as are we all, mr. mark.....and the bills keep piling up.

reading through the numbers on how much the latest escapade is costing.....wow, America? good luck finding some cash for Spiderman 4....

Back in Brisbania (not BrisVegas as some fools would have it), I'm good friends with a number of the Persian community; so I have emailed them questions about the whole Iran thingy...oooh, a thingy.....

I'll return with 'on the ground' reports.!

Yr Monday correspondent out!

Do you pay taxes?

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
as are we all, mr. mark.....and the bills keep piling up.

Somewhere in China, the government is laughing there asses off at us as they plan the first hostile takeover of a country solely from ownership of the American dollar.

taxes? taxes? That government is best which governs least....what's yr point, marky boy?

Ishy, gonna have to weigh in with mark and noughy on this one. I hope you've come to understand in the relatively brief time that we've been friends here that I am a far left, (by US standards) misanthropic cynic. I detest George Bush and his puppet masters more than I've ever hated a government in this country before. Hell, Nixon was better than W.

That said, I think it is easy, from across the sea, to overestimate the power of the executive branch in this country. The real problems in the early days of Bush's administration, is that his Republican party had locks on the executive and legislative branches. There was, in essence, no loyal opposition.

Sept 11 provided the Bush people with an incredible opportunity to run roughshod over civil rights in this country (cf. the so-called "Patriot" Act) as well as a mandate for intervention abroad. I believe that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the remaining members of the neo-con cabal had Iraq in their sights before the Sept 11 attacks, After the attacks, they had all the casus belli required to go after, not just Afghanistan, but any country they wanted.

I think the intervention in Afghanistan was justified, and internationally accepted. Clearly, the government there had supported a group that attacked the US. If we had stopped at Afghanistan, and used a fraction of the resources in blood and treasure that we have used in Iraq, I believe we could have aided the establishment of a stable, Turkish-style democracy there. Not perfect, but better than what was there.

The folly was the attempt to conflate the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Hussein in one great islamist mega-plot. Something that the Bush administration could do, by the way, by exploiting the essential ignorance of the American people about the political and social complexities of the regions (plural absolutely intentional!). But why Iraq?

The simple, liberal answer is: oil. The neo-con answer, of course is: spreading democracy to an oppressed and deserving people, in an effort to create allies in the "war on terror." I believe that the true answer, as most, lies somewhere between. I do think that there was a belief in the Bush administration that establishment of a friendly democratic state in the region could provide a hegemon to balance growing Iranian influence. There was a misguided hope that the Saudis, who have as much reason to fear Iran as we do, would support a fledgeling Iraq, perhaps to atone for the role of their citizens in al-Qaeda, etc.

The incredible question to me, is why did we think that a Shia majority, who had been oppressed by a Sun'ni minority, and who had been abandoned to torture and persecution by GHWBush, were going to look to the US as their "saviors." Wasn't it obvious that the Shia leaders in Iraq were going to form common cause with the largest Shia nation on earth, right next door?! The one with whom we have been in at least cold war for 20+ years?

The question of oil is, in my belief, a somewhat peripheral one. Of course, the reason we care about the region at all has entirely to do with oil. You didn't see us jumping to intervene in Rwanda, and you don't see us running into Darfur. Despite the fact that, morally, I think there is greater justification for our involvement there than any other country since Kosovo. However, I also do not believe that there was a direct sense that Iraq=oil for the Bush family, as many abroad seem to think. It's a facile argument that Bush, himself, could ever have simply "helped himself: to Iraqi oil, no matter how well the intervention could have turned out. In an extraordinarily poor choice of wording, Bush himself described our involvement in Iraq as a "crusade." I think the term, and the sentiment behind it, is incredibly telling.

(Sometime I'll advance my argument that we have been in essentially one very long conflict with the Muslim world since 711 C.E.)

