Who's the Real Rogue State?

U.S. Threatens North Korea as It Prepares Conquest of Iraq

Revolutionary Worker #1184, January 26, 2003, posted at rwor.org

For a week controversy has raged in the mainstream media, grabbing headlines and magazine covers: "Who is the bigger threat--North Korea or Iraq?"

This phony debate reveals levels of absurdity and dishonesty in U.S. war preparations that demand to be unraveled.

U.S. Global Military Offensive





After conquering Afghanistan, the U.S. has moved on to "Phase 2." The next target is Iraq, a country with no known connection to September 11.

U.S. and British soldiers, bombers and ships are flooding into the Persian Gulf. Desperate for any excuse, the White House says the 11 old and empty Iraqi short-range warheads recently discovered by UN inspectors are "a smoking gun"--i.e., part of the supposed "proof" they need to justify the conquest of Iraq.

Before the U.S. military even launches this unprovoked aggression on Iraq, there comes a "debate" in the U.S. political arena about "who should be next?" And the next candidate is North Korea, another tiny, impoverished third world country with a defiant government that also had no connection with September 11.

General Richard B. Myers chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has approved a 20- to 30-year plan for waging continuing warfare across the planet. This still-secret document, the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism , shifts U.S. military strategy "toward pre-emptive action"--aimed at different states and armed groups across the world. It makes good on the promise of Vice President Dick Cheney to launch a global military offensive that might last a generation.

People are waking up to discover that the U.S. military has moved in all over the world. Huge parts of Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait have been taken over by the U.S. military. The U.S. Navy has set up a major base in the African country of Djibouti to threaten the Red Sea, Yemen, Somalia, and the Sudan. New U.S. bases have sprung up across central Asia and the Caucasus. Turkey is pressured to allow in U.S. ground troops as well as war planes. A decade after leaving the Philippines, U.S. forces are now involved in active combat against anti-government forces. And there is alarming news that U.S. army personnel are carrying out joint military exercises in Nepal, where the brutal Royal government is fighting against a Maoist people's war.

So, it is a good question to ask: "Who is the biggest threat to the people of the world ?"

Time magazine's online European edition asked its readers who they thought was the biggest threat--giving them three choices: Iraq, North Korea, and the United States. By January 16, with over 200,000 responding to this informal vote, over 81.8 percent had said, "The United States."

The Case of North Korea





The cartoon-like picture people get from the mainstream U.S. press goes something like this: "North Korea has, inexplicably, chosen to defy the U.S. and threaten the world. The North Korean government, which has starved its own people to maintain its military strength, has now injected nuclear tension into the Far East and the Korean peninsula by announcing that it has nuclear weapons--and then heightened tensions by tearing up treaties, kicking out inspectors and stepping up its nuclear weapons production. This has presented the U.S. with a dilemma about which part of Bush's Axis of Evil to attack first."

Key facts are missing from this official story:

First, for over 50 years it has been the U.S.that has made nuclear threats in the Far East, specifically threatening North Korea (which is formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea--DPRK).

The U.S. exploded two nuclear weapons in Japan in 1945--to threaten anyone who might challenge the future U.S. control of the entire Far East. After World War 2, northern Korea was liberated from the Japanese, foreign troops left, and an independent government was established.

But the U.S. refused to leave southern Korea or to allow the Korean people to have a united country. A war was fought to expel the U.S. occupiers. The U.S. (flying the UN flag) advanced to the borders of China, threatening the Maoist revolution that had won there in 1949. There was open talk in McCarthy-era America of using nukes against revolutionary China.

Together Korean and Chinese fighters pushed the U.S./UN invaders back to the 38th parallel. In the following decades, the U.S. set up a series of fascistic pro-U.S. regimes that brutalized the people of southern Korea (which is officially known as Republic of Korea--ROK).

The U.S. packed southern Korea with troops. By the 1980s, the ROK was the most nuclear-wired place on the planet. U.S. forces threatened the north with strategic nuclear weapons (long-range missiles) plus an array of tactical nuclear weapons (including nuclear artillery and land mines). The U.S. claims it withdrew those tactical nukes in the 1990s--but that is not verified.

North Korea is alleged to have at most one or two primitive and untested nuclear "devices" (and there is no actual evidence of that). North Korea has the ability to send its missiles only a few hundred miles past its borders.

