Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Mechanistic Destruction: American Foreign Policy at Point Zero
The following article by Canadian historian Gabriel Kolko comes with a "must read" recommendation from Scott Burchill.
The United States has rarely lost any conventional military battle since at least 1950. Nor has it, at the same time, ever won a war. It has successfully overthrown governments through interventions or subversion but the political results of all its efforts-as in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Iran in 1953-have often made its subsequent geopolitical position far, far more tenuous. In a word, in international affairs it bumbles very badly and it has made an already highly unstable world far more precarious than it otherwise would be if only the U.S. left the world alone. No less important, Americans would be far better off thereby. Because-to repeat a critical point-it has failed to attain victory in any of the real wars it has fought since Korea. Its adversaries learned as long ago as the Korean War that decentralization would stymie America's overwhelming firepower, which was designed for concentrated armies, and provided a successful antidote for massive, expensive technology.
All this is very well known. The real issue is why the U.S. makes the identical mistakes over and over again and never learns from its errors.
At the present time it is losing two wars and creating a vast arc of profound strategic and political instability from the Mediterranean Sea to South Asia, it has resumed the arms race in Europe, and it is making Russia an enemy when it could easily have been friendly. Economically, it has run up the biggest deficits in American history, brought on the decline of the dollar, and wherever one turns this administration has been at least as bad as any in two centuries of American history-perhaps even the worst. We now have an unprecedented disaster in the conduct of American power, both overseas and at home, in part because of the people who now rule-ambitions men and women who calculate only what is best for their careers--but also because the imperatives and inexorable logic of past policies and conventional wisdom have brought us to this critical juncture. All the old mistakes have been repeated; nothing had been learned from the past, and official myopia is timeless.
A large part of the United States' problem, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, is that it believes it has the right and obligation to intervene everywhere, in whatever forms they choose, and that its interests are global. Interventionism-so the consensus among Republican and Democrats goes-- is the cost of its global interests and mission, because it has been convinced for almost a century that it was preordained to remedy the world's many wrongs-and to do so by whatever means it chooses. There is nothing whatever that is unique in this regard in the present Bush Administration. This pretension, which first began during the 19th century and which Woodrow Wilson articulated, is simply not functional and it has led it into countless morasses, bad for the U.S. and far worse for the countries it has interfered with. The fact is that no nation has ever been able to assume such an international role, and those that have attempted to do so came to no good end-they exhausted their resources and passions and follies.
Political conflicts are not solved by military interventions, and that they are often incapable of being resolved by political or peaceful means does not alter the fact that force is dysfunctional. This is truer today than ever with the spread of weapons technology. The U.S. is not exempt from the facts that have guided international affairs for centuries.
The U.S. has already lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the very same reasons it lost all of its earlier conflicts. It has the manpower and firepower advantage, as always, but these are ultimately irrelevant in the medium- and long-run. They were irrelevant in many contexts in which the U.S. was not involved, and they explain the outcome of many armed struggles over the past century regardless of who was in them, for they are usually decided by the socio-economic and political strength of the various sides-China after 1947 and Vietnam after 1972 are two examples but scarcely the only ones. It is a transcendent truism of global politics that wars are more determined by socio-economic and political factors than any other, and this was true long before the U.S. attempted to regulate the world's affairs.
But Why?
But all this still begs the issue of why the U.S. repeatedly makes the same drastic errors. Are there vested interests in preparing for war? Are illusions based on them, or ideologies-or both?
In part, expensive equipment and incredibly inflated military budget is premised on the traditional assumption that owning complex weapons gives America power, which is determined by arms in hand rather than what happens in a nation's politics and society. In fact, the reverse is often the case, especially when enemies find the weaknesses in this sort of technology and exploit it-as they increasingly have done over the past decades. Then the cost of fighting wars becomes a liability-and America's technological military an immense weakness when the government has huge deficits or lacks funds to repair its aging public infrastructure--a fact that was highlighted when the collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis earlier this month led to the striking revelation that 70,000 bridges in the U.S. are rated deficient. The Vietnam War should have resolved the issue of the relevance of technology to the America's military ambitions, but it did not. The real question is: why?
To a critical but scarcely exclusive sense, the Pentagon's penchant for military toys makes an ambitious, aggressive foreign policy essential. Without enemies and conflicts, real or potential, there is no reason to spend money, and this reality often colored its definition of Soviet goals after 1947-despite the objections of senior CIA analysts. But the Defense Department, and national security establishments in general, are immense and all kinds of constituencies exist in them: there are procurement experts who draw up budgets and go after equipment mindlessly, people who have always dominated its actions, but thinkers too. Each does their own thing and they are often very different. It has always had these contradictions.
But that those who run military establishment have technological illusions, which many ordinary people share in this and other domains of human existence, keeps immense sums of money flowing to arms manufacturers and their minions. There is a very profound consensus between the two parties on arms spending, which began under the Democrats a half-century ago and it will not go away-no matter how neglected the bridges and infrastructure, health, or the like. Arms lobbies are not only very powerful in Washington but create crucial jobs in most states and military spending keeps the economy afloat. Weapons producers make money regardless of whether the Pentagon wins or loses its wars-and making money is their only objective. It is surely a key causal factor even if it is far from being the sole explanation of why the U.S. intervenes where it shouldn't.
It is close to impossible to assign some weight or priority to the arms industry but it must be taken into account that the arms manufacturers have power, strategic lobbies in Washington, contribute heavily to politicians who need campaign funding, and gain financially whether American wins or loses it wars. They are the "x-factor" in the equation but scarcely the sole one. But, at the least, they are very important even when not decisive.
Another explanation is ambitious politicians, who will say and do whatever is required to stay in power or gain it. This factor is so familiar that it scarcely requires repeating, but the cynical ways politicians treat polls and American public opinion is a crucial aspect of this question. There are indeed problems with the public but it invariably senses realities and its constraints well before the politicians-who use he public and then ignore it. The party out of office will cater to mass opinion but usually forgets it once it comes to power-as the recent Democratic Party trajectory shows. This is usually the rule but public opinion is an element that cannot be merely gainsaid, and the Korean and Vietnam wars proved, it could play a decisive role. An increasing majority of the people think the war in Iraq is not worth fighting, and the President is among the most unpopular in history. The public may be impotent or far too passive for its own good, and generally is, but it is far less brainwashed than the advocates of "manufactured consent" concede. How, when, or if its role becomes more crucial is a matter of conjecture. Its influence is usually negligible and takes far too much time to have an impact. Follies are committed long after the public condones them. But that it eventually becomes critical is a fact of life which one cannot make too much of, or too little.
Consensus on ideology and goals is crucial also but that policies fail to work and are increasingly dangerous as a guide to action has been true for a long time and in more obvious as years elapse. The Bush Administration encapsulates it but the basic problem has existed for many decades. What the Bush coterie has seen is the culmination of a logic that is much older. It presides over a catastrophe that began many years ago.
