"When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten


I think I read that... and Fast Food Nation...

Humans are funny creatures... we tell ourselves that we are very different from any animal on this planet, yet in allot of ways we act much like them, and made more dangerous by brain power we have... to bad that brain power usually ends up being used for basic animalistic needs.


So, America ends up being the one in the cross hairs while states like Iraq is considered OK. Mostly because you don't expect anything from Iraq. If they bombed a country and gased everyone, it would be sad; but if someone went in they are not well come.

In the end what happens? Iraq gets all this 'aid' from people who feel sorry for Saddam the underdog by terorist actions, human shields, and help Saddam regain power... and the people of Iraq end up with more unstabability cause of this help.

And no I don't think this will start WW3

Its going to be something else that does.

Anyway, lets see what happens during week 3.

oh and i think 'shock and awe' didn't work because they been in that type of shelling before and they already moved thier assetts to hospitals, schools, and mosques... you know. wonder why they are still communicating...

and those underground bunkers... I am sure they are still up... you know the ones under the school, mosques and hopitals.

craeonics goes look up "jingoism"...

Aha. Apt choice of words. Though, I think it's a rather human approach to things. As soon as people start thinking in terms of friend/enemy or good/evil the world suddenly shifts to black and white.

bakerstreet

"Just know, ye of little faith, that when Saddam Hussein buys US uniforms, puts tanks beside elementary schools, and sends women and children out in front of his troops as human shields, YOU are the ones he *knows* he can count on"

I suppose that was the only answer to give. You said a lot with that one.

Davidk
Whew...I am so glad you don't think we'd use gas.

I am sorry, but I have this terrible habit of being literal to a fault, almost with childlike innocence. I often get teased from my friends and family how they have to speak very plainly to me.

Hehe, even people in chat have learned to write J/K even before the write what they are kidding about, or to make for me, "this will be a hint of sarcasm" disclaimer.

And unfortunately, I am the lady who gets the joke, a few days after everyone else.

Oh well, I see now what point you were trying to make.

joetheblow, here's my answer to all the questions you put forth. I know, you won't be satisfied, I don't expect you to, because this war has divided people. There is no middle ground, and we are at loggerheads, at the opposite ends of the spectrum. But I am atleast willing to say that you might be right, but I think the my opinion wouldn't even be acknowledged. Anyways, I'll post what I will and I hope you will respect me for that.

>>"Give him 30 more days." That's fine with me, but what happens when those 30 days are up? We know it happened before.

Well, there was a good chance, with Saddam yielding to so many concessions (I have to call them concessions, because no sovereign nation in its right frame of mind would allow other nation's airforce, the rights to fly spy planes over its territory), we might have had CONCRETE EVIDENCE about the existence/non-existence of the WMD in Saddam's posession. I think the US of A would certainly have helped the UNSCOM inspectors with reliable intelligence bout their wherebouts (or am I hoping for too much?)


>>"America is only interested in oil".
Just oil? Not just from Iraq I hope because it is not worth it. We would spend more than the oil they have just fighting the war. I guess Iraq could become a launch pad for 'conquering' other oil rich places. The cost for doing so? More money than most of the oil in the region. Good investment? NO.

Its not about oil, atleast not for their own consumption. Let me put forward some facts. Oil (fossil fuels in fact, oil being the most prominent among them) is the lifeline in today's world. Whoever controls the oil supply, controls the world, literally. Let me see, US is supporting a tyranny in Saudi Arabia, it controls Kuwait, and after the war, will control Iraq too. I don't suppose, any of the abovementioned countries would sell their oil to US of A's enemies. So, can any nation afford standing up to the US of A? And the cost doesn't matter... Why, you ask? Would you put a price on your liberty? What if that liberty was equated with your 'the lone superpower in the world' status?
So YES. It is a good investment.


>>Why is the USA friends with China? They do the same thing as Iraq... Iraq has oil to fund its weapons production, China has a struggleing economy. The chinese soldier is more loyal. I doubt they would sell weapons to those who would later use them against themselves.

I don't think that China has a struggling economy. If China's economy (with around a 8% growth in GDP observed in the last decade or so) is struggling, then the US economy has FAILED (its stagnant, for all I know). The Chinese soldiers are indeed loyal. And out of their loyalty, they sell weapons in the black market (I hope most of you must have heard about the China - Pakistan - North Korea nexus, China aids Pakistan in making Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan sells them to the N. Koreans: N. Koreans supply Pakistan with missiles, quite a deal, I must say) and launder the money through the isle of Honk Kong back into mainland China.
As for the USA being a friend of China, well, look at the market size. A billion people...


>>Is Saddam in breach of the agreement???
Is Saddam the ONLY person in breach of an agreement, any agreement? What about N. Korea jumpstarting those mothballed reactors?


