"Comparative advantage" and outsourcing.
Zalek Bloom
"protectionism" and defend outsourcing quoting from economic theories
about the benefits of "comparative advantage". All this is very
sophisticated demagogy and let me explain why.
First of all "jobs" is not the same product category as "goods". In
world history exporting goods have a long history, but exporting jobs
is a very recent event. Nobody will argue that preventing spreading of
trade secrets, sensitive military technology is "protectionism".
Nobody will argue that a country that prevents importing of dangerous
environment threatening chemicals is a "protectionist country". A
country that prevents foreign nationals from working legally is also
not a "protectionist" country. And how about free trade of human
organs, where the highest bidder has a right to buy any organ from any
country?
So why is opposing exporting sensitive technology not "protectionism",
why is opposing importing environment dangerous chemicals not
"protectionism" but why is opposing of replacing American workers by
cheap foreigners "protectionism"?
Outsourcing means forcing the local workforce to train their
replacements in order to allow corporations to fire the more expensive
domestic workers. If foreign countries call opposition to outsourcing
"protectionism", let's force them to sign an agreement that will make
it legal in their country to force local workers to train foreign
replacements.
"Comparative advantage" means that some countries/societies can
produce better and/or cheaper products than others. Supporters of
outsourcing say: "History has confirmed that Adam Smith's theory of
comparative advantage was remarkably prophetic. Not only have scores
and scores of countries thrived as they initially encountered global
trade, but many others have crashed dramatically upon raising barriers
to the same".
So what is "comparative advantage" of China and India and what is
"comparative advantage" of the US? What product can those countries
produce better or cheaper than the US? Answer - almost none, unless
American corporations force American workers to teach Chinese and
Indians how to make those products. After American workers will teach
them, then other countries have significant "comparative advantage".
"Comparative advantage" of China is that people of China are slaves of
the communist dictatorship and are forced to work for any compensation
that communists decide which serves the interests of the communist
elite. A free man cannot compete against a slave - a slave will always
be cheaper and will always work harder. Conclusion - American workers
have no "comparative advantage" against Chinese workers.
What is "comparative advantage" of India? Prices of basic food, rents
are cheaper in India than in the US, so an Indian worker can survive
on $200/month. In many US cities just renting a studio costs
$500/month. Conclusion - American workers have no "comparative
advantage" against India.
Using cheap labor does not always mean that the product will become
cheaper or better. Look for example on Microsoft products: Microsoft
virtually has no competition in the OS market - MS is outsourcing
thousands of jobs to China and India, but Windows is not getting
cheaper or better. Each new version is more expensive and each version
is an open book to hackers.
People all over the world have basically the same intelligence. It
does not matter if an engineer was born black, white or yellow - if he
graduated from a decent school, he can perform his duty in the US,
India or China. The only difference is that in China he is forced to
work for a salary dictated by the communist government, in India the
cost of living is much cheaper than in the US.
Conclusion - American workers are too expensive and gradually will be
replaced by foreign cheaper workers. If work needs to be done in the
US - foreigners will be brought into this country in order to replace
expensive Americans.
So what are American workers good for? The only "comparative
advantage" of American workers is that they will vote for politicians
that support replacing American workers by cheaper foreigners. About
80% of them will vote for Bush or Kerry - both of them support
replacing American workers by cheap foreigners. I doubt Indian or
Chinese will vote for politicians that support replacing the domestic
workforce by cheaper foreigners. So don't despair - Americans have
"comparative advantage" after all.
Zalek
Kamal R. Prasad
> Lately we are hearing many people call opposition to outsourcing as
> "protectionism" and defend outsourcing quoting from economic theories
> about the benefits of "comparative advantage". All this is very
> sophisticated demagogy and let me explain why.
> First of all "jobs" is not the same product category as "goods". In
Jobs aren't. Services is about the same category as goods.
Exporting jobs = Importing services/goods.
US imports goods from China and services from India because it costs
less to get the stuff from overseas than locally.
> world history exporting goods have a long history, but exporting jobs
> is a very recent event. Nobody will argue that preventing spreading of
> trade secrets, sensitive military technology is "protectionism".
US govt has put in place some restrictions because of which
'sensitive' code cannot be sent overseas [to the Indian office of an
american company]. Some of those restrictions are well-founded, others
indicate a meddling beaurocracy.
> Nobody will argue that a country that prevents importing of dangerous
> environment threatening chemicals is a "protectionist country". A
> country that prevents foreign nationals from working legally is also
> not a "protectionist" country. And how about free trade of human
> organs, where the highest bidder has a right to buy any organ from any
> country?
> So why is opposing exporting sensitive technology not "protectionism",
> why is opposing importing environment dangerous chemicals not
> "protectionism" but why is opposing of replacing American workers by
> cheap foreigners "protectionism"?
Because environmentally dangerous goods cause more harm than good to
the consumer whereas getting work done for less -causes more good than
harm -IFF the laid off workers can find other jobs.
> Outsourcing means forcing the local workforce to train their
> replacements in order to allow corporations to fire the more expensive
> domestic workers. If foreign countries call opposition to outsourcing
> "protectionism", let's force them to sign an agreement that will make
> it legal in their country to force local workers to train foreign
> replacements.
>
No -jobs can be created in other countries without generating them
first in expensive countries too. i.e. if a company wants to provide
more tech-support staff than currently available, they don't have to
create the jobs in the US before moving them overseas. There is v
little foreign countries are protesting about against protectionism.
If they do, it is probably to win support among their own voters. The
real thrust comes from price advantage which is too tempting for
shareholders of profit-making companies.
> "Comparative advantage" means that some countries/societies can
> produce better and/or cheaper products than others. Supporters of
> outsourcing say: "History has confirmed that Adam Smith's theory of
> comparative advantage was remarkably prophetic. Not only have scores
> and scores of countries thrived as they initially encountered global
> trade, but many others have crashed dramatically upon raising barriers
> to the same".
> So what is "comparative advantage" of China and India and what is
> "comparative advantage" of the US? What product can those countries
> produce better or cheaper than the US? Answer - almost none, unless
> American corporations force American workers to teach Chinese and
> Indians how to make those products. After American workers will teach
No -you don't have to teach anything unless they are taking over an
existing job function. Comp. sc can be learnt from books and without
exposure either to american schools or american industry per se.
> them, then other countries have significant "comparative advantage".
