View Full Version : Remember Tuesday 11 September.....1977
NYerRoman
03-23-2003, 12:12 PM
You know that date?
Well...you should.
Cileans elected democratically Salvador Allende to the presidency.
The workers of Cile are given more rights, given a new sense of dignity as they're organizing more and more.
Henry Kissinger states "We cannot tollerate the error of the people of Cile."
The CIA, with Bush Sr. as director, is given 10 million dollars from Nixon for a counter insurrection. Monetary flows are stopped, right wing groups armed. The army put under US influence.
The people resist.
Then September 11. The army stages a coup-d'etat. The military bombs the presidential building. Allende stands firm. The people try to fight against the army. Allende is then assassinated.
Pinochet takes over and Cile becomes a military dictatorship. Kissinger goes to Cile and is delighted at a job well done. Pinochet thanks him.
30 000 Cileans murdered by sistematic execution.
Countless tortured. Raped. Imprisoned. Exiled.
And we want to bring freedom to the world????
Think about that and all the rest...Central America for which the US is condemned for international terrorism by the World Court in 1986, South East Asia...etc. etc. etc...
This is the problem. We need to realize this. This is not going well out here outside the US. It is not going well inside the US.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 01:08 PM
Fine, the United States sux, and we are just as evil as the rest of the world. What does that have to do with Blowng Saddam in to deasert dust?
Chang Style Novice
03-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Royal Dragon, you can really be shortsighted sometimes.
What it has to do with our current situation is that when the US causes "regime change" in foriegn countries, it has a historical tendency to come back and bite us on the butt later. Other examples include the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein. What makes this time different from the others?
Take a look at the long term effects, for a change.
Other examples include the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein. What makes this time different from the others?
Were these people elected democratically after the previous leaders were removed or did our forces just "put" them there?
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 01:41 PM
Long term effects are Saddam is prevented from blowing up, conquering his neighbors, and causing all sorts of other mayhem.
I still don't see how we are going to get enough Oil out of this to pay for the operation, but hey at least we are doing it. It's better than letting him conquere everyone around him.
Besides, we should have conqured Iraq in the FIRST war, but we didn't. Instead, we made this stupid cease fire deal, which Saddam refuses to honor, even though HE aggreed to it.
As far as I see it, we are just going in and doing what we SHOULD have done before.
But, even then we are not doing what we should as we are not conquering Iraq. We are "Liberating" it's people. It's a stupid wishy washy Liberal concept. No way we are going to recover our expenses if were stupid enough to just give it all back after we take it.
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Royal Dragon
No way we are going to recover our expenses if were stupid enough to just give it all back after we take it.
Actually not given back what was taken is exactly the accusation used by the US for the old Imperial regimes (England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Dutch, etc.).
Problem, IMO, is while some nations could afford the expense of rebuilding another country 50yrs ago, I don't think that it is really feasable to do so today.
Just my opinion naturally.
NYeroman:
You are wrong, it was not 1977. It was september 4,1970.
He was "couped" in Sep 11, 1973.
Half of the people of Chile were against him. He was supported by the URSS and bring many problems to chilean people, and that's why he was couped. He was not assesinated, he suiciced ( you can ask his family)
The militar goverment coming after, was dictatorial, very bad in human rights, but left the country in a very good economic and institutional structure that makes the difference with other latinoamerican countries. Many of the criminal against HR are now in jail.
The US goverment doesn't support this goverment, they prohibited weapon supply with the Kennedy amendment.
Things are not always black or white, it tends to gray.
But, even then we are not doing what we should as we are not conquering Iraq. We are "Liberating" it's people. It's a stupid wishy washy Liberal concept. No way we are going to recover our expenses if were stupid enough to just give it all back after we take it.
What the hell are you talking about? Yes, let's just rob the place blind after blowing everything up :rolleyes: We're not Nazi's :(
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 02:38 PM
There are three goals in war
1. Kill people.
2. Brake things.
3. Conquere territory.
I think we are first class as far as point 1 & 2 go, but we are sadly lacking in number 3. It's like a fighter who can get in, but does not have the heart to follow through.