But all in all, these factors have delivered us to our present mess, which may very well exceed any in American history.
Some of the most acute criticisms made of the gross simplisms which have guided interventionist policies were produced within the military, especially after the Vietnam experience traumatized it. My history of the Vietnam War was purchased by many base libraries, and the military journals treated it in detail and very respectfully. The statement at the end of July by the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, that "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference" if Iraqi politics fails to change drastically reflects a current of realism that has existed among military thinkers for some decades (whether he acts on this assumption is another matter and depends greatly on considerations outside of his control). Like the CIA, the military has acute strategic thinkers, and the monographs of the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute-to name one of many-- are often very insightful and critical. Academics tend to be irrelevant and dull by comparison.
The problem, of course, is that few (if any) at the decisive levels pays any attention to the critical ruminations that the military and CIA consistently produce. There is no shortage of insight among U.S. official analysts-the problem that policy is rarely formulated with objective knowledge as a constraint on it. Ambitious people, who exist in ample quantity, say what their superiors wish to hear and rarely, if ever, contradict them. Iraq is but an example, for the entire mess there was predicted. If reason and clarity prevailed, America's role in the world would be utterly different.
Those in power simply ignore the critical military's insights, and the vast bulk of officers obey orders. Many of them know better. They have learned the hard way-experience. Neocon intellectuals and scribblers utterly lack it.
We are at point zero in the application of American power in the world: the U.S. cannot win its extremely expensive adventures nor will it abstain from policies which increasingly lead to disasters for the nations in which it intervenes and for itself as well. All the factors I have mentioned-its myopia regarding technology, the policy consensus that binds ambitious politicians and often makes public opinion irrelevant, the arms makers and their local interests, or the limits of rational inputs-have all combined to deliver us to this impasse. It is difficult not to be pessimistic when-as it should be--realism rather than illusions guide our political assessments. But realism is the only way to avoid cynicism.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
These people
Paul Morrella you must have forgotten that earlier you made a scornful remark about the 'middle-classes', writing:
You must have some problem with these people to pour such scorn on them, but no matter, the question has been answered, and it seems an anarcho-capitalist of either the Rothbard or David D Friedman schools is the type that sneers at the middle-class.
Now, what do you think would be Murray Rothbard's (and then David D Friedman's) view on some of the points Gabriel Kolko made in the piece this conversation thread flows from?
What do you think each would say, for instance, about this one point Kolko makes:
Now when considering your reply, Paul, please consider a key phrase Kolko employed there: "... in whatever forms they choose ...". Then tell us what you think Rothbard and Friedman would say about economic interventions by American governments -- both domestic and international.
These toys
Actually on second thoughts, Paul Morrella, I'll simplify things for you and just put it out there:
Murray N. Rothbard believed in the close connection between state power and bellicose foreign policy and therefore opposed an aggressive foreign policy. He supported nonintervention in foreign policy and he rejected the aggressive pursuit of the Cold War. David D Friedman similarly holds the view that a non-interventionist (non- militarist) foreign policy is best.
So now it's clear to all that anarcho-capitalists don't want interventionist, aggressive and militarist US foreign policy, you can focus on the international economic and domestic economic intervention issues.
What, for example, would an anarcho-capitalist, like you Paul, say about (as Kolko puts it) "the Pentagon's penchant for military toys"?
These Lobbies
Then, Paul Morella, after enlightening us with the anarcho-capitalist take on "the Pentagon's penchant for military toys", perhaps you could share with us the anarcho-capitalist point of view on this point that Kolko makes:
Don't mention the war
With a federal election in the air, both major parties are quiet about the war. Howard got us into this mess, if we care about the human cost, we should think twice before we give him another term.
Relax It Is Still Okay
Craig Rowley:
Middle-class people are not the major beneficiaries of free markets. I have no idea where you got that idea from. The major beneficiaries of globalisation are poor people, closely followed by wealthey individuals. Hence the reason middle-class (democratic power) fight so stongly against it.
I am not about "disempowerment" of any person. I think you should read what I wrote a little more closely. What I am about is not empowering these (more than powerful middle-class people) any more. This would be the worst mistake the human race could make. Those that overtly seek power are neither worthy, nor ready!
And the answer to the question is ...
Paul Morrella , you avoided the question. I asked what type of market anarchism it is that sneers at the supposed major beneficiaries of free markets and globalisation and derides them as the "unexciting educated Middle class" and you respond that the people you were sneering at are not the supposed major beneficiaries of free markets and globalisation.
So I ask again what type of market anarchism is it then that sneers at the "more than powerful middle-class people"?
In other words, would you call yourself a proponent of the type of anarcho-capitalism advocated by Rothbard or that advocated by David D. Friedman?
HOLIDAY IN HOWARD’S SLUM
Paul Morella: “The major beneficiaries of globalisation are poor people, closely followed by wealthy individuals. Hence the reason middle-class (democratic power) fight so stongly against it.”
Yeah, right. You need to work on that idea, PM. Sharpen up the corporatist battering ram. Them middleclass bastards is everywhere, trying to bring down neoCon good works
A cheap holiday in other people's misery
I don't wanna holiday in the sun
I wanna go to the new Belsen
I wanna see some history
'cause now I got a reasonable economy
©The Sex Pistols - Holidays In The Sun (J. Rotten, S.Vicious, S. Jones, P. Cook)
We get the lot with Howard’s New Belsen, to borrow a phrase from the Sex Pistols.
Along with the smashing internment camp décor at Circular Quay etc, comes this crisp example of how Kirribilli’s fascist and criminal instincts are unraveling much that is fair and decent in Australia:
…police are seeking out protesters with a violent history to warn them not to demonstrate at APEC.
Police Minister David Campbell confirmed police were compiling a list of people who were “not welcome at APEC”.
They won't need to be informed - they know who they are, he said.”
The Sun Herald does not mention whether or not Minister Campbell was brandishing a Luger as he snarled this threat, or merely kept his paw down the front of his pants.
Nor is any mention made of the character tests that might be applied to the goons, goondahs, goombas and general mobsters and fixers accompanying the “APEC leaders” amid all their brazen drum clashing, trumpet blaring Triumphs in Howardsville-on-Sea.
But … in the same item, some hope for humanity.
“MARINE URGES APEC PROTEST
“A FORMER US marine who did two tours of Iraq is urging Australians to ignore warnings by police of violence during next month's APEC leaders' summit and join the protests.
“Matt Howard [thank you, God!], 26, is touring the country telling public meetings of the alleged horrors being carried out by US forces in Iraq.
“Mr Howard was a truck driver for a marine tank corps during the invasion in 2003. He served in the war zone again in 2004. He said he had to drive over the dead bodies of Iraqis after marines had fired on anything that moved in free-fire zones.
After he left the service he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War and campaigns to bring the troops home.
“Australians need to get out on the streets and have a mass mobilisation against the war when President [George] Bush comes for APEC. Let your voices be heard,” he said.”