> "Comparative advantage" of China is that people of China are slaves of
> the communist dictatorship and are forced to work for any compensation
> that communists decide which serves the interests of the communist
They are slaves in the sense that they dont have freedom to elect
their own leaders or voice their own opinions. But it is a v
prosperous country and a huge market for (semi-)luxury goods.
> elite. A free man cannot compete against a slave - a slave will always
> be cheaper and will always work harder. Conclusion - American workers
No -they can refuse to work, or feel de-motivated when not paid
properly.
> have no "comparative advantage" against Chinese workers.
> What is "comparative advantage" of India? Prices of basic food, rents
> are cheaper in India than in the US, so an Indian worker can survive
> on $200/month. In many US cities just renting a studio costs
> $500/month. Conclusion - American workers have no "comparative
> advantage" against India.
So find ways to reduce your cost of living or move to India on an
MNC's intra-company transfer.
> Using cheap labor does not always mean that the product will become
> cheaper or better. Look for example on Microsoft products: Microsoft
> virtually has no competition in the OS market - MS is outsourcing
> thousands of jobs to China and India, but Windows is not getting
> cheaper or better. Each new version is more expensive and each version
> is an open book to hackers.
>
Well -pricing is a function of demand, supply, purchasing power etc..
So how MSFT prices its products don't reflect how much it takes to
build those products. It reflects how much profit they can earn
without impairing their market share and/or no. of shipments.
Their sw was open to hackers before they resorted to offshoring -and
believe me, most of their critical work [which stinks from a technical
perspective] is done by WASPS in the USA.
> People all over the world have basically the same intelligence. It
> does not matter if an engineer was born black, white or yellow - if he
> graduated from a decent school, he can perform his duty in the US,
> India or China. The only difference is that in China he is forced to
> work for a salary dictated by the communist government, in India the
> cost of living is much cheaper than in the US.
I believe China has a limited free market economy. I mean -MSFT pays
salary based on both cost of living & demand/supply of workers. They
have economic but not political freedom.
> Conclusion - American workers are too expensive and gradually will be
> replaced by foreign cheaper workers. If work needs to be done in the
> US - foreigners will be brought into this country in order to replace
> expensive Americans.
If you can ensure that foreign workers have the same rights in the US
-then companies will not be able to make them work for less, and won't
prefer foreigners over americans.
> So what are American workers good for? The only "comparative
> advantage" of American workers is that they will vote for politicians
> that support replacing American workers by cheaper foreigners. About
> 80% of them will vote for Bush or Kerry - both of them support
> replacing American workers by cheap foreigners. I doubt Indian or
> Chinese will vote for politicians that support replacing the domestic
> workforce by cheaper foreigners. So don't despair - Americans have
> "comparative advantage" after all.
>
Well -United States has always been losing jobs because of its high
cost of living. They lost textiles, manufacturing, heavy industrials
and now low-end sw work. That has happened because of economic policy,
not political ideology. To retain jobs, you need a change in policy
not a change of party per se.
regards
-kamal
> Zalek
THX1138
> Zalek Bloom <Zalek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<h4ohd0502tnbgfg0t...@4ax.com>...
> > Lately we are hearing many people call opposition to outsourcing as
> > "protectionism" and defend outsourcing quoting from economic theories
> > about the benefits of "comparative advantage". All this is very
> > sophisticated demagogy and let me explain why.
> > First of all "jobs" is not the same product category as "goods". In
>
> Jobs aren't. Services is about the same category as goods.
> Exporting jobs = Importing services/goods.
> US imports goods from China and services from India because it costs
> less to get the stuff from overseas than locally.
Semantics, services = jobs
US imports goods from China because they get 65% of the quality at 25%
of the costs and because the Chinese lobby makes sure the tariff walls
stay down in the US while they stay up in China, same for outsorucing
to India. In both cases these countries are allowed to undercut US
domestic producers and employees because of their lobby efforts ( and
the soft money ) on Capital hill.
Admittedly it's a problem with graft and treason in the US and not the
payouts from INAPAC or the various Chinese lobbys or these countries
themselves.
> > world history exporting goods have a long history, but exporting jobs
> > is a very recent event. Nobody will argue that preventing spreading of
> > trade secrets, sensitive military technology is "protectionism".
>
> US govt has put in place some restrictions because of which
> 'sensitive' code cannot be sent overseas [to the Indian office of an
> american company]. Some of those restrictions are well-founded, others
> indicate a meddling beaurocracy.
In India it is common practice and is not illegal for a programmer to
be trained in the US or by the US in India and work in the US under a
visa or in India through an outsourcer on proprietary and sensitive
code. That programmer to make more money will then turn around and
create a competing product from ideas, skills and source code from
their former company.
In China it is common practice for the military to "borrow" technology
from foreign investors.
Both contries have basically no copyright enforcment except for the
lipservice paid to the media.
>
> > Nobody will argue that a country that prevents importing of dangerous
> > environment threatening chemicals is a "protectionist country". A
> > country that prevents foreign nationals from working legally is also
> > not a "protectionist" country. And how about free trade of human
> > organs, where the highest bidder has a right to buy any organ from any
> > country?
> > So why is opposing exporting sensitive technology not "protectionism",
> > why is opposing importing environment dangerous chemicals not
> > "protectionism" but why is opposing of replacing American workers by
> > cheap foreigners "protectionism"?
>
> Because environmentally dangerous goods cause more harm than good to
> the consumer whereas getting work done for less -causes more good than
> harm -IFF the laid off workers can find other jobs.
The only jobs the US has right now that leep up with Indian and
Chinese labor rates require you to ask if you want fries with that...
>
> > Outsourcing means forcing the local workforce to train their
> > replacements in order to allow corporations to fire the more expensive
> > domestic workers. If foreign countries call opposition to outsourcing
> > "protectionism", let's force them to sign an agreement that will make
> > it legal in their country to force local workers to train foreign
> > replacements.
> >
>
> No -jobs can be created in other countries without generating them
> first in expensive countries too. i.e. if a company wants to provide
> more tech-support staff than currently available, they don't have to
> create the jobs in the US before moving them overseas. There is v
> little foreign countries are protesting about against protectionism.
> If they do, it is probably to win support among their own voters. The
> real thrust comes from price advantage which is too tempting for
> shareholders of profit-making companies.
He is talking about what is happening now, you know in reality.