In short: It is the U.S. that introduced nuclear warfare into the Far East and makes nuclear threat the currency in Korea--just as it was the U.S. (and its ally Israel) who introduced nuclear threats into the Middle East.

Who Rejected Negotiations and Tore Up Treaties?





The U.S. tried to make the North Korean government collapse under the weight of permanent war tension along with economic pressures.

Apart from the 50-year-old military stand-off at the 38th parallel, North Korea has threatened no one. But the intense U.S. policy of threat and economic isolation was intended to weaken North Korea. North Korea--a country of 22 million people--developed armed forces estimated to be about 1 million strong in order to face threats from the largest superpower in history. The DPRK developed into an impoverished revisionist country. (Revisionist means "phony communist"--where the government claims to be socialist but is in fact oppressive and state capitalist.)

The U.S. still refuses to negotiate a treaty ending the Korean war (after 50 years of hostility!). It is widely reported in the world press that a key goal of North Korea remains to simply have the U.S. sign a peace treaty.

Meanwhile, it is the U.S. that has been tearing up treaties--including the specific treaty dealing with North Korea's nuclear program.

In 1994, the U.S. government, headed by Bill Clinton, threatened a military attack on North Korean nuclear power plants and military facilities. In response North Korea, in a treaty called "the Agreed Framework," agreed to put its nuclear program on hold--including giving up nuclear power plants that could produce weapons material, even though its economy desperately needed more electrical power. (Despite North Korea's public claim of Juche --the nationalist credo of self-reliance--the DPRK was highly dependent on the Soviet bloc during the '70s and '80s and fell into crisis after trade and subsidies stopped following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.)

In exchange for a shutdown of nuclear plants, the U.S. government agreed to provide North Korea with fuel oil and nuclear reactors that do not produce weapon materials and to move toward normalized relations.

The U.S. government did not honor this agreement. The desperately needed power plants were never built. In response, the North Korean government sent a little reminder in 1999--testing an unarmed rocket by shooting it into the Pacific Ocean.

When Bush came to power, the U.S. government stopped any negotiations with North Korea and named the DPRK part of the so-called "Axis of Evil." In crude racist language, Bush personally called DPRK leader Kim Jung Il a "pygmy."

So while the U.S. complains about North Korea supposedly "tearing up treaties" it is in fact the U.S.that has been doing this. Not only did they tear up the bilateral agreement with North Korea but they have also torn up major multi -lateral treaties, including the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the Kyoto Protocols on greenhouse gasses.

The U.S. military is now installing 20 new interceptor missiles in Alaska, including on one base only a few hundred miles from North Korea. These missiles (if they work) will enable the U.S. to threaten a nuclear first strike against both North Korea and China.

Given this situation, is it any wonder that the DPRK restarted their existing nuclear power plants? They asked the UN inspectors to leave--since the U.S. had torn up the treaty those inspectors were enforcing. The North Korean government also withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--a move which is legally allowed by that treaty itself.

In short, the U.S. imposed an unequal treaty, the "Agreed Framework," on North Korea-- using open military threat--and then tore up that treaty. Now the U.S. acts like it is the DPRK that is warlike and irrational.

A Glimpse of the Real World





"These days average South Koreans speak openly of their solidarity with the North, while youngsters tear apart American flags on the streets of Seoul. A recent Gallup poll finds that 53 percent of South Koreans view the United States unfavorably."





The New Republic , Jan. 14, 2003





A 26-year-old South Korean student recently told the New York Times: "A country that is threatened with nuclear weapons has the right to have nuclear weapons."

In the nakedly imperialist political climate in today's U.S., such sentiments are treated as shocking and bizarre. Official America doesn't believe that other countries have any sovereign right to resist U.S. demands. The U.S. government calls itself "the good guys." It pretends to be "protecting" the people of South Korea. It portrays its opponents as "evildoers and rogue states, led by madmen with weapons of mass destruction."

Some questions: If the U.S. military is defending democracy against "terrorists" and "tyrants"--then why are U.S. moves so unpopular around the world? Why do the massive demonstrations in South Korea target the U.S., not the North?

U.S. imperialists have occupied southern Korea for 50 years and prevented reunification of the country. They have imposed a world of capitalist sweatshops and harsh repressive governments. U.S. occupation troops have raped Korean women, seized Korean land, turned the country into a permanent war zone, and generally run amok. They are hated.

So back to our starting question: Who is the real "rogue state"?

