Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

-" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:53 am

Pres. Bush's Propaganda slogan -" You're either with me or you're against me. "

"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes. The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are. Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out. Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound. "

Who wrote this?

Adolph Hitler

From Chapter VI, Mein Kampf
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:01 am

You can say the same thing about the other side, with such slogans as "Make love not war", "No War for Oil", etc. The one at the end shows how little the people who shout it have actually thought about the situation - this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view.

But it is a universal truth - the masses, on the whole, are pretty stupid. Hitler was not the first to discover this - Lenin said the same thing, and I'm sure if you look it up the same conclusion has been reached since antiquity.

People individually can be rational and intelligent. But when you get many together, the mob mentality takes over, and essentially brings them down to their lowest common denominator.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:06 am

Charles - Better watch out - They'll be calling you a (sob) Nazi soon.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:22 am

LOL! Just because I agreed with a universal truth that Hitler mentioned does not mean I believe in National Socialism, Fascism, or Jewish conspiracies.

I'm sure that at some point in his life Hitler said that the sky is blue. Agreeing with him on a particular point does not a Nazi make.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Thumper
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:12 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:45 am

Charles:I wouldn't worry about it,your posts are excellent,if anyone would be called a closet Nazi its the other guy!
 
Guest

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:46 am

this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view.

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.

Indeed, a war also helps hide the fact that the real economy in America is failing. This can clearly be seen by comparing the Aussie $ to the American greenback. December 47.5c in the dollar, February 61c inthe dollar and rising. Means they've lost 12c in every dollar of foreign trade with Australia. Not much, but an indicator and a very worrying one as our dollar has always been so closely tied with the American greenback.

The American Government has driven it's own economy down the toilet and continues to do so with ill thought out subsidies and this attitude of bailing their countrymen out at all costs. Paying the farmers *acceptable* prices for wheat and then dumping it out on the world market at pitifull prices isn't good economy and never will be. The American Government won't make the hard decisions and that's the sign of a bad government.

But the general public in America is more concerned with hating arabs they aren't really aware of the issue of their economy.





ADG
 
flight152
Posts: 3211
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:04 am

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.


Yes, in a long war you are correct. During long wars (such as the two world wars) the economy does thrive.

When you talk about short wars, it has a negative effect on the economy as the war isn’t long enough to justify orders of military supplies. People are taxed for the cost of the war and gives less people money to buy consumer goods.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:25 am

This statement is incorrect. Americas economy is based upon war, and thrives on war. Government money goes to American companies goes to the American people, more jobs are created and this helps the *appearance* of a successful economy.

This is fiction. It is frequently a misconception of people who think of 1 unit of output being equal to any other unit of output. The most extreme of these types were communists.

Without going into a lot of detail, (I'm tired, I need to go to bed and I still have some work to do before I do), such an attempt at stimulating the economy is extremely inefficient - you are collecting vast amounts of money from the private sector through taxes to create stuff which will be turned into a lot of smoke and noise, instead of something that adds value to people's lives (like roads).

Indeed, a war also helps hide the fact that the real economy in America is failing. This can clearly be seen by comparing the Aussie $ to the American greenback. December 47.5c in the dollar, February 61c inthe dollar and rising. Means they've lost 12c in every dollar of foreign trade with Australia. Not much, but an indicator and a very worrying one as our dollar has always been so closely tied with the American greenback.

I think you have something to learn about FOREX and what causes exchange rates to change. It is about the flow of one currency versus the reciprocal flow. Supply and demand. For example, if the U.S. economy is booming, and the rest of the world was doing poorly, and Americans were buying lots of expensive imported items ('cause they're rich), and other countries were buying nothing from the U.S. ('cause they are poor), but US capacity is fully utilized and unemployment is low, the dollar would fall like a rock because a lot of dollars would be flooding the market trying to be exchanged for Yen, Dmarks, etc., whose value would rise due to supply and demand. There are other aspects of course, but your simplistic interpretation of FOREX movements is much to simple to be taken seriously.

The American Government has driven it's own economy down the toilet and continues to do so with ill thought out subsidies and this attitude of bailing their countrymen out at all costs. Paying the farmers *acceptable* prices for wheat and then dumping it out on the world market at pitiful prices isn't good economy and never will be. The American Government won't make the hard decisions and that's the sign of a bad government.

On this I largely agree with you. I am a strong opponent to subsidies of large-scale industries of all types (there are a few exceptions for strategic purposes, like sugar beets in France, but they are few and far between). However, this is hardly limited to the U.S.. Most industrialized countries are guilty of this to the same extent or even more. As far as "bailing out their countrymen at all costs", this simply is not true. Did the government bail out Enron? The U.S. government very rarely gets involved in rescuing private companies. They did it with Chrysler 25 years ago because the implications of its bankruptcy were truly massive. I'm still not entirely sure it was the right choice, but it was a relatively extreme situation. Other countries are much quicker to get involved, like France and Switzerland.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:01 am



"this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view."

Not completely true.

In 2002, the top 10 countries from which the United States imported oil were the following


  1. Canada

  2. Saudi Arabia

  3. Mexico

  4. Venezuela

  5. Nigeria

  6. Iraq

  7. UK

  8. Norway

  9. Angola

  10. Nigeria



Taking into account that 60% of the world oil deposits are in or around the Middle East, the importance of the whole region becomes clear. Also, of these known reserves, Saudia Arabia alone has 25%, followed by Iraq (11%) and Iran (9%). Although other countries outside the region also produce oil, their reserves are not as high as these 3 countries I just mentioned. This means that in the near future, oil production from these 3 countries is likely to grow again purely because of its reserve base.

As the US is still the worlds' top consumer of oil, (more than numbers 2 to 6 together on a annual basis) and with an estimated increase in consumption of 36% over the next 20 years, the importance of assuring access to the world reserves should not be underestimated.

Now if oil hasn't got anything to do with economics, then what has?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:35 am

Schoenorama,

This war (if it happens) has a present value of $60-95 Billion - and that is just the american portion. It is quite likely that it will exceed even that number by a large amount.

Considering that the there are plenty of reserves elsewhere in the world for the next 100 years or so, you can consider that any real future value only comes at that time. Now if you know anything about the time value of money, there is no way that such a huge present value can be equated to any future value 100 years away. OPEC will continue to largely control the price of oil, and will control the output of Iraqi oilfields. The oil revenue will continue to flow into Iraqi coffers, so I am naturally curious to know where the economic benefit you speak of is supposed to come from.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:46 am

But the general public in America is more concerned with hating arabs they aren't really aware of the issue of their economy.

*****************

I just don't experience this at all, it isnt the view of anyone I know, and while I am sure there are some, I feel that it is pretty inaccurate at best
 
lubcha132
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:37 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:27 pm

who reads mein kampf? seriously
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:07 pm

Artsyman - You are correct. We have been programmed to hate Arabs by the group that controls so much of the mass media.

Likewise, we have been programmed to love Israel, and Israelites, by the same group.

My own personal experiences with Arabs has been positive, and very negative with regards to Israel and it's fanatic supporters.
 
Guest

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:21 am

"who reads mein kampf? seriously"

That's what I keep asking myself. I personally don't give a flying sh#t about what Hitler had to say.

And could we please stop these asinine comparisons of GWB to Hitler? They completely flawed and wholly innappropriate. GWB's misdeeds, actual or percieved, are tens of thousands of times less than those of Hitler. To constantly compare Bush to Hitler is to minimize Hitler's Horror. Please stop this!

'Speed
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:28 am

Quoting myself from Manni's "cost of war" thread:

If Bush really wanted to help his buddies in big business, he would roll back the troops today. The prospect of war in Iraq has created tremendous uncertainty in the economy. Uncertainty is really, really bad for business. It forces consumers and firms to delay purchases, holds down equity prices, and probably worsens consumer expectations of the future.

I reiterate that the argument Bush would go to war for the oil is idiotic. It is only true in the most jaundiced and cynical of minds. If you look at the war as economically driven, it is plain to see that the war would have a huge negative NPV for the United States. The non-economic repercussions look bad as well.

Bush genuinely believes that Iraqi WMD could easily end up in the wrong hands and end up killing Americans. Bush thinks that those weapons must be neutralized even if that requires preemptive war by the US alone. I don't agree with the latter point. Those WMD are the world's problem and not our's alone.
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:06 am

"this war makes absolutely no sense from an economic point of view."