I bet our pallid, creepy, prissy lying and dirty Immigration Minister will have something to say about that! Just as soon as he‘s stamped terrorist visas in the official passports of all those goons, goombas etc.
Frère Jihad Jacques OAM née Woodforde, goomba and fixer of triumphs to all the Caesars.
Richard: Frère Pietro, I'm considering, in utmost seriousness, the idea of going up to Sydney, and gettting arrested without bail for not having the appropriate ID so that I can write the experience. I reckon it'd take me thirty seconds to get locked up (recording onto a QC 's message bank for safety of course). As you're a journo who knows his stuff, I'd appreciate your opinion on the idea.
RICHARD PLANS HOLIDAY IN HOWARD'S NEW BELSEN
Two tips old son.
1. Drop in first at The Observer under the Bridge for a recce and heart starter and
2. Ensure someone reliable films you being pinched (with sound+commentary, if possible) and put it straight online.
Ahimsa at all time, of course. The Mahatma used the latest 20th century technology during his campaigns, after all.
Frère Jihad Jacques OAM née Woodforde, who will be carrying a snub-nosed heavy calibre revolver at all times, and fake ID declaring him to be "Glenn Milne, Prime Ministerial aide, c/- RG Menzies House, Barton ACT"
US army broken 40 per cent of equipment destroyed or wornout!
A sad state of affairs, as the world's only superpower destroys itself in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the up and coming future super powers thinking, as they see the demise of US power? When would be a good time for China to put pressure on Taiwan? What is going to stop Russian advances in Europe? A massive global power shift is the most likely result of the Invasion of Iraq. An Australia will be at the bottom of the pecking order, without the US to protect us.
An Australian soldier shows how to win the war in Iraq
All Will Be Okay
Craig Rowley:
Well, you are right. I have mistaken Democracy Now for Open Democracy (though regulation and red-tape do not seem democratic to me). Every socialist nowadays seems to feel obliged to use the words "democracy" - the message sound bite must come mass produced in fortune cookies or some such.
I would be against any re-regulation of the market. For a start, liquidity is the problem at the moment. It would be moronic in my view to add more red-tape, making liquidity even more of a problem. Markets have been impossible to predict or control throughout history. Attempting to do so only causes bigger problems.
Anne Pettifor also makes some bizarre statements about 1945-1970 being some type of golden period. I would like to know for whom? And how she came about making this leap of faith? Certainly for much of the world this period in time was an awful one.
Finally no, I do not think the market will collapse, nor do I think people will look back at this year as the beginning of the end. I find the suggestion laughable.
Okay
Okay Paul, how about your answer to that question:
What type of market anarchism is it that sneers at the supposed major beneficiaries of free markets and globalisation and derides them as the "unexciting educated Middle class" and then celebrates their disempowerment as citizens by thanking "the Lord"?
Multitudes Of Good Days Ahead
Craig Rowley, Every day is doomsday for world finance, and globalisation according to these people. My view is of course the exact opposite. It is only the beginning. The highly unexciting "educated Middle-classes" will not inherit the earth just yet (thank the Lord for some small mercies).
Warren Buffet has gone long on the health, and banking sectors (Bank of America I believe). That does not bode well for the "highly esteemed" Democracy Now predictions.
Reading Comprehension: It's "highly esteemed"
Something that certainly does not bode well, Paul Morrella, is the fact you mention some imagined "Democracy Now predictions" when what was presented (and all with reasonable reading comprehension attainment can see) was a piece by Ann Pettifor, which was published by ... now take note this time ... OpenDemocracy.
Ann Pettifor, executive director of Advocacy International and author of Real World Economic Outlook - The Legacy of Globalization: Debt and Deflation presents a point of view on issues I'd be interesting in seeing you tackle. I'd like to see you respond to the key points she makes, especially given that your point of view is that of a 'market anarchist' and I'm keen to know what counterpoints to Ann Pettifor's points would be put by proponents of market anarchism. And please, dine out on Buffet if needs be, but don't just fling that cliched 'Cassandra' crap around again.
Though perhaps prior to addressing the issues Ann Pettifor raised, you could clear up one thing: What type of market anarchism is it that sneers at the supposed major beneficiaries of free markets and globalisation and derides them as the "unexciting educated Middle class" and then celebrates their disempowerment as citizens by thanking "the Lord" (What? Who? Lord of the Manor? Lord of the Flies?)?
Hope Unfortunately Is Not For Every Person
Gareth Eastwood:
Quite correct, though the companies, and owners of them probably see themselves as global rather than in silly notions of nationality.
America is a nation of "run aways". It will continue to attract the best of these people because it offers hope, hope of a better and more successful life. Strict authoritarian systems such as have been mentioned offer only the mediocre. Life is too short not to go for it, in my view. America is not a place, and offers little to the more cynical amongst us!
It is not Cricket!!
Gareth Eastwood, to everything, turn, turn, turn. It's a matter of time. It's a matter of time.
"Made in China" today is what "Made in Japan" was in the 60s and 70s. It took "Made in Japan" some 30 odd years to shake off that lowly tag. But it will not take that long for "Made in China" to do that. Because China has the long historical innovative tradition, domestic market, human and natural resources that Japan never had and envied. That was why Japan invaded and raped China.
As far as technology is concerned, especially the IT. It has plateaud: there have not been any major innovations since the introduction of the Web and Internet since 1995. Every kid now in some far flung village can and do program Java applets and setup MySQL databases. No country has a mortgage over innovation and technological transfer anymore.
India will never reach her full potential because of the self-inflicted social and religious divides. Her key advantage over China is that she speaks better Hindish and plays cricket. But I do believe that the Chinese are putting a lot of resources into promoting cricket in China.
Your valve is stuck, I think.
PF Journey says:
Not only did the Americans invent the semi-conductor, a quick check shows immediately that 49 per cent of American exports are in the capital goods areas, with transistors leading the way, followed by aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers and telecommunications equipment.
I'm not aware of any significant industry operating in the United States that could be characterised as 'valve based'. Could you show us one, PF?
MAKING THE VALVE GO BANG!!! SEND IN THE CLOWN ...
They'll be laughing on the other side of their valves on the joyous day when one man put a bloody custard pie in George Bush's retarded, inbred criminal hillbilly face at APEC.
It might even be worth a try in the moosh of that other crim, Vlad the Impaler Putin.
A custard pie just as he's struggling out of Alexander Downer's luridly appointed Kings Cross suite, strides at half mast and shopping trolley full of yellow cake marked in a schoolgirlish hand "FOR PEESSEFUL USE ONLY!!!! SO THERE!!" and marked with equally crude skull and crossbones warning signs.
