2003-04-09|9:15 p.m.
To be absolutely honest, I hope the best for the Iraqis. I hope the best for the lives of people who feel helpless but hopeful among bombs falling and the end of their country�s dictatorship. And lastly I hope the best for long term peace and stability of these people.
With that said, I think it is highly suspect that the war went from being titled �Operation Freedom Shield� until we didn�t produce the WMD we promised the world that Hussein was hiding� and then the war was renamed �Operation Iraqi Freedom.� Suspect is the goodwill not of our soldiers and of the people at home but of those who have the power to name and rename wars.
One Iraqi man was interviewed in his excitement of seeing US troops. When asked what he looked forward to he said, �Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy.�
Here�s to the 51st State!
I hear a lot of people, probably being hopeful, saying that it is now clear that the US isn�t in this for financial gain or oil imperialism. Back up a bit and read the news! There�s tons more articles about US firms vying for the new Iraq where that came from.
Coordinating the work of Iraqis as they build a new government �has to reside with the U.S. government,� Cheney said. �We don�t believe that the United Nations is equipped to play that central role.�
I think it is also a grave error that we are only using the UN for the clean up effort. The UN has a long history in the process of rebuilding and building governments peacefully and successfully (South Africa, East Timor, El Salvador, Cambodia, etc.). And it isn�t like we don�t know this. So, why is it that we are being so exclusionary (or mercantilist?) in the rebuilding of a country we are �liberating�? Spoils of war?
I can�t believe we�re using landmines in this war. Ask any Cambodian how good an idea this is.
Embedded journalists? In whose bed? Why is it that we only see footage of night-vision screened missiles, Hussein�s falling statues, Iraqis burning American flags or hugging US soldiers, photos of POWs and commentating ex-war generals?! These things may be valuable to the picture, but what about the whole picture?
Protestors are terrorists!?
While nobody�s really looking back at home, we�re about to be had. Bush wants to give a big fat tax break to the rich, all 726 billion dollars of it, and even some Republicans in the Senate know this is an insane proposal and are scaling it back to 350 billion. The House, however, is willing to go all the way with Bush (gross!). Of course, Bush, a failed businessman, says the �package� will �stimulate� the economy. Hmm� package? Stimulate?
I�m not very good with economics, but I know a brilliant boy who is. PhD candidate in Political Science (with a focus on political economy), KW, explains it for us like this:
�When the government spends more than it earns, it can make up the shortfall in three ways: 1) print money, 2) borrow money, 3) spend less. #1 is bad because it causes inflation, which is a hidden tax on most people. #2 is ok, in moderation. But, if the government borrows too much, eventually, it has to offer higher interest rates to encourage people with extra money to invest in the government. This takes away money that could be invested in increasing the productive power of the country: new factories, education of workers, developing new technologies, etc. It also means that our personal debt is more expensive, because interest rates on mortages, credit cards, etc. are based on U.S. government interest rates, this means people spend less. Around 60% of all economic output in the U.S. is driven by consumer spending, so higher interst rates reduce U.S. growth. #3 is bad becasue the government needs taxes to provide services that we all need: police protection; enforcement of contracts; roads, ports, airports and other transportation infrastructure; education; aid for children, the elderly, the poor. When government spending is cut, corporate welfare, pork barrel spending, and the needs of the powerful and influential are protected, and the weak and the poor get hurt the most. Tax cuts also reduce the amount of money the states earn, because a lot of their earning power is tied to federal tax levels. When states run out of money, they almost exclusively rely on cutting spending in education and social services to the poor and elderly. A nice double whammy. All of this, in the hope that the transfer of resources from the poor and middle class to the rich will eventually trickle down to the poor and middle class again.�
Bush is all about supporting the troops while they fight, right? But when they come home screw �em, that�s what the Republicans are saying:
�On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it will suspend enrollment in the VA health system for at least 160,000 qualified veterans. This decision, together with the deep budget cuts Republicans have proposed in non-military programs for 2003, will result in at least 400,000 veterans going without critical medical care services.� Support the Troops!
War makes people stupid.
The lighter side of state sponsored terror.