At least not for Europe, who's business entanglements with Hussein dwarf US interests. 1) US "oil" 1nterests are that we get about 15-25% total fro mthe entire middle east in the agggregate which pale to European dependence.
2) Lukoil, TotalFina, Aventis, Dassault, BASF, Siemens, Daimler-Chrysler, Renault, Aventis, Akzo-Nobel, Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer etc are the ones making EU foreign policy for the same motives that ChIRAQ and Schroeder accuse the US of--to protect financial interests--namely not to upset the friendly and profitable trade with Iraq--such hypocrsy!
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:36 am

I think any book banned by our schools, libraries, etc., is worth looking in to.

Most of Hitlers writings are irrevelant, but hey, so is most history.

The internet has these books available for the search, no charge. I like this.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:45 am

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm glad Mein Kampf and other such books are still around. Books like Hitler's, plus things like the Communist Manifesto, must be examined so that we understand how millions of people can be deluded so easily, so that we can more easily recognize when another such book (or set of ideas) appears.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:59 am

You can say the same thing about the other side

You can, sorta, Charles but Hitler's first line sums up where liberal arguments fall flat:

"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.

It is intellectual in nature to come to a mean conclusion based on two opposing arguments. That whole process becomes pointless in an arena where the credibility of one argument has been destroyed. That's called demogougery, and I'm sorry if you differ, but these last few years right wingers have had it hands down over anyone else on the quality of their assaults. The proof is simply all around us.....conservatives run everything, and their media appeals to a higher number of the same people you call "pretty stupid".

Without going into a lot of detail, (I'm tired, I need to go to bed and I still have some work to do before I do), such an attempt at stimulating the economy is extremely inefficient

Coming from someone with your outstanding credentials, I'm glad you said that. From the present stable of leadership, I don't see any OTHER viable stimulant being presented. These are oil boys running things, pure & simple. They understand petro dollars better than any other model. I really do think they're betting the economic farm on the black goo under the sands of Iraq.

That's what I keep asking myself. I personally don't give a flying sh#t about what Hitler had to say.

You should, Speed.

I agree with you that by and large the 'Nazification' of present day leaders is a beyond-tired cheap shot. I have way WAY more issues with GWB than to go down that idiotic road.

BUT.....the stunningly detailed history of the Third Reich and its' leader give us a "how to" guide on getting to an absolutely horrific human existence. The Nazis, and most especially their leader, wrote for us a diabolical checklist on power, propaganda, control over the masses, a suffocating of dissent, and how to reach an eventual 'critical mass' of hate who's only outcome is ....well, holocaust, in every sense of the word.

Sometimes I look at the world around me and see some of those things being 'checked off'.....up to now, never with the perfection that Hitler mastered, but still. It starts with being wary, and for me that was awhile ago.

If Bush really wanted to help his buddies in big business, he would roll back the troops today. The prospect of war in Iraq has created tremendous uncertainty in the economy.

I KNOW who's column you read this weekend, En, and man, did he nail it or what? Dubya is betting the house. Plain & simple. If he wins, I foresee the start of Pax Republicana, a brash and ominously effective new foreign policy, a mass confidence at home approaching raw nationalism, and a new era of entitled corporate aristocracy, "trickle down" enrichment taken to the Nth degree.

If the roll comes up empty, at the very least, he will take his party down, open a new era of corrosive dischord in the Capital, and quite possibly take us into a Depression.

Now you know why my stance is like Friedman's, and his wifes. I have to hope Dubya's every wish comes true, a smarmy and disgusting position for me personally to be in, but what is the alternative?

Excellent thread. I work at a talk radio station, and the above quote is now hanging in my studio...as a warning.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:05 am

HM,

I actually missed his column this weekend. I will check it out...sort of psyched that I had a parallel thought with TLF.
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:08 am

Hitler was a great admirer of Henry Ford. I never understood why, until I came across Fords books.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm

These are banned, too, in most libraries. Never mind the fact that Henry Ford was a great American, an inventor, an industrialist, etc., he was also an anti-semite, so he's useless. Don't dare read his books.

So they say.
 
Guest

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:09 am

"You should, Speed."

Naw, I think you do enough worrying for the both of us.

'Speed

 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:11 am

Naw, I think you do enough worrying for the both of us.