Hopefully by the time the idiot Apectomy rolls around, the joint Soviet-Red China military manoeuvres in Central Asia will be over, the Tupelov nuclear bombers will be so far beyond the ken of Sir Brendan Maelstrom's weak-kneed, (but immensely profitable - wink, wink, nudge, nudge - Boeiings) that Australian journalists can go back to NOT reporting things of national import, as long as they were told over lunch somewhere. By someone REALLY, REALLY important
And in another 50 years, Costello will be 100 years old, and still not PM, Howard will be 118 years old, and still in Kirribilli, with his own imperial brand of Senior Diapers, by Appointment to the Prime Minister for Life, and Alexander Downer, by this time Dame Alexandra of Mayo, and looking like an 18th century French courtesan in an immense powdered wig, rouge, beauty spots and a huge flouncy dress (or "my gown, dahling!" as he will hiss becomingly).
And life, such as it is, will go on. Aboriginal infant mortality will reach 107%, according to the latest in a string of hair care products salesmen to succeed Lt Col Brough! in the sought-after Final Solution portfolio. This figure exceeds even the best efforts of Reinhardt Heydrich or the Duke and Duchess of Windsor during the Third Reich.
Frère Jihad Jacques OAM née Woodforde, dress code advisor to the PM during Apectomy and all associated surgery
The most amazing lies
Subtitle: just how brazen can they get?
[Robert Kagan/Renewing the liberal vision]-=*=-
This is the start:
The more you read, the worse it gets.
[ibid.]I've often mentioned the pushed-paradigm propaganda; here it is in (lying!) bucket-loads.
One more sample:
Kagan blithely carries on, as if what he was talking about was 'the truth of the matter,' when in fact what he says pretty-well encapsulates the standard litany of lies.
One thing he says is correct, that the US is the strongest power, what he doesn't say is that that power works almost exclusively for evil.
One implication of what he's saying is that democracy is the way, the only way; all others are wrong or failed. What he doesn't say is that the democracies he's promoting just aren't.
He talks about the UN and its failures, what he doesn't say is that the UN is a US' plaything; if the UN buckles to US' wishes then OK, but if not it's ignored - when not outright abused. A one word proof: Bolton.
-=*=-
Statement of scope: Kagan speaks from the US, but the US is allied to/with Israel; the Israel lobby infests the US to the point of undue influence. The US is also 'allied' to/with the UK and Aus, where the alliance is better described by UK as a lesser accessory and Aus as tiny sycophant. A 'short-hand' for this grouping is Anglo/Christian/Judaic. Another short-handing is the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag.
-=*=-
1. There are at least two narratives, the lying one represented here by Kagan, and all such transmitted when not (corruptly) amplified by the (venal) MSM, and the actual truth. These two could hardly be further apart.
One could 'short-hand' the standard pushed-paradigm myth as "Truth, Justice and the American Way," but each item is an horrendous perversion. We are told almost nothing but filthy lies, there is effectively no justice, and 'the American Way' turns out to be "1001 ways of ripping the world off," all the while p**sing the ripped-off proceeds up the pointless/profligate/obese-consumerist wall.
-=*=-
2. To have a functioning democracy, one needs a few pre-requisites:
a) A valid choice of candidates. The A/C/J 'democracies' are nominally two-party systems, but whether two or more, the choice between them is so narrow as to be effectively non-existent. No matter which 'side' is elected, almost the same policies will hold sway. Look at Israel since 1947; unrelieved (invasive) war against the former legal owner/occupants of what was previously known as Palestine. Look at Iraq now, illegal invasion morphed into brutal occupation; Repugs and Dummocrats both are after the oil, and prepared to mass-murder for it. Latham showed us here, on his 1st press conference as leader. Posed before a US flag (spit!)
b) A fully informed populace. This we do not have; see the quoted article. They used to make jokes: "The Mushroom Club" (kept in the dark and fed on BS.) Well, it's no joke. Never was, but telling us lies is toadally® undemocratic.
c) An actively engaged electorate. No chance at the moment; the sheople® having been bought-off with cheap Chinese junk and fed ever more BS via their 5.1ch, flat-panel TVs. The soma that puts them into their coma-like state being such BS as Hollywood portraying its 'all possible perversions' as infotainment, interspersed by raucous ads (thanks but no thanks to Madison Ave.)
-=*=-
3. The UN. I sincerely thought that this was genuine. If one looks at the governing structures, we have local, state, country then international. We are supposed to have "The rule of Law" at each level. Sadly, not. One knows one has trouble when one hears "You can't legislate morality." More BS; of course you can, all it takes is the will. The temptation there was to write 'the political[1] will,' but the word/concept 'politics'[2] is wrong. This concept and its application, just as democracy itself, has failed us.
Inspect the two definitions. Both contain 'power.' That's the problem. We are supposed to have representative government. But the elected do not represent - us, we the sheople. The representatives have become prostitute-puppets to a power-elite - the kleptocracy®, as the MSM have become presstitutes to the same. Oppositions hardly oppose; the ALP even having let it be publicly known: they have 'dropped' almost all left-leaning allegiances in favour of kow-towing to business.
-=*=-
The truth, as I see it. I date the start of the current problems to the A-bombing of Japan (an utterly vicious and cynical war crime), but according to Blum, say, the trouble with US criminal immorality vis-à-vis invading other countries goes back at least to the 'conquering' of Hawaii in 1893. Not to mention the genocide practised on their own indigenes. After WW2, the US did not demobilise, quite the reverse. The m/i-plex was deliberately extended into the bulk of the US, and they went onto a permanent war-footing. Why that? Because they were already 'harvesting' far more from the world than anything that could be considered fair (it currently stands at 5% population, 25% of resources), and they set out to maintain their position by brute-force.
There is nothing either liberal or democratic about the criminal power-plays dominating our world. The wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all mass-murdering for spoil (US/UK/Aus for oil, Israel for land, water) put the lie to both of those. What really bothers me is that neither the sheople nor other governments make any (visible) moves against these incredible injustices. Must be the US' nucular threats, eh? Plus the disenfranchised, disempowered, disabled poor sheople. (This last includes you'n me. Bah! - Baaaaa!)
-=*=-
Solution: People power. The electors must renounce their sheople-status; awake! The representatives must return to representing, or be displaced. The MSM must return to reporting the truth, or become redundant. (This last is already happening, thanks to the 'net.) The 'law as ass' must be reformed to deliver justice.
Simplify: 10 commandments is perhaps too many; IMHO only about four crimes need proscribing[3]; as described in the chezPhil morality, the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder (add a few more if you like). The whole thing has nothing to do with any g*d construct (organised religion having disgraced itself), but is driven only by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I agree not to murder some other, etc); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"
We could quickly return the world to a fair place; the rich would not even have to surrender their riches - well, not too much of 'em anyway; 'all' we really have to do is eliminate the kleptocracy's filthy crimes.
Oh, yeah: that includes ending all war, and melting the guns into ploughshares. (While we're at it, teach a few pigs to fly.)
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] political adj. 1 a of or concerning the State or its government, or public affairs generally. b of or engaged in politics. 2 taking or belonging to a side in politics. 3 concerned with seeking power, status, etc. (political decision). politically adv. [Latin: related to *politic] [POD]
[2] politics n.pl. 1 (treated as sing. or pl.) a art and science of government. b public life and affairs. 2 (usu. treated as pl.) political principles or practice (what are his politics?). 3 activities concerned with seeking power, status, etc. [ibid.]