Which brings me back to my initial point. Bush and his people only had the opportunity to do what they did because they had a congress that was, at best, friendly, and, at worst, cowed by Sept 11 and it's aftermath. Today, the Bush administration has been completely emasculated. Bush's veto of the funding bill will set up more fights with congress, and, barring some kind of extraordinary event, the Democratic party can pretty much guarantee dominance of the legislative and executive branches for the next 4 or so years. Until we become fed up with them for their failures, whatever they turn out to be, and swing back to the right.

Mr. Hegel was right.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kendocubano,

hey ken, nicely made points, but I remain convinced from my close reading of this issue that oil most certainly is central to US involvement in Iraq. Any talk of regime change/ spreading democracy is a lie and a smokescreen.

We can argue about how 'easily' Bush, Cheney et al will gain access to resources, but the facts remain that deals have been brokered, and history shows us that former US g/ments have cynically used Iraq whenever it was expedient.

From my knowledge of US political process, the ability of Congress to halt a Presidential order is , in practice, not theory, extremely limited.

Congress has laid down so many times in the past, and they will continue to do so, as long as US interests are being served. There are few differences between the 2 major US parties,-practically-bill wise- ( Hegel's antithesis theory has become synthesis for US politics) and lobbyists tend to flatten things out even more, so the upshot of what I am saying, is I see a lot more widespread action in the Iran region to come.

I hope I'm wrong. But there is nothing new under the sun. 711 C.E. onward....

I'm glad my topic wasn't a dud, and thanks to everyone for putting their opinion out, but wait a second, this is supposed to be world politics? I mean, we can talk US if you all want, and they certainly play a part (a big part) in the global scheme of things, but then again, so does China, UK, etc.?
How about this: What's going to happen to China with the two recent taint scandals about food and drug from China?

Soory, sinistre, this China food scandal has passed me by, seeing as only good news makes the press here.

What's it all about.........Alfie??

Since my young progeny are off at school, I'll update you, Ish. Not that being at school has stopped my eldest from posting here on the sly, during study hall.

The most recent is from a report in the NYT, tracing the substitution of diethylene glycol for glycerine, used as a sweetener in medicines. The problem is that diethylene glycol is poisonous, and thousands have died worldwide.

This follows on the heels of a food additive scandal, where hundreds of pets in the US died from contaminated food products from China.

From the NYT:

quote:

China issued draft rules for pig slaughterhouses to protect people's health and pork products' quality, the Ministry of Commerce said on its Web site on Wednesday.

The rules come the same day China pledged to clean up its food industry, after worldwide concerns about possible contamination of food exports following the death of some animals in the United States from pet food.

It seems that China, from a regulatory p.o.v. is still the wild west. The sense is that these cases are "tip of the iceberg" cases, and that many more potential problems are lurking in the background.

Increasingly, China is responsible for manufacturing for all of the rest of the world. It has become difficult to buy anything in the US that is not either manufactured in China, or contains parts manufactured in China. We recently bought "organic" apple juice, and found, in the fine print, that the apples were grown in China.

Regardless of how high or low our food or drug safety standards are, the net "quality" is only as high as the weakest link in the chain. The worry is that this might in fact be China.

Thanks, k/c.

I can tell you from living and eating in China every day now for nearly 9 months, that EVERYTHING tastes odd.

I don't mean that as some spiteful swipe at the taste buds of another nation...I've travelled all over the world, and eaten of many cultures. No. The food itself tastes extraordinarily artificial. Whether it be bread, fruit, soft drinks, chocolate, juice et al, there is a distinctive 'chemical' taste to it all.
There is still heavy use of MSG here, which has been outlawed of course in many other countries.

Corruption is rife in China, and the Chinese themselves seem to take the idea of business ethics as something they can't afford to bother with until they have established themselves fully. They argue shortcuts are necessary, and quote other 1st nations' rise to agricultural and economic power, with their own dodgy dealings in a 'good enough for the gander, good enough for the goose' type argument.

It is certainly a major problem for us all that China manafactures so much produce. The hidden cost of outsourcing comes to bite us on our Western bums, hey?

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
I'm glad my topic wasn't a dud, and thanks to everyone for putting their opinion out, but wait a second, this is supposed to be world politics? I mean, we can talk US if you all want, and they certainly play a part (a big part) in the global scheme of things, but then again, so does China, UK, etc.?

Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.

Slow down there my young padawan. News exists outside of the U.S.? How about you explain to me how this is going to affect my daily life, and I'll explain my thoughts to you.

Hrmm, seeing as how Ken did explain this, I'll stick to my word. I trust the Chinese. That Buddha guy was pretty cool. I'm not so big on there current leader though, Kim Jong Il. He sounds mean. If he says it's fine though, then I think it's fine.

After this, Ish and Duke can talk about the issues related to their capital city of Sydney. And we can learn about the ancient Egyptian civilization on the Amazon river. Remember when Ghenghis Kahn conquered the Vikings? I wish I'd been there for that fight. Or how about when Hannibal crossed the Andes to conquer the Huns? Does John Lennon still lead the USSR? These are all pertinent issues, right?

WE ARE NORTH AMERICAN SCUM!!!

Ah, you know what they say about the French.....they wish they were as insular and arrogant as the US, but they are too busy being cheese-eating surrender monkeys...USA!! USA!! USA!!

I'm off to see my village idiot in Sydney, and ask about the Big Boot.

(very funny stuff Major...very funny)

Q: Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?

A: So the Germans could march in the shade.


Heaven is where: the cooks are French, the police are British, the workers are German, the lovers are Italian, and the Swiss manage it all.

Hell is where: the cooks are British, the workers are French, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, and the Italians manage it all!

Oldie but a goodie.

Now what do we think about Nicolas Sarkozy becoming the new President of the Tri-colouers?

He did say that he thought paedophilia is a genetic condition. ...'Heading for the crackdown' indeed..

Interesting development. I must say that I'm a bit surprised. Still, from everything I read (which given the biases of the US press is not terribly much) I get the impression that the differences between Sarkozy and Sego were not as deep as one would think. It's true that Sarkozy is felt to be more pro-business, and anti-immigrant, but he's not really substantively challenging the very generous safety net. I don't believe that the 35 hour work week, or the monthlong August vacation are in any danger. That said, France is clearly not the economic powerhouse that it once was, and competition from other members of the EU should cause the French to re-examine the iron grip with which unions hold the country hostage. When students are protesting and rioting because they are not offered guarantees that they'll never be fired from their first job, then I think there is something wrong. While I think the system in the US is soul-killing, and is likely unsustainable over the long term, I think France's "eurosocialisme" represents the other side of the same coin. Lassitude is built into a safety net that is too cozy, imo.

Sadly, I don't know that I think Sarkozy is the man for the job. What France needed was probably Margaret Thatcher (fine in small doses). What I'm afraid they got was a bit more reactionary and mean spirited, and, ultimately, the lack of savoir faire may impede his ability to hold onto the Assemble.

Mais c'est seulement mon avis.

I just read a book about personalities in the Middle East in ancient times, that is 3000 bc up to the time of J.C. . That place has been knee deep in blood since way back then. If any region was meant for perpetual war I say that is the place. We are pissing in the wind. imho.

Thatcher fine in small doses???

Have you been sipping on the arsenic again, k/c?

An awful, awful excuse for a leader.....

Well, I certainly thought so at the time. Much like Reagan, whom I detested at the time. In retrospect, and with the (dis)advantage of age, I wonder if some of the elements of the conservative revolution were not, in fact, salutory.

I found both administrations to be fairly heartless, and don't think either brought down the old CCCP (that political system imploded from within). And I hate the way Reagan introduced christian fundamentalists into the heart of American politics.

However, some of the sense of streamlining government, and the sense of accountability for government spending begin to resonate with me, now that I'm paying taxes. Lot's of taxes.

Now you have opened a can of worms indeed.

Fiscal accountability as developed by the conservative movements of the last 30 years or so; a very large topic.

I was gonna post something detailed, but i'm falling asleep. However, you do have a point....zzzzzzzzzzz, sorry, gotta go to bed

Yow. New article from the New York Times. More uranium. This is a problem.