Who Profits from War?
 

Is war big business? Let's cut out the sentimental propagandistic crap and take a long, hard look at who actually has the most to gain from the recent war in Iraq:

- The Iraqi people? Yes and No. True, they have been liberated from Saddam's oppressive regime, but at what cost? Their entire nation has been devastated by war and economic sanctions--countless human casualties, widespread anarchy and looting, etc. But, on the other hand, a chance to begin anew and forge a new future for themselves (at an exorbitant cost, all the same).

- Saddam Hussein? Not if he is dead. And No, because his regime has been toppled. But Yes, if he is alive to enjoy his ill-gotten gains, especially the huge sum of money (US Dollars) stolen from Iraqi banks by his son Qusai.

- The American soldiers who risked their lives fighting for their country? Most decidedly not. Those who survived the war have to face a cut in veteran's benefits thanks to the administration they risked their lives for.

- The American taxpayers? Not the middle-income tax bracket who will end up paying the majority of the $150 billion price tag attached to this war.

- The wealthy minority? Most definitely--they will enjoy the fruits of the Bush administration's tax relief measures.

- The arms industry? Absolutely. They made a "killing" out of this war--a lucrative payback from their contributions to the Bush presidential campaign.

- The NRA? Yes, from the culture of violence inspired by the Iraq war--again a lucrative payback from their support of the Republican administration.

- The petroleum industry? Absolutely. With the deposition of Saddam Hussein, we see the release of some of the richest oilfields in the world--ready for exploitation by the oil barons, including George W. Bush himself.

- The Republican elite? Definitely--most of them fall into the tax bracket that will benefit the most from Bush's economic measures.

- George W. Bush himself? Most undeniably. Not only is he experiencing unprecedented electoral support thanks to his ruthless exploitation of anti-Arab sentiments following 9/11, but he will also benefit financially from his own tax cuts and from his personal vested interests in the oil industry.

- The state of Texas? Yes--its economy is largely driven by petroleum.

- The media? Yes--war coverage had proven to be lucrative.

- War correspondents? Yes and No. Those who survived obviously benefited. Those who didn't, like David Bloom (untimely demise), Geraldo and Peter Arnett (careers destroyed) obviously didn't.

- The tech industry? Hard to say. After suffering a major slump from the 2 year recession, it seems to be inching towards recovery following the cease-fire in Iraq. But where it goes from here is anybody's guess. I only hope it moves forward. Technology has to keep advancing, I guess.

- The US economy? Hard to say. After staggering through a 2 year recession, it is finally experiencing moderate gains--war is always bad for business, but the END of war might be beneficial to business from the sense of relief and security it gives to people.

- The US image abroad? No way. It has been devastated by the Iraq war.

- Osama bin Laden? Absolutely. Not only is he capitalizing on the destroyed US image, but Iraq has just opened itself up into becoming one of the richest recruiting fields for Al Quaeda. Furthermore, he has probably turned from becoming a fringe figure into a mainstream figure in the Islamic world.

- The poor? No way. Exploited from all directions.

- The middle-class? No. Exploited by the recession and the unbalanced tax cut and economic strategy.

In short, the question that comes to my mind is: has the recent war in Iraq been such a shameless act of cold-blooded exploitation that it rivals even Enron? We are talking here not only of the exploitation of public opinion following 9/11, but also of the human and economic exploitation of the Iraqi and American peoples--the beneficiaries, of course, being the wealthy elite who support and constitute the current Republican administration.

I refuse to apologise for my actions. Let it be known that I acted alone.

:rotfl:

When we come like a hurricane
Blowin' everyone away
There's nowhere you can run and hide
So stylish, so skillfull
With an iron will too
Eleven devils side to side
We've got all the right moves
So doffence is no use
Nothing's gonna get in our way
We're strong we're united
Threre's no way to fight it
You're never gonna keep us at bay

##chorus##
No-one can move,move,move
Like the Red Tribe do
There's no man that can stand in our way
No-one can move,move,move,
Like the Red Tribe do
They just can't stand the heat when we play

When we rise like a tidal wave
Sweeping everyone away
You'll know that we are truly the best
'Cos unity is power
And we are gonna tower
High up above the rest
We've got heart, we've got pride too
Respect is overdue
We'll earn it,but someone must pay
No-one can keep us held down
So pass the robe and crown
We're going all the way

No-one can move,move,move
Like the Red Tribe do
There's no man that can stand in our way
No-one can move,move,move,
Like the Red Tribe do
They just can't stand the heat when we play

[repeat chorus]

Show respect to the Tribe that Red
Say ho, say hey

chorus out

Re: Who Profits from War?
 

Iraq had been devastated for two decades before this war. Saddam Hussein's regime was a terror state, as the torture chambers and disgusting prisons indicate. And the looting is rather minor, don't you think, compared to the 20 years of theft by Saddam?