[3] proscribe v. (-bing) 1 forbid, esp. by law. 2 reject or denounce (a practice etc.). 3 outlaw (a person). proscription n. proscriptive adj. [Latin, = publish in writing] [ibid.]
Chips and fears
PF Journey, last time I checked, Silicon Valley was in San Jose, California. Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Google, Yahoo etc are all based in the US. Who do think gets the biggest cut out of producing and selling a microchip? Is it the factory that made it or the brand owner (e.g Intel, AMD)? I think you’ll find the manufacturer (based in China, The Philippines, India, Central America etc) makes bugger all out of a microchip compared to the intellectual rights holder (based in the US, Europe, Japan etc). Besides isn’t the US leading in what you might call internet infrastructure? More advanced than your ‘microchip based infrastructure.’ Even India is much further along the in the microchip and internet age than China. If you want to produce cheap plastic toys, you open a factory in China. If you want to produce cheap software, you set up a lab in India.
Michael Coleman, I tend to concur with what Ross Gittins wrote in the SMH today. The sub-prime fear will pass and the world will move on. Overall, all we’ve really seen so far is a small rise in market interest rates (and spreads).
Re “Who do you think will do better in a credit squeeze; debtors or savers?” It don’t think it can be simplified to that level. Depends on the entity borrowing/saving (i.e. household, company, government), what they’ve borrowed/invested for/in (house, business) and their overall financial situation.
Credit Crunch
PFJ, I like your valve, transistor and microchip analogy. I reckon the Chinese have all of the human resources and characteristics to achieve super power status.
However, I do wonder how any of us can prosper as exponential growth collides with a finite resource base. I think we will all see a dramatic shift from a focus on our wants and ambitions to a focus on our needs over the next decade or two and maybe even earlier than that.
Gareth Eastwood, I'd be interested to hear your take on the current global liquidity problems described in this article. Who do you think will do better in a credit squeeze; debtors or savers?
Debtonation day
G'day Michael. While you await Gareth Eastwood's reply you might find an article I read this morning most interesting.
According to OpenDemocracy the global financial crisis exposes the failure of the economic model that rules the world and Ann Pettifor saw it coming:
No sign of recession
Michael Coleman, regarding previous discussions we’ve had, there’s no sign of that 2007 recession yet. In the last year, US GDP has grown by over $500 Billion. Unemployment has fallen to 4.6%.
The China Syndrome
1. The American has what I call the "Valve based Infrastructure and production capacities" - pre 2nd War World.
2. The Japanese has what I call the "Transistor based Infrastructure and production capacities" - post 2nd War World
3. The Chinese has and is building what I call "Microchip based Infrastructure and production capacities" - Post 1981 (When the microchip based PC was introduced) and the new millenium. Combine this with her huge population based, the overseas Chinese network, the discipline and capacity of her people to endure suffering, and her long and proud historical, social and philosophical traditions, she will be the super power of this century, whether the West or the Japanese like it or not. What she is lacking in the democratic, effcient, scientific institutions and mentality will be overcome. Just like the Japanese did with the Meiji Restoration in 1860. Yes, it will take time, but they will come. So for those who are afraid of China and the Chinese, be afraid, be very very afraid.
Terminal Decline?
The person in the best position to assess and speak with authority to the fiscal trajectory of the USA has this to say:
With foreign policy credibility at zero and financial credibility heading the same way, their crumbling infrastructure, massive debt and looming energy shortages suggest that the odds are stacked against the American Republic.
Of course, they are not alone. We, the hapless stooges of late, degenerate capitalism were always on a one way trip to collapse.
Individual AWA's Must Go.
On Meet the Press Sunday 12 August 2007. Excerpts from interview with HSBC Chief Economist John Edwards:
PAUL BONGIORNO: And welcome back to the program, John Edwards. On Wednesday Reuters did a survey of 24 economists, and 16 of them thought that interest rates would rise again before the end of the year. Is that your view?
HSBC CHIEF ECONOMIST JOHN EDWARDS: Yeah, no, I was one of those. I think they likely will and if not before the end of the year then by March of next year.
JENNIFER HEWETT: What's causing the problem in global financial markets and will it get a lot worse before it gets better?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, it began with a problem in US subprime lending, and the bonds are financial instruments based on those, but it's extended well beyond that now to an issue of confidence, that is, the difficulty, particularly in Europe, an unwillingness of banks to lend to each other.
MALCOLM FARR: The Australian economy has been insulated from a lot of things by the so-called boom and there's a lot of debate over whether the boom will continue or it's stopped already or not. What's your view?
JOHN EDWARDS: I don't think we're in a boom. For example, our export growth has been very disappointing over most of the last five or six years. Exports have contributed very little to Australian GDP growth. I think in terms of a commodity boom, it's in front of us rather than behind us, but I do expect Chinese growth to continue and I think that will help to us see increased exports.
JENNIFER HEWETT: Heather talked a bit about the risks to the economy and to the prospects of interest rates, due to Labor's industrial relations policy. Do you agree that they pose a risk?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, I think the central issue in the industrial relations policy is with what happens with Australian Workplace Agreements. Now, as I understand the numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were in the entire 10 years in which AWAs were permitted with a no disadvantage test from 1996 to 2006, there were just 300,000 agreements in operation. It looks like the number may have approximately doubled since, but now the Government has reimposed a no-disadvantage test, which means that the proliferation of these agreements will once again be very slow. That's about possibly covering 6% of the workforce. There's no way in the world that removing AWAs is going to have a big impact on the rest of the economy. (Emphasis added)
JENNIFER HEWETT: So you don't think Labor's policy in that sense poses any risk at all?
JOHN EDWARDS: Not on AWAs. I share Heather Ridout's concern that we need a lot more clarity about the ways in which for example arbitration might be reintroduced. It was excluded under the Keating Government reforms in 1993 and '94. It would be most unfortunate if that came back.
MALCOLM FARR: For an economist, you've got a lot of political experience. Do you think the Government made a strategic error in moving WorkChoices so early and its impact arriving so close to an election?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, I think - the great difficulty for this Government was the last election, winning the Senate, and taking out of the cupboard a lot of things it had been reluctant to do, including this new move for individual agreements, without a disadvantage test against a background ultimately of the withdrawal of the Australian awards system. That was catastrophic for the Government and that's reflected in the polls.
JENNIFER HEWETT: The Federal Government is suggesting that the State Governments are to blame for a lot of pressure on interest rates rises with their borrowings. Is that accurate?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, as I understand it, most of the additional State Government spending that's been funding by borrowing is for infrastructure. We all recognise including the PM, that this infrastructure must be undertaken, it's been a real problem for Australia, that it hasn't been there. I think the appropriate response if the Government is concerned about State Government spending is to increase their own surplus as a counter-weight.
