If Bush Attacks Iran, He Won't Get My Taxes

By Chris Hedges, The Nation
http://www.alternet.org/story/66414/


I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. But an attack on Iran -- which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election -- will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. It will solidify the slow-motion coup d'état that has been under way since the 9/11 attacks. It could mean the death of the Republic.

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution into a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims -- to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

A war with Iran is doomed. It will be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 65 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?

Once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters and cruise missiles on Iran, this is the choice that must be faced: either send US forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war, or walk away in humiliation.

But more ominous, an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with possible Silkworm missile attacks by Iran against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send the price of oil soaring to somewhere around $200 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a global depression. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas. A disruption in the supply will be felt immediately.

This attack will be interpreted by many Shiites in the Middle East as a religious war. The two million Shiites in Saudi Arabia (heavily concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province), the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey could turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We could see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for US troops.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has so far not joined the insurgency, has strong ties to Iran. It could begin full-scale guerrilla resistance, possibly uniting for the first time with Sunnis against the occupation. Iran, in retaliation, will fire its missiles, some with a range of 1,100 miles, at US installations, including Baghdad's Green Zone. Expect substantial casualties, especially with Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies calling in precise coordinates. Iranian missiles could be launched at Israel. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, will become treacherous, perhaps unnavigable. Chinese-supplied antiship missiles, mines and coastal artillery, along with speedboats packed with explosives and suicide bombers, will target US shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers.

Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, closely allied with Iran, may in solidarity fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, could then carry out retaliatory raids against both Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with its huge Shiite minority, will become even more unstable. Unrest could result in the overthrow of the already weakened Pervez Musharraf and usher Islamic radicals into power. Pakistan, rather than Iran, would then become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which many Democrats do not oppose, has the potential to ignite an inferno.

George W. Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregious, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to do the same in Iran.

This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the "crime of aggression." And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for this crime, if we do not actively defy this government, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put in place by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We must as citizens make sacrifices to defend a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are respected. If we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will destroy the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies.

The strongest institutional barrier standing between us and a war with Iran is being mounted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon, head of the Central Command; and Gen. George Casey, the Army's new chief of staff. These three men have informed Bush and Congress that the military is too depleted to take on another conflict and may not be able to contain or cope effectively with a regional conflagration resulting from strikes on Iran. This line of defense, however, is tenuous. Not only can Gates, Fallon and Casey easily be replaced but a provocation by Iran could be used by war propagandists here to stoke a public clamor for revenge.

A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There are ways to resist without being jailed. If you owe money on your federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush attack Iran. If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form -- and write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the details and their legal ramifications are available on the War Resisters League's website.

I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able, once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for their forgiveness.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran. His latest book is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/66414/

Mr. Shaman was banned for three days, truth. Just thought you should know.

Yes, but how do you personally feel about this truthout? Will you stop paying your taxes? Will an act of aggression towards Iran make you feel the need to do anything at all?

Attacking Iran is as stupid as attacking Cuba. It will fail as the Iraq war has failed. Anyhow we cannot afford it ... morally or economically.

a big goose egg. this is a politics forum, remember.

Go Ron Paul. He's gonna try for another day making over $4 million. He might double his take.

Threadjacking has returned!

Mr. Shaman was banned for three days, truth. Just thought you should know.
he's already the sole occupant of my ignore list-shaman might join him if his vacation doesn't reform him.

My list's only occupant, Overdose, thankfully hasn't posted in a few months.

go to a sports board for this crap? Okay???

who cares what Ron Paul thinks about the Dolphins. If they were in The Constitution he's surely tell us! He is about the only one with any principles left.

Now get back to the topic. If Bush attacks Iran.... I know Ron Paul would be opposed... heck he might even withhold his taxes! Sure have heard a lot of silence from the Dems on this one. Scary thought attacking another country that never threatened us...and fact we can't afford it.

go to a sports board for this crap? Okay???

who cares what Ron Paul thinks about the Dolphins. If they were in The Constitution he's surely tell us! He is about the only one with any principles left.

Now get back to the topic. If Bush attacks Iran.... I know Ron Paul would be opposed... heck he might even withhold his taxes! Sure have heard a lot of silence from the Dems on this one. Scary thought attacking another country that never threatened us...and fact we can't afford it.
You know, I almost continued threadjacking, but it seems I picked a bad one to do it in. He's saying crap I agree with, dammit!