Besides, who's going to pay for this war anyway? Saddam didn't live up to his end of the deal, it's his fault. He should foot the bill by losing his territory to us.
Banjo
03-23-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by JAZA
He was "couped" in Sep 11, 1973.
Half of the people of Chile were against him. He was supported by the URSS and bring many problems to chilean people, and that's why he was couped. He was not assesinated, he suiciced ( you can ask his family)
Allende was legitimately elected by the people of chile. More than 50% of the united states didnt want bush to be the president but no one has launched a coup against him. Also it is not clear if Allende was assassinated or not. However many of his ministers were assassinated.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 02:41 PM
More than 50% of the united states didnt want bush to be the president but no one has launched a coup against him.
Reply]
Good point, and we have all the guns, so it would not be too hard to launched a coup against him either. Bush must not be all that bad after all.
diego
03-23-2003, 02:46 PM
Royal Dragon, i didn't follow the first gulf war. Is it possible u.s. pulled out because they were spending to much, or peeps started to hate on bush since clinton took over moving americas rule to the dems?.
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Besides, who's going to pay for this war anyway? Saddam didn't live up to his end of the deal, it's his fault. He should foot the bill by losing his territory to us.
Initially it will fall to the tax-payers of the coalition forces, till their countries somehow can get re-imbursed for the expense.
Question will those countries re-imburse their tax-payers after they got paid??
Just something to ponder.
Seeya.
More than 50% of the united states didnt want bush to be the president but no one has launched a coup against him.
Bacause he still won legally(we're not a direct democracy), and we have term limits :D
There are three goals in war
1. Kill people.
2. Brake things.
3. Conquere territory.
I think we are first class as far as point 1 & 2 go, but we are sadly lacking in number 3. It's like a fighter who can get in, but does not have the heart to follow through.
Besides, who's going to pay for this war anyway? Saddam didn't live up to his end of the deal, it's his fault. He should foot the bill by losing his territory to us.
Well, not really sure what to say to that... overly simplistic attitude, if you ask me. Those are short term objectives DURING a war, but the overall goals of war change from situation to situation. Liberation to me = driving out Sadam and his supporters, and installing a self sufficient, friendly, democracy that gives the people of Iraq similar freedoms that we enjoy.
Conquering = Turning Iraq into an american territory, which brings about all kinds of extra problems, along with the massive cost of "liberation" :P
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 03:19 PM
It has nothing to do wiht that, we just got all touchy feely and wussy about it.
I think Bush senior said something to the effect of "NO NEW TAX$$, Read my Lips" to get elected, and then turned around and raised taxes. Clinton was more of a vote AGAINST Bush back pedalling on his promise, than for the Democrats, who spent 8 years trying to sink the economy, and finnaly succeded in getting the stock market to turn about 9 months before the election. It's been in the dumper ever since. They then (of course) blame Bush for it.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 03:21 PM
Conquer means we OWN all that Oil.
Liberate means we work our asses off for it, and then don't collect.
lol, if you care more about money than people then I guess conquering is the way to go ;-) But if that's the kind of human being you are, I suppose there's no point in argueing with you :P
RD, I think you'd have a very succesful career as a mugger :D
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 03:49 PM
if you care more about money than people then I guess conquering is the way to go
Reply]
It's not about that. If we conquere Iraq, the standard of living, and the freedoms of the people will go WAY up compared to Saddam. Its still a major improvement, AND we get the oil to reinburse us for the operation PLUS some. If we give it back to them, they still get the freedom part, only we lose the oil.
Besides, since when does one country invade another, defete them in battle, and not conqure them and take their territory? I mean, in the whole history of man, who fails to conqure thier defeted foe? It's just not traditional warfare if you ask me. If it was the other way around, do you think Saddam wouldn't conquere us? He conqured one of our freinds and allies once, which is what got us into this in the first place, don't you think he'd conquer us if he could? Treat others as they'd treat you, I always say. And I say he'd conquer us if he could, so we are just stupid fools to give it back once we get it.
