Who Profits from War?

Yep, it's rhetorical. And I think my point is made: popularity does not equal validity. What's more, you can hardly point to FDR's tenure as evidence of his greatness when it's been literally impossible to equal it for some time now. Reagan, for example, would've surely been elected to at LEAST a third term had he been playing under the older Presidential rules, yet I've got a sneaking suspicion that you don't think much of him.

I do not think mere popularity is a valid indicator of effectiveness...but even if it was, I seriously doubt that you apply it consistently when assessing administrations further away from your particular political mindset.


I don't think Steve said people thought he was a tyrant. I believe he said that he was, whether people thought so at the time or not.


He is? News to me. I don't know anyone crazy enough to hold him up alongside Winston.

Ok, whatever.... So. What would Cheney have been in your eyes if he was a frenchman? Maybe you didn't see the question mark.

I am not very familiar with this technical language but it seems to me that all that quote is saying is that you can't sell weapons to Iraq, not that Iraq may not possess weapons. And I too know that Iraq violated all kinds of things in various resolutions and this and that. And I too thought that Iraq should be dealt with. I too think Jaques Chirac is an ass. What I don't think is that Europe collectively owns USA to attack Iraq just because USA says so.


First of all, USA and Europe are almost equal in ther consumtion of oil. Secondly, my post about Halliburton had nothing to do with oil. I just used it as an example of that not only french or russian or german or whatever european country's companies are driven by profit instead of by loyalty to some UN resolution or sanction. Thirdly, I didn't say that Halliburton cut illegal deals - on the contrary, I said they did it all legally.

As I said before, you haven't followed this discussion very closely so you don't know at all what I really think about this.

I think that a lot of reforms are needed within UN (first - get rid of the veto in the Security Council). Then the resolutions should be written in such ways that it's no question about what they really mean and what the consequences of breaking them really are. Then perhaps we could start talking about international laws.

If you'd really read my posts you would find that I was not really opposing the invasion of Iraq but the way it happened because of the fraction between USA and some european countries, and some other reasons too.

Good, good... It's a good thing I'm intellectually inferior to you so I don't risk waking the rage in you - which is my only intent.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Welcome back! How did it all go with the girl????


But didn't you have the same rules in the days of FDR but an exception was being made?

Reagan is the Margret Thatcher of America. That says it all. A good thing for some, and a bad thing for others. And the certainity of Reagan being elected to a third or fourth term is highly speculative. I could say the same thing about Clinton or ask what would have happened if JFK hadn't been killed.

Speaking of Margret Thatcher.... I don't like her or the politics she stood for one bit, but Joe Strummer of The Clash (pretty far from rightwing) said it pretty well: "Say what you want, but she had balls THIS big!!!". She was the Iron Lady and even though she did a lot of pretty ****ed up things I can understand why the brits wanted to keep her. She stood for stability and the alternatives didn't have her charisma.

I don't really remember everything about this discussion, it was so long since we last were at it. But I don't recall ever saying that popularity is a indicator of effectiveness. If popularity is an indicator of anything, it's an indicator of - popularity! All I said was that there was obviously something pretty remarkable about FDR since he is the only president that has been elected four times. But you had to admit that he was pretty effective.

Well, if he in fact was a tyrant I think people of the time would have noticed...

Well, being an american you probably know better than me... Maybe it's just the way he's being portrayed in films and stuff or that he's considered a great leader here in Europe.

I saw a discussion on a forum on the Net somewhere. I don't remember if it was here or where it was but the question about who the best president of USA ever was came up, and I seem to remember Washington and FDR were being mentioned the most.

Thanks for the welcome. Things went well. Just don't buy into the seamstress-esque insinuations of Slaytan and Silver.


Sort of. Washington imposed the two-term limit on himself, I believe, and it was never fully made law until during Truman's Presidency (I think)...though Truman himself was exempted from it. Regardless, it is now law, and therefore it's a little difficult to gauge just how FDR stacks up against more modern Presidents in terms of popularity. And, of course, he DID come into power during a rather unique and crucial time in our history.


Who was Reagan bad for, in your mind?

Concerning speculation: technically, yes, it is speculative...but reasonably I think it's quite certain given the fact that Bush Sr. clearly succeeded him on the merits of the Reagan administration. So I think a third term was a given...a fourth, I'll grant you, would be too speculative. And yes, I think Clinton would've likely won a third term as well.