>>Does he have loads of money???
Sure. But so does Bill Gates. Wanna shoot him? And doesn't Bush own a plane (I read this on the same thread)?


>>How loyal is his army???
Its not his army, its Iraq's army. And they are loyal. They are as loyal to their nation (please note that I referred to their nation, not their leader) as the US army. And like any army, they wouldn't bear the thought of another country's uniformed men stepping on their soil.


>>Population comfort level???
Hardly different from some other Arab states like Turkey, Saudi, etc where opposition is swiftly dealt with... And did you know, that before the sanctions, Iraq was one of the most secular and liberal nations in the Gulf?


>>How many resolutions for disarmerment????
Atleast as many for non-proliferation.. I don't think that has worked either with many countries openly or covertly selling arms. Who helped Iraq arm itself in the first place, and who looked the other way when these arms were being used against Iran?

>>How many years under said resolutions???????
I don't know... you tell me. Its been almost 15 years since Tianmen... And twenty+ years since Tibet... (the Lama still resides at Dharamsala, a leader exiled from his own nation)

Nothing can be done now. The war has started, in fact is in its eighth day.

'The actions of the Present are judged by the Future'.

Many people on this board are from the US, are of the voting age and hence can and do affect the policies of the US (I believe that at the time of writing this piece, the US is a Democracy). You could have stopped this war from happening.

I couldn't stop it, because I had no say in this (I am just 21 and have seen no election and am no US citizen).

So you are the Present and I am the Future. And I will hold You responsible for the consequences of this war.

If it is proved, beyond doubt, that Iraq indeed posessed WMD's (I hope that an 'upright' nation like the US wouldn't resort to fabrication of proof, or is that too much to hope?), I will personally post an apology on this board. And I won't be ashamed to do so. I think that I can expect the same from you guys if it turns out that the war was wrong, though I doubt that an apology will pay for the destruction a nation will suffer. So, I hope from the bottom of my heart, that evidence of WMDs and Iraq's tete-a-tete with terrorist organisations is found.

bakerstreet
I love that Twain quote, he had a biting wit that man.

The deal about the gas masks and nerve agent antidote is this: According to a bio weapons expert, the nerve agent antidote was made *specifically* for weaponized VX nerve agent. This is something which Iraq is not supposed to have.

The NG antidote kit shown contained 'Atropine', a fairly common drug in general medical use and pretty much a 'catch-all' for military use ... any kit in almost any army would contain Atropine.
Beware media employed 'experts' ....

I agree with Atropine, but it didn't sound as though it was atropine which was found in those cases in the hospital. I'm probably wrong, but I never heard them say atropine.

DavidK - thanks for elucidating on that one point. The underlying question actually is kind of interesting. unlike mustard gas, most modern gassing agents degrade with a reasonably short half-life. once they've degraded, can they be spectroscopically linked to a source batch? Don't know the answer to that one.

we must rid the world of this terrorist regime in iraq. then-liberate it. i am a democrat for bushs war on terrorism, however think not too good of him when it comes to the economy.

Jingoism is a convenient term, you could also say we are 'waving the bloody shirt', if you believe there is any blood to begin with. Regardless, Jingoism here is usually a reaction to a stimulus, i.e. the normal Tourette's Syndrome-style reaction to a news blurb or a pamphlet they just read.

I think Hussein's strategy is to pretty much give the US everything except Baghdad. Then, just when Baghdad becomes a house-to-house battle, the international community will throw a fit about the civilian death toll and demand we leave. Then with the help of Russia, China, N. Korea, and lots of cash from France to buy it all, he'll be basically undefeatable the next time he attempts to harm his people or invade his neighbors.

Propaganda is the key to that. Arguments like "America set him up in the first place", "America just wants the oil", "America doesn't care about the Iraqi people", etc., etc., are the best propaganda he can get. When you see the war with 'a priori' ideas of what you *think* the US is after, then everything you see will reinforce those ideas, especially when there is an evil showman ready to sacrifice his civilian population just for that purpose. Open your mind to radical, anti-establishment, anti-free-market, Neo-Luddite propaganda long enough and you will believe about anything Saddam will have to say about the US.

re: reading lists.

Don't think for a moment that anti-establishment radicalism isn't big business. Do they give their propaganda away? Are their publishing houses non-profit? People like that simply *can't* ever be satisfied. They thrive on perceived evils, and would be lost without them. Frighteningly like McCarthyism.

They are endlessly helpful for anyone who hates their society as well. I would suggest adding Machiavelli's "The Prince" to your reading list. Self-interest is universal. Sadly, though, some people ( read: activists ) allow it to be parasitic and self-defeating; biting the hands that feeds them.

Auguste, buddy, throw your radio away, it's worse than TV when it comes to poisoning your mind.