Most times when a job is outsourced in the US for the employee to get
full unemployment or medical benefits they are forced to train their
foreign replacements.
Funny that in most companies that choose outsorucing the stocks have
been dead flat, HP for example. If outsourcing saved so much money
why isn't the stock flying? It could be that saving thorugh
outsourcing is a crock or if it does actually save money then maybe
the money is disappearing at the top as most of the pro outsorucing
types at big companys are also into bleeding the company dry thorugh
bonus' and perks.
>
> > "Comparative advantage" means that some countries/societies can
> > produce better and/or cheaper products than others. Supporters of
> > outsourcing say: "History has confirmed that Adam Smith's theory of
> > comparative advantage was remarkably prophetic. Not only have scores
> > and scores of countries thrived as they initially encountered global
> > trade, but many others have crashed dramatically upon raising barriers
> > to the same".
> > So what is "comparative advantage" of China and India and what is
> > "comparative advantage" of the US? What product can those countries
> > produce better or cheaper than the US? Answer - almost none, unless
> > American corporations force American workers to teach Chinese and
> > Indians how to make those products. After American workers will teach
>
> No -you don't have to teach anything unless they are taking over an
> existing job function. Comp. sc can be learnt from books and without
> exposure either to american schools or american industry per se.
It happens all of the time, the "skilled" Chinese or Indian replacment
actually gets there training from the people they replace.
True, you can learn from any school but it seems Chinese and Indians
prefer the reduced tuition their minority status gives them at
American schools.
>
> > them, then other countries have significant "comparative advantage".
> > "Comparative advantage" of China is that people of China are slaves of
> > the communist dictatorship and are forced to work for any compensation
> > that communists decide which serves the interests of the communist
>
> They are slaves in the sense that they dont have freedom to elect
> their own leaders or voice their own opinions. But it is a v
> prosperous country and a huge market for (semi-)luxury goods.
>
> > elite. A free man cannot compete against a slave - a slave will always
> > be cheaper and will always work harder. Conclusion - American workers
>
> No -they can refuse to work, or feel de-motivated when not paid
> properly.
And then be replaced by more outsourced labor?
This is an issue aggrivated by the Indian and Chinese lobbys.
>
> > have no "comparative advantage" against Chinese workers.
> > What is "comparative advantage" of India? Prices of basic food, rents
> > are cheaper in India than in the US, so an Indian worker can survive
> > on $200/month. In many US cities just renting a studio costs
> > $500/month. Conclusion - American workers have no "comparative
> > advantage" against India.
>
> So find ways to reduce your cost of living or move to India on an
> MNC's intra-company transfer.
They could also do like almost every other country in the world does
except the US and tie all visas and outsourcing to actual unemployment
figures.
or they could move to India and be out-castes...
After looking over emmigration to India it is actually easier to
because a UK citizen and attempt a crown transfer.
>
> > Using cheap labor does not always mean that the product will become
> > cheaper or better. Look for example on Microsoft products: Microsoft
> > virtually has no competition in the OS market - MS is outsourcing
> > thousands of jobs to China and India, but Windows is not getting
> > cheaper or better. Each new version is more expensive and each version
> > is an open book to hackers.
> >
>
> Well -pricing is a function of demand, supply, purchasing power etc..
> So how MSFT prices its products don't reflect how much it takes to
> build those products. It reflects how much profit they can earn
> without impairing their market share and/or no. of shipments.
> Their sw was open to hackers before they resorted to offshoring -and
> believe me, most of their critical work [which stinks from a technical
> perspective] is done by WASPS in the USA.
Actually that not true at all, all of the really crappy code in
windows were grunt coded by visa holders and foreign interns.
The WASPS are in managment and thus are not so impacted, what do you
think Steve Ballmer is anyway?
>
> > People all over the world have basically the same intelligence. It
> > does not matter if an engineer was born black, white or yellow - if he
> > graduated from a decent school, he can perform his duty in the US,
> > India or China. The only difference is that in China he is forced to
> > work for a salary dictated by the communist government, in India the
> > cost of living is much cheaper than in the US.
>
> I believe China has a limited free market economy. I mean -MSFT pays
> salary based on both cost of living & demand/supply of workers. They
> have economic but not political freedom.
Controlled capitalism, certain areas are allowed a heavily restricted
market in the workers paradise. The mob that is the goverment in
China can shut anything down at any time.
How can you call it economic freedom when it costs 30k Yaun for your
wife to give birth and you have to have the money is escroll.
>
> > Conclusion - American workers are too expensive and gradually will be
> > replaced by foreign cheaper workers. If work needs to be done in the
> > US - foreigners will be brought into this country in order to replace
> > expensive Americans.
>
> If you can ensure that foreign workers have the same rights in the US
> -then companies will not be able to make them work for less, and won't
> prefer foreigners over americans.
>
> > So what are American workers good for? The only "comparative
> > advantage" of American workers is that they will vote for politicians
> > that support replacing American workers by cheaper foreigners. About
> > 80% of them will vote for Bush or Kerry - both of them support
> > replacing American workers by cheap foreigners. I doubt Indian or
> > Chinese will vote for politicians that support replacing the domestic
> > workforce by cheaper foreigners. So don't despair - Americans have
> > "comparative advantage" after all.
> >
> Well -United States has always been losing jobs because of its high
> cost of living. They lost textiles, manufacturing, heavy industrials
> and now low-end sw work. That has happened because of economic policy,
> not political ideology. To retain jobs, you need a change in policy
> not a change of party per se.
Agreed, If the power structure were going to take this seriously they
would put an immeadiate moritorium on issueing any new visas of any
kind and on any kind of outsourcing until the damage that outsourcing
and visa employment does to the domestic economy could be ascertained.
>
> regards
> -kamal
>
> > Zalek
peeance....@bayofgoats.org
On 23-Jun-2004, kam...@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:
> > have no "comparative advantage" against Chinese workers.
> > What is "comparative advantage" of India? Prices of basic food, rents
> > are cheaper in India than in the US, so an Indian worker can survive
> > on $200/month. In many US cities just renting a studio costs
> > $500/month. Conclusion - American workers have no "comparative
> > advantage" against India.
>
> So find ways to reduce your cost of living or move to India on an
> MNC's intra-company transfer.
And that is EXACTLY what is being done. The neocons and Bush Administration
are attempting to bring up the level of Third World countries (for them an
unavoidable side effect of outsourcing) and bring down the level of the US.