Afghanistan
Sol Salbe recommends How a 'good war' in Afghanistan went bad:
Two years after the Taliban fell to an American-led coalition, a group of NATO ambassadors, landed in Kabul, Afghanistan to survey what appeared to be a triumph — a fresh start for a country ripped apart by years of war with the Soviets and brutal repression by religious extremists.
With a senior American diplomat, Nicholas Burns, leading the way, they thundered around the country in Black Hawk helicopters, with little fear for their safety. They strolled quiet streets in Kandahar and sipped tea with tribal leaders. At a briefing from the United States Central Command, they were told that the Taliban were now a "spent force."
"Some of us were saying, 'Not so fast,' " Burns, now the under secretary of state for political affairs, recalled. "While not a strategic threat, a number of us assumed that the Taliban was too enmeshed in Afghan society to just disappear."
But that skepticism had never taken hold in Washington. Since the 2001 war, American intelligence agencies had reported that the Taliban were so decimated they no longer posed a threat, according to two senior intelligence officials who reviewed the reports...
The break-up of the USA - into another 50 new major economies!
Ernest William says:
Oh, there are lots of other contenders for global leadership who are just as indifferent to your welfare.
For example, China. Or Russia. Just ask Sudan, Tibet and the Ukraine about how good that feels.
And wouldn't it be great if the USA just disappeared and gave China free rein in the Pacific?
How pleased us 'progressives' would be?
Gareth Eastwood says:
Exactly.
In fact, it's probably holding such large reserves of US currency for the express purpose of increasing its trade with the USA.
That way China's share of global trade may eventually surpass that of the Netherlands and Italy.
And someone has to pay for those fleets of CAAC Boeing Jumbo Jets and Dream Liners.
Paul Walter says:
Oh, I agree. In fact, people have been predicting the collapse of the United States for quite some time.
For about 231 years this last 4th of July, in fact.
Any country with an economy only 250 per cent as big as Japan's is bound to be in trouble.
But you cannot have it both ways. Either we stick it to the Yanks for having "6% of the world's population and using 50% of its resources" or go on pretending to ourselves that that doesn't also reflect the realities of its economic power.
And if the USA was to disappear, what would replace it on the continent of North America, I wonder?
Well, here an example of how it could be broken up. Here are the American states broken up and re-named for countries with the equivalent GDP state-by-state.
Won't be hearing about that in Green Left Fantasy too soon will we?
California's economy alone gobbling up the entire of France?
What else could happen?
Well, Russia might take back Alaska? And the rest could merge with Canada or Mexico, I suppose?
Or maybe the whole North American continent would become one vast nation state. A Greater America, say?
There. That would take care of North America - and we'd never hear from them again.
Just like how after the USSR collapsed, we never heard of Russia again. And who ever talks of Japan and Germany these days?
Paul Walter says:
I know. It was an excellent retort and a timely reminder of China's emerging greatness, but John cannot take all the credit and I am sure he was glad I acknowledged his debt to the 'Heritage Foundation'.
For my part, though, I don't share that ultra-right wing, PNAC American super-patriotic lobby's paranoid world view.
The mind boggles Richard.
The most obvious "aping" of the Bush Administration is the Howard "New Order".
So, when Bush does something unwise (as is most of the time) like agreeing to supplying India with Uranium, even though that is against the standard policy of Non-Proliferation - did anyone seriously think that Howard would do anything else?
With respect to your post Richard - I feel that nothing is beyond the "wounded" Bush at this extreme low point in his moronic reign.
A fake demonstration of a "dirty bomb" may be on his agenda - he certainly didn't appear to be shocked when informed of the 9/11 attack which opened up the idea of constant war with "terror".
Regarding the safety of the public by clearing the CBD I remember the fiasco in Pearl Harbour when the "powers that be" decided to arrange all of their defense aircraft in one position on the tarmac.
That was a gift to the Japanese attackers along with the knowledge that their arrival was in fact noted by radar but not acted upon.
So, without "innocents" in danger, a dedicated "terrorist" would be presented with a more "popular" target of "all together" Pacific leaders without public casualties?
Richard whatever happened to the Bush/Howard statement that "they will never change our way of life"?
It seems that the election has re-ignited the "terrorist" threats - but we must not be alarmed.
Howard has certainly made sure that we are not "comfortable and relaxed" and as Maxwell Smart would say: "and loving it"?
Cheers Ern G.
What's in a word?
So the US economy is feeling the pain of the false ubprime mortgages?
We are told that some of these companies had written up the poorest of their vulnerable citizens with an interest rate reset clause which doubled after a period of time.
These were usually uneducated people who didn't have a permanent full-time job or had a very poor credit rating.
So why did the financial predators hit them with a typical Pinocchio offer? Because they could!
As Howard said about Tristar WorkChoices abuse of their employees: "You can't legislate corporate morality".
On that issue we should all agree with him, at the same time as we realise that WorkChoices is ONLY for the employers and is providing a "White Coolie" effect on the workers.
I have written over a period of perhaps three years that a situation was developing in Australia under the Howard, of a Pinocchio trap by a "gift" of $7,000 to create a false boom in housing.
It invited the banks to offer their own subprime lending and then, either reclaiming the properties and auctioning them (just business, says Howard) or passing on the defaulters to predatory and unsavoury money lenders at exorbitant costs.
Then the architect of the debt ridden false economy, Peter Costello, says that we are "different" from the subprime situation in the US. Fair dinkum!
We have been informed that this practice in Australia is still happening, and since there is no means test, the wealthy are making a fortune while the poorer are bearing the pain of trusting Howard.
In fact, if we look at the "New Order" policies on WorkChoices; Education; private and public schools; health; broadband etc, it is clear that in all cases the wealthy are significantly better off than ordinary Australians, and intentionally so.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the domestic issues of the Howard "New Order" are as identical with the US as they are with their foreign policies.
Who really runs this country under Howard? Who is really the "me-too" of politics. He "never seems" to have a creative thought himself. Hasn't that become obvious at this time when he can't corner Kevin Rudd with the Karl Rove negative politics?
So the next time that Howard or Costello lie about the high risk mortgages which their government has created, by saying that the US is different, you know otherwise.
What's in a word? Indeed!
NE OUBLIE.
Currency bombs
PF Journey: If everChina and Japan resolve and reconcile their historical differences and “gang up” against the US US
The “currency bomb” you speak of is a two way street. I don’t see howChina could use its US govt debt to harm the US China ‘dumped’ its US China US China may actually suffer more long-term damage from this ‘dumping’ than the US
Still a Paper Tiger
Remember in the late 50s when Eisenhower threatened China with nuclear bomb attack over the Taiwan crisis. Mao dared the US and asked how Chinese USA wanted to kill because there will be more than she can kill. Mao called the USA a “paper tiger”.
Now 50 years later, it is still a paper tiger. Except, this time, it is the Chinese that threatens to attack the USA with its own “bomb”, namely the currency bomb. China is the second-largest foreign holder of US government debt, totally some US$1.3 trillion.