There was indeed something remarkable about him. He was, at the very least, an incredibly eloquent and clever man. Many view Roosevelt as the first "modern" President...the first to play the publicity game as heavily as is now expected of all Presidential candidates. I think he owes a great deal of his popularity to his media savvy.

That said, I'm not trying to make the case that Roosevelt was an evil man or even a particularly bad Head of State.


I don't know about that...we have people now who think Bush is cleansing the world of evil, and others who seem convinced he is Satan incarnate. Such polarized views, if nothing else, show us that it's all too easy to have entirely the wrong opinion of your country's leader without a bit of hindsight.


Depends on what you mean by "great leader." He was certainly adept at swaying public opinion and getting people behind him. His popularity attests to that.


That surprises me. I suppose an odd Democrat or Socialist here or there might prop FDR up rather highly, hailing the New Deal as a revolution which will inevitably expand for the forseeable future. I find that Lincoln takes the cake, generally, though.

Only beginning?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.... Cut the crap... DID YOU GET ANY????

Yes, but that is why I think he is remarkable. In times of chaos and turmoil, and even war, it's not unusual that political leaders are being exchanged like underwear or that the chaos makes way for dictators (Hitler comes to mind). I think that the way he handled the Depression and WWII is very admirable.

Everybody.


The same could certainly be said about Reagan who is sometimes viewed as the first "TV-president" because of his understanding of the importance of that medium (looking into the camera instead of down in the papers when addressing the nation). And he was, of course, an actor before he was a president.

Sure, and I am sure that some people hated FDR back in the days, but just like I think it's wrong to call Bush a fascist, just as wrong do I think it is to call FDR a tyrant. Because they just are not any of those things - it's misusings of the words.

I think what he did politically domestically and internationally is fantastic, and he stood strong when it blew hard.

European socialists of the 40's and 50's did actually consider America as the only country in the world truly without social classes. FDR might have had something to do with that....

Lincoln was probably mentioned a lot too, yes.

No, it does not operate. I explained this awhile ago:

"You're quite right in stating than an economic theory cannot be expected to cover every scenario, thus it need not ALWAYS work when all of life's intangibles are thrown into the mix. The problem with Keynesianism is that fluctuating products are not some minor detail. They are, arguably, the core of our economy, and unarguably an important part of it. To say Keynesianism works if you assume a static produce line is like saying the weather's nice so long as you don't get any wind."


No one said anything about "conning" people into buying things. That's closer to the Keynesian view, actually; boosting consumer confidence is little more than convincing people to buy things. The supply-side philosophy is more of the "if you build it, they will come" school of thought.


The "wealthy" you speak of are the same ones providing the jobs in question. When businesses do well, they tend to expand, therefore any tax cut which benefits a business will, in turn, benefit prospective employees.


Your proposal, is I'm remembering them correctly, advocated little more than moving money from one place in the economy to another.

Had to dredge up this thread, for the following article. I encourage you all to follow the links.

Fables of the Reconstruction

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Nice one stevo. Very interesting. I think this summary point is poignant tho...

"A conscious effort to reward Bush cronies with lucrative government contracts would require a lot more coordination than the CPI uncovers."

I think that level of coordination is next-to-uncoverable, if it exists (and i'm quite prepared to believe it does ). So, yes, they can't claim a blanket "donations-lead-to-contracts" equation - but then that would be overly simplistic anyway. To examine unfair advantage thru donations you'd have to correlate all profits due to demonstrable government patronage (i.e. beneficial legislative changes, contracts, support in WTO or on the ground in different countries, a blind eye being turned to interference in watchdog bodies etc etc etc - and of course much of that is tricky to lay on the table).

One thing that intrigues me on the contract front is...Why weren't Iraqi contractors included in the competition for the jobs - or, to be more practical, why wasn't provision made for such a step? (it would have helped with reconstruction all round - and being an educated country, used to building monoliths to one man's arrogance, i'm sure Iraq has plenty of technical skills and potential contractors floating around. They may not all measure up with these chosen-ones, but such a move would have the beneficial repurcussion of tackling unemployment on the ground etc)

So, good to have a rigourous check of the CPI's claims, but all it shows is it's not clear either way. Think i'll stick with my i-don't-trust-Bush-so-i-don't-trust-Bush reasoning for now (and there's plenty of reasons not to trust Dubya and posse - not that means others are any innocenter - if that's a word. Ah hell, Dubya wouldn't care, why should i )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Hmm, okay, Halliburton could be the best of the 5 companies selected to compete for the iraq job, but doesn't anyone find the sheer level of wealth and industry-involvement in the Bush cabinet unsettling. It's not that they're all millionaires, it's that they have implicit and inapropriate ties with influential-as-it-is industries. And, Halliburton just looks suss. The other stuff isn't necessarily so, but they're dodgey (happy Yoda?) thru and thru, and stuck to the admin like glue.