Billions of people see the self-appointed cop of the world acting like the emperor of the world.

Even many reactionary governments and ambitious powers see their interests threatened by the U.S. In late December the White House proposed "a comprehensive plan to intensify financial and political pressure on North Korea." The idea fell apart because North Korea's neighbors--China, South Korea, and Russia--refused to join a U.S. embargo.

Final questions: Can this ruthless, reckless superpower really succeed in swallowing the huge, beautiful, diverse, complex planet we live on? Will humanity really be bombed and steamrollered into a nightmarish McWorld run by U.S. corporations and commandos? Doesn't this situation demand fierce and fearless resistance?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online

rwor.org

Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654

Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497



http://rwor.org

http://rwor.org/S/antiwar_e.htm - read revolutionary analysis of the US "War on Terrorism"

http://2changetheworld.info - Discuss revolutionary strategy and the RCP's Draft Programme

The Left loves to portray the US as the Great Satan, much the way the Soviets did, and as Al Queda does today.

They of course know better.

They know, for example, that while Stalin was killing millions in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, the United States provided peace and prosperity to Europe and Japan.

While the Soviet Union built a wall to keep its people from escaping, immigrants from around the world continued to seek refuge in the US.

While some 30 million Chinese Peasants starved during the ludicously titled "Great Leap Forward", the United States donated millions of tons of food to nations all around the world.

After WWII, while the US demobilized its forces, and millions of American soldiers returned home to start peaceful lives. . . the French re-Colonized Indochina and Algiera. . . and the North Koreans plotted an attack on the South.

No nation has done more to spread peace and prosperity around the world than the United States. This author knows that and can't dispute it. So the author misrepresents, lies and distorts.

Such has always been the way of the enemies of freedom.

They know, for example, that while Stalin was killing millions in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, the United States provided peace and prosperity to Europe and Japan. ""

does that include dropping nuclear bombs on japan

Gee, J-Blo, did you, BushBlower and Simpleton (AKA Pvt. Fido) all take the same conservative writing course? You all write in the same mind-numbing self-congratulatory style.

You and J-Lo have soemthing in common; she has a big ass, and you are a big ass.

hey hey leave J-Los ass out of it

thats just unnecessarily makin a big issue a really really large issue

Jay Lowe the point is that much of the good that the US does is done in its own interest. For that reason america has also done a lot bad things in the world. What makes people around the world angry at america is not the fact that america does or has bad (for every country does or has done bad) but the fact that in spite of its bad actions it continues to flood the world with rhetoric about it being a defender of justice and all.

Given how utterly irrelevant the lefts' views are, their worth is purely in entertainment value. At the end of the day everything that needs to happen to keep the US strong and defended WILL happen. Of course.

I am constantly amused, in a sick sort of way, with the boot licking Bushophiles who equate the use of military arms with patriotism and bellicosity with courage. Freedom and Patriotism are not measured by the numbers of skulls piled in the public square. Because the DESERTER Bush wants to have a nice war with somebody else’s kids does not make it in the best interests of the American Nation. The interests of American based Multinationals is not equivalent to what is good for the American Nation.

To quote Major General and former Commandant of the Marine Corps Smedley Butler (one of only 19 men to win the Congressional Medal of Honor twice):

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. ONLY A SMALL INSIDE GROUP KNOWS WHAT IT IS ABOUT. [emphasis added; the Carlyle Group? Unocal?] It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a NATION [emphasis added] comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. ...”

I wish old Smedley were still alive - he was a General not a fawning political sycophant. For those of us who have worn a uniform to stand in defense of our homeland it was done to to stand in defense - not to participate in Wars of Conquest for the sick amusement of pseudo-patriots and fair weather Hussars. I did not put on a uniform to stand in defense of Unocal’s right to build a pipeline in Piplinestan, nor to see the blood of my brothers in arms left in some godforsaken desert so that the American Elites, who never serve themselves, can take control of Iraq’s Oil Fields.

Some selected snippets:

“No nation has done more to spread peace and prosperity around the world than the United States. This author knows that and can't dispute it. So the author misrepresents, lies and distorts. “

Here are some great examples for you:

The School of the America’s - training Death Squads for over 20 years.

The overthrow of the Guatemalan government for that great patriotic cause United Fruit Co.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving - Depleted Uranium - now killing our own loyal soldiers in addition to Iraqi Children.