Apparently you're not familiar with the books I listed. With the possible exception of Greg Palast, every book in the list is by a highly respected conservative author. They each present a wealth of factual data and research complete with dates, names, photo copies of documents and an extensive in-depth clear examination of historical events. Your right-wing saviors of America's innocence know these facts, but they would never want them publicly presented without a healthy dose of spin, ridicule and disinformation. They can live with the ugly truth just fine, as long as they don't have to publicly defend it. These authors present us with facts without the spin.

Body of Secrets is a tribute to the NSA detailing its history and the history of encryption and code-breaking. It was written to glorify the quality of the intelligence community and its achievements. If you read it you will find many interesting historical details about the last 50 years. Like "Operation Northwoods" which was an attempt by the Joint Chiefs in 1963 to dupe the public (in America and the World) to support an invasion and regime-change in Cuba by staging a terrorist assault on America. They were going to kill hundreds of Americans in a bloody terrorist attack in Miami, shoot down a plane full of students, sink a Navy destroyer in Guantanomo Bay, etc. blaming it on the Cubans. This plan was actually being implemented! Robert McNamara, Kennedy's Defense Secretary, decided it couldn't go forward without the President's approval. When he showed the plan to Kennedy it stopped and Kennedy planned to fire the Joint Chiefs (he said some of them had actually gone insane) and disband the CIA who he said were becoming a government of their own. Six months later Kennedy was dead, the Joint Chiefs stayed and the CIA was expanded.

Betrayal of Trust is about the Public Health Care systems of the world and is considered the best resource for information on that subject ever written. Laurie Garrett is the most respected 'expert' reporter on the international medical scene.

David Korten is a respected and distinguished member of the conservative business community, a former professor at Harvard University Graduate School of Business with over thirty five years of experience in world economic affairs. He became disillusioned when he realized that a deepening global crisis was being promoted by the US and world economic institutions and change was needed to prevent a global catastrophe. Reading his book was the first time I ever felt like I could understand what global economics is all about. It's actually written from a seriously considered desire to promote reform to prevent the inevitable collapse of the world's economic system. If you really want to know something about how it works, this is the book to read.

Greg Palast is probably the most respected investigative journalist in the world today, coming from a background of being a private investigator for labor unions, but you could say he is more leftwing than conservative. That doesn't change the value of hard data that would otherwise never be known by the public. When Greg Palast writes an article about the World Bank he spends months digging up documents and detailing events with more factual precision than any reporter I've seen. He interviews all the players on both sides and then brings us Joseph Stieglitz's (the World Bank's Chief Economist) own revelations of inside information that us mere mortals were never supposed to know. The facts are inciting enough, there's no need for radical spin, and there's nothing in it that needs to be debunked by the right for the clueless. Just learn some truth and make up your own mind. His book is a compilation of articles on a variety of subjects (Enron, 2000 election, Pat Robertson, IMF etc.) that have been published in the last few years by the BBC and the Guardian.

All these books present facts. Real information you can use to make up your own mind.

And as for the radio... a great example of what I'm trying to say is the debate over Bush's tax cut. In Congress I hear Democrats saying that 80% of the cut goes to the wealthiest 1% of the population (who I always figured never paid taxes in the first place). On the radio I hear Rush Limbaugh say that's not true and he has the data on his website to PROVE it. He says that 96% of taxes are paid by the wealthiest Americans! so there! if you don't believe me go to my website the data is right there for everyone to see! So I did, and here's the data... the top 50% of Americans by income pay 96% of the taxes. hmmm... So I went to the Census Bureau's website to see what that meant. The 50% mark of our population in income is about $40,000. Rush's data includes the entire middle class (even the lower part). For all we know the top 1% still pay no taxes (or maybe a very small percentage) but it proves nothing, other than he will knowingly mislead you while filling you with catchy phrases to prevent you from arriving at your own conclusions based on real facts.

"Taxes are for little people, WE don't pay taxes" -- Leonna Helmsley

"They paid no taxes for 4 years but somehow, they qualified for $30 million in federal tax return funds" -- CBS news regarding Enron

david k thinks he is pretty smart on this war stuff- NOT!

@shu: "Many people on this board are from the US, are of the voting age and hence can and do affect the policies of the US (I believe that at the time of writing this piece, the US is a Democracy). You could have stopped this war from happening."

Many people believe it's that simple. I don't. The US has a republican form of gov't. (And in this case the electoral college elected a President who did not win the overall US popular vote. One of those bits of our Constitution that people forget about until it comes up. The popular vote in a state determines who wins the state's votes in the electoral college. That's how Florida gained importance in the election.) We don't get a popular vote on the policies and actions of the gov't.