If energy-companies can help bring about legislations that lead to blackouts and poor service etc, what can oil-companies set in motion, eh, eh? (not suggesting they get the admin to go to war as such - they just point out the profits and keep pushing i'd say).

Anyway, here's an interesting little snuffle thru Halli's dirty underwear draw.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...968446,00.html

Oh, and look at the "think tanks" some Halliburtoneers sit on...

Oh, and they employ soldiers too for some intriguing reason. (yes, i'm suggesting they're building their own personal army, and will soon be taking over the world, mwuhahahaha. Arm yourselves people )

Other info and fairly level-headed anti-industry prying on Halli's con-net (and other goings on) at...

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pro...aliburton3.htm

Agreed. Which, in my mind, leaves us with nothing more than speculation...which isn't enough to prosecute with. Those who like Bush will remain skeptical, and those who dislike him will believe it's true, despite lacking actual evidence. Or, to borrow a turn of paraphrase from Lewis; this proves this, or that, or something else, depending on the person.

From my understanding, some of the companies (might just be Halliburton; not sure) had already mapped out strategies some time before. Example: Halliburton was, if I've heard correctly, hired under the last adminitration for work there, and as such came into this round far better equipped. I've been told (and this sounds reasonable, but I've yet to personally verify it) that Halliburton, therefore, had already done the prep that could've taken another company weeks or months...and obviously the US is in a bit of a hurry to get this thing under control as fast as possible.

Toss in the fact that Halliburton may very well be the most qualified anyway, and I think choosing them was quite reasonable. People toss accusations about Halliburton around very recklessly, given the fact that they'd be hard-pressed to find a better-qualified and prepared company for the job.

It's big of you to admit that they're probably the most qualified. That said, though, no, I do not find the level of wealth and involvement of Bush's cabinet unsettling. In many ways, the government should be run a bit more like a business. No completely, of course, but government's closed-off nature has undeniably caused it to become rather bloated, unwiedly, and inefficient. I think a traditional business perspective could do it quite a bit of good if applied properly.

As for ties and connections; good luck finding people of power and influence (especially from the business world) who are truly seperated from others in their industry. It's inevitable, and only a cause for concern if we see evidence of favoritism and corruption, in my opinion.

Though, as Steve has pointed out in the past, whether or not some politican got rich is pretty unimportant from a pragmatic standpoint if that same politican made decisions which greatly benefitted the country. And, economically, I'm quite convinced that Bush has done us quite a lot of good, of which we are seeing only the beginning.

Oh dear...are you trying to pin the blackouts on privatization, or some such thing?

In many ways - yes. And saying that deregulation has been more negative than positive. Just ask California. Hell, ask Enron

This isn't the right thread...but....as i understand it:

(a) energy-company price-n-supply-fixing in California has been pretty much established, and was behind their blackouts (and even damaged production plants along the way apparently. Daft if true - truely daft) But that's a specific case.

(b) the wider criticisms are that:

-consumer choice and benefit haven't emerged as energy dealers use various types of "gamesmanship" locally and nationally (i.e. they push the price as high as they can get away with coz demand is constant, and use unscrupulous selling/billing practices etc as the consumer gets befuddled about which supplier to opt for)

-uncertainty in the market may have caused the national network as a whole to be neglected and investment to drop (making blackouts more likely, when coupled with energy-trading over inappropriate distances - and incredibly high demand of course )

-the FREC has no teeth (only fining a company around 1% of its profits for the year it interfered in California for example, if memory serves) and so can't ensure public service.

(Oh, and it's so nice to see Arnuld pushing for deregulation all the way, via scrapping the California Power Authority - despite the fact that deregulation seemed to be a major factor in California's troubles (and his predecessors downfall). That's great thinking. Maybe his economics degree is in deregulation-at-all-costs?)

I'm suggesting energy shouldn't be treated as a commodity in this way. And overall it looks like an example of deregulated competition leading to inferior service (and possibly a breakdown in cohesion in society-wide structures - from regulatory bodies to nation-wide infrastructure )

I don't have time to go into depth now, but California was not legitimately deregulated by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The word has become a semantic pretzel, but California most certainly did not undergo energy deregulation in the way you'd expect, given the real meaning of the word.