There won't be such large differences in wages world wide and they are free
to move from country to country as they do now, but including the US as part
of a larger cheap labor market.
--
"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is
simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's
no longer an obnoxious drunk?" [Ron Reagan, Jr. during the 2000 GOP
convention]
Mac10
> On 23-Jun-2004, kam...@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:
>
>
>>>have no "comparative advantage" against Chinese workers.
>>>What is "comparative advantage" of India? Prices of basic food, rents
>>>are cheaper in India than in the US, so an Indian worker can survive
>>>on $200/month. In many US cities just renting a studio costs
>>>$500/month. Conclusion - American workers have no "comparative
>>>advantage" against India.
>>
>>So find ways to reduce your cost of living or move to India on an
>>MNC's intra-company transfer.
>
>
> And that is EXACTLY what is being done. The neocons and Bush Administration
> are attempting to bring up the level of Third World countries (for them an
> unavoidable side effect of outsourcing) and bring down the level of the US.
> There won't be such large differences in wages world wide and they are free
> to move from country to country as they do now, but including the US as part
> of a larger cheap labor market.
>
It's the inevitable sign of the future, technology has removed the
physical barriers and we are moving toward a One world paradigm. It's
those very same 'neo-cons' that don't like the inevitable demise of the
National State that are pushing it alone for it's good for business. The
UN will loom larger yet in the future. It's ironic really, it's
inevitable definitely.
It's changing the landscape of American society, traditional values, and
power, as it is in India changing the traditional place of the
extended family values in that very traditional society. Big changes are
underfoot for all humanity.
Globalization is changing everything. We're moving from a world
dominated by National States to a World Supper State whether we like it
or not. It's about time.
As all these changes are bringing about great instability in traditional
societies, Governments seek to control the process by enacting more
stringent laws of movement and in the short term there is a rise in "Big
Brother" is watching you, mentality here in the US of A.
At some point the realization will dawn that spiritual values are at the
heart of human behavior and without unity on this level our world will
remain a dangerous place.
At some point the question will be asked 'why' countries such as France,
Britain should have a disproportionate (small populations compared to
some more populas countries) cloud on the Securities council at the UN
and maybe the Security Council itself should be abolished in favour of
the General Assembly.
One thing is for sure the future will not be dull and thanks to God for
the growth of Humanity as a species.
Mac10.
Thomas Bartkus
news:40DB02C2...@avconslt.net...
>
> It's the inevitable sign of the future, technology has removed the
> physical barriers and we are moving toward a One world paradigm. It's
> those very same 'neo-cons' that don't like the inevitable demise of the
<snip>
What an interesting observation!
The same 'neo-cons' who cling tightly to national sovereignty when it comes
to projecting their own policies on the rest of the world would tell the US
citizen he needs to suck it down when it comes to competing with world
labor.
They want to keep the power they possess that comes with borders and a
strong national identity while simultaneously reaping the profits from
commerce without borders. It appears that borders are to be enforced for
the benefit of a ruling class. No borders at all for goods, services, and
wage earning unworthies.
Interesting!
Thomas Bartkus
Kamal R. Prasad
> "Mac10" <b...@avconslt.net> wrote in message
> news:40DB02C2...@avconslt.net...
> >
> > It's the inevitable sign of the future, technology has removed the
> > physical barriers and we are moving toward a One world paradigm. It's
> > those very same 'neo-cons' that don't like the inevitable demise of the
> > National State that are pushing it alone for it's good for business. ...
> <snip>
>
> What an interesting observation!
>
Neo-cons are basically businessmen turned politicians.
They have no vision for the country, and non-commercial issues such as
foreign policy don't make sense to them. Their only problem is that
they cannot change the military logistics in Iraq.
> The same 'neo-cons' who cling tightly to national sovereignty when it comes
National security is a holy-cow, a no-questions-asked wildcard.
Its about the same wildcard that was used during the cold war. They
used it to prosecute/persecute their own citizens without evidence.
Sooner or later, their bluff will be called -and they will be in the
dock for abuse of power.
> to projecting their own policies on the rest of the world would tell the US
> citizen he needs to suck it down when it comes to competing with world
> labor.
>
> They want to keep the power they possess that comes with borders and a
> strong national identity while simultaneously reaping the profits from
> commerce without borders. It appears that borders are to be enforced for
> the benefit of a ruling class. No borders at all for goods, services, and
> wage earning unworthies.
>
Borders can be enforced only to a limited extent. If your fav
politician gets elected, he will find it impossible to prevent the
flow of capital which translates into a flow of jobs to another
country. Just as they(Neo-cons) cannot do anything to alter the
balance of power in Iraq, they cannot do anything to hand you a job on
a silver platter, if the capital can find better ROI elsewhere.
> Interesting!
> Thomas Bartkus
leslie
:
: Neo-cons are basically businessmen turned politicians.
:
Neo-Jacobins is another term for neo-cons. These people are no more
conservative than Karl Marx. The following paragraphs are excerpted
from the included article:
"Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.
Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.
Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world."
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
"New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
By Paul Craig Roberts
Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.
Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.
These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
administration.
Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.
Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.
Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.
Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world.
Jacobin morality is divorced from moral character, personal conduct,
and treatment of others. Jacobin morality expresses itself in
benevolent sentiments toward abstract entities. Human lives and
cultural diversity mean nothing compared to "making the world safe for
democracy" and "liberating women from the Muslim yoke." Jacobin
morality seeks to achieve a uniform unipolar world.
Possessed of an unrelenting will to power, the Jacobins in the Bush
administration, together with their media allies, seized the
opportunity afforded by September 11 to meld America's nationalistic
response to terrorism with the Jacobin ideological agenda. Once
Americans associated invading foreign countries (Afghanistan) with the
"war on terror," Jacobins shifted the "terrorist threat" to Iraq. Now
they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Next will be
Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy
taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of
the draft.
It also explains why Jacobins are unconcerned with our own country's
porous borders while they seek to control Middle Eastern borders. The
hordes of young Mexicans pouring into the US are a convenient source
of cannon fodder, just as President Lincoln redirected the flow of
Irish immigrants in his day into the Union Army.
Jacobins are dangerous because they lack historical understanding and
rely on abstract righteousness to impose ideological unity. Their
drive for like-mindedness implies coercion, the gulag and the
Orwellian state. The Jacobin agenda means the end of Western
civilization.
Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins are lost in abstractions and do not
appreciate or understand Western civilization as a human achievement
resulting from centuries of struggle to create moral character.
Self-restraint, empathy, and mutual respect are necessary for
pluralistic societies. However, such genuine virtues have no role in
the uniform Jacobin state.
It is difficult to quibble when Professor Ryn writes that
"monopolistic ideological universalism that scorns historically formed
societies is a potential source of unending war and great disasters."
Professor Ryn reports that many Americans, including conservatives,
find aspects of the Jacobin message attractive without understanding
where it leads. The Jacobin quest for American world supremacy appeals
to nationalistic patriots, to macho types whose response to September
11 is to "kick butt," to people fearful of terrorist plots, to global
business and financial interests, to do-gooders anxious to spread
democracy and women's rights, and to people who enjoy power and
success vicariously like fans of champion sports teams.
Jacobins are to be found among both political parties and among both
"conservative" and "liberal" columnists. As a result of conservative
befuddlement, Jacobins now control the formerly conservative media,
foundations and think tanks, and they occupy most of the putatively
"conservative" posts in universities.
Professor Ryn acknowledges that he is alerting us to the Jacobin
threat late in the game. Jacobins use their power and influence to
suppress dissent. Jacobin ends justify Jacobin means. Thus, lies,
deception, and manipulation cause Jacobins no shame.
As Professor Ryn observes, ambition unchecked by intellectual humility
and moral self-control is the source of tyranny."
--Jerry Leslie
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Kamal R. Prasad
> Kamal R. Prasad (kam...@acm.org) wrote:
> :
> : Neo-cons are basically businessmen turned politicians.
> :
>
> Neo-Jacobins is another term for neo-cons. These people are no more
> conservative than Karl Marx. The following paragraphs are excerpted
> from the included article:
>
> "Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
> morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
> their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
> force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
> societies in the Jacobin image.
>
That force is nowhere to be seen in Iraq.
> Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
> their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
> society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
> dominance over others, including its own citizens.
>
The only justification is that the citizens are stupid enough to
(re-)elect them.
> Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
> it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
> morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
> into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world."
>
Oh well-now that the Babylonians have raped the US war-machine's ass
big time, its time to go back to the drawing board on how better to
rule the world.
>
>
> http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
> VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
>
> "New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
> By Paul Craig Roberts
>
> Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
> against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
> Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
> Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.
>
Iraq was never a 'muslim'/theocratic state at least not for the past
25+ yrs that Saddam was in power -nor did it encourage any form of
attack on the US. Saddam Hussein banned just about every 'muslim'
religious activity -esp the one in Karbala. The only event that the
Iraqis celebrated with great reviere and pomp happens to be Saddam
Hussein's own birthday:-).
As I said before, they have only commercial interests -and will
befriend anyone who fits into their scheme of things, including
radical muslims.
> Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
> ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.
>
> These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
> ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
> known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
> which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
> the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
> counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
> administration.
>
> Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
> blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
> is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
> the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.
>
Maybe Cheney shouldn't have used the F word to expose that.
> Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
> morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
> their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
> force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
> societies in the Jacobin image.
>
wouldn't work if past record is any guide.
> Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
> their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
> society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
> dominance over others, including its own citizens.
>
> Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
> it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
> morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
> into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world.
>
> Jacobin morality is divorced from moral character, personal conduct,
> and treatment of others. Jacobin morality expresses itself in
> benevolent sentiments toward abstract entities. Human lives and
> cultural diversity mean nothing compared to "making the world safe for
> democracy" and "liberating women from the Muslim yoke." Jacobin
> morality seeks to achieve a uniform unipolar world.
>
> Possessed of an unrelenting will to power, the Jacobins in the Bush
> administration, together with their media allies, seized the
> opportunity afforded by September 11 to meld America's nationalistic
> response to terrorism with the Jacobin ideological agenda. Once
> Americans associated invading foreign countries (Afghanistan) with the
> "war on terror," Jacobins shifted the "terrorist threat" to Iraq. Now
Er no. Richard Clarke has provided testimony that immediately after
the attack -GWB asked him to draw a connection between 9/11 and
Saddam. Afghanistan wasn't on his cards, but the attack forced them to
act in that direction and once the zituation was clear -they went back
to their old obsession. Their obsession was oil -of which Iraq has the
world's 2nd largest deposits with only Saddam blocking their way.
> they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Next will be
> Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
>
Doubt if they can handle all of that. And Egypt is another moderate
state (with no oil). Colonization is an expensive process, in that not
only do you need to pay in terms of blood to fend off rebellions but
also in terms of money to keep the citizenry content to prevent
another rebellion. A less expensive option is either to let the people
chose their own leader and live with their choice's shortcomings or to
assasinate a popularly elected leader who is opposed to their
interests. The latter is what the US has earned a reputation for.
> The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy
> taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of
> the draft.
>
No matter how many they draft in, Iraq (like Vietnam) is a blackhole
-which will cost GWB Jr. his re-election.
[snip]
regards
-kamal
leslie
: (re-)elect them.
:
Many citizens have given up on the democratic process, which consists
of two candidates from different wings of the Property Party, as
Thomas Ferguson calls it in his "Golden Rule" book:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P19942C54
Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the
Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and
Political Economy)
The original link wrapped to 2 lines:
http://www.discovereconomics.com/bookstore/economicpolicy/
0226243168AMUS177486.shtml
Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the
Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and
Political Economy)
``"To discover who rules, follow the gold." This is the argument of
Golden Rule, a provocative, pungent history of modern American
politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political
outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits
and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in
light of skyrocketing campaign costs, the belief that major
financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and
where they stand on the issues--that, in effect, Democrats and
Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property
Party"--has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering
evidence ranging from the nineteenth century to the 1994 mid-term
elections, Golden Rule shows that voters are "right on the money."
Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter centered
accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment
approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters,
dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses "invest" in
political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial
structures--between large firms and sectors--can alter the agenda
of party politics and the shape of public policy.
Golden Rule presents revised versions of widely read essays in
which Ferguson advanced and tested his theory, including his
seminal study of the role played by capital intensive
multinationals and international financiers in the New Deal. The
chapter "Studies in Money Driven Politics" brings this aspect of
American politics into better focus, along with other studies of
Federal Reserve policy making and campaign finance in the 1936
election. Ferguson analyzes how a changing world economy and other
social developments broke up the New Deal system in our own time,
through careful studies of the 1988 and 1992 elections. The essay
on 1992 contains an extended analysis of the emergence of the
Clinton coalition and Ross Perot's dramatic independent insurgency.