Does that mean they'll come for me first?  Wink/being sarcastic


 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:38 am

HM,

I just read the column. As usual, it was outstanding. For those of you who want to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html?8hpib

I feel the same ambivalence that you do about this whole thing. I really identify with Friedman's feelings on the issue. I particularly liked the idea of telling Israel that we will dock their aid by $100 million for each new settlement they build. At the risk of sounding like someone trying to take credit for another's thoughts, I have had this idea before as well albeit with a slightly different formulation.

As far as demagoguery goes, I think the left and the right engage in it when it suits their purposes. I don't think the right's attempts to demagogue issues as of late have worked particularly well. The Iraq situation and the resultant distrust of the Republicans is sapping energy from every other issue that Bush has on the agenda.
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:49 am

I laid over in Tel Aviv many times. I was shocked and disillusioned by what I saw, compared to what I had read about Israel. No Democracy, the Jewish State is just that, a Theocracy.

I started putting my observations in print with letters to the editor. In no time at all. the ADL was all over me, telling my employer what a maniac I was, a dangerous nut, etc., and first pleading that I be fired, then demanding it. They lost. They are not accustomed to losing.

Next came the Jewish War Veterans. They failed too. Even after I retired, the JDL threatened my life for a letter that appeared in a NYC newpaper, where I referred to Rabbi Meier Kahane as a Fascist. I had to get the FBI on him.

No trouble since.

 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 6:39 am

"you're either with me or against me"... is definitely a very very BAD propaganda line... because it doesn't suit the purpose of guiding the majority opinion to follow yours... it has caused the US to loose allies and support from its own population...

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 6:43 am

Meir Kahane was a nut. That is for sure. Israel is a pretty lively democracy though. It is no Saudi Arabia.
 
Guest

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:17 pm

When you talk about short wars, it has a negative effect on the economy as the war isn’t long enough to justify orders of military supplies. People are taxed for the cost of the war and gives less people money to buy consumer goods.

I disagree as a country must replace everything that it uses. It also gives the US a chance to test it's new hardware.

This is fiction. It is frequently a misconception of people who think of 1 unit of output being equal to any other unit of output. The most extreme of these types were communists.

I disagree with you on this, and if interested would continue this discussion when I have a little more time. It's not just about buying munitions, even the airliners benefit from transporting troops around (etc).

you are collecting vast amounts of money from the private sector through taxes to create stuff which will be turned into a lot of smoke and noise, instead of something that adds value to people's lives (like roads).

and you're giving vast amounts of money to the private sector to move troops, to feed troops, to replace used hardware, to develop new hardware, to treat the injured (etcettera, etcettera etcettera).

I think you have something to learn about FOREX and what causes exchange rates to change.

Well apparently me and all the economic experts in my country.

There are other aspects of course, but your simplistic interpretation of FOREX movements is much to simple to be taken seriously.

Why? because it disagrees with your point? I am simply echoing the economic statements of the reserve bank and the Treasury department. You'll have to take it up with them.

On this I largely agree with you. I am a strong opponent to subsidies of large-scale industries of all types (there are a few exceptions for strategic purposes, like sugar beets in France, but they are few and far between).

Agreed.

However, this is hardly limited to the U.S..

Of course not, but as the discussion is about the US i'm hardly likely to be talking about any other country at this point.

Most industrialized countries are guilty of this to the same extent or even more.

Not mine .. bye bye Ansett, One.Tel, HIH ... if a country doesn't survive let it go, another one will rise up.

As far as "bailing out their countrymen at all costs", this simply is not true. Did the government bail out Enron? The U.S. government very rarely gets involved in rescuing private companies. They did it with Chrysler 25 years ago because the implications of its bankruptcy were truly massive. I'm still not entirely sure it was the right choice, but it was a relatively extreme situation.

My comment was more based upon the vast amounts of money it pours into the farmers (for instance), which adversely affects every other country who relies on export foodstuffs for their prosperity. At all costs refers to the absolute arrogance the government shows in that it knows the effect it has on the citizens of other countries and it couldn't give a shit ... even to the point of ignoring the world trade court which found the trade subsidies illegal. Funny thing about that is that the world trade court is the same forum the government is whinging in now about the Airbus subsidies .. nothing like a little hypocrisy eh?

Other countries are much quicker to get involved, like France and Switzerland.