And of course because Mao and Stalin were mass murderer’s that justifies the United States taking over 3rd World Countries with Oil Fields.

One does not have to be a leftist to support or oppose tyranny.

And BA - because one opposes the insane blood soaked policies of the current clique in power does not make one anti-American. It means you oppose those policies. Doubly so when they are sold as in “American Interest” when the reality is that they are in the Elite’s Interests. The two are not an identity.

These perfidious dissidents are not simply 'opposing current government policy.'

Groups like http://www.nion.us/ are openly advocating sedition.

I'm all for the right to protest and march. But it's time for us to register unpatriotic protesters, photograph them, fingerprint them, and get them into our homeland security database.

If there is to be a demonstration then they should buy an individual 'event permit'. The justice department should have a detailed record of their movements. These are recreant subversives with traitorous leanings and they do need to be carefully monitored.

The author of this piece has been around a block. He was a teen-aged
Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin Reservoir
in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces
officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and
went back to Korea. He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts
on countries that don't "like" us.

Why They Don't They Like Us

If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete now.
If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen.

Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being
taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last
time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I
prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. That worked for Rome, which civilized and kept
the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two
centuries-plus. I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by
campaigning against the foreign policy of the United States.

Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good
neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a
war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in
while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think
it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd
save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying
the bills for their own defense.

Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked
us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see
how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the
Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a
few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry also. For
those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first
time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French.

That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care
about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right;
sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.

Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem
recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our
kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a
year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.

Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They
"liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000
Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently
enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys
home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ
separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we
leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea
currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.

I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't
"like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have
to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die?
Commit ritual suicide? Bend over?

Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the
drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care
centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans
Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them.
Senator Stupid says if we would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would
love us. Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of
those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years,
I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a
bomb strapped to the guy next to me.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that.
Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this
country about other countries, and see if we "like" THEM. Problem is, if you
listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if
he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to
worry about them, how about them worrying about us?

We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994 as we followed the policies of
Neville (as in Chamberlain) Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't
re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we
fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were
freezing.

In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my
cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this
thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping the
atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the
stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping
ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him
that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant
time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they
didn't all survive.I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the
"American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian!

Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our
house, and we don't seem to like anyone.

AMEN !!!!!

Did I really just read that? Did you (BA) actually write this?

"These perfidious dissidents are not simply 'opposing current government policy.'

Groups like http://www.nion.us/ are openly advocating sedition.

"I'm all for the right to protest and march. But it's time for us to register unpatriotic protesters, photograph them, fingerprint them, and get them into our homeland security database.

If there is to be a demonstration then they should buy an individual 'event permit'. The justice department should have a detailed record of their movements. These are recreant subversives with traitorous leanings and they do need to be carefully monitored."



Should I start wearing a yellow Star of David? Or a purple "P" for Protestor? How about an "F" for free-thinker?

Equating all people who oppose the current "leaning forward" regime by linking them to ANSWER and NION is equivalent to linking people in the current administration with subverting democracy because they are from the same party as Nixon. I, personally, don't share that myopic herd/groupthink mentality, despite the pressures of mainstream American news to limit us to such.

Same for saying America is bad (which it is not!) because of the "bad" things we do. This willfully overlooks the countless "good" things we do. Things must be taken on the balance, in perspective, and in context. What people should (and are) doing is questioning this countries ADMINISTRATION and it's POLICIES. That is not un-patriotic. That is at the core of a free people and democracy.

If the policies of the current administration are so righteous and valid, hold them up for all to see. Release the information some of us HOPE they are in possession of, so that we might say to the international world, "Enough with the rethoric! This is what we know - not think. Here is where they are. Here is the supporting documentation exposing the information we have collected over the years."

Otherwise it's all lip-service anyways.

I'd say fingerprint, photograph, and interrogate AWARE and NION crazies. Couldn't hurt to have flag burners fill out a questionaire asking about criminal record, citizenship and visa status, any time in a mental hospital, countries visited in the past 5 years, etc.

I'd be happy to submit to that sort of procedure if I wanted to march in the same parade those guys were in.

BA, recently you worte a screed (your state of the union) in which you cursed those who post to LA-IMC as, was it unpatriotic? crazy? I forget which.

Well, its nice to see that you too will be standing in solitdarity with all free thinking people of america.

sincerely

I worry about who would be the arbiter of defining these groups as loonies or crazies.

