State sponsored crime

[C1ay]

I find it amusing that no one has mentioned the state sponsored theft of earnings.

[niviene]

I find it amusing that no one has mentioned the state sponsored theft of earnings.

 

Wow, yea, as I said, I just look around and see "normal" - hard to think outside the box sometimes, if I may use such an abused cliche.... That's a good one.

[nkt]

The list of places where there was no oil (including Afganistan) far outstrips the list where there is (isn't Iraq the only example?). Besides, exactly how does the US benefit from the Iraqi oil anyway? It is their oil. We are spending money to get the oil fields working to that they can keep the oil. How is the US benefiting exactly?

Did you miss the Afghan "massive natural gas reserves" bit? And the fact that the oil pipelines through Afghanistan are critical to the flow of oil from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1626889.stm from Monday, 29 October, 2001, 20:56 GMT "Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"

 

Zimbabwe has been ignoring everyone for years now, yet there aren't even decent sanctions in place.

 

Panama and Grenada were both obviously to protect US interests in the area.

 

Bosnia and Somalia, the UN told the USA to get in there. Bosnia ran the risk of destabilising Europe, and Somalia... Well, they have strategic importance, but it is mostly because they have been at constant war since the 1970's. The UN and USA got kicked about a lot there, too, leading to troop withdrawal. Without oil or other resources, what would have been the point of staying?

 

On a related note, some US commentators are suggesting that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is just too expensive. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL&hw=Casualty+Of+War&sn=001&sc=1000

"The cost of the Iraq war probably isn't worth it." Worth a read. After all, Bin Laden bankrupted the Soviet empire, and now he's after the USA!

[nkt]

:xx:

[Biochemist]

Did you miss the Afghan "massive natural gas reserves" bit? ...

What is the point of this? Assets of the (nearly impoverished) Afgan government have little to do with US involvement there. I suppose you could always identify some potential benefit for the US other than the obvious ones stated by the US government, but why bother? Oil is usually a good bogey-man.

 

Bush (in this case) is just doing what he said. You can like it or not, but he belives that it would serve US anti-terrorism interests to have a democracy in the region. Wouldn't it just be easier to disagree with the policy than to make up secret conspiracy stories?

 

FYI, Clinton went into Bosnia withou UN approval, not with the UN's sponsorship. That was probably the right answer at the time, given the lag in getting UN approval. Bush had UN approval, Clinton did not.

[Biochemist]

On a related note, some US commentators are suggesting that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is just too expensive. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL&hw=Casualty+Of+War&sn=001&sc=1000

"The cost of the Iraq war probably isn't worth it." Worth a read. After all, Bin Laden bankrupted the Soviet empire, and now he's after the USA!

Many have thought that for quite a while. I don't happen to agree (on pure economics, not politics) but that is just my opinion.

 

The direct costs of the 9/11 attacks were in the neighborhood of $100 billion, just in New York and DC. If you add in the effects on the economy, the costs are betwen $500 billion and one trillion, depending how you count. I think the war has cost about $300 billion to date (I frankly don't know the total because budgets are usually allocated and spent for a ways into the future). I expect that the Iraq war costs will exceed $500 billion. But we are trying to prevent another series of expensive attacks, both in terms of dollars and loss of life.

 

Personally, capitalist economies like the US thrive on stability. Terrorism is certainly destablilizing, and cost the economy significantly. I don't think the war is a net cost. It is a net gain if it prevents future attacks.

[Boerseun]

I think we're all missing the point here.

 

The danger is that the US might be abusing its power, and US citizens won't know about it, because they are blinded by misplaced patriotism. Back to the whole nazi-issue, and where culpability lies.

 

That's a real danger, and can't be denied.

 

Bio - I'll answer you on your previous post regarding Afghanistan - but right now I'm going to bed. I'm full of sawdust and grinder-dust, and tired as hell.

 

Good night one, good night all.

[Biochemist]

The danger is that the US might be abusing its power, and US citizens won't know about it, because they are blinded by misplaced patriotism. ...

This seems like sort of a misplaced assertion. The US has among the most free-press marketplaces in the world. Your posts are evidence of that.

 

It is a little bizarre that you think US citizens will not see what is going on. 45% of US citizens don't like their president. Even the average is somewhere in the low 40's over the last 50 years, which makes Bush a little worse than usual in term of public support.

 

Why would you think that US citizens would tolerate abuse of power, when we are discussing whether use of power is appropriate in a public forum?

[infamous]

This seems like sort of a misplaced assertion. The US has among the most free-press marketplaces in the world. Your posts are evidence of that.

 

?

I agree Bio, he is exercising rights that he chooses to either ignore he has or, is simply unaware that he has them when many others don't. I'm certain that he would be very disappointed if his right to complain were ever taken away. I believe he can thank the U.S. for returning this very thing to the European continent after WWII. And helping maintain it beyond the reign of the Soviets. I'm sure he appreciates these freedoms, he just likes to exercise his right to complain.

[Boerseun]

Bio, Infamous - we're still missing the point here.

 

And, ranting and raving over the internet is not using or abusing my 'freedoms' as given to me by the United States. I'm not even close to the States.

 

My previous posting regarding "Reality Check" needs an addendum. Here goes:

 

5) Not all websites are hosted on servers in the USA

6) I don't need to thank the USA because my freedoms are guaranteed in my country's constitution - we kinda did that all ourselves.

[Chacmool]

Bio, Infamous - we're still missing the point here.

 

And, ranting and raving over the internet is not using or abusing my 'freedoms' as given to me by the United States. I'm not even close to the States.

 

My previous posting regarding "Reality Check" needs an addendum. Here goes:

 

5) Not all websites are hosted on servers in the USA

6) I don't need to thank the USA because my freedoms are guaranteed in my country's constitution - we kinda did that all ourselves.