I'll have to take your word on this. Neither country mentioned are causing any angst in my country so I really don't know.

I just don't experience this at all, it isnt the view of anyone I know, and while I am sure there are some, I feel that it is pretty inaccurate at best

How can you say that? You read the same forums that we do.






ADG
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:26 pm

ADG,

The bottom line is that the US does not start wars to prime the economy. The impending war on Iraq is wrecking the US economy. Money that could be used to aid ailing states is going support the war effort. Further it has generated tremendous uncertainty which is extremely bad for business. This is basic economics. Your examples are ludicrous. For instance, the airlines will gain hardly anything from CRAF flying if people are cancelling travel because of war in Iraq. Countries do not replace everything they use up.

You are correct in pointing that US farm subsidies are economically wasteful and harmful to Australian and other farmers.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Wed Mar 05, 2003 8:03 am

N79969: "The bottom line is that the US does not start wars to prime the economy. "

REALLY?! I always wondered why we went to Vietnam...?

"The impending war on Iraq is wrecking the US economy"

That's because it has not started yet, if the US claims we have proof that the UN claimed not, we should have gone ahead anyways; we're still waiting. If it happened fast enough for most people to comprehend what was going on, i.e. they won't have time to think about it (like back when Bush's approval rating was higher), then the economy wouldn't have noticed a thing.

"Further it has generated tremendous uncertainty which is extremely bad for business. This is basic economics."

Again, it is because we have done nothing but talk out our asses; somebody get the damned war overwith or quit!

The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:14 pm

I'm really curious how people managed to convince themselves that war is good for the economy. It does have a stimulus effect, yes, but look at the cost!!! Look at the state of the national debt of the U.S. after WWII, after Vietnam. Look at the debt burden of the U.K. after WWI and WWII. Wars are ruinously expensive.

I'm reminded of the old joke:

Q: How do you make a small fortune?
A: First you start with a large fortune...

So yes, a few industries will do some good business, but there is no way you convince anyone that U.S. lawmakers are willing to tank an entire economy in order to allow Raytheon to build a few more missiles.

Take some economics courses, please.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 2:03 am

Congressman Ron Paul - House of Representatives
203 Cannon - Washington D.C. 20515

If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal
meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S.membership in the
UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for
big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign
countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges
usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income
tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the
agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small,
frugal, and limited.

That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us.
Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most
decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth
of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in
living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters
on atreadmill--working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but
otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and
out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to
run every single aspect of our lives.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders
gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I
believe in. So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the
attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at
the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any
federal police, according to the Constitution.

Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre.
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19
children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good
riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison
for 40 years.

We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest
David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for
big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black
uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in
a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents.

The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two
months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing
horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds
sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous
CS gas.

Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare.
The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against
American civilians.

After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into
flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies -- were
incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the
flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners
were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of
the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense"
against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill
themselves?

A new documentary- -Waco: The Rules of Engagement-- may show, through
FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting
through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed.
This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made
by people who took the government's side, until they investigated.
Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal
government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And
the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.

In my r~interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that
Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge-- especially the FBI
sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her
baby-- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I
uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot
of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams
for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be
left alone.

Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out
assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business,
establishment Republicans, and-- of course-- the media, in Washington
and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a
"right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas
Jefferson?)

I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I
don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many
opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big
government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical
big-city newspaper editorial.

But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything
right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in
power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special
interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why
I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a
physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I
refuse a plush Congressional pension.

I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and
grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an
America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I
will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in
Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I
share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the
people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and
to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary
police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single
unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors,
but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work?

Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But
you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure,
your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your
kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to
fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize
our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I
say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the
income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.

Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman-- who's always
talking about getting rid of IRS-- why he engineered a secret $580
million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their
computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us
as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest
pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top
"Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games
with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo
more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to
squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and
send Alan Greenspan out to get a job.

The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not
supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting
secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional,
pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, not
notes redeemable in them. Not fed funny money. Without the Federal
Reserve, our money could not be inflated at the behest of big government
or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just
as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts,
recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't
natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed.
President Andrew Jackson called the 19th-century Fed "The Monster"
because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest
corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work
to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new
curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning
elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be
equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same
purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right
and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury!
It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress.

But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and
accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of
Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions,
are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky
fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's
what the Constitution says, and the Bible too.

And then there's my least favorite topic, the UN. World government is
obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in
the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN
itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many
votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN
ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers
in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to
unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest
young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out
of the American Army. What an outrage! Not one dime for the UN, and
not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia,
not in Rwanda. I know its radical, but how about devoting American
military efforts to defending America, and only America?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 2:33 am

Lehpron,

If I did not know better, I would have mistaken you with Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz when you argue that the US should go on without the UN and get the thing over with.

The economics of war are terrible.

Toner,

How about keeping the rants pithy?
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 2:38 am

"Pithy"?
Pith on that.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 2:52 am

It's all very well saying that the war isn't about oil because the US imports so little from the Arab world today, but this is twisting the issue.

The Graph at http://www.economist.com/images/20020629/CIN206.gif shows that the most reserves are held by Arabian countries. Come 2070, the only countries with any oil left (based on current estimates) will be Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.

So, looking objectively at this, the US needs to get control over the Middle East, needs to get investment in Iraq to start producing dividends. Bush & Co. often say that the war isn't about oil as Iraq needs massive investment: True, if you base your reasoning on the next ten years. But base it on the next 100, and the picture changes. I think it's naive to think that Bush isn't thinking long-term here.

Personally I can understand why they are doing it. What irks me, and a lot of intelligent anti-war people, is that the war is being dressed up as some sort of moral crusade for the good of mankind. It's not. The US will simply go in, secure whatever interests it needs, and let the rest rot.

Just as every imperial power has done since the dawn of civilisation. Nothing has changed.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:15 am

Eg777ER,

I think you also need to attend an economics course with ADG and Lehpron. The longer time horizon makes war an even worse economic proposition.

This is being dressed up as moral crusade (democracy for the Iraqi people) but to eliminate a real potential threat to civilization.

Your country has the imperial record. Not mine.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:14 am

Why should I attend an economics course? I never said anything about war's relation to the economy! Personally I think it will be disastrous for the economy, another reason why I am against it.

However, it is about the long-term security of assets. And the crack about British Imperialism holds no water I'm afraid. Imperialism is when an overwhelming power secures strategic interests without consideration for anyone else. The US has done this continually - look at Saudi Arabia. The US continually supported (even still!) an autocratic, corrupt regime that has been proven to fund terrorists. Where's the morals in that?
 
Toner
Topic Author
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:15 am

Oil is a factor, but so is currency. Three OPEC nations are now dealing in EU'ros that had previously used onl US Dollars.

If Pres. Bush would level with us about the real reason we will invate - Protecting the vital interests of the USA, I would support him if he made the case convincing. Using the pretense of WMD, etc. is foolish.

I think Pres. Bush is probably a fool. He certainly is not making any points politically, and Lord knows, he doesn't need the money.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:28 am

Eg777ER,

You made a false inference from a geological survey. The bottom line is that the Middle East is the world's gas pump and lies at historically important geographic crossroads. Frankly, we don't care who is in charge but we want it to be stable. Not democratic, not autocratic, just stable. A nuclear/VX/smallpox-armed Saddam Hussein threatens stability. Further, if even a little bit of his weapons stash gets in the wrong hands, there is better than even chance that it would be used on Americans with horrific consequences.

Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the American way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism. I'm sure it will be amended as often as necessary to keep current with any slight change in American foreign policy.


If Saudi Arabia opened the franchise to women, opened their Universities, held elections, and became a sustainable democracy, the US would be happy. Worried perhaps but ultimately happy. Hey, I am all for pulling the rug from under the House of Saud.

Democracy can work in the Arab world. Bahrain has held elections already.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:40 am

Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the American way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism. I'm sure it will be amended as often as necessary to keep current with any slight change in American foreign policy.

You're accusing us of imperialism?, have a check on your nationality and see who's guilty of this. Nice try again, but you're running out of arguments for this war, now it's the fault of colonialists.  Insane
In Arsene we trust!!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:53 am

I do not want the US and UK to go to war to neutralize this problem. I am trying to refute the following nonsense though:

1. War to seize oil
2. War to avenge father
3. War to boost economy
4. Bloodlust

et al.