A postscript on the 1994 elections demonstrates the controlling
impact of money on several key campaigns.
This controversial work by a theorist of money and politics in the
U.S. relates to issues in campaign finance reform, PACs,
policymaking, public financing, and how today's elections work.''
Perhaps when the oligarchs finish decimating the middle class, the voters
will decide they want repesentation by elected officials. Until then,
it's the same old democrat/republican shell game.
A middle class is not "normal"...
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
"...There is nothing "normal" about a nation having a middle class,
even though it is vital to the survival of democracy.
[snip]
If a nation wants a middle class, it must define it, desire it,
and work to both create and keep it.
This is because a middle class is the creation of government
participation..."
THX1138
> > Kamal R. Prasad (kam...@acm.org) wrote:
> > :
> > : Neo-cons are basically businessmen turned politicians.
> > :
> >
> > Neo-Jacobins is another term for neo-cons. These people are no more
> > conservative than Karl Marx. The following paragraphs are excerpted
> > from the included article:
> >
> > "Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
> > morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
> > their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
> > force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
> > societies in the Jacobin image.
> >
>
> That force is nowhere to be seen in Iraq.
That's already been disproven by the "militias" and also by various
"clerics" like Maqtada Sadr that want to make Iraq into another
Afganistan where nothing outside a narrow defination setdown by the
theocracy will be tolerated.
>
> > Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
> > their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
> > society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
> > dominance over others, including its own citizens.
> >
>
> The only justification is that the citizens are stupid enough to
> (re-)elect them.
>
> > Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
> > it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
> > morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
> > into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world."
> >
>
> Oh well-now that the Babylonians have raped the US war-machine's ass
> big time, its time to go back to the drawing board on how better to
> rule the world.
Possibly outside of your own deepest desires and jealousy I really
don't see where you come up with that.
The US has no problems flattening any country but because of our
corrupt government influenced by outside forces buying there interests
into policy the US has a definite problem ruling a country once it's
been flattened.
>
> >
> >
> > http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
> > VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
> >
> > "New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
> > By Paul Craig Roberts
> >
> > Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
> > against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
> > Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
> > Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.
> >
>
> Iraq was never a 'muslim'/theocratic state at least not for the past
> 25+ yrs that Saddam was in power -nor did it encourage any form of
> attack on the US. Saddam Hussein banned just about every 'muslim'
> religious activity -esp the one in Karbala. The only event that the
> Iraqis celebrated with great reviere and pomp happens to be Saddam
> Hussein's own birthday:-).
> As I said before, they have only commercial interests -and will
> befriend anyone who fits into their scheme of things, including
> radical muslims.
Saddam went down hard against Shiite practise but not Sunni.
In the 70's and 80's IRaq was useful to the US as an "ally" because
Saddem was more interested in warring with Iran then the US.
Iraq is not a theocracy in the same way the Afganistan is but they do
have much theocratic influence on their laws and policy.
>
> > Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
> > ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.
> >
> > These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
> > ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
> > known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
> > which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
> > the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
> > counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
> > administration.
> >
> > Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
> > blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
> > is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
> > the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.
> >
> Maybe Cheney shouldn't have used the F word to expose that.
Can't say I disagree.
Cheney is creepy and seems to be on a constant power trip.
Can't say it's not oil since I can't know what the plutocrats are
doing thorugh the media.
My own opinon was that the US went into Iraq to protect Isreal who has
influence enough that US presedential hopefuls and congressmen alike
campaign in Isreal. Beside it's the Germans, the French and the RR
that had a deal for Iraqi oil.
>
> > they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Next will be
> > Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
> >
>
> Doubt if they can handle all of that. And Egypt is another moderate
> state (with no oil). Colonization is an expensive process, in that not
> only do you need to pay in terms of blood to fend off rebellions but
> also in terms of money to keep the citizenry content to prevent
> another rebellion. A less expensive option is either to let the people
> chose their own leader and live with their choice's shortcomings or to
> assasinate a popularly elected leader who is opposed to their
> interests. The latter is what the US has earned a reputation for.
>
>
> > The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy
> > taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of
> > the draft.
> >
>
> No matter how many they draft in, Iraq (like Vietnam) is a blackhole
> -which will cost GWB Jr. his re-election.
One could only hope, the only problem is the the other choice is still
the same thing. This election more than most is a choice between
picto light and picto bold.
>
> [snip]
>
> regards
> -kamal
Kamal R. Prasad
> kam...@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote in message news:<181e352f.04062...@posting.google.com>...
> > LES...@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) wrote in message news:<0DUCc.11045$w3....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> > > Kamal R. Prasad (kam...@acm.org) wrote:
> > > :
> > > : Neo-cons are basically businessmen turned politicians.
> > > :
> > >
> > > Neo-Jacobins is another term for neo-cons. These people are no more
> > > conservative than Karl Marx. The following paragraphs are excerpted
> > > from the included article:
> > >
> > > "Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
> > > morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
> > > their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
> > > force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
> > > societies in the Jacobin image.
> > >
> >
> > That force is nowhere to be seen in Iraq.
>
> That's already been disproven by the "militias" and also by various
> "clerics" like Maqtada Sadr that want to make Iraq into another
> Afganistan where nothing outside a narrow defination setdown by the
> theocracy will be tolerated.
>
Not sure I understand. The reason why the US approached the UN is
because they couldn't control the situation and wanted an exit
strategy.
Read Bob woodward's book/interviews with Colin Powell suggesting to
GWB "don't go in there -unless you know how to get out of it". As
Woodward states, Colin Powell has been proven right on this one.
> >
> > > Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
> > > their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
> > > society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
> > > dominance over others, including its own citizens.
> > >
> >
> > The only justification is that the citizens are stupid enough to
> > (re-)elect them.
> >
> > > Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
> > > it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
> > > morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
> > > into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world."
> > >
> >
> > Oh well-now that the Babylonians have raped the US war-machine's ass
> > big time, its time to go back to the drawing board on how better to
> > rule the world.
>
> Possibly outside of your own deepest desires and jealousy I really
> don't see where you come up with that.