As far as the career as a mugger goes, I already tried that, and got in to, too much trouble. It really didn't pan out well for me.
:D
Banjo I'm only letting know that things are not always white or black, more in edge situation like a coup or a war.
I'm not a supporter of the coup, neither the actual war.
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 04:28 PM
RD.
Here is a link that is interesting and discusses the very same question you are asking:
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3008)
Interestingly enough this seems to be a shortened & slightly different version of the article published in the Japan times.
Kinda like each version is written for a different target audience.
The essence of both articles is the same, but the language and details differ.
Cheers.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 04:57 PM
All I got was a register/sign in page.
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 05:04 PM
Here is a cut & paste from the site.
What will be the economic consequences of war with Iraq?
Focus > Global Security
Is the U.S. Economy Ready for War?
By David Hale | Monday, March 17, 2003
Some in Washington are getting giddy over potential victory spoils in Iraq. Besides oil, they believe Iraqi democracy will boost future investments in the region. Trouble is, the United States itself may run out of spending power — before the golden opportunities in Iraq present themselves. David Hale examines whether the U.S. economy is ready to shoulder a costly war.
country with a GDP comparable to Louisiana’s has brought the world to a standstill. The prospect of war between America and Iraq has already had several economic consequences. The price of oil has risen to about $40 per barrel — or the highest level in several years.
The neighbor’s grass is greener
This oil price shock is increasing business costs and depressing consumer income at a time when the U.S. economy is already suffering from corporate caution about investment — and a stock market decline equal to 90% of GDP.
Contrary to the wishful thinking emanating from Washington, it is far from clear that Iraq’s oil wealth will make-up for the cost of the war.
There is no precise way to quantify the impact of risk aversion linked to war on the U.S. economy’s performance.
But the difference between employment in the United States and Canada during the month of February is very revealing. The U.S. economy lost over 300,000 jobs — while Canada gained 55,000 jobs.
Lack of confidence
How come? U.S. businesses have been very cautious during recent months because of concern about the war.
Canadian companies, in contrast, are more confident because any Canadian role in the war with Iraq will be very modest.
Markets and U.S. imperialism
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan claims that the U.S. economy will recover without any additional stimulus.
Alan Greenspan may still say the U.S. economy will recover without any additional stimulus. But the fact is that the nation's economy has already lost momentum.
But his nation’s economy has lost considerable momentum during recent months despite extraordinary monetary and fiscal stimulus since the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.
Little wonder, then, that financial markets are concerned about any notions of American imperialism. Any leanings in that direction would have grave budgetary consequences. After a great peace dividend following the end of the cold war, U.S. defense spending is now increasing dramatically.
The upsurge of the defense budget will magnify the U.S. federal deficit — and it will also increase the risk of the current account deficit expanding further.
The end of the tax cut?
If the occupation of Iraq meets great resistance and proves to be expensive, the United States may likely have to assume all of the costs. The markets would regard such a development as negative — because of the impact of the extra spending on the budget deficit and the potential consequences for the current account deficit.
The results of the ballooning budget deficit? First, Congress would probably respond to a high cost war by voting against the Bush tax cut proposals which were designed to bolster the equity market.
What about the spoils of victory?
Second, pressure on the U.S. dollar could intensify. Investors get nervous quickly — if they perceive that the United States is accepting a major new financial burden at a time when its current account deficit is already 5% of GDP.
The ultimate economic verdict on the war will depend on how effective the Americans prove to be in rebuilding Iraq after the military conquest.
What about all that Iraqi oil money? Contrary to the wishful thinking emanating from Washington, it is far from clear that Iraq’s oil wealth will compensate for the cost of the war.
True, Iraq is estimated to have huge oil reserves. They are said to be 112.5 billion barrels, compared to 262 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia.
How much is involved?
But Iraq’s production yield is very low. The peak in oil production during the past 25 years was 3.5 million barrels in 1979, while production in 2002 was only 2.6 million barrels. That is worth only about $25 billion per annum — or just one quarter of the possible cost of the projected war itself.