"You're accusing us of imperialism?, have a check on your nationality and see who's guilty of this. Nice try again, but you're running out of arguments for this war, now it's the fault of colonialists."

What does this mean exactly?
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:03 am

What does this mean exactly?

Since you have run out of genuine arguments for a war, you bring up the colonialism card, accusing colonialism as the cause of iraq and the middle east.

Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the Amberican way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism
In Arsene we trust!!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:11 am

I am not arguing for war. Nor I am blaming European colonialism for today's problems in that region. The US was and is not imperial power. We are a hegemon but not imperialists. Again, that latter title belongs to the powers of the age gone by.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:08 am

Imperialism is about land-grabbing and colonial rule. This has not been the American way. Nice try with your own freestyle definition of imperialism. I'm sure it will be amended as often as necessary to keep current with any slight change in American foreign policy.


You are using the first definition of Imperialism/Colonialism. I am using the second definition:

For Imperialism:

a policy of acquiring dependent territories or of extending a country's influence through trade, diplomacy etc.

And Colonialism:

this policy regarded as the esp. economic exploitation of weak or backward peoples by a larger power.

Both are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Now, tell me again that the United States is not an Imperialist/Colonialist power based on these definitions.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:09 am

Oh and by the way, I have lived in Bahrain for the last 12 years.

You may want to have a look at http://www.vob.org for more information on their 'Democracy'.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:22 am

Nonsense. By your standards, we are throwing elbows since the world is so crowded with 'imperialists.' Damn. Where should I begin? Let's start with the latter half of this one:
"a policy of acquiring dependent territories or of extending a country's influence through trade, diplomacy etc."

Who doesn't engage in that kind policy? These guys do for sure. (along with us)

France (blatantly and explicitly imperialist)
China
UK (nice job hanging on to the Falklands- seriously)
India
Russia
Japan
Germany
Spain
Taiwan
The list goes on

Your second definition:

"this policy regarded as the esp. economic exploitation of weak or backward peoples by a larger power."

This is the type of crap thrown out by ignorant anti-capitalist protesters such as Naomi Klein. The US is not colonialist except in the recesses of the jaundiced minds.

Bahrain held an election last fall and is moving in the direction. Cannot say the same for the neighbors.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:43 am

"Now, tell me again that the United States is not an Imperialist/Colonialist power based on these definitions."

I will tell you again and again so long as you and others deliberately and somewhat maliciously single out the US.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:37 am

OK, N79969, why are we disagreeing?

I didn't single out the US. If you read exactly what I've posted:

Personally I can understand why they are doing it. What irks me, and a lot of intelligent anti-war people, is that the war is being dressed up as some sort of moral crusade for the good of mankind. It's not. The US will simply go in, secure whatever interests it needs, and let the rest rot.

Just as every imperial power has done since the dawn of civilisation. Nothing has changed.


Where is the singleing out of the US here? I accept the record of the countries you have listed. What irks me is that the US is pretending that this crusade in Iraq is somehow different to what others have done in the past: it's not. If you look at it in historical context, the language being used is the same. I recently went to the Africa Museum in Brussels - there is a monument in that city to the Belgian soldiers who 'liberated' the Congo. However, the reality is slightly different. Not saying the US is a bloodthirsty power (neither was Belgium) but what it says versus what it is doing is exactly the same.

What strikes me here is that as soon as anyone dare mention the word 'imperialism', you and others jump so quickly to the US defence that you neglect to actually think about the words being used. To say, as you have done over the course of your replies, that first, "The US is not Imperial", followed by "So what if we are, everyone else was as well" does not do your argument any favours at all.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:28 am

Oh boy, yet another person who thinks everyone that isn't a left wing radical communist must be a Nazi for Fascist.

For some reason, I remember Toner being someone who was banned from these forums once before.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: -" You're Either With Me Or You're Against Me. "

Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:52 pm

Eg777er,

The US will simply go in, secure whatever interests it needs, and let the rest rot. Just as every imperial power has done since the dawn of civilisation. Nothing has changed.

An Imperialist or Colonial power would put into place its own permenant government control aperatus in the targeted area. I don't believe that the U.S. will let the rest rot. They have a pretty good history of rebuilding countries and then leaving.

Can you show us one example of true US colonialism or imperialism in the past 100 years?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sovietjet and 12 guests