I agree. In fact, the US made one hell of a mess when they meddled in the Angolan war. I'm just lucky that my dad got out of that horror alive - many others weren't so lucky.

 

So I think the freedom I currently enjoy is not thanks to the US, but despite them.

[nkt]

Bio, Infamous - we're still missing the point here.

 

And, ranting and raving over the internet is not using or abusing my 'freedoms' as given to me by the United States. I'm not even close to the States.

Same here. Except that *because* of the USA, I now have significantly less freedom than I did before the "War on Ideas" started, what with the new anti-terror laws the UK passes every five minutes at the USA's behest.

[Biochemist]

...My previous posting regarding "Reality Check" needs an addendum. Here goes... Not all websites are hosted on servers in the USA...

B-

 

I was responind to your point that US citizens would somehow not see missteps of misjudgements in their political leadership. I was not talking about you, or your opinion. I was talking about US citizens.

 

It is a stretch of reason to suggest that the US citizenry will let the US government off of the hook. We impeached two presidents in 50 years for malfeasance. Do you think the French will ever do that? Is "French malfeasance" redundant?

[nkt]

Just like the USA, the French had a revolution many years ago, which lead to the nations that they currently are.

 

The French recently rejected the proposed EU constitution, despite government pressure. I don't see the USA rejecting anything the government wants at the moment.

[IrishEyes]

I just wanted you guys to know that I've been keeping track of this thread the past week, and I can't help but express how impresses I've been!!

 

With the notable exception of one of the first few posts, you have all handled yourselves very well, and it has been great reading through this thread. Even though you may not agree with each other, you still are keeping it clean. Even though you are sometimes obviously frustrated that the other may not see your side, you are still 'conversing'.

 

nemo even mentioned that to me last night. he said something like "Hey, have you read this thread? Those guys are going at it, but it's so fun to read. So that's how it's supposed to be done, huh? "

 

So, BRAVO :shrug: to each of you, and you are (almost) all getting good rep from me on this one!! :wave:

[bumab]

Wow! Start a thread, go climbing for the weekend, and it turns into... this! Awsome thread guys, although it's certainly meandered (like they all do).

 

My question does hinge on if US citizens (or really, any industrialized country) will be able to see issues of state sponsored crime. Nazi Germany did their dirty deeds in a completely legal fashion. Think there are any laws in your home country that, in the future, might be condemned?

 

As Bio rightly asserted, the key is a free press. In addition to that, however, I believe we need an increasingly international perspective. For the same reasons it's hard to see your own faults, but easy to see the faults in others, we need to learn to look at our country through others eyes. This in no way condones terrorist attacks- but it does explain them. It's just plain silly to assert that the terrorists attacked us "for our freedoms." They attacked symbolic targets- our capitalist heart and our military command center. They attacked us for our values, which are increasingly being imposed- not necessarily maliciously or even intentionally, but still imposed- on the rest of the world.

 

Will our economic actions, in the future, be seen as state sponsored crimes? If there's one thing our state does sponsor (so to speak), it's the capitalist system. Environmental sustainability is at the bottom of the barrel- will we be seen as commiting eco-crimes, completely legally?

 

Don't miss the point of the thread- legality. It's legal to execute criminals. Why is it that 75% or so of the prision population is African American males, while they only consititute 12% percent or so of the population? Are we unequally executing on a racial bias? It's certainly within the law!

[Boerseun]

Wow! Start a thread, go climbing for the weekend, and it turns into... this! Awsome thread guys, although it's certainly meandered (like they all do).

 

My question does hinge on if US citizens (or really, any industrialized country) will be able to see issues of state sponsored crime. Nazi Germany did their dirty deeds in a completely legal fashion. Think there are any laws in your home country that, in the future, might be condemned?

 

As Bio rightly asserted, the key is a free press. In addition to that, however, I believe we need an increasingly international perspective. For the same reasons it's hard to see your own faults, but easy to see the faults in others, we need to learn to look at our country through others eyes. This in no way condones terrorist attacks- but it does explain them. It's just plain silly to assert that the terrorists attacked us "for our freedoms." They attacked symbolic targets- our capitalist heart and our military command center. They attacked us for our values, which are increasingly being imposed- not necessarily maliciously or even intentionally, but still imposed- on the rest of the world.

 

Will our economic actions, in the future, be seen as state sponsored crimes? If there's one thing our state does sponsor (so to speak), it's the capitalist system. Environmental sustainability is at the bottom of the barrel- will we be seen as commiting eco-crimes, completely legally?

 

Don't miss the point of the thread- legality. It's legal to execute criminals. Why is it that 75% or so of the prision population is African American males, while they only consititute 12% percent or so of the population? Are we unequally executing on a racial bias? It's certainly within the law!

Bumab - very good points you've raised here.

 

Who knows - in a hundred years from now, there might be an 'environmental' revolution, much in the same vein as an 'industrial' revolution, and with the luxury of that kind of hindsight, what'll the world say about the US ignoring the Kyoto protocol?

 

That might even be seen as a 'crime against humanity', especially if it is proven that the US, being the biggest polluter, is the biggest contributor to, say, increased rates of skin cancer world-wide.

 

Interesting mention of the US prison population, and execution rates. If we accept the fact that all races are of the same ability, if the prison population is 75% black, and they are only 12% of the population, and you assume that the judges and jurys who've sent them to prison aren't biased, then that's proof of systematic social discrimination throughout US society, starting from grade school. Will the world see that as a crime?

 

I refer once again to my previous post where I've said that the best way to judge your country, would be to look objectively at world opinion. A Free Press is also a good thing, but no guarantee of objectivity in times of strife - look at 9/11 and how the press rallied behind Bush, and defended draconian inroads into your freedoms.