The economic sanctions were upheld by, among other criminals, the Clintonite peaceniks who wanted to avoid a real fight at all costs (they'd rather bomb a defenseless peripheral nation like Sudan, instead of remove a tyrant.)

By that rationale the NRA benefits every time a person is shot in this country.

Let the barons come, if only to cut the Saudi monopoly on oil. You're attacking this war from a left-wing peacenik position, but you don't realize how the oil is going to benefit the people. Do you care how much money a rich man makes when a poor man is getting his due? If so, that's a private issue you need to work out on your own, because it's not a reason to be against the oil companies.

I only wish to defend a few things about Bush, and this anti-Arab thing is one of them. He has been remarkably well-spoken concerning this matter and has not capitalized on any of it. He warned against it multiple times.

You could say the same things about the Bosnia-Herzegovina war in the 1990s. Or any other war. I don't see the point of posting this.

If you're talking about the governments of France (who have been against lifting the sanctions since the cease fire - a position almost criminal in its stupidity), Russia (led by Vladimir Putin, butcher of the Chechen Muslims), or Germany (so peripheral now it may as well not exist), then good riddance. If these governments wish to placate terrorists and refuse to evolve internationally, then they are more than welcome to hate the United States for picking up their slack.

This is all speculative and is inaccurate when judged with recent history. People said the same thing when protesting the invasion of Afghanistan, and look what happened there: the al Qaeda network suffered the loss of a protective state, which conducted its own reign of terror against the Afghani people, the safehouse in Kandahar was blown to smithereens, Osama was nowhere to be found, and many al Qaeda members were killed in the fight.

What else is new? And the Iraqi poor now at least have a chance.

I'd like for you to explain to me a few things:

1. How has the US exploited the Iraqi people economically?
2. Do you care if the American rich benefit if the Iraqi poor do as well?
3. How was public opinion exploited?

Re: Who Profits from War?
 

My spidey sense tells me you have no source for this.


Ignoring the fact that your underlying implication is at fault, since when is Bush's tax plan in any way contingent on or directly related to the war?


Seeing as how such contributions are a matter of public record, why don't you go ahead and demonstrate that the arms industry did, in fact, donate heavily to Dubya's campaign?


Steve already pointed out how ridiculous this is.


You know, if you invested in the oil industry beforehand under the assumption that Bush would be sure to take care of his so-called buddies, you'd have lost a sh*tload of money.


Uh, that'd include the Democratic elite, too. Though elite members of both parties will STILL be paying through the nose...which is something apparently lost on you.


An unbalanced tax cut which is a response to an unbalanced tax policy. When the scales are tipped, it's impossible to restore balance if you apply the same ratio to both sides.

What's the matter, man? Weren't enough holes in your foot already?

Silver Bullet, a.k.a. "Matt the Brat", your verbal droppings make less and less sense as time goes on.

As for Steve and Yoda's comments, I'm sorry to say that those are some of the weakest counter-arguments I have ever seen. I shall be back to devastate your points sometime soon. Not right now, though, as I have other things to do!

Ciao! :D

Re: Re: Who Profits from War?
 

You're brilliant!

I'm waiting.

Thanks to Slay for the kind words.:cool:

So George W. Bush's answer to the problem is to bomb Iraq some more--kill more innocent civilians--more women and children--level the city of Baghdad to the ground in a supposed attempt at liberating it? I'm not convinced that this was the appropriate course of action to take. I think that the Bush administration could have achieved its objectives through diplomatic channels, such as through the measure of "coercive inspections".

True. However, in the case of the Iraq war, the NRA-sponsored Bush administration was directly responsible for violence on a massive scale, apparently giving an authoritative endorsement to the culture of violence and, in particular, of VIOLENT XENOPHOBIA.

I'm not an anti-capitalistic peacenik. By all means, let the rich make all the money they want. However, I AM against EXPLOITATION, and from where I stand, the Iraq war has been a MAJOR case of exploitation, as I have described above. It's just like the slave trade, another case of exploitation for profit. I'm not opposed to businessmen making money through legitimate means. However, I am opposed to unscrupulous capitalists exploiting the poor and downtrodden for personal profit.

Bush is taking advantage of the situation to further his right-wing political agenda and profiting from it both financially and politically by exploiting what is a HUMAN TRAGEDY on an enormous scale. Because a SMALL MINORITY of fanatical religious zealots or extremists chose to commit a horrendous atrocity against civilized humanity does not give George W. Bush the right to arbitrarily declare war against anyone he happens to dislike on some trumped-up charges with no basis in reality. And this is EXACTLY what Bush has done in Iraq. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Well, it applies in this war too.