I mean, who would do it? You? Me? None of us are the man from the bridge in Monty Python's Holy Grail who can demand you "answer me these questions three, 'ere the other side you'll see!"

It's not for the government to tell us what the will of the people is. It's the will of the people that dictates the method and manner in which the government operates AT THEIR BEHEST. Anything else is NOT a democracy. If the will of the people changes, the government must either reflect that, or face the historical consequences of coup, revolution, election, or invasion.

While it strains the mind watching the events surrounding Iraq and the War on Terrorism unfold, I still maintain a shard of hope that our administration is acting in what they genuinely believe to be our best interest. If not, they are outright megalomaniacs, determined to strike at the core of anything, anywhere, anytime, that threatens the perceived American "prosperity."

And, yes, that involves oil. not as a physical manifestation, but as one of the cogs, albeit a major one, in the machinery which maintains the American economic juggernaut. Fluctuations in oil prices (or the ludicrously dubbed "futures") have dramatic impacts on markets world-wide. In the neuvo-economy we have maintained since hitching aboard the Federal Reserve train to the sky, this is where the "people who know" determine its strength. Sure, they look at other indicators (unemployment, GDP, GNP) and try to devine some grand import and, voila, modify the interest rates to convince people to buy, buy, buy. This is the "strength" of the American Economy. Not what anything is actually WORTH, but rather the combined purchasing power of our consumers. Not how they are going to pay for it, although the typical spender can not just enter deficit spending as cavalierly as our government (and YES - I hold both main political parties in contempt for this).

It sounds like we're betting the farm (economy, safety, and American Prosperity) on being able to effectively steer regime changes in lands endowed with the natural resource of oil and gas. I and the majority of Americans do not reap the benefits (read: profits) of these changes. That is already ear-marked for coporations we will need to provide military "assistance" to so that they may protect their "assets." But we sure do feel the pinch when they fail.

I have said before, and will say again: I am for removing Saddam Hussein from power. His war machinery, as with many other despots, was built up with some helping hands from Uncle Sam. His invasion of Kuwait, however, should reverberate loudly with the international community. No, he is not Hitler, but that doesn't make his contempt for sovereign nations any less tyrannical. That act ALONE should grind the teeth of anyone who remembers WWII. It should jar our minds that we allow such callousness. Damn ourselves for allowing that. For allowing the on-going genocide in Rwanda and sub-Saharan Africa. Damn us for allowing Milosevic to rise to such power.

But don't guise it in the pretext "humanitarianism" or "WMD." These all echo as rhetoric. Humanitarianism would've demanded we cease all contact with Hussein when he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. As for WMD, we coul finally let America "take one for the team" and expose the sordid history of arming ruthless dictators for short-term strategic political benefit by detailing what weapons, technology, information, and biological components we (US gov't, US corporations, US laboratories) have been supplied to Iraq.

But that would take truth. That would take moral conviction and strength. These are not qualities the current administration is willing to share.

It's ironic that so many lefties cling to the false belief that Iraq is about oil and corporate interests.

The short term outlook is that a war in the middle east causes a panic, a rapid escalation in the price of oil, and big problems for the oil companies.

The longer term outlook is that a war in the middle east causes a regime change in Iraq. The new government, wanting money to energize and rebuild Iraq, floods the market with oil driving prices way down, and creating big problems for the oil companies.

There is no scenario where oil companies directly benefit from a war with Iraq. And there is surely no motive on the part of the Bush Administration to pursue a war in order to benefit oil companies.

That dog won't hunt.

B.A.
ps -- look for GWB's approval ratings to soar (again) after tonights state of the union.
pps -- look for the Democrats to make complete fools of themselves (again) with their dumbass response to the state of the union.

You would favor completely nationalized oil companies in the newly-liberated Iraq, yes?

Marc - I don't favor nationalized anything. If the government tries to run it, it'll get screwed up for sure. Natonalized companies are born dead and have little chance to escape the yoke of mediocrity.

However, the decision as to what to do with their oil would be left to the new government in Iraq. I would hope they'd be smart enough to encourage the development of private Iraqi oil companies, rather than state run bureaucracy.

They would doubtless need to contract with foreign companies for the technical expertise, tools, and facilities. I wouldn't care which countries they get that from, nor would the Bush Administration.

It's completely ludicrous to think that this Iraq confrontation has anything to do with oil.