>
Im not jealous -and I am stating the reality. Read the statements from
some retd US generals who have stated that the invasion was a failure
-and the US should now withdraw.
> The US has no problems flattening any country but because of our
> corrupt government influenced by outside forces buying there interests
> into policy the US has a definite problem ruling a country once it's
> been flattened.
>
If they flatten the country -then they will stand accused of genocide,
and the oil will not be accessible from that flattened country. To
access the oil, they need to fight it out -and that fight hasn't gone
in the US' favour. Basically, what you consider rightful rule is
considered occupation by others -and that is one reason why things
aren't working right.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
> > > VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
> > >
> > > "New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
> > > By Paul Craig Roberts
> > >
> > > Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
> > > against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
> > > Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
> > > Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.
> > >
> >
> > Iraq was never a 'muslim'/theocratic state at least not for the past
> > 25+ yrs that Saddam was in power -nor did it encourage any form of
> > attack on the US. Saddam Hussein banned just about every 'muslim'
> > religious activity -esp the one in Karbala. The only event that the
> > Iraqis celebrated with great reviere and pomp happens to be Saddam
> > Hussein's own birthday:-).
> > As I said before, they have only commercial interests -and will
> > befriend anyone who fits into their scheme of things, including
> > radical muslims.
>
> Saddam went down hard against Shiite practise but not Sunni.
> In the 70's and 80's IRaq was useful to the US as an "ally" because
> Saddem was more interested in warring with Iran then the US.
>
No -the CIA hired him to bludgeon the mullahs who took control of
Iran.
And as they ditched Noriega, they ditched him after the job was done.
> Iraq is not a theocracy in the same way the Afganistan is but they do
> have much theocratic influence on their laws and policy.
>
No -they are a secular multi-ethnic society, albeit with a somewhat
ruthless political environment.
> >
> > > Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
> > > ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.
> > >
> > > These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
> > > ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
> > > known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
> > > which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
> > > the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
> > > counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
> > > administration.
> > >
> > > Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
> > > blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
> > > is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
> > > the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.
> > >
> > Maybe Cheney shouldn't have used the F word to expose that.
>
> Can't say I disagree.
> Cheney is creepy and seems to be on a constant power trip.
>
Im amused how he will go about keeping the Halliburton link under
wraps after he loses his post.
Iraq was no danger to Israel either. Yes -the other 3 parties built
relations with Saddam to access his oil.
> >
> > > they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Next will be
> > > Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
> > >
> >
> > Doubt if they can handle all of that. And Egypt is another moderate
> > state (with no oil). Colonization is an expensive process, in that not
> > only do you need to pay in terms of blood to fend off rebellions but
> > also in terms of money to keep the citizenry content to prevent
> > another rebellion. A less expensive option is either to let the people
> > chose their own leader and live with their choice's shortcomings or to
> > assasinate a popularly elected leader who is opposed to their
> > interests. The latter is what the US has earned a reputation for.
> >
> >
> > > The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy
> > > taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of
> > > the draft.
> > >
> >
> > No matter how many they draft in, Iraq (like Vietnam) is a blackhole
> > -which will cost GWB Jr. his re-election.
>
> One could only hope, the only problem is the the other choice is still
> the same thing. This election more than most is a choice between
> picto light and picto bold.
>
not sure I understand.
regards
-kamal
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > regards
> > -kamal
RobertR237
>> Possibly outside of your own deepest desires and jealousy I really
>> don't see where you come up with that.
>>
>
>Im not jealous -and I am stating the reality. Read the statements from
>some retd US generals who have stated that the invasion was a failure
>-and the US should now withdraw.
>
>> The US has no problems flattening any country but because of our
>> corrupt government influenced by outside forces buying there interests
>> into policy the US has a definite problem ruling a country once it's
>> been flattened.
>>
>
>If they flatten the country -then they will stand accused of genocide,
>and the oil will not be accessible from that flattened country. To
>access the oil, they need to fight it out -and that fight hasn't gone
>in the US' favour. Basically, what you consider rightful rule is
>considered occupation by others -and that is one reason why things
>aren't working right.
>
For Gawds sake, will you please use a little common sense instead of simply
repeating the bullshit that every idiot wants to believe. There is NOT, I
repeat NOT enough oil in IRAQ to have ever made the justification for the IRAQ
war. The invasion was not to obtain the oil from IRAQ.
The BIG miscalculation on the part of the administration was that the people of
IRAQ would think of the US as liberators. They were stupid enough to accept
the rule of a tyrant and until they were willing and ready to take their
freedom, they will look at the US as invaders, not liberators. It is obvious
from they way they follow, without question, the direction of their religious
leaders that they are not ready for democracy.
>>
>> One could only hope, the only problem is the the other choice is still
>> the same thing. This election more than most is a choice between
>> picto light and picto bold.
>>
>not sure I understand.
>
Two sides of the same coin!
Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
Bill G
"RobertR237" <rober...@aol.composite> wrote in message
news:20040629205553...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >>
> >> Possibly outside of your own deepest desires and jealousy I really
> >> don't see where you come up with that.
> >>
> >
> >Im not jealous -and I am stating the reality. Read the statements from
> >some retd US generals who have stated that the invasion was a failure
> >-and the US should now withdraw.
> >
> >> The US has no problems flattening any country but because of our
> >> corrupt government influenced by outside forces buying there interests
> >> into policy the US has a definite problem ruling a country once it's
> >> been flattened.
> >>
> >
> >If they flatten the country -then they will stand accused of genocide,
> >and the oil will not be accessible from that flattened country. To
> >access the oil, they need to fight it out -and that fight hasn't gone
> >in the US' favour. Basically, what you consider rightful rule is
> >considered occupation by others -and that is one reason why things
> >aren't working right.
> >
>
> For Gawds sake, will you please use a little common sense instead of
simply
> repeating the bullshit that every idiot wants to believe. There is NOT, I
> repeat NOT enough oil in IRAQ to have ever made the justification for the
IRAQ
> war. The invasion was not to obtain the oil from IRAQ.
I agree, though we'll never know what the politicians were thinking at the
time. I did a little research, and it looks like around 151 billion has
been approved, with around 126 billion spent already. That is a lot of
oil. Imagine what we could have done with that money. Yeesh!
