The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] while i agree in principle with what economic measures you propose, i am fearful that such a response will be more harmful to the rest of the world than to the united states.the sacrifices of the second world war were ,as you noted, necessary. but the moral imperatives fortunately and in the final analysis coincided with the will of the stronger. such is not the case today as you well know. while the american economy is fragile in that it would appear to respond negatively to such measures, such fragility is usually manifested by a loss of confidence of the large institutional investor in the likelihood that his/her investment will achieve the promised (estimated) return. a fractional drop in that will invariably effect a drop in the stockmarket, the key barometer of the health of a capitalist system. that type of drop reflects not the availability or intrinsic value of riches, but rather their trading value. the united states , unlike any other nation, possesses an extraordinary redundacy of riches that allows it to dictate and enforce its will on the rest of the world. if such a boycott were to occur, it would be to the advantage of bush and co. at this time, for he and his cohorts will expand the war, prolong it and sell it easily and successfully to the american people. only they matter. absent any moral constraints the united states will certainly see that as "imminent threat" and will unleash its power to simply secure what it deems necessary to relieve such a threat. japan did that in 1940 when subjected to oil and rubber embargo. clearly the united states will do it more ferociously and efficiently. remember the united states is now very militaristic, and has, in effect, a single party system when it deals with any issue outside its shores. thus no political constraints. very few citizens indeed would risk a " non-patriot " epithet, with all that entails in loss of even ability to earn a living. i envision and i am fearful that those nations who have no riches and most certainly no "redundancy of riches" will again render unto Caesar his due. the challenge is how best to bring bush home to focus on his many problems, for as long as there is "war" outside, he will continue to fool his populace within. i see no relief there. i anticipate the "wars" will continue up to 2004 in order to ensure reelection and achieve what his father could not. nothing wrong with an "undeclared and unorganized" universal boycotting of mcdonald's and coca cola, for example. i am confident a drop in their earnings will cause every serious problems in the american stock market. tony _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk