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]
>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. It is no easy matter, certainly. I should raise two points, however: 1. We must look to the long term, and judge waht will likely happen if no action is taken now. My judgement is that the situation will deteriorate, the US controlling more while the world losing power to resist. 2. The average US citizen is not at all used to being deprived. This is not to say that Americans are not very tough when need be, but that the best way to get their attention is to cut off their gasoline, TV, and other luxuries -- not even considered to be luxuries here. >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. It depends on how one measures strength. There are three types of power. One is physical, as in military. Another is mental/emotional, as in political will and belief. The third combines the two. It is economic, which can threaten one's physical safety, but also disrupt "what one wants". >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. That's an important consideration -- the difference between money and wealth. >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. And yet, at this time, the bulk of it's wealth is abstract. Manufacturing depends on the importation of foreign materials and components. Economically it is a great debtor nation such that if foreign money was withdrawn the country would go into immediate crisis. While it does produce much of the wheat, for example, other nations are capable of taking up the slack if trading were blocked. >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. I think not. First, the US can't bomb the world: that would be self defeating. It must rely on intimidation and taking out the more defiant nations one at a time. That's one reason suggested by many for picking on Iraq first -- one of the weakest of nations. It's much like how the schoolyard bully operates -- who is most responsive to being shunned by all his playmates. >only they matter. To an extent: the American people are critical for supporting Bush, but even now there are many who do not support Bush, and many others who support him rather shallowly. I would expect that a concerted effort by the world would not need to last very long before the American people became alarmed enough to rise up. Already there is a strong undercurrent of disatisfaction in the states financials woes, with many services being cut. >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 But where and how? If any one or two countries opposed Bush, that could be handled, but if many did, then what? Would Americans allow a reinstatement of the draft? Would they be willing to see even more billions pumped into the military budget? Would they permit war against Europe, South America, the Far East, and the rest of the world? Hardly. >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 Assume for a moment that all you say is correct. We have heard the argument that because Iraq proved so weak there was really no need to war against it. Does not the reverse logic hold? If the US is truly willing to war with the entire world, does that not make it even more imperative to act sooner than later? What chance will any have to resist if the formation of a world empire is allowed? The situation can be likened to operating on a cancer while it is still small, for to wait will make the operation impossible. >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. Indeed it is a great challenge. The most effective way to meet that is by acting in unity -- never an easy thing. Each must support the other -- again as with a labor union. No worker can stand alone against a corrupt company, but a union can. >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. The situation is fraught with uncertainty. It is possible that it will all fader away after a time -- but I think not. Even if the Democrats take over next election, they are in the same grasp of the corporate monster. This has been growing for decades. What other forces can reign in the neo-cons? They care nothing for the "peasants" as long as they can be kept in their place, and the new Patriot Act legislation and repression of civil rights makes this easier to do. More legislation is proposed. Demonstrators are being fired on with "non-lethal" ammunition, and are being arrested. The media is little more than propaganda. Look for the internet to come under control before too much longer. Just as Bush first saw to the disarmamanet of Iraq, not with just inspections but with bombing raids for years, before attacking, so the neo-cons will steadily weaken the opposition before striking overtly. This is why we must focus not on hope or image, but on actual power -- which is ultimately all that people like this respond to. They have no conscience, and are out of touch with the more subtle realities. >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. And then what? Will they give up power? Even if the Republicans are forced out of office, who will replace them? People like Lieberman? The Democrats are nearly as bad. Keep in mind there is a winner-take-all two-party system here, and that dampens moderation. Those who will get into office will do because they have the money and power, which they obtain by being corrupt and bought off by the corporations -- which contribute to both parties. Was Clinton such a gem? >nothing wrong with an "undeclared and unorganized" >universal boycotting of mcdonald's and coca cola, for Most of those companies operate through locally owned franchises and factories. But the powerhouse, Bechtel, Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. don't sell hamburgers. That's where the real power is -- aside from the mass of people. >example. i am confident a drop in their earnings will >cause every serious problems in the american stock >market. But so what? The game is rigged. There was a terrible stock disaster in the recent meltdown, but the ones who were hurt had little power to change much, and were diverted. Most people held only a modest amount of stock. The money people largely recovered nicely or can afford to wait. The stock market alone won't do it -- there needs to be disruption on a more widespread and fundamental basis -- something which will "shock and awe". Even now the UN is being discredited to the American people by the US government and press (both corporate instruments). This is, in effect, a civil war or coup, but on an international stage. Just as nations in the past had to struggle to overcome warlonds and city states, to form a national government, so to we now have to go through a similar process the democratize the world. It's a complicated situation, and requires minds far more acute and knowledgeable than mine to plan in detail, but I see only two probabilities ahead: a steady decline as the entire world is taken over, a piece at a time, by those few who would rule, or an awakening, and a spirited, concerted decision to resist by the bulk of the world's nations, and an insistence on a world living under international law. Monarchy or democracy in the global village -- those are the only realistic choices. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com _______________________________________________ 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 firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk