Hank Roth
RULERS OF THE WORLD
Sat Apr 19 16:49:10 2003
208.152.73.190

RULERS OF THE WORLD

"The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, that
it intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns
supreme. Apart from the conventional bow to noble intentions that is the
standard (hence meaningless) accompaniment of coercion, its leaders are
committed to pursuit of their "imperial ambition," as it is frankly
described in the leading journal of the foreign policy establishment -
critically, an important matter. They have also declared that they will
tolerate no competitors, now or in the future. They evidently believe
that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they
can dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their way. There is good
reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to teach
the world some lessons about what lies ahead when the empire decides to
strike a blow -- though "war" is hardly the proper term, given the array
of forces." [Noam Chomsky, "Confronting the Empire", February 01, 2003 -
quote in ZNET (April 2003)]

George Bush is emboldened to take anything he wants by force. He did it in
Afghanistan and routed the Taliban even though that country is far from
pacified and if not for American troops there to guard the president and
the pipeline that country would be embroiled in a very hot civil war. It
may come to that but the objective was not nation building, stated often,
it was to destroy al-Qaeda; the public rationalization and to get rid a
very bad regime, who was also OUR one time favorite regime in Afghanistan,
the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is not destroyed. Osama bin Laden is still at large
and there are elements of the Taliban in the country and War Lords with
their own spheres of power and influence.

And in Iraq the military government is already being objected to and the
Iraqis are not happy about exile outsiders being imposed on them as their
new rulers.

George Bush is a new kind of president; he was unelected but appointed by
the Supreme Court and he has very limited experience. Some said that might
be a good thing but these limitations show up most flagrantly in the way
he relates to other heads of state, not as their equal but superior to
them, and obviously by his attitude to democracy. His form is alien to
anything that has ever existed before in America. His is an arrogant
democratic top down form not much differnt from Stalinist top down
democracy. While his subjects may disagree and voice dissent, he gets even
and ignores their dissent. Democracy would be desireable for Iraq as long
as it is the democracy he establishes there and the rulers he hand picks
for them. He is not intending to provide them with a franchise to decide
for themselves and if they did and their choices were not to his liking he
would change them. That is not any kind of democracy ever practiced
before and not one that would take American democracy as it's model.

George Bush, like his father, will do everything he must do as president
to insure concentrated power and wealth in the hands of the rich and
wealth as Karl Marx elucidated concentrates at the top - just like George
Bush's democracy. Wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a
few and poverty is spread widely in the hands of the many.

All social-economic studies show the same thing, that the disparity
between rich and poor continues to get worse. Income disparity is much
greater than it has been since the great depression. The gap between rich
and poor is wider than it has ever been. The distraction of a war and
terrorism doesn't hurt George Bush and in fact helps his popularity
because he is perceived as a leader who is doing something about it. It
gives the poor something else to fear besides their own condition and many
do fear terrorism -- which they would never equate to their president.
Harnessing and redirecting their disatisfaction into a productive anger
against Muslims is what has happened. This dumbing down of the populace
engenders a racist reaction to terrorism. Acts of terrorism carried out
against U.S. targets is also a barbaric response to U.S. interventionism,
and a western, Christian, Jewish presence in Muslim countries - AND
OUR WARS FOR OIL.

Michael Parenti points out in "America Besieged that for many years now
the concentration of wealth has been concentrating globally to where
poverty has been increasing globally faster than the earth's population.

OIL and to Project Power - to Conquer the World

All those arguments I've heard that we don't need their oil or we could
simply buy it or we could get it cheaper if we didn't go to war for it or
we could take it out of Kuwait, etc... HOWEVER, all ignore the fact that
Saudi Arabia has become more radicalized and that tap may be closed and it
is about control, not necessarily what we use since we get most of our oil
elsewhere, and Iraq is there for the taking with an easy war since we have
weakened them already with debilitating sanctions and bombing them for the
last 12 years and their oil is when fully exploited as much as Saudi
Arabia and maybe even more. Besides, the best refutation that costs are
socialised, benefits are privatised is described by Milan Rai in "Oil and
War" (Feb 1, 2003) and quoted in Znet:

"There are two issues here - the value of Iraqi oil to US corporations,
and the question of imperial cost/benefit analysis. Taking the second
question first, throughout history imperial powers have expended more in
wars of conquest and subjugation than could be earned from the colonies
acquired or subdued. The US wars in Indochina are a staggering example of
how disproportionate economic costs can be relative to perceived material
benefits. The costs of empire are borne by society as a whole, while the
benefits of empire are enjoyed by the influential few. Therefore, in
general, for those who make policy - who share interests and viewpoints
with those who hold domestic power - it is entirely rational to use the
resources of society to secure the interests of the wealthy and powerful,
even if expenditure far exceeds projected returns. Costs are socialised,
benefits are privatised. That is the reality of our 'free market'
economy."

And because costs of war are socialized and the benefits are privatised
there is less reluctance to prosecute these wars by the ruling elite.
There should however be a much greater reluctance from the masses to
fight their dirty wars and bare the costs of those wars.

Rai goes on to write: "Iraq possesses the
second largest proven oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia.
The world's proven oil reserves are roughly 1,000bn barrels of oil.
Iraq's proven reserves total 112bn barrels, over a tenth of all known
oil supplies."

AND as the Economist points out,
'The big prize is control of the country's oil reserves.'

Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
=============================

• Sheriffs and police chiefs take note! — Billy-Joe, Sat Apr 19 17:03