The left wants to get rid of Capitalism and replace it with what? They are pre-kindergarten when it comes to their level of comprehension of economics, commerce, technology, and innovation.

Not oil.

Speaking a freind (a classic liberal neocon) who know people in the know, he said "Its not about oil its about power." Of course, oil is a part of the power this war will bring, but its about much more. Right now, our military reach has expanded thousand fold in the gulf. Bush is reshuffling international order. He is leading by action, not by word. This is about the freedom to act (irrationaly and poorly) and the power to dictate to the world Bush's notion of right and wrong.

As Bush says, its about making either the UN or a "coalition of the willing" into funtioning institutions. Funcitoning meaning, legitimizing American power and having some justification to back it up.

Oil is one part, but its not about oil. Oil is the bonus.

Yea, right, Bush is just a greedy self serving power monger.

That's why he's setting up an Aids initiative to provide drugs and Aids prevention to poor black Africans. Clearly a power grab.

And that's why he wants to set up a mentoring program for the children of prison inmates. Another power grab.

Prescription drugs and health care initiatives. Another power grab! Wonder if that's got something to do with oil too?

Gee I wonder if it's possible that Saddam might really be a bad guy? Might really be buying materials to make weapons of mass destruction? Might really be harboring, financing, and equipping Al Queda with weapons? Naaawwwwww. Nope, that's just a fabrication to justify going after the oil. Don't believe me? Ask any left wing loon, they'll confirm it.

Yes greedy for power, thats why the adminstration is going into the gulf. I didn't say anything excuse Saddam, I didn't excuse Al Queda.

And why his he doing all the other things you mentioned?...politics. I'd even say that he might even care about some of the issues he's throwing money at.

Power can be benevolent, power can be hell. But regardless of how it acts, as long as its in charge, its happy.

But this is about power. Remaking, as his father said "a new world order."

Key points and initiatives in Bush's State of the Union address:

IRAQ

?Secretary of State Colin Powell will address the U.N. Security Council next Wednesday on evidence linking Iraq to terrorists and on Baghdad's refusal to disarm.

(Leftist denial is getting even harder)

?The world cannot afford to wait until the threat from Iraq is plainly imminent, Bush argues. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

(Bingo)

WAR ON TERRORISM

?A new Terrorist Threat Integration Center will gather and analyze intelligence from a wide array of agencies working at home and abroad.

(Our intelligence services have been hamstrung by 'politically correct' bullshit, Clinton oversight, and too many lawyers. Good move to integrate and empower them).

?Asked Congress for billion over a decade to quickly make available vaccines and treatments against bioweapons such as anthrax and plague.

(Looking out for our safety is the right thing to do George).

AFRICA AIDS

?Seeks billion over five years to combat AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.

(How are the anti-Bush dorks going to spin this? Clearly a much needed humanitarian initiative by one heck of a good President).

MEDICARE

?Sought 0 billion over 10 years to change Medicare, offering older Americans the choice of programs that include prescription drug benefits.

(Needed, good move)

SOCIAL SECURITY

?Renewed his call for private Social Security retirement accounts.

(Long overdue - anything privatised is better than anything mismanaged by government bureaucrats)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

?Urged lawmakers to cap certain damages in malpractice awards.

(Those scumbag trial lawyers do need to be reigned in -- good move George)

ABORTION

?Asked Congress to ban a procedure critics call "partial-birth abortion" and all human cloning.

(OK, so you needed to toss a chip to the religious right for their support. Not a very big one).

ENVIRONMENT

?Proposed spending .2 billion over an unspecified period to speed the development of hydrogen-powered, zero-emission fuel cell vehicles.

(A big big move if the technology can really be commercialized. It would reduce foreign oil dependency, revive the US automobile industry, and reduce pollution).

DRUG TREATMENT

?Sought a 0 million increase in federal spending over the next three years to help treat Americans with drug addition.

(I'd rather lock them up or deport them, but treatment is OK too).

MENTORS

?Called for 0 million over three years to connect mentors with 1 million children of prisoners and disadvantaged adolescents.

(Be nice if we could somehow put these kids on the right track. At present they're headed for prison too, just like their parents).

GROWING DEFICITS

?Confronted critics who say his tax cuts and new spending are driving deficits to record levels, saying his economic growth policies would bring in more tax revenues. He demanded "spending discipline" from lawmakers.

(Liberals never did understand economics. They still don't. Full speed ahead George. Your already high approval ratings are about to soar even higher).