After a U.S. occupation, there could be more investment to improve the infrastructure and boost output. But on a best-case scenario, Iraqi oil production would only increase to about 3.5 million barrels over the next few years. If the oil price stabilizes at $25 per barrel, the country’s oil earnings would bring in just $35 billion per year.
Wrong nostalgia
Iraq will probably need $10-20 billion of foreign capital merely to achieve that oil output of 3.5 million barrels. That leaves little for the country’s immense needs for investment in social services and repair of infrastructure.
If the occupation of Iraq meets great resistance and proves to be expensive, the United States will also have to assume many, if not all, of the costs.
The coming war is therefore not going to produce major dividends for the occupying power. The ultimate economic verdict on the war will therefore depend upon how effective the Americans prove to be in rebuilding Iraq after the military conquest.
Some U.S. intellectuals look back with nostalgia at what America achieved in Japan and Germany after 1945.
The roots of the problem
The problem with these scenarios is that Iraq has a very different history. Japan and Germany had been strong nation states with some experience of democracy before dictators gained power during the 1930’s.
Iraq is a synthetic nation created by the British after WWI. It has no tradition of democracy — or even benign dictatorship. It has been ruled by ruthless military despots since the late 1950’s.
Who will be in charge?
Iraq has a large population of exiles who could play a helpful role in creating a new society incorporating human freedom, the rule of law — and democracy. But we do not yet know who will play a leadership role among the exiles.
Some U.S. intellectuals look back with nostalgia at Japan and Germany — but Iraq has a very different history.
With so many issues still up in the air, the only thing that is certain is this: The potential costs of invading Iraq are very large. And the uncertainty is great.
That means that invading Iraq is likely to leave the U.S. economy with some pretty big problems — and not a lot of money to solve them.
The JT version is a lot blunder in stating a lot of facts.
Cheers.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 05:24 PM
The prospect of war between America and Iraq has already had several economic consequences. The price of oil has risen to about $40 per barrel — or the highest level in several years.
Reply]
Ok, this is already wrong. The charts (According to a freind) say the price has not been over $35, something we all saw during the Clinton years as well. Also, since the start of the war, there has been a major price drop. Look at Nick's charts in the following link. If you hit the "Monthly" link on the chart itself, you can see the high for the last 2-3 years as well as the reacent June delivery month.
Oil Charts for June (http://www.futuresource.com/charts/charts.asp?r=&type=future%2Cindex&symbols=CLM03&period=D&varminutes=&bartype=bar&symlist=CL&month=M&year=03&study=MA&STUDY0=&STUDY1=&STUDY2=&STUDY3=&bardensity=LOW&size=SMALL&x=37&y=15)
This oil price shock is increasing business costs and depressing consumer income at a time when the U.S. economy is already suffering from corporate caution about investment — and a stock market decline equal to 90% of GDP
Also, since the war started, there has been a solid climb in the Dow jones. Again, Charts provided by Nick Monticello.
Dow Jones Futures (http://www.futuresource.com/charts/charts.asp?r=&type=future%2Cindex&symbols=DJ1%21&period=D&varminutes=&bartype=bar&symlist=DJ&month=1%21&year=03&study=NONE&STUDY0=&STUDY1=&STUDY2=&STUDY3=&bardensity=LOW&size=SMALL&x=57&y=12)
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 05:36 PM
RD.
That article I cut & pasted is a bit older, than the one in the JT(March 17 is the given publication date)
Unfortunately it is on paper and I don't feel like typing the 2 A4 pages into the PC at the moment.
;)
BTW, those figures are missing from the JT version, wish I could find the same version online.
Seeya.
Royal Dragon
03-23-2003, 06:08 PM
Mmmm, it was an interesting read though. It seems to agrre with my view that we can't make much off Iraqie oil. Although, I think if we owned Iraq, we could make quite a bit.