Firstly, I hardly think these governments are placating terrorists. Secondly, no, I'm not referring to these governments exclusively. What I'm referring to is the fact that pretty much EVERYONE outside the US was opposed to the Iraq war. There were demonstrations protesting the war everywhere, all over the world--in Italy, Greece, Canada--everywhere. I'm referring to the fact that the world at large now perceives the US--not Iraq, not North Korea, not Germany, not France, not Russia, not Syria, not Uzbekistan--as the No. 1 threat to world peace, being the only military super-power in existence today and governed by an extremely militant and aggressive administration that, in my mind at least, borders on being a military dictatorship.

I hardly think it is speculative to claim that Osama bin Laden is no longer a fringe figure in the Islamic world. Also, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, because it meant the dismantling of a terrorist state that directly sponsored Al Quaeda (one of the major victims of its terrorist attacks being, incidentally, the Kashmir province of India). The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and was a blatant case of right-wing racism and exploitation of the poor (in my mind, at least). This only gives Osama bin Laden added legitimacy in his anti-American sentiments (which I do not share in the least), and can only serve to make more and more people take him seriously in the future. Even if Bin Laden is captured or killed in the near future, I don't see how the US can prevent him from becoming a martyr in the Islamic world. I, frankly, would view this with incredible distaste, because in my mind, Bin Laden is a fanatical psychopath--however, in the minds of many Muslims, my guess is that he will become increasingly popular in the future, possibly even being equated with genuinely heroic Islamic historical figures such as Saladin, who fought against the atrocities of Medieval crusaders. Bin Laden has, in his own speeches, equated himself with the likes of Saladin, by referring to the Bush administration as "crusaders". This is obviously an attempt on his part to appeal to the majority of the Islamic world. Again, this is a scary situation, because Bin Laden is obviously a psychopath. However, you can see for yourself that the Iraqi people bear considerable ill-will towards the American army. There have been any number of incidents of violent protests against the American occupational forces in Iraq--such as an incident when an Iraqi civilian shot an American soldier dead at point blank range. Obviously there are an increasing number of people in Iraq who are violently opposed to the US military action, and I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that many of these same people will end up being recruited by Al Quaeda.

I won't comment on that. However, I will comment on the fact that it seems that the poor in Iraq have more of a chance than the poor in the US, given the current state of the economy.

1. By bombing the crap out of the nation in a supposed attempt at liberating the nation from an evil tyrannical regime, while, all along, as I have pointed out above, the REAL motivation for the Iraq war has been a profit motive on the part of arms manufacturers and oil barons all along. This is so painfully obvious that the only reason people are blind to this fact is the aftermath of 9/11. I call this exploitation. I don't know what you call it.
2. Like I said above, I am not against people benefiting from anything. I am happy if people benefit from anything. However, I AM against EXPLOITATION, as I said above--exploitation for personal gain. When a right-wing administration sponsored by munitions manufacturers, the NRA and oil barons, goes to war in the Middle-East, the way I see it, unscrupulous people are profiting from blood-money. I am opposed to this. The only real reason Bush wants to go to war is because war happens to be PROFITABLE to the concerns sponsoring his administration. That's my basic point. That is disturbing to me. I just don't trust Bush and his motives.
3. This is so obvious that I feel as if I'm flogging a dead horse by repeating it. Could Bush really have gotten away with his invasion of Iraq if it weren't in the aftermath of 9/11? Need I say more?


Your dubious spider sense is seriously out of whack. Anyway, this is obvious. Bush's tax cuts inordinately benefit the upper tax bracket, resulting in the obvious conclusion that the middle-income tax bracket will end up bearing the majority of the burden of the cost of war.

Does it alter the inevitable consequences of the tax plan as spelled out above? In any case, I would even go so far as to speculate that the tax plan is a part of Bush's ongoing plan to carry out a never-ending Orwellian war against his so-called "Axis of Evil" (an almost ridiculous contrivance that seems to come out of bad pulp fiction) while neatly foisting the tax burden and, thereby, the cost of war, on the middle-income tax bracket. Let's see who Bush declares war on next!

Well, only recently, Bush paid a visit to the Bay Area (I saw it on TV news)--and he made an inspiring speech at a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR--an arms manufacturer which contributed heavily to his presidential campaign and which profited tremendously from the Iraq war. I saw the workers in the munitions factory cheer him heartily as he made a hackneyed, xenophobic speech and then proceeded to demonstrate his "military skills" by entering a simulation and blowing up a couple of simulated "enemy tanks". Of course, video games are great for kids--maybe he should demonstrate his prowess by enlisting and going to Iraq himself! Anyway, the fact that arms manufacturers and the NRA sponsor the Bush administration is common knowledge.

And I have already refuted his claims above.

I'm not so sure about that. Let's see what happens next. Incidentally, I would hardly call the oil industry Bush's "buddies"--more like "family", considering that Dubya himself has major concerns in the petroleum industry.