US Congress has urged the Bush Administration to impose trade sanctions on China. Some economists at Chinese government think-tanks have been reported as saying that Beijing should use its vast currency reserves as a political weapon in trade talks with the US. Expects have said this could create havoc with the US economy already battered by the US subprime mortgage crisis.
This has prompted Dubya to say China would be 'foolhardy' to dump US dollar. The Senate Finance Committee also wrote to the Chinese ambassador in Washington seeking clarification on the report.
Between China and Japan, they hold more than 50% of US Treasury bonds. If ever China and Japan resolve and reconcile their historical differences and “gang up” against the US. They could easily destroy the US economy. So much for the greatest economy in the World. It is just a paper tiger
Richard: PF have you considered doing a new piece for Webdiary?
Some Paper ... Some Tiger...
Mao dared the US and asked how Chinese USA wanted to kill because there will be more than she can kill. Mao called the USA a “paper tiger”.
It would have been difficult to kill more Chinese than Mao did. And fifty years later Taiwan is still free. Richer and stronger than ever.
I am still learning to use a laptop, Richard.
G'day again Richard,
As you know, I am against wars from the "defensive" side.
That is, I believe while there are countries like the United States in this world of ours, who do not care a hoot about being 6% of the world's population and using 50% of its resources; of being its biggest polluter, and its biggest threat to world peace, a nation like ours should not punch beyond its weight.
Not only am I annoyed that Howard has, as always, prepared a circus (APEC) prior to an election, to give the impression that he is on the world stage, I am absolutely suspicious of his choice of venue.
There was such a meeting in the UK as I recall, which was specifically held in an old castle with enormous green grass surrounds which provided an ideal base for the simplest of security measures.
Now we have a US puppet who decides on using the most populated and congested city on the island continent to hold a meeting of leaders, most of whom are as close to the US as Howard is. Well almost!
And just in case the Australian public have missed the point, Howard tells the NSW Labor Government that the world's boss will be coming three days earlier.
They (him and the US) have organised what is recognised as an unpopular warfest in an area which the so-called terrorists would find very inviting to attack.
So, Richard, what advice did the little dictator receive, or ask for, from CIA, ASIO, the AFP, the ADF, the NSW State Police, and last but not least, the NSW State Labor government?
At the very best, he must believe that the terrorist threat is a furphy.
At the very least, he is just a plain idiot inviting another Tampa with the State Labor government responsible for the chaos.
Remember, he will do anything to retain power.
Cheers, Richard.
Ern G.
Dubya's Tampa?
Your summaries are on the money I think, Ernest. I must admit though, to still be wondering about the time-change to the Bush visit and the dirty-bomb manouevres in Manhattan on Saturday. All I could think was that this was a familiarisation exercise for US residents so that wherever in the world an incident occurred they would be more attuned. Bush's early return indicates a co-ordination of timing with the Petraeus Report and September 11,and I hope there aren't others
I couldn't think of a safer place for a strike to occur as a CBD cleared of public.
My worst nightmare at the minute is a retaliatory strike on Iran for the international "Pearl Harbour" of Sydney. I do not place the implementation of such a scenario as beyond the ablilites of an apparently-cornered Dick Cheney. Ever since the propaganda fiasco surrounding Douglas Wood it's been easier to see how incidents can be manoeuvered. I believe that the Wood story was going to be used in Bush's State Of The Union that year as a success of Operation Lightning, as the Coalition/Iraqi training/transfer program was called.
Personally, I've cancelled my plans to come to Sydney. Bound to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What the extreme right thinks
John Pratt says:
So, what do others think?
Is John Pratt's understanding, based on his reading of an article in the ultra-right wing American 'Heritage Foundation' website, correct? Or is this just more panicky PNAC scare-mongering by die-hard Reaganites?
What do others think, Eliot?
Eliot: "what do others think?".
Well, if they have half a brain they don't dismiss your comments out of hand. I think John Pratt has done a good job in answering your points in a general sense and it was good to have a bit of perspective on an issue too easily reduced to a simplistic and post-Lapsarian set of metaphors.
Yes Elliot, the old gal probably ain't quite done with yet. But the picture is changing all the time and the game almost up – as to the day of the free lunch – for the USA.
It must learn, at last, from its mistakes and somewhat chastened rather than still dangerously complacent in the way of the early Bush administration, reassess its relative importance and necessity in the greater scheme of things. One doesn't improve in a real world by eliminating one's virtues, but one's defects.
It needs to regain a sense of purpose for itself involving the "other" as a friend, rather than continuing to deteriorate into Cheyneyish cynicism and exceptionalism.
It must learn to see itself through the eyes of others!
A bit less of "US interests" and a little more about "the world's interests" or "humanity's interests" would be welcome.
It won't come from Bush, if no better reason that it's too late in the day for that administration, apart from the flaws in outlook and mentality.. They'll come a 'Roving' no more, no more.
But we must hope that the new presidency due shortly, regardless of its political colour, will deliver something a little less parochial, reckless, and starry-eyed, and closer in comprehension as to wider humanity. Nothing everyone participating at this site would love better to see than a humbler, wiser and team-oriented America operating as a new, common sense force for good in the real world of real people.
Wild Rover No More
US wealth used to destroy, China uses its wealth to invest
While the US is busy spending its billions trashing Iraq and Afghanistan, China is investing billions in Africa.The US is destroying wealth, China is creating wealth. If this is a two horse race who would you put your money on?
G'day Richard,
G'day Richard.
The only thing I remember in recent times about the "Dirty Bomb" was an article on the net about Downer involving himself in it. Figures doesn't it?
I did a little check and it seems to me that these are weapons which the ordinary Middle East Muslim could use against their US tormentors.
What I do know is that the singular race towards complete disaster by the American Military Corporate must surely succeed by them being hoist by their own petard.
Whoever who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
Your interest inspires me about a subject that the federal election here has, temporarily, put on the back-burner.
I believe that from its very beginning, the United States of America established a religious style extremist society - a mixture of the ridiculous and the sublime.
The flag to which little children are forced to swear allegiance, or else, creates a society of paranoic robots who fear that they will fail their flag. A sense of guilt, far in excess of patriotism.
They have been accused, by many of the world's greatest statesmen, of creating the excuses they use for their wars of choice.
Tripoli (Marines hymn?), the USS Maine (Spanish/American war), SS Lusitania and SS Laconia (WW 1), Pearl Harbour (WW 11), Communism threat (Korea), Second Communist threat (Vietnam), suspicious Twin Towers destruction by the Saudi Arabians who they knew were there (Afghanistan), the myth of WMD's (the illegal invasion of Iraq), just to mention a few.
They have led the world in devising the most horrific killing methods known to man.