Chang Style Novice
03-23-2003, 06:24 PM
There's a very good interview with Paul Berman, one of the American left's most rigorous thinkers on the cover of Salon magazine this weekend. You'll have to click their 'premium' section and sit through a web ad to read it, though. The subject of the interview is why liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) should support the war because baathism and islamofascism are the most dangerous political philosophies currently wielding power.
Here's the URL
http://salon.com/books/int/2003/03/22/berman/index.html
but you may get kicked back to the front page after viewing the ad to gain access to the article.
Merryprankster
03-23-2003, 07:14 PM
It seems to agrre with my view that we can't make much off Iraqie oil.
Bingo. So much for "it's all about oil." People too intellectually lazy to research.
unrelated
03-23-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Bingo. So much for "it's all about oil." People too intellectually lazy to research.
Certainly it is not all about oil, but not sure this article provides enough information or coherent analysis to say that the war cannot be made to pay for itself. The numbers in the article may be suspect, but even if they are accepted, it should be clear that there is considerable wealth available for expropriation. An understanding of basic finance theory tells us that a capital investment $20 billion to achieve an annual increase of $10 billion is an attractive option, even assuming usurious interest rates (and there is no reason to assume those). For those who feel like building a small financial model an interesting exercise would be to see what it would take to pay for a $100 billion war given these numbers and some interest rate assumptions.
I do agree with your last statement though.
Laughing Cow
03-23-2003, 09:46 PM
MP.
War in history so far has always boiled down to Power and Money issues.
I can't see this war breaking a mold that is a few thousand years old.
Cheers.
NYerRoman
03-24-2003, 03:18 AM
Yes, it was 1973. That was a typ-o. That one slipped my edit. Thanks.
Are you people kidding..those that support this ridiculous "War"?
Many countries are not democratically elected. Does that mean we have to invade?
Chile elected Allende democratically. I've seen justifications that he was supported by the USSR and blah blah...
FOOLS. He was elected by his population.
You people who are arguing for the presence of Americans in the country are missing a big point. This is not for the US to say or do. The point of contention in the region is exatly this:
THEY DON'T WANT THE US THERE.
PLUS for all the idiots who support the pro-WAR/Presence:
Are you so short sighted to realize a US puppet regime will bring civil strife in Iraq. Kurds in the north (independece), Shiiite Muslims in the south (Iran ties) and Sunnis in central Iraq....
They don't like each other morons.
AND the destabilization of the region that has started already.
You people su(k. You are so narrow focused and slaves to US rhetoric. Wake up.
Merryprankster
03-24-2003, 04:05 AM
Are you so short sighted to realize a US puppet regime will bring civil strife in Iraq. Kurds in the north (independece), Shiiite Muslims in the south (Iran ties) and Sunnis in central Iraq....
You mean like the 'puppet' regimes we erected in Germany and Japan? You're right. Those don't work at all.
And democracy is a terrible system of government for bringing together people with disparate interests and beliefs. Hideous. Dictatorship is the only way to travel.
You people su(k. You are so narrow focused and slaves to US rhetoric. Wake up.
Gosh, that was constructive. The depth of your reasoning continues to astound me. I wish the UN had councilors that made such useful comments:
France: And that concludes our explanation of our stance on economic sanctions.
China: Well I disagree.
France: Why?
China: Because I do--Oh, and YOU SUCK!
France: No, YOU SUCK!
Much better that way, don't you think? I can just imagine U.N. resolution 1441 if we had an army of your clones.
We say Iraq must disarm because, "IRAQ SUCKS!" Such a powerful, united message!
If those who support the war are brainwashed by U.S. propaganda, then you are a sheeple of the radical left. So neener-neener-neener. :rolleyes:
LC, actually, wars have always been about perceived national interests, whatever those interests may be. I think it's awfully short-sighted to chalk it up just to oil--or even "money and power." Although, if you loosely define power as security or some-such, it's a better argument.
NYerRoman
03-24-2003, 09:27 AM
Excuse my undiplomatic nature but when people are dying and a region is destabilizing and a whole sh1t load of mess will come out of this War...
that's the only thing to come to mind. If you want to support the war b/c you know nothing about the background nor the socio/political/economic ramifications, well then...what else can I say?