Well, the Democratic "elite" are hardly for tax exemptions for the rich and profit-induced war. If they benefit from Bush's tax measures intended to favor the priveleged few, then it is not thanks to their own measures. I have no doubt, however, that if Bush could, he would introduce tax legislation that favors Republicans and excludes Democrats!

I hardly consider tax legislation that inordinately favors the wealthy complemented with major cut-backs on benefits for the poor (including, I might add, benefits for VETERANS, which is particularly cold-blooded) and an ongoing state of war in any way constitutes a balance. What the Republican adminstration is doing is this: they are engaging in a costly, ongoing foreign war which is profitable to the concerns sponsoring them--namely the arms and petroleum industries. At the same time, they are cutting back on benefits to the poor, needy and down-trodden. Meanwhile, their tax measures are giving relief to the wealthy, esp. the wealthy who are profitting from the war, while taxing the middle-class, who are suffering under adverse economic conditions (which the administration is doing nothing to alleviate). So the severely taxed middle-class ends up paying for a war that happens to be profitable for the wealthy, while their own children are the ones who end up dying on the battlefield, instead of for benefits for the poor. If you call this seriously screwed up scenario "restoring balance", I have lost all hope for you! What the administration SHOULD be doing, to alleviate the economy, is what FDR (I think) did during the Great Depression, namely, it should be instituting PUBLIC WORKS which would not only be beneficial to society at large, but would create jobs and so introduce cash into the economy. In this way, the taxes paid by American taxpayers would be put to some worthwhile usage, namely boosting the depressed economy and restoring confidence in the consumer. Instead, what Bush is doing is so blatantly criminal that, were it not the aftermath of 9/11, he could never have gotten away with something this cold-blooded. He is literally sucking the blood of the middle-class to pay for a war that only profits the wealthy. Before you check out the holes in my foot, I suggest you consider the holes in your head!

Why did you start a thread about disco?

The proposed tax cuts lowers the percentage rate for all five income brackets.


You didn't answer my question. There is no inherent link between the tax cut and the war, therefore the list item in question is out of place.


Again, you didn't answer my question. You say this contractor, for example, contributed heavily to his campaign. Which organization are you referring to, and how much did they contribute?


Uh, do your homework and you will be "so sure about that." The oil industry's been taking a beating since he entered office.


The war is not "profitable for the wealthy." It's profitable for a few select contractors. The overwhelming majority of wealthy people won't see a dime from it.


You clearly know nothing about economics. Moving money from the private sector to the public sector would not create jobs or introduce cash into the economy, it would MOVE cash and jobs from one part of the economy to another. What's more, it would introduce higher taxation, which has been empirically shown to hinder economic growth.

Inordinately affecting the upper income brackets, who have the most to gain from them; complementing a cut in benefits for the poor, who have the most to lose from them.

The link is that the same administration is responsible for both. Which leads me to believe that there are common (selfish) interests at stake for both. And the observations I have posted above make that painfully obvious (in my mind).

I'm afraid I don't recall offhand, but check out this recent news article from www.guardian.co.uk:

A "tragic" oversight that, I'm sure, Bush intends to "remedy" with his invasion of Iraq!

Let's get this straight--the war is profitable for the "few select contractors"--who happen to be wealthy (by a remarkable coincidence) and who also sponsor an administration that seeks to institute tax measures that favor the wealthy complelemented with cuts in benefits for the poor, which would undeniably benefit the wealthy. Is this too difficult to understand? Or do you want me to explain it to you in monosyllabic words?

Well, tell that to FDR! Not only did this Democratic President successfully alleviate the greatest economic catastrophe in American history, he also successfully waged war against the Nazis and the Japanese. Fact is that this measure would create JOBS, which are badly needed in the economy today. This would introduce CASH into the economy and boost consumer confidence, which is seriously lagging, and is the single primary cause of the recession.

WHAT? Where's this?

Do read the opening post to the thread again...

First, I don't think you're swallowing the FACT that Saddam Hussein had been waging a 20-year war on civilians, particularly the Shiite Muslims and the Kurds. George W. Bush elected to 'bomb Iraq some more' in order to, among other reasons, put a stop to Saddam's reign of terror. I don't think you need me to tell you that in war, civilians die - it's an unavoidable thing. So unless you provide evidence that the Defense Department was targeting civilians and not doing everything in its power to avoid them your complaints have no basis in anything other than hearsay.

I cannot emphasize enough that the only way to lift the awful sanctions against Iraq is for Saddam Hussein's regime to be completely obliterated.

And, about the coercive inspections: there's no point of inspections when an ample amount of established evidence concerning torture and genocide is present, even if WMD evidence is lacking. You're looking at this on the terms upon which the administration has made its case, not at the larger picture.


You're still reaching. I don't understand what you mean by 'culture of violence.' In these broad terms, you could say every country in the history of the world that ever had a military had a culture of violence as well.

