Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, I have "denied" it and am currently disputing some aspects of Souljah's commentary. Unfortunately, with such short time to spend within ATS
these days, I do not have the time to go through and do an analysis of each and every baseless assertion that Souljah has made; fortunately for
You HAVENT DENIED ANYTHING - you are just Using EMPTY and Hollow Words, coated with Insults, to degrade the Author, that is ME, to a somewhat, Lying,
Distorting and above all, DISSRESPECTFUL human Being.
So tell me, when are you going to really BASE all Your BASELESS Counter Arguments of Mine, which are not Few, and put your Money where you Mouth is?
Fortunately for me you say - is that like the time when you said you are goin got "Get back on me on the DU Topic"?
Furthermore, each and every thread that favors your side of the perspective deserves "some respect." Spare me, Marg, k?
Each and every thread deserves "some respect," as such, arguments and dissent can still be made, despite giving the topic due
And since we ARE TALKING about me right now, and not the Topic, I am going to talk about YOU. You definetly LOVE the word Futhermore, don't you? It
gives you a Sense of Power to use it and I have noticed that president Bush also likes to use it.
Either way - I guess if my Posts do not Deserve YOUR respect, then YOUR posts do not DESERVE my Respect.
Still I will do a Foolish thing and Answer your Questions, which have Nothing to do with this Thread at all.
But here we go anyway:
I always like to start with a Quote.
J.W. Smith - The World’s Wasted Wealth 2
The wealth of the ancient city-states of Venice and Genoa was based on their powerful navies, and treaties with other great powers to control
trade. This evolved into nations designing their trade policies to intercept the wealth of others (mercantilism). Occasionally one powerful country
would overwhelm another through interception of its wealth though a trade war, covert war, or hot war; but the weaker, less developed countries
usually lose in these exchanges. It is the military power of the more developed countries that permits them to dictate the terms of trade and maintain
What does THAT Tell you Mister Seeker?
That ECONOMY and the MILITARY have nothing in common?
That if a Country has a Strong Military, that is the BASIS for Strong Economy?
That a Country with Strong Military CAN USE THAT MILITARY on Less Developed countries, to accept Their TRADE DEALS and their trade Demands?
A Country with the STRONGEST Navy and Air Force basicly Rules this Planet, and Rules the Resources of this Planet. That's why US Navy is the Biggest
Navy this world has ever seen - for can You imagine what would happen, if somebody would suddenly start sinking all those Pretty, Long Tankers, Loaded
with Oil from the Middle East that are Sailing to the Coast of North America? See here in Europe, Russia and in China We do not have these problems,
because a PIPELINE can be built and the Oil or Gas can flow without problems. But America NEEDS that Navy to control the Oceans and the Seas so that
the Oil keeps Flowing!
J.W. Smith, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century
When the blatant injustices of mercantilist imperialism became too embarrassing, a belief system was imposed that mercantilism had been
abandoned and true free trade was in place. In reality the same wealth confiscation went on, deeply buried within complex systems of monopolies and
unequal trade hiding under the cover of free trade. Many explanations were given for wars between the imperial nations when there was really one
common thread: “Who will control resources and trade and the wealth produced through inequalities in trade?” All this is proven by the
inequalities of trade siphoning the world’s wealth to imperial centers of capital today just as they did when the secret of plunder by trade was
learned centuries ago. The battles over the world’s wealth have only kept hiding behind different belief systems each time the secrets of laying
claim to the wealth of others’ have been exposed.
And As European and American Economies grow, they needed to continue Expansion to Maintain the high standards of living that of the Elites. This
required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw Materials and Resources, as well exploiting
cheap labor. Those who Resist WILL be met wiith brutal repression or Military Interventions.
Even U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this in the early part of the 20th century:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and
the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of
state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner
of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
See Mister Seeker - Capitalism, Militarism and Globalism go HAND IN HAND, and I bet that the Ruling Elites are not giving up their Share of this
Planet so easy. For it is CORPORATIONS, Not
GOVERMENTS that Own Countries - Your Land of the FREE Included.
Defense Secretary William Cohen, in remarks to reporters prior to his speech at Microsoft Corporation in Seattle, put it this way:
"[T]he prosperity that companies like Microsoft now enjoy could not occur without having the strong military that we have."
And Right he Is. FURTHERMORE,
"The defense secretary is making the case that conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U.S. economy.