Merryprankster
03-24-2003, 11:00 AM
If you want to support the war b/c you know nothing about the background nor the socio/political/economic ramifications, well then...what else can I say?
LOL--do you even know what I do for a living? I realize your worldly experience living in Rome makes you far more qualified to discuss these issues than me, regardless. :rolleyes:
Secondly, I never said I supported the war. In fact, I've NEVER said I support the war. All I've ever done is argue against what I perceive faulty arguments. If you happen to bear some of the brunt of that it might be because you need to buttress your edjumacation with some courses in rhetoric. It's not your opinion I find indefensible--it's your argument.
Excuse my undiplomatic nature but when people are dying and a region is destabilizing and a whole sh1t load of mess will come out of this War...
Yes--people die in armed conflict it's tragic and awful. Fewer people will die once Saddam is deposed. That's a probably accurate statement.
The region will only destabilize IF we do a ****-poor job at nation-building. We've done well at it before, we can do it again. Hopefully we'll devote the resources that are really needed to do this well.
FWIW, three guesses who the top two are that consistently ignore the UN trade embargo with Iraq? Anybody?
'MegaPoint
03-24-2003, 06:36 PM
The biggest fallacy of this war is the fact that Bush says one of the main reasons for going into Iraq is to stop the Al Qaeda. How the hell does that make sense? I didn't know Afghanistan was in Iraq. I thought it was in Western Asia. Georgie claims that they funded and trained terrorist groups responsible for 9/11. BS.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Muslim world support and funds these fux. We gave Saddam and Osama millions, maybe billions to fight our friendly enemies the Iranians and the USSR. So why aren't we taking over the entire Middle East, especially Saudi, and imposing our "freedom" and "democratic" ideals on them? Riddle me that you stupid brainwashed sheep! You wanna stop all this sh it? Force liberty on all the stupid fux of the world, restructure every country worth anything under a UN charter, and get the world consensus to make our home a better place to thrive. Won't happen though 'cause the 'cult of the dead' reigns and will until the Omega Point. Get use to it. Drama will be commonplace. Truth nonexistent. Hell even their "fossiL fuel" is made up of dead things. Ridiculous!
The thing is the Russians and French are in this for that oil sh it too, and i'ts just ridiculous to think they care about any human life or the well being of the world. They are exactly the same people on both sides, that's how we can be friends with them one minute and then bitterest of enemies when they are doing what they want. WAKE UP!!!
This time we are John Wayne-ing it. No auspices of the UN, so the world is like "WTF"!!! Me too. Makes us look like we know what's best for the people of Iraq and the world when we are just a small part of it. We have had the capability to use alternative fuel sources for decades now. GM has the patent for a car that runs off of water! Why shi t where you eat? Hmmm makes you think that all that cheesy stuff like "V" back in the day and that B-Movie "Them" might be true, hahaha!
Remember that if you pit the world against itself and stay out of the fray until there is just one or no rivals, then you've won, or at least almost insured "E. Pluribus Unum" or "From many- One". We are the kings of instigation and rationalization. Millions are not condemning the fighting folks (soldiers, airman, seaman and jarines), they totally feel for them. Those cats thought that they wouold do their time, get money for college, and use the system to their benefit. I was a PJ in the Air Farce. I know lots of Vets who are fed up with our deceptive system. Remember they promised all those guinea pigs from the Vietnam Era and before all these benefits if they became institutionalized hitmen/slaves and gots nothing, except a laugh in the face and a "I'm sorry". Those protestors are condemning our government for not representing us correctly, continuously. The US is NOT a pluralistic government. It's an elitist run one. $$$$$ is the Crowning Glory! I'll give you more truth when the time is right....
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM and ANNUIT COEPTUS--- how blatant can you be? Fuc k the founding DEIST (NOT JEWS OR CHRISTIANS) Fathers. They ain't no friend to me, they ain't no kin to me.... We gonna take what they started as a joke and make it right eventually, I hope.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.