And you say the Bush administration was directly responsible for violence as if Saddam Hussein's regime never did anything wrong, which, as everyone on earth knows now, is completely false.

You're repeating yourself and not offering any points, other than what you believe. You refuse to offer any evidence as to why you think these things.

See my above response. I separated the question from the bile I had to swim through to find it:

Does it matter? GW2 was necessary even if no mention of weapons of mass destruction ever surfaced. Here, let me put it another way: If your neighbor is beating her child to death in front of your eyes, do you:

A) Put a stop to it right there.
B) Call the police, who bring her in, but end up saying she's exercising her rights as a parent.
C) Do nothing. After all, it's none of your business.

It doesn't matter if she's beating her kid with a crowbar or a spoon. It's the fact that she's beating the kid at all.

And the fact that the US supported Saddam Hussein when he commited his most atrocious acts gave us even more responsibility to put a stop to his reign. Let me ask you a question: did you support the deployment of troops in Bosnia during Milosevic's reign of terror?

Sometimes the minority opinion is the right one - look at history. No one made any attempt to remove Adolf Hitler, but many articles were published during the 30s about what he was doing and why it was wrong. World opinion was that he was basically not a bad guy and any attempt to remove him would re-cripple the Germans and they'd lose all the progress he helped facilitate. Only a small number of people knew what should have been done.

When it comes to choosing between a minority and a majority source, I'll take the minority every day of the week. I don't trust mobs.

If this were a military dictatorship, every protest the soft left orchestrated would turn into a massacre. On the contrary, the protesters have gone largely unnoticed - save a few right-wing nuts who won't tolerate dissent (Ashcroft & his type), as is always the case. (Of course, the left is even more contemptible when it comes to labels and intolerance for comrades, but that's an entirely different story...) Needless to say, contrarians aren't being executed or imprisoned, therefore making your statement a superb example of Django-esque exaggeration.

You have quite a sick idea of how the Islamic world operates. Most Muslims HATE Osama Bin Laden. They see his sick brand of Islam as counterproductive to the Israel problem and they recognize him as a terrorist. These people know what is going on in the world around them, which is why the celebrations in the streets of Baghdad were so heartening.

People would be recruited by al Qaeda whether Saddam was in power or not.

At least now the Iraqi people can protest, rather than be thrown in a torture chamber.

Maybe you're right. But Chris is posting verifiable sources and you're ignoring them.

Post numbers and statistics & I'll consider your claims. Even then, though, I'll still support the action - nobody in the world deserves the type of government that Saddam Hussein was running. Like it or not, those arguing against conflict are essentially arguing for the preservation of a military dictatorship. Cowardice is contemptible in every form. If the businesses are going to profit, so be it - the Saudi Arabian monopoly will be cut in two.

The problem is you're not posting any facts, just your personal opinions, which aren't backed up by anything.

I don't trust Bush either, but the action his administration has taken stands up to all scrutiny by itself. His motives don't matter to me. I've said this before: if the Iraqi people are exploited and there's a clear trail to the white house, I'll support regime change here.

Who cares about if he could've gotten away with it? The fact is, it needed to be done, 9/11 or not, regardless of who profits. Because the only thing anyone can be sure of is that the Iraqi people are better off now than they were before.

Another point about Bush's economic package. What Bush claims is that by means of tax breaks, he hopes to stimulate the private sector into increasing production and thereby boosting the economy. Now this plan is so seriously flawed, that it will only result in a never-ending downward economic spiral, short of some external factor intervening to change the course of events. The reason for this is that the private sector is always REACTIVE, never proactive. The private sector operates on the law of demand and supply--it only reacts to an existing demand, never creates a demand. No privately owned company will ever produce a surplus inventory in the hope that they will somehow manage to sell it off. Rather, they will gauge the existing demand for their product and accordingly determine the inventory to be produced. Now if the existing demand is already low, as in this case, owing to low consumer confidence, then production remains low. Consequently, fewer jobs are available in the market and demand remains low. This results in a vicious cycle which, in turn, is what causes the ongoing economic recession--the downward spiral. Now, if the government institutes public works, what it does is to take an active role in creating jobs and, thereby, injecting cash into the economy at the time when it is most needed. This, in turn, boosts consumer confidence and increases demand, which, in turn, induces the private sector to boost production and, consequently, to create more jobs, which, in turn, further boosts consumer confidence, raising demand still further, and so on and so forth. That's why FDR's strategy worked, I guess, based on my limited, simplified knowledge of economic theory. If I'm not mistaken, this is a basic Keynsian model, but correct me if I'm wrong!

Steve, thanks for your replies, but I'll have to ask you to wait awhile before I can reply to them! Sorry!

Hopefully you can find the time to locate sources, rather than repeat yourself yet again.