MOST ENJOYABLE PARTS OF THE SPEECH

- Seeing the depressed and beaten looks on the faces of Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, etc. They knew George was delivering a knock-out speech, making Hillary and Tom even more trivial than they already were.

I have to admit the speech was definitely a knock-out I was half asleep and fighting to do my duty to listen to all the blather before he got through his first five minutes.

The only thing missing, other than policies putting the government back within Constitutional boundaries, was “stirring” martial music.

Here is a sampling of telling reactions to this tour de farce (from both Left and Right):

“Mr. President, I love flowery speeches given by unconcerned demagogues such as yourself, but this speech so totally lacked reason. However, I was impressed that Hillary (and her democrapic ilk) could be made to stand and clap their little flippers like trained seals. ....

...Finally, Mr. President, when you began referencing small time demagogues that picked on inferior countries and were able to grow into tyrants that threatened world peace, I couldn't help but see your face replacing Hitler's in the annals of history. You, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ridge, Rice, Wolfowicz and Sharon will go down in history as the second coming of the NAZI anti-christs. And you shouldn't have any trouble financing your evil intentions Mr. President, because your Grand-Father, Prescott (Skull and Bones) Bush probably passed on his knowledge and experience to your CIA butcher dad. Prescott Bush was actually charged with three counts of aiding the enemy after World War II for laundering and supplying funds to Hitler's war machine.

Mr. President, you sir, are a warmongering, greedy murderer, using the past greatness of this nation to support your takeover of other nations and their property, namely oil.” - Bob Sheidt Editorial Posted to APFN



“U.S. President George Bush struggled mightily last night to rally skeptical Americans to an unpopular war in Iraq. The State of the Union bully pulpit is a powerful one and he used it for all its worth.

But the relentless, sweeping ferocity of Bush's vow to fight Saddam Hussein's "evil"and "terrible threats" — plus earlier hints that Washington is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iraq and a firestorm of cruise missiles — suggest that the president is fighting his way out of a corner as he tries to persuade his country, and the world, that war is wise and necessary.” - Toronto Star



“One has to go back to the lesser Roman emperors of the second century to find an imperial suzerain as dismal as Bush. Tuesday's was surely the worst State of the Union address to Congress in the past thirty years, as the commander-in-chief stumbled through a thicket of brazen fictions towards the proposed rendez-vous with destiny of February 5, the day Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to make his way to the United Nations to present the administration's latest "intelligence" confection on the topic of Saddam's deceits.” Alexander Cockburn in “CounterPunch”

The overt use of misinformation and disinformation was spectacular. My favorite was the recounting of numbers of weapons that Saddam had prior to Gulf Massacre I and the dishonest presumption that despite the U.S. Army blowing up his stockpiles following Gulf Massacre I that they were unaccounted for. I wonder if Ari Goebbels wrote that for him?

“President Bush’s plan to end the double taxation of stock dividends, which I support, has been both lauded and denounced by the usual factions in Washington. Some of the President’s supporters, however, make the argument that a dividend tax cut will boost stock prices. While tax cuts are always good for the economy, it’s dangerous to promote the idea that government can create value in the financial markets. The collapse of stock prices in the last two years provides stark evidence that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies of the 1990s did not create lasting prosperity, and we should understand that tax policy is no different. Centralized planning via tax policy is every bit as harmful as centralized planning in monetary policy.” - Rep. Ron Paul (R) TX

Continued confusion by a proliferation of new tax policies and procedures is not reform. Reduction in taxation is a good thing but Bush has yet to reduce the size and scope of government and is spending money like a drunken Sailor. Which is actually an insult to the Sailor because he is spending his own money. Our Byzantine and confiscatory Income Tax is arguably unconstitutional and needs to be truly simplified or eliminated. I would prefer elimination.

As the price of gold continues upward past 360 dollars ( a year ago it was trading about 100 dollars less). The wonders of inflationary monetary policy become boldly evident as indicating a loss of confidence in the Dollar - which is also being reflected in European Currency Markets as the dollar takes a dive.

Also among his great accomplishments are total lack of progress on reducing meaningless regulatory burdens which have driven U.S. Manufacturing off shore. We are not going to survive in a “Service Economy” flipping whoppers for each other. However, with his Forest Initiative I am sure that many new jobs destroying our common heritage will be created.

And the most enjoyable part of the speech?: THE END