Catalyst
Ernest, I'm looking at the scenario as objectively as I can, wondering who would want to use Sydney/APEC as a safe (zero-life-loss) catalyst to trigger off the next phase of a war. I can see such a device as tactically advantageous to the fundamentalists on both sides of the coin. However, there's one side at the moment, who would collect more manna from heaven in the aftermath of such an event, especially if it occurs at the same time as September 11 and the Petraeus Report.
Last year I told a friend of mine due to fly home from the US to keep her eyes open. That was two days before the Heathrow gel-bomb bulldust. She assumed I had prior knowledge, which of course I didn't. It just seemed likely as a crackdown mechanism for the 9/11 anniversary.
I have a very similar sensation at the moment. We seem to love celebrating anniversaries.
Aside- remember the date that Scott Parkin was picked up? September 10. 2005. The "Australia you're next" never-authenticated Al Qaeda video came out the next day.
3.1331 trillion Yen in fortune cookies
By the way, for interested persons, here's an official Japanese web site giving some background on the massive levels of foreign aid which Japan gives to China for economic development.
Of course, the growth and stability of the Chinese economy is very much in the interests of both Japan and the United States. Mind you, China gets cross whenever Japan starts attaching political strings to the aid. And not everyone inside Japan is in favour of giving China aid, at all. American businesses certainly doesn't seem to be too phased by the prospects of Chinese economic development. Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz noted on CNBC that in three years the company would probably have more cafes in China than in the United States.
People are impressed to hear figures like how China's exports to the United States have grown by 1,600 percent over the past 15 years - but they often overlook the fact that U.S. exports to China over the same period have grown by 415 percent. So, that's a definite plus plus relationship going on there that neither side would be too keen to see disrupted.
And of course, not everyone's that impressed by China's "rise to power". In fact, this guy's positively scathing:
China is already in the same league as the US.
Eliot, I wouldn't write China off just yet:
As you can see, Condy is clear that China will soon be competing with the US on equal terms. Compare the debts levels of each country - US debt $9 Trillion and China has the US by the balls
The imminent downfall of the United States
David Roffey, hi!
What would be the main argument in support of your statement that the United States is in a situation of geo-political decline compared with its situation in 1950?
Who, from your viewpoint, has emerged to provide the United States with significant geo-political competition in the last 57 years, compared with that of the Soviet Union from 1950 up to 1992?
How, for example, would US geo-political influence today compare with that of the Kennedy-Johnson and Nixon-Kissinger eras?
And are you thinking in terms of the European Union? Or just China when it comes to emergent competitors of a rank comparable with the USSR?
Would you even consider the EU in 'competition' with the USA for geo-political influence?
And what about Russia today? is it a competitor with China, too?
I'd be interested to hear your views on these matters.
And what does it mean when an economy is in "structural deficit", as you phrase it?
Fiona: Eliot, you are attributing Professor Kolko's words to Scott Burchill. Please be careful - some readers might regard this as deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
My apologies to Scott. And I am assured that no fair-minded or sane person would have considered it deliberate mis-representation.
Also, feel free to edit the mistake as you see fit, Fiona. Thanks.
Tired soldier
Quoted by Gary Younge in today's Guardian:
Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung definitely had had the last laugh.
Yes, you only have to compare the geopolitical position of the United States today with its position in 1950 to see how poorly it has done compared with its major political adversaries of the Korean War era - the Soviet Union, North Korea and Communist China.
Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung definately had had the last laugh.
Fiona: Eliot, you are attributing Professor Kolko's words to Scott Burchill. Please be careful - some readers might regard this as deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
US geopolitical position is not as strong as 1950
Since 1950, US expenditure on the Korean War created the Japanese economy from scratch, spending so much there that a war torn mess became a world power. Moving on to the 60s, US expenditure on the Vietnam War created the South Korean industrials from scratch – there was a point where 96% of Korean steel production went to Vietnam. Since 1979, the US economy has been in structural deficit. The expenditure in Iraq is keeping the aerospace and armaments parts of the US economy healthy, but Mao indeed will have the last laugh if the US threatens China with economic action.
Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq
Today's Observer:
What a strange thing.
It's phenomenal, isn't it?
For the last couple of years stories have filtered out of America concerning the Bush administration's treachery towards its vets as to terms of engagement, multiple tours of duty, compensation for crippling injuries, payment hassles, and inferior hospital and rehab treatment. There are stories a plenty about nervous breakdowns, combat fatigue, suicide, and shellshock.
And they seriously wonder why they have trouble recruiting. Like Australian politicians, they just throw more big bucks to media and advertising and hope a new set of flashy lies does the trick. Another symptom of a bankrupt credibility account and democracy deficit: the just deserts of a crippling lack of imagination, ethics, spirit, and diligence.
It's not heroic like WW2, is it? Where's the cause?
It's not a war that's about defending one's family's or one's own existence. No, its obvious now even to folk from West Virginia, convenient scapegoats often themselves since the beginning of the war for Abu Ghraib and other failures, that what they are suffering for and selling their souls for is about propping up remote big business and political figures, not saving civilization.
Brings tears to your eyes.
Gee, reading this almost brought tears to my eyes. Contributors so far on top of it, but have gone back to recollections of WD at the time of Sept 11, when contributors pleaded that the West look within, rather than overreact.
Next we knew, Senator Byrd's "six trillion dollars” speech marked the first public acknowledgment of the fiery incontinence's likely consequences.
Now , nearly six years on, the chickens come home to roost in droves and we live in a world where western civilization, through that handful of psychotic paranoid megalomaniacs who so recklessly seized the steering wheel, has seen its opportunity thrown away for all time, as recklessly as a blind drunk with no arms. In "macro" so much parallel to the Australian "micro" with John Howard as to our own country, although the damage here is of a different sort.
Instead, America created real scary monsters to trouble it, as it is now emerges bleary eyed from the "sleep of reason". The Chinese, a new reality of its own making, taunt it, and a seventies style recession, inflamed by climate change out of control once and for all, beckons. Latin America cocks a snook at it. The last of any lingering moral capital left in the resource-rich but tumultuous and suffering developing world evaporates in the streets of Baghdad, Gaza and Kabul, whilst advanced countries or formations like the Asian Tigers and the European Community increasingly make their own decisions in seeking to save themselves from the US's morass. And as the article says, a potential friend in Russia has also been rudely alienated.
In Kolko's summary the complacency of the scenario of Lockheed Martin, the discrete, integrated military industrial complex of the notorious realist Playboy article is even challenged at least to the "rivers of gold" and (warped) hope for stability, although the darker conclusions are the latter are reinforced.
Recall Jack Robertson using left terminology in suggesting the likelihood of the system collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. A few years on and yes, our worst fears are closer to reaffirmation.
Reading Kolko had the writer in recollection of the 'seventies Vietnam summary, the Deer Hunter movie. A generation removed we now realise that, against all reason, there had been a miracle.
But then De Niro morphed into Dick Cheney and pulled the trigger, after all. I really want to strangle Howard, Rumsfeld, Murdoch, Bush and so forth, for their selfish tantrum-driven wanton destruction of our unlikely, unearned redemption.