The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable—and thus better markets for U.S.
goods. The military's success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf"
as concluded the Associated Press dispatch reporting on Cohen's Seattle appearance.
Backing Up Globalization with Military Might
Tapping into this lucrative bottomless well of funds, the "Big Three" weapons makers:
Raytheon now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon
contracts. Companies like Lockheed Martin are actively engaged in shaping U.S. foreign and military policies. Their efforts have yielded among other
things: the "payoffs for layoffs" subsidies for defense industry mergers such as the Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger; the elimination of royalty
fees that foreign arms customers had been paying to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the cost of weapons developed at taxpayer expense (this adds up to
a loss for taxpayers of roughly $500 million per year); and the creation of billions of dollars of new grants and government-guaranteed loans to
support the export of U. S. weaponry Pentagon contractors, conservative think tanks and advocacy groups lobbied heavily and successfully for the
"Star Wars" missile defense program.
The bombing and missile strikes are, more than ever, giant bazaars for selling the wares of the armaments manufacturers. An article in USA Today said:
"The USA's defense equipment, such as the satellite-guided smart bombs, has stolen the international spotlight as NATO air forces pound Serbian
forces. That could mean increased foreign interest in U.S. military equipment...." Raytheon spokesperson David Shea was quoted: "We are
expecting the Kosovo conflict to result in new orders downstream." Then in early June, just after President Clinton signed the bill appropriating
$12 billion in emergency military funding, officials at Raytheon announced that replacing munitions used in the Balkans could lead to about $1 billion
in new contracts.
No wonder stock of the large military manufacturers shot up. Since the beginning of the war against Yugoslavia, March 24, 1999, the stock price
of Rockwell International (maker of the Lancer, B-1 bomber, etc.) was up 48 percent; Boeing Aircraft (maker of the B-52 Stratofortress, etc.) up 30
percent; Raytheon Systems (maker of the Tomahawk cruise missile, HARM missile, etc.) up 37 percent; Lockheed Martin (maker of the F- 117 Nighthawk,
F-16 Falcon, etc.), up 18 percent; and Northrop Grumman (maker of the B-2 bomber, etc.) up 16 percent 29 Jaynatha Dhanapala, U.N.
Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said recently that "television coverage of modern warfare has effectively created an 'advertising
dividend' for the manufacturers of high-tech weaponry and the countries and alliances that use such weapons... He observed that during the 1991 war
in the Persian Gulf and the recent NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, tiny video cameras enabled hundreds of millions of viewers to "experience
vicariously" the flight paths of attacking missiles to their intended targets.
Geee that is so Nice.
Wars are Creating PROFITS.
You don't even have to Fight for Resources anymore, as the Kosovo Campaing shows us, and if you read the Underlined and Bold text above, that is kind
of OLD, you can ask yourself - WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY as the War in Iraq is not nearly Finished?
Man, the Busienss must be BOOMING.
PROFITS must be AMAZING.
Maybe thats why Wall Street recorded all time high raise of the Dow Jones in last 20 years - with the start of the Invasion in Iraq.
Not to mention the Entire Affiar of PETRO-DOLLAR POLITICS - which ofcourse you will not Accept as Real, but discard them as petty liberal
Ofcoures, all of these are BASELESS Asumptions, right?
So please, spare me the talk about BIG BAD TERRORISTS and how your so-called Goverment
is Fighting them Hard and Proud. It was never about any
Terrorism - it was always about PROFITS and ECONOMY.
It is not Islamic Fundamentalism - this is MARKET FUNDAMENTALISM taking shape and form, and with the Mass Media in their Hands, what can go wrong?
The Washington Consensus policies, however, were based on a simplistic model of the market economy, the competitive equilibrium model, in which
Adam Smith’s invisible hand works, and works perfectly. Because in this model there is no need for government — that is, free, unfettered,
“liberal” markets work perfectly — the Washington Consensus policies are sometimes referred to as “neo-liberal,” based on “market
fundamentalism,” a resuscitation of the laissez-faire policies that were popular in some circles in the nineteenth century. In the aftermath of the
Great Depression and the recognition of other failings of the market system, from massive inequality to unlivable cities marred by pollution and
decay, these free market policies have been widely rejected in the more advanced industrial countries, though within these countries there remains an
active debate about the appropriate balance between government and markets.
Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents
Still - this is NOT About Globalization and the Military Might.
It is about Africa.
And yes you were right - they ARE being left behind.
By the same Corporations, that OWN YOUR COUNTRY!!!