:yup:

I commend you for your humanitarian sentiments. However, the point I'm trying to make is a little more practical. In simple terms, what is happening in Iraq, terrible though it may be, is not or should not be the primary concern of the Bush administration at this point in time. Sure, people were losing their lives under that despotic regime, but far more lives are being destroyed in the US owing to the poor economy. After the invasion of Afghanistan, which effectively negated the threat posed by Al Quaeda, I think Bush should have dealt with conditions at home rather than engage in yet another foreign war. Another issue is the fact that all his trumped up ideals and the charges made against Saddam Hussein's regime are clearly hollow. I think I have posted enough evidence above strongly to suggest that Bush's primary motives in this war have been profit. And, of course, the weapons of mass destruction charge has already been established to be false. What you are saying is that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator anyway and deserves to be deposed all the same. While that may well be theoretically true, it is an evasion of the fact that LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED IN THE US by the failing economy, and that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States of America is to answer to the problems faced by HIS OWN people rather than concern himself with the problems faced by a whole other nation on the other side of the globe.

By "culture of violence", I'm referring to the widespread proliferation of extreme, graphic, morbid, profane violence in American popular culture, esp. in video games, movies, comic books, toys, etc. In my opinion, Bush is feeding on and feeding this culture of violence by his own irresponsible actions, and, moreover, adding to the spirit of violent xenophobia. This is particularly disturbing to me, being a minority in the US.

Again, that's not the issue at all. Saddam Hussein is on the other side of the world and all his violence does little to affect conditions in the US. On the other hand, the US invasion of Iraq, telecast, in all its glory, on TV, does a great deal to affect the "culture of violence" in the US, for obvious reasons.

I think I have spelt out the evidence quite clearly above. The rest is a foregone conclusion in my mind, at least. I think the connections are quite unmistakable. Just re-read what I said above and I'm sure you will agree.

I honestly don't see how this is a repitition of what I said above. A clarification, maybe, but hardly a repitition.

It's a skewed analogy for many reasons. First of all, the whole weapons of mass-destruction deal made by Bush made it seem as if it was America's personal business to intervene in Iraqi affairs, when that was completely untrue all along. Secondly, Iraq is hardly a next-door neighbor--more like the other side of the world. Thirdly, when your own children are starving to death, you don't abandon them to run to the opposite side of the globe to stop some complete stranger from beating their children to death. While what they are doing may be a terrible thing, you have your priorities cut out for you--first look after your own children--make sure that they are happy and well fed--before trying to rescue a stranger's children. Finally, the fact that US intervention created Saddam Hussein in the first place should have been reason for greater caution, nor greater belligerence on the part of the US. The US is, after all, intervening in the internal affairs of a completely foreign culture about which the masses know very little. As such, the consequences of their actions are bound to be completely unpredictable. Let's just wait and see what happens, shall we?

Interesting that you should cite that fact in the context of this message board! :D In any case, Hitler rose to power by almost hijacking political power, and subsequently based his regime on an ongoing campaign of aggression and belligerence against foreigners and foreign nations. Does that remind you of someone? I'll give you a hint--his initials start with the letters "GWB"! Think "President of the United States"!

The checks and balances inherent in the US system (thank God for them) have prevented that sort of thing from happening--so far. Who knows how far it will go the next time? Rome was a republic before it degenerated into dictatorship. Who's to say it can't happen in America?

Well, let's see what happens next! Keep in mind that I have been opposed to unwarranted military aggression against the same Islamic people that you are now apparently defending, while you have been doing your best to make a case for it.

His "verifiable sources" fly in the face of my experience, of the news, of what pretty much everyone happens to be saying, of the fact that unemployment is the highest it's been in a decade or so (something like 6-8% as opposed to 2% only a couple of years ago, if I'm not mistaken) and whose to say it's all behind us? I'd be the first to celebrate if it was, but I would need some convincing.

I have already posted numbers and statistics--check the article I quoted above, which clearly shows a Republican interest in greatly facilitating donor contributions from defense contractors. This evidence supports my claims so overwhelmingly, that it almost makes me laugh! If cowardice is involved here, it is the cowardice of the profiteers who are benefiting from the blind, misguided, self-defeating patriotism of people who support this sort of military action, I am sorry to say. I am in no way arguing for the preservation of a military dictatorship--I am arguing against hasty military action before all diplomatic channels have been exhausted (see the link on "coercive inspections" above)--military action that only serves to profit the unscrupulous weapons manufacturers providing financial backing to the Bush administration and which would add to the tax burden of the middle-class, a tax burden that would be foisted on them by Bush's recent tax cut measures.

I have posted nothing but facts. I don't see how you can say that my claims amount to mere speculation.

