points. A clear majority of people now expect the socialists to win next year's election. The government has responded by saying it is thinking "not of future elections but of future generations." Mr Aznar's one-time political mentor, Felix Pastor, a former party president who still sits on its ruling committee, yesterday broke ranks to accuse him of destroying the years of hard work put in to creating a moderate, centre-right party. "The idea of a moderate, humanitarian, Christian People's party has been blown away," he told El Mundo newspaper. "The Spanish people have the right to expect their government to keep them away from all wars ... Bush's policies are so detestable that we should keep well away." His words followed a slow drip-drip of resignations that include a former minister and several lower ranking party members. Ministers are now shadowed by groups of protesters. People's party offices up and down the country are being vandalised or plastered with anti-war graffiti. In Italy, the government is facing political repercussions after 1,000 US paratroopers landed in northern Iraq on Wednesday having set off from a US base at Vicenza. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had promised that Italy would not be used as a launching pad for attacks on Iraq. Italy officially supports the allies and has offered its military bases and air space for US military use but not in direct attacks. Mr Berlusoni has been accused by the opposition of taking an "ambiguous" position, at once assuring the US and Britain of his support and insisting, amid widespread public opposition to the war, that international institutions must be respected.
Although I did not vote for Iraq for personal, economic reasons but offer the following explanation on the behalf of those who did: The crusades - fought for economic reasons under the guise of righteousness and humanitarianism - began in 1095 and ended in 1270 (though it can be argued they lasted longer) and cost the lives of what would today be hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. The Iraqi people, though not fans of Saddam's secularism, still view him as a lesser evil than ourselves. Middle-eastern Islamic theocracies see any separation of church and state as a threat to their way of life. Despite common Western thought, this way of life is not entirely backwater. In fact the Islamic tradition embraces science and the development of technology and have made numerous, significant contributions. Before I digress too far, the point is that our presence in the Middle East by definition brings Western thought and ideals to a culture undesiring of such things. We will have a much greater "negative" impact on the Islamic culture than Saddam could ever have despite his nasty ways. So, why root for Iraq? Well, it is possible, though unlikely, that an early American defeat would end several hundred years of fruitless, needless suffering. It is additionally possible that the suffering we may incur could exceed that of Saddam's (pushing 80 years of age by the way) efforts. Bottom line though, for me, it is altogether better for the US to win and so I am for our victory.
Excellent post, canyonman00. alfonso will not have a reasonable retort other than you are naive and a victim of propaganda. He's all wind and no substance. In that respect he bears a striking resemblance to msfe/wild/fairplay.
Your unwillingness to address the points put forward with nothing other than to scream "naive!" and "victim of propaganda!" not only further undermine whatever credibility you may have had, but also reveal the extent of your debating skills - nonexistent. p.s. Ahh, an Argentinian! Been there, BTW. B.A. is an amazing city. Love those wide avenidas and the atmosphere.... Too bad your country is undergoing a worsening economic and financial crisis, defaults on World Bank loans, rampant and endemic corruption, bloody street protests, soaring inflation, staggering unemployment, more than a third of its citizens living below the poverty line, negative economic growth rates, etc, etc. Hmmm, shouldn't you be spending your time working to solve your own country's problems? Or, wait a minute, let me guess: Argentina's problems are somehow the US' fault! Okay, okay, now I understand you - but then again, I have a way with dumb animals. Some day you will find yourself, and then wish you were lost again.
Because man, as a citizen of the US and an automobile owner the economic path of least reistance - at this point in time - is for the US to win and win quickly. Although, as I have stated earlier, expelling Saddam is a very small victory among the many required victories for the Bush/Blair plan to work.
what plan ? are you talking about liberating and democratizing the other 189 UN members in the same way as jubilating Iraq ?
I have not considered your suggestion nor do I understand the use of the word jubilating. What I am referring to is placement of US/UK favorable government in Iraq and subsequently the entirety of Middle Eastern countries. Controlling oil is a large part of the goal here, but I think it goes further than this. Think for a moment about the Middle Eastern nations and how little the US/UK and the multi-national corporations residing therein have access to its wealth. As an example let's assume Iraq is worth 10 billion. Most of that wealth is controlled by very few individuals, say 80%. Those individuals spend very little of this on US/UK corporate products, say 10%. This means only 2.8 Bil of 10 Bil dollars has even the potential to reach our economies. By redistributin the wealth to the people of Iraq and installing various US/UK industries and franchises an additional 7.2 Bil dollars has been unleashed. But wait there's more... 7.2 Bil is pre-financing, we could potentially "create" an additional 7-8 Bil dollars (probably more) of wealth via credit expansion. Multiply this amount again by applying the same principles to the other Middle Eastern economies. To me this is the global economy. This is neo-imperialism. And, by acting now we pre-empt China, the EMU, or whoever else eventually has the gusto to do the same. World domination is world economic domination. -LD
makes sense - any plans for the Konzentration, Umsiedlung or Endlösung of the useless population of the new US/UK corporate Lebensraum ?