>
> The BIG miscalculation on the part of the administration was that the
people of
> IRAQ would think of the US as liberators. They were stupid enough to
accept
> the rule of a tyrant and until they were willing and ready to take their
> freedom, they will look at the US as invaders, not liberators. It is
obvious
> from they way they follow, without question, the direction of their
religious
> leaders that they are not ready for democracy.
I agree, again. Freedom has to be earned. I anticipate that the Iraqis
will elect a fanatical mullah in their first election, he'll immediately
declare martial law, and start chopping off heads. They'll probably launch
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.
Mac10
>>>Possibly outside of your own deepest desires and jealousy I really
>>>don't see where you come up with that.
>>>
>>
>>Im not jealous -and I am stating the reality. Read the statements from
>>some retd US generals who have stated that the invasion was a failure
>>-and the US should now withdraw.
>>
>>
>>>The US has no problems flattening any country but because of our
>>>corrupt government influenced by outside forces buying there interests
>>>into policy the US has a definite problem ruling a country once it's
>>>been flattened.
>>>
>>
>>If they flatten the country -then they will stand accused of genocide,
>>and the oil will not be accessible from that flattened country. To
>>access the oil, they need to fight it out -and that fight hasn't gone
>>in the US' favour. Basically, what you consider rightful rule is
>>considered occupation by others -and that is one reason why things
>>aren't working right.
>>
>
>
> For Gawds sake, will you please use a little common sense instead of simply
> repeating the bullshit that every idiot wants to believe. There is NOT, I
> repeat NOT enough oil in IRAQ to have ever made the justification for the IRAQ
> war. The invasion was not to obtain the oil from IRAQ.
Your right it was about 'CONTRACTS", contracts to buddies of the
Administration. It was about the simplistic views of the 'neo-cons'.
It was about piggy-backing on the 9/11 event and stampeding the country
in giving up it's 'open' society for one resembling the USSR in it's
hay-days. It was not about oil.
>
> The BIG miscalculation on the part of the administration was that the people of
> IRAQ would think of the US as liberators.
I got news for you, there is not a country in the world that believes us
when we say 'we are doing it for your own good'. They believe we would
not do it unless it was to our advantage first and if it is to theirs
it's a bonus, yet unintended.
They were stupid enough to accept
> the rule of a tyrant and until they were willing and ready to take their
> freedom, they will look at the US as invaders, not liberators. It is obvious
> from they way they follow, without question, the direction of their religious
> leaders that they are not ready for democracy.
Increasingly many Americans are not ready for the Democracy (read
Plutocracy) we are developing at home.
Mac10
RobertR237
>> >If they flatten the country -then they will stand accused of genocide,
>> >and the oil will not be accessible from that flattened country. To
>> >access the oil, they need to fight it out -and that fight hasn't gone
>> >in the US' favour. Basically, what you consider rightful rule is
>> >considered occupation by others -and that is one reason why things
>> >aren't working right.
>> >
>>
>> For Gawds sake, will you please use a little common sense instead of
>simply
>> repeating the bullshit that every idiot wants to believe. There is NOT, I
>> repeat NOT enough oil in IRAQ to have ever made the justification for the
>IRAQ
>> war. The invasion was not to obtain the oil from IRAQ.
>
>I agree, though we'll never know what the politicians were thinking at the
>time. I did a little research, and it looks like around 151 billion has
>been approved, with around 126 billion spent already. That is a lot of
>oil. Imagine what we could have done with that money. Yeesh!
>
I don't know what they were thinking either but 275 billion invested into
alternate energy would have gone a lot further. We could have totally
developed the Alaska North Slope, financed the extraction of oil from the
Canada oil sands, developed the deep waters of the Gulf and had some pocket
change left over.
>>
>> The BIG miscalculation on the part of the administration was that the
>people of
>> IRAQ would think of the US as liberators. They were stupid enough to
>accept
>> the rule of a tyrant and until they were willing and ready to take their
>> freedom, they will look at the US as invaders, not liberators. It is
>obvious
>> from they way they follow, without question, the direction of their
>religious
>> leaders that they are not ready for democracy.
>
>I agree, again. Freedom has to be earned. I anticipate that the Iraqis
>will elect a fanatical mullah in their first election, he'll immediately
>declare martial law, and start chopping off heads. They'll probably launch
>chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.
I fear that you might be right. We seem to have a problem understanding that
most people of the world are not interested in our democracy. Hell, there are
even times when I don't care too much for it.
RobertR237
>>
>>
>> For Gawds sake, will you please use a little common sense instead of simply
>> repeating the bullshit that every idiot wants to believe. There is NOT, I
>> repeat NOT enough oil in IRAQ to have ever made the justification for the
>IRAQ
>> war. The invasion was not to obtain the oil from IRAQ.
>
>Your right it was about 'CONTRACTS", contracts to buddies of the
>Administration. It was about the simplistic views of the 'neo-cons'.
>It was about piggy-backing on the 9/11 event and stampeding the country
>in giving up it's 'open' society for one resembling the USSR in it's
>hay-days. It was not about oil.
>
No, I don't think it was about contract either. That too is a very simplistic
view. It was though a piggy-back on the 9/11 event.
>>
>> The BIG miscalculation on the part of the administration was that the
>people of
>> IRAQ would think of the US as liberators.
>
>I got news for you, there is not a country in the world that believes us
>when we say 'we are doing it for your own good'. They believe we would
>not do it unless it was to our advantage first and if it is to theirs
>it's a bonus, yet unintended.
>
That wasn't much in the way of news. Then again, there are quite a few
countries in this world that sure were more than willing to accept our troops,
money and help when they were the countries being attacked. In fact, those
same countries are still gladly accepting our troops and money while being our
worst critics.
>They were stupid enough to accept
>> the rule of a tyrant and until they were willing and ready to take their
>> freedom, they will look at the US as invaders, not liberators. It is
>obvious
>> from they way they follow, without question, the direction of their
>religious
>> leaders that they are not ready for democracy.
>
>Increasingly many Americans are not ready for the Democracy (read
>Plutocracy) we are developing at home.
>
>Mac10
We can agree on that. How many of us get out and vote? Much less than half
but that is not the worst of it. How many people take an active part in the
process that puts the candidates on the ballot? Out of twelve hundred voters
in my local precinct, only six showed up at the meeting following the
primaries. That was NOT enough to fill the quota of representatives to the
county convention.
And we wonder why the two candidates on the ticket this fall are both such
sorry ass examples of our system.
I am voting for "None of the Above".