I respect your idealism, but, as I said before, it is misguided in this context. Bush's motives are the crux of the issue. If he is using war--placing American lives at risk while sidestepping the difficult problem of the economy--primarily for personal profit, then he is doing a very nasty thing. I haven't done enough research to produce a clear trail, but whatever scanty evidence I have, thus far, dug up (from something like 5 minutes of research on the internet) speaks for itself. Give me a few weeks or months (hypothetically--I'm afraid I don't have the resources to dedicate myself to such a project), and I'm sure the evidence will be indisputable. However, I'm afraid that I will have to leave that project for someone else, for the reasons I cited above.

That's where I disagree completely. The Iraq invasion was not an inevitable consequence of 9/11. If you believe that, then you have completely swallowed all the right-wing propaganda out there. I don't deny that the Iraq situation needed to be addressed, but I still believe that all the diplomatic channels were not fully explored and that full-scale military invasion was unwarranted at the time.

First, I'd advise you to read the news from the past 3 days. Bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Casablanca, and Jerusalem have occured. al Qaeda has been linked to all of them. So it's hardly accurate to say the al Qaeda threat has been "negated" by the removal of the Taliban regime.

Secondly, you must not be thinking clearly when you say 'far more lives' are being destroyed in the United States than in the Hussein regime. The thousands of butchered Kurds and the millions of 'human shields' and tortured Sunni Muslims and suffering children fly directly in the face of any argument you could possibly make for leaving Saddam alone. The moral question is unimpeachable. So your claim that the charges made against Saddam are hollow is, apart from being a pretty sick excuse, unjustifiable.

What I'm arguing is not an evasion of the economic question, it's simply another issue. I haven't once pledged unyielding support to any administration, and the President's economic policies certainly don't seem to be doing well. So technically you're right that I'm avoiding the question of the economy, but incorrect in attributing this to my support of the war. It's something much simpler, actually: I don't know enough about economics to fashion any argument against the administration. I'd prefer to remain quietly outraged at the consequences until I'm comfortable enough in my own knowledge to engage them directly.

This 'culture of violence' you refer to has yielded some of the most important cultural developments in American history, as well as ably upholding the first amendment on numbers of different occasions.

And there's something much more irresponsible (criminal, in fact) to me about Clinton bombing countries with which the US had diplomatic ties during his grand jury hearings.

If mad dictators are left alone, Hitlerian atrocities ensue. This has been historically proven, Milosevic's 'ethnic cleansing' policies coming immediately to mind. The only thing preventing Saddam from not wiping out the Kurds were the measures taken after Gulf War 1...so instead, Saddam tortured the people of Baghdad, those he could easily reach. It may not affect the United States as a country, but it affects those of us who care enough about our fellow man to recognize amorality when we see it. I can't imagine seeing something so wrong without doing everything in my power to stop it.

It's my belief that it is the world's personal business when mass murder is occuring. Preventing state-sponsored torture is the responsibility of the world. Isolationism is impossible in a capitalist world; this has its benefits and its shortcomings. Many larger nations have caused immense suffering in smaller areas due to this, such as the US support of the Guatemalan coup or the French being responsible for the Rwandan genocide. When this happens, the left is usually good about pointing out the inherent criminal aspect.

But as a consequence, the left also disproportionately views less powerful countries as being helpless victims of the imperialist regimes. This is all wrong. A country like Indonesia, which was conducting a systematic extermination of the East Timorese, was not a victim - Suharto should have been overthrown, be it at the hands of the Indonesians or by a larger, more powerful nation. And even if you contest my capitalism theory, there's an irrefutable fact: every country in the world is tied together by the bonds of humanity - we are all the same. And it seems to me that when something wrong is occuring, we all have a moral responsibility to see to it that those responsible are punished. Whether it's the United States or the democratic Palestinian resistance movements or the freedom fighters in Zimbabwe, I pledge my unyielding support to the punishment and removal of the unjustly powerful.

Actually, it first reminded me of Saddam Hussein, then of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Do you really think President Bush is in the same league?

Me. And, although I know he can speak for himself, Chris Bowyer. And the millions of other free thinking, tolerant citizens of the world.

You're absolutely right. I'm defending the Islamic people and making the case against a brutal dictator who's done his best to terrorize the citizens of his country. For the record, I also will gladly make the case against Ariel Sharon and the state of Israel's unwarranted military aggression toward the Palestinians.

His sources don't deny or ignore history. That's what I mean by verifiable. Folks thought the world would end on Y2K. Much in the same way, folks think the US economy is in absolute tatters & can't be fixed.

The US already had a diplomatic relationship with Saddam's Iraq; it resulted in the butchering of the Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait. To argue for a diplomatic course of action is to argue in defense of Saddam's terror-tactics, whether as a direct or indirect consequence. Diplomacy only reaches so far, at some point a line has to be drawn. If you don't think a line should be drawn at genocide, then you must not be thinking clearly.