The people vote to elect their representatives, Senators and President. Once they're elected, they can have input from their constituents which include not just the average voters but also corporations and other interests with lobbyists and campaign contributions. I recall one state representative (state gov't) who in a public forum essentially said to a constituent, "Did you donate to my campaign? Who am I going to listen to someone who just votes or someone who contributes money to my campaign?" That's not an anomally or unknown, but it was amazing to see a politician come out and say so in public. To aver that those "special interests" don't have a say in influencing gov't policy and actions would be naive.

As for public opinion, politicians and administrations spend a lot of time and money on people whose job is to try to gauge and "shape" public opinion. To literally "sell" their agenda to the public. Then they can say they have the will of the people behind them. No doubt there are "true believers" influencing Administration policy. But the current actions also are based on a wider basis of self interest that indeed may include, but is not limited to, the safety of the American public and humanitarian concerns for the people of Iraq.

According to an article in Time or Newsweek or one of those mags, Bush decided as early as March 2002 to take out Saddam. In June of 2002 there was funding allocated and a Presidential directive to the CIA (if I recall correctly) for the purpose of infiltrating into Iraq and taking out Saddam if possible. The Administration determined what it was going to do and war plans were developed after that. And essentially a PR campaign was mounted to get people to support it. Going to the UN was a pro forma thing: if a resolution for military action could be passed, fine. If not, the previous resolutions and noncompliance would be used as the justification for military action.

But it is pointed out, the President went to Congress and got support for military action....a bit of arm twisting went into that to get votes of those not initially inclined to support the resolution, I'm sure, and politicians also look out for their own self-interests, not just those of their constituents. Those who voted against military action knew that it would be used against them. Anti-American, traitors, etc, they would be called and have been in some venues. And likely their "no" votes will be used against them by their opponents in their next election campaign.

In 1964 there was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave Congressional authorization for the Viet Nam War. Only much later it was revealed that the Administration knowingly lied to Congress (and the people) in the "facts" it presented to get that resolution passed.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here. But for people perhaps to think the people tell Presidents what to do and they do it, no, it's not that simple and hasn't been for the duration of the Republic.

DavidK - any great attorney will tell you that the real trickery in his craft is not so much in distorting the facts as it is in masterfully controlling which facts the jury is never allowed to see. in every serious "expose" class of book that i've read, the writer tried to show evidences which would hold up under strong scrutiny, and completely neglected a sizable body of contrary evidences which also hold up under scrutiny. caveat emptor. investigators with an agenda see only what they want you to see, and bring back evidence accordingly. when this person is also afflicted with the desire to sell books you have a double demon.

I never mentioned the radio, Dave, and i utterly despise Rush Limbaugh. Like I said, most people who know me wouldn't call me Conservative.

I am vaguely familiar with David Korten through YES! magazine. I don't consider him a conservative, though some left of him do. Populist would be a better description, i think, with a bunch of 'green' mixed in.

"Body of Secrets" is a book i will never read because I despise paranoid expose' disguised as history. When speaking to any conspiracy nut, James Bamford's name invariably comes up. Don't forget, Dave, rural america is the home of 'black UN helicopter' angst, and I live there. No, I doubt i will read that book considering I have been beaten about the head and shoulders with it so many times in arguments with people far, far right of yourself. I've had a lot of it angrily read TO me, anyway...

Greg Palast is where you get your ideas about how the last election was fixed. You knew what I thought of him before you posted.

I didn't read Eric Schlosser's book either, I don't really like gross-out, food-industry muckraking, and frankly the title "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" says all i need to know about the work's objectivity. After going back and reading a few reviews and an interview with him just to be fair to ya, I'm even less interested. lol, Nazis, Disney, and McDonald's, sheesh.

Are you seeing my problem with the books you are listing? These are people, like I said in my last post, who make a living throwing mud at what they consider to be the 'establishment'. That is their goal, and they have a following because of it.

I am an avid member of the T.E. Lawrence Society's mailing list, and I have spent years reading *good* works of historical bent that I disagree with entirely. People who have a point to make can write books one of two ways:

a) they can write a book with historical fact that allows the reader to come to their own conclusion

or they can use history as an excuse and and intersperse it with long streams of opinion.

The kind of books you are pointing out are not, imho, works of solid journalism or historical study, rather opinion-based arguments that use fact as a backdrop. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't go to them to 'learn' or become informed, you go to them to see what so-and-so thinks about a given subject. If you are lucky, they might give ya some evidence.

As for your fiscal politics and figures I'm not even gonna bother, because anyone can easily find an interpretation of tax numbers to say what they want said. Time will tell.

Anyway, the topic was Iraq, and while I am sure any one of your authors could tie McDonald's, the NSA, or disenfranchised florida voters to what is happening there, I doubt seriously the ties would have a whole lot of impact on my opinions on the war. They would be a good way to distract people from the fact there are really good reasons to have this war though, and that the world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

anyone going to explain to Paul that your address/debate the subject and not the person?