Let me just ask, straight out: is Saddam Hussein's regime preferable to oil companies and weapons manufacturers?

I've said before that even if 9/11 didn't happen, regime change in Iraq would still be necessary. 9/11 certainly made it more of a priority, but it wasn't the only reason the invasion was a good thing. And the diplomatic channels were explored, as I stated above, and the results were filthy.

Steve, I don't have the time to get into a detailed discussion with you right now, but let me summarize my position thus:

I have no doubt that you are sincere in what you say and that you are a compassionate and well-meaning individual. And I congratulate you heartily for that. The world needs more people like you. However, it is also true that what you are citing above is, essentially, right-wing propaganda! It may well have a basis in reality, and there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who did terrible things.

However, it is also true, based on the evidence I have thus far presented (and this is only scratching the surface), that for George W. Bush and his colleagues in the defense industry, war is, essentially, a profit-making venture--a business, if you will. Furthermore, like human slavery or the slave trade, it is an inherently exploitative business because it unnecessarily endangers innocent lives, both American and non-American. It is also a very, very dangerous business, because one of the dangerous corollaries to war is terrorism and the possibility of more scenarios comparable to 9/11.

Let me explain how this works:

George W. Bush obviously gets a lot of money from defense contractors--money that these contractors contribute to the Republican fund. This fact is clearly spelled out in the very recent article that I cited earlier in this thread. In fact, the article describes how a certain GOP congressman was lobbying, on behalf of these defense contractors, for legislation to facilitate contributions from defense contractors to the Republican fund. This is a development that is obviously connected to the recent Iraq war. It also suggests, disturbingly, that Bush has more wars planned in the near future.

Now, in exchange for their "little" contributions to the Republican fund, what the Bush administration provides for these defense contractors is to manufacture a neat little foreign war that guarantees purchase of arms and ammunition from these same defense contractors, thereby enabling them to make a neat little profit. How does Bush go about putting his little war package together? Well, that's what he's president of the US for--that's why he was elected and why his election campaign was sponsored by these defense contractors. It is his job, as President of the US, to sell war to the American public and to the legislature. Bush accomplishes this by various means--by employing persuasive rhetoric (his congressional speeches, press conferences and speeches to the American public), by resorting to advertising campaigns which sell the war to all "true believers" (most of whom are well-intentioned people such as yourself) and by making the most of "opportunities" such as 9/11.

Consider Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric. Where did he come up with that idea from? What led him to believe that an international conspiracy was behind 9/11, as opposed to a fringe terrorist group operating from a remote corner of the world? Is his rhetoric, in effect, designed to foster paranoia in the minds of the American public, which would then add legitimacy to his proposed campaign of an ongoing series of profitable foreign wars (for himself and his defense contractor colleagues) against all the nations that comprise this so-called "Axis of Evil"? (I'm speculating here, but the evidence strongly lends itself to such an interpretation in my mind).

Bush's invasion of Iraq has already demonstrated what he is capable of and what he can get away with in the aftermath of 9/11:
a) He can bypass the authority of the UN Security Council.
b) He can invade a sovereign nation based on trumped-up charges and allegations which have no basis in reality.
c) He can win popular support as well as the support of both the congress and the senate, including the grudging support of Democrats too scared of being accused of lack of patriotism to protest.
d) He can, essentially, level his enemies to the ground thanks to American military might and the fact that his enemies happen to be Third World nations lacking the resources to adequately defend themselves against a nuclear superpower like the US.
e) After the smoke has died down and the fallacy of his premise for invasion has been revealed, he can still get away with it by claiming that the evil dictator that he deposed deserved it anyway, regardless of whether there was any truth in the allegations made against him.
f) He can make a tidy profit from the whole deal for himself and his defense contractor colleagues, while introducing tax-relief legislature that neatly foists the cost of war on the middle-income tax bracket.

Is there any reason to suppose that Bush cannot continue with his little "cottage industry" indefinitely, coming out of the whole deal a heck of a lot richer and also enriching his defense contractor buddies, all at the expense of well-meaning, though somewhat gullible, idealists who happen to be naive enough to swallow his propaganda, rhetoric and advertizing campaigns? (No offense intended here, nor is there an attempt at condescension--merely pointing out what the evidence suggests).

I don't know what you call this, but I call this unscrupulous manipulation and cold-blooded exploitation for personal profit. I have reason enough to believe this myself. The evidence I have, thus far, put forward to support my claims is the following:
a) The TV news story I happened to see a week or two ago recounting Bush's visit to the Bay Area and the speech he gave at a local defense contracting firm, in which he entered a military simulation and proceeded to "blow up" a couple of simulated enemy tanks. He then gave a rousing speech to inspire the workers of that arms factory.
b) The article I cited above: here is the link.

I will try to post more evidence to support my claims, when I find the time to do the necessary research.

That, in essence, is my side of the story.