My list's only occupant, Overdose, thankfully hasn't posted in a few months.
i think he popped up to post some pics a couple of weeks ago.

Originally Posted by BorgHunter
You know, I almost continued threadjacking, but it seems I picked a bad one to do it in. He's saying crap I agree with, dammit!
Resist the temptation, Borg. RESIST THE TEMPTATION, DAMMIT!

Attacking Iran is as stupid as attacking Cuba. It will fail as the Iraq war has failed. Anyhow we cannot afford it ... morally or economically.

Agreed, which is why I doubt it will ever actually happen.

I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to attack Iran.

As I have already stated,
I personally didnt/dont like Mr Shamans style of posting,tho its not for me to complain about it-I can simply ignore it.

However I find Truthout has made a good post here-one which should be addressed sensibly.

Tho I think US combat troops are a long way off entering Iran,I would agree
that air strikes are a definite possability.

The fact that the US Republican Party has been using War and Fear combined
as an election strategy for many years,then indeed air strikes will be viewed with great interest both in the White House and the Pentagon.

But not until next year-I would assume timing is essential to coincide with US domestic politics issues.

However I find Truthout has made a good post here - one which should be addressed sensibly.

I agree completely.

Instead though, what does he get?.........a load of numerous thread-jacking comments relating to sports from the same immature person who endlessly complained about -- "....but we must rescue the forum, because it is being disruuuuupted!"

Unbelievable.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, as to the topic at hand; the thought that the U.S. leaders would be, in their wildest dreams, even considering attacking Iran is terrifying, just in the fact that it shows how divorced from reality they are.

Either that, or they actually do not care if it causes WWIII to start.

One thing Ive noticed over the past few months-which dosent get much of a mention is,

the State Department and the Pentagon both have increasingly made a connection between Iranian activity and attacks against US forces and civilians in Iraq-without much proof to back up their claims.
This is upping the anti with Iran.
Tho I have to say-the Iranians are dragging their feet in context of dealing with the Atomic Agency.

Paul, you're right, the administration is definitely doing its work to play up the threat from Iran. I think this is so they can say "Look at all this evidence we've piled up!" if they DO decide to invade.

Yes-this is what I fear.

With a Presidential election next year,the Republicans like to spook the American Public into supporting more military action,more military spending.

Its an old tactic-Im surprised the public fall for it everytime.

Yes-this is what I fear.

With a Presidential election next year,the Republicans like to spook the American Public into supporting more military action,more military spending.

Its an old tactic-Im surprised the public fall for it everytime.
Scare tactics are powerful... I understand the tendency towards paranoia - it only takes one time being right about something for all the wrong times to be justified.

Yes-this is what I fear.

With a Presidential election next year,the Republicans like to spook the American Public into supporting more military action,more military spending.

Its an old tactic-Im surprised the public fall for it everytime.

Right, because they've received so much support for their venture in iraq they'll try to build on that support to attack iran. :rolleyes:

I will throw a theory at you-Im not saying this is the case-but a possible scenario-ok.

A party in Government who brags about being the protectors of a nation,
who boost the economy thru military spending-ie jobs in armaments,jobs in
weapons technology,and so on.
Money makes money-which is fair enough.
But to kick start the spending which starts with taxpayers money-you need to justify that spending-how do you go about doing that.

By creating an atmosphere of fear.

Im not suggesting America is not at risk-but its very easy to over play the risk,thus justifying the need for more military spending.

If the tactic was used successfully-a single party could,in theory,stay in power indefinitely.

Right, because they've received so much support for their venture in iraq they'll try to build on that support to attack iran. :rolleyes:
I definitely hope you're right about this.

Right, because they've received so much support for their venture in iraq they'll try to build on that support to attack iran. :rolleyes:Iraq has backfired on the Bush Administration.

Thru lack of planning-they have got the military bogged down in a quagmire,
and the American public are getting fed up with it.

That and the fact no WMDs were ever found-has ticked people off.

Iraq has backfired on the Bush Administration.

Thru lack of planning-they have got the military bogged down in a quagmire,
and the American public are getting fed up with it.

That and the fact no WMDs were ever found-has ticked people off.
Exactly. That's why I'd think the next President is not as likely to be a pro-war Republican. Now that might open up infinitely more sets of problems, but I highly doubt we'll be going to war with Iran anytime soon, unless they attack us of course.

I do think the US public will turn on the Republicans next time around,
however,
as Democrats are reluctant,sometimes too reluctant to act,
with the world situation being left in such a state-Bush simply walks away,
leaving an Administration that will be full of ifs and buts-at a time when the
White House needs to be brave and decisive.
Ya cant win.

I will throw a theory at you-Im not saying this is the case-but a possible scenario-ok.

A party in Government who brags about being the protectors of a nation,
who boost the economy thru military spending-ie jobs in armaments,jobs in
weapons technology,and so on.
Money makes money-which is fair enough.
But to kick start the spending which starts with taxpayers money-you need to justify that spending-how do you go about doing that.

By creating an atmosphere of fear.

Im not suggesting America is not at risk-but its very easy to over play the risk,thus justifying the need for more military spending.

If the tactic was used successfully-a single party could,in theory,stay in power indefinitely.

Your Marxist slip is showing again. Military spending as part of GDP is hardly driving the economy. Capex on technology, logistics, manufacture, services are much more significant.

You guys absolutely love your theories. In theory covers just about any possibility in the universe. How about dealing in reality.

Marxist-thats a good one.

The reality is the F word.

FEAR-is used as a political weapon to intimidate a populace to elect an extremeist party which supports extra spending on military budget for use
in war.

Marxist-thats a good one.

The reality is the F word.

FEAR-is used as a political weapon to intimidate a populace to elect an extremeist party which supports extra spending on military budget for use
in war.

Paul, you are absolutely right. I don't know if you have heard of it before but there is a book you might find interesting because it traces the history of this internationally. The Shock Doctrine, the rise of disaster capitalism. (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine)

Marxist-thats a good one.

The reality is the F word.

FEAR-is used as a political weapon to intimidate a populace to elect an extremeist party which supports extra spending on military budget for use
in war.

Yes here in N.America we're all walking around trembling. That's exactly what's going on. We live in dread of whatever some politician tells us.:rolleyes:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2006/270706nuke2.jpg

Fox News Says Hezbollah 'Certain' To Nuke Major City (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/270706hezbollahnuke.htm)

http://judicial-inc.biz/Iran_z7.jpg

No never heard of that one Dharm-but I'll check it out,thanks.

I will throw a theory at you-Im not saying this is the case-but a possible scenario-ok.

A party in Government who brags about being the protectors of a nation,
who boost the economy thru military spending-ie jobs in armaments,jobs in
weapons technology,and so on.
Money makes money-which is fair enough.
But to kick start the spending which starts with taxpayers money-you need to justify that spending-how do you go about doing that.

By creating an atmosphere of fear.

It is no *theory*, but hard cold fact.

You have just described the American way of fleecing the sheep, down to a tee.

The economy of this country for the past 50+ years has been dependent on war and military spending to keep it running.

Gore Vidal --among others-- has written about it at length, explaining with detailed facts and figures just how the scam is run.

It is a war economy. Period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Security State____________________Gore Vidal

"We can date from January 1950 the strict governmental control of our economy and the gradual erosion of our liberties, all in order to benefit the economic interest of what is never, to put it tactfully, a very large group — defense spending is money- but not labor intensive."

"What is the national security state? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947 [NSC-68]; it was then implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything that the United States had ever known before."

"Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better 'scare the hell out of the American people.'

"Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general published a list of dissident organizations (on December 4, 1947).

"The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman's successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state."

Hmm-I must say I wouldnt throw this out.

Before ww2 the US was down and out to a certin extent,trying to recover from the depression,
how did it escape depression and catapult itself to global superpower-war.

People who were once standing in soup kitchen lines or hanging round car parks begging to be selected to do a days work were now-in uniform,or building ships-tanks-planes-trucks-you name it-BOOM,
America has never looked back,and such a successful policy at boosting
the economy has never been found since-so why change it.

America has never looked back,and such a successful policy at boosting
the economy has never been found since-so why change it.

I'll tell you *why change it*.

Because building a nation's economy on war --and on the pain and bloodshed and fear and suffering and deaths that it causes-- is callous and inhuman. It is an abomination, and no human in their right mind would suppport it or want a part of it.

The sheep-like masses in America only support it because they're too stupid and too propagandized and brainwashed to even realize that that is what is being perpetrated and that they are the ones enabling it.

Its true-America has been at war more years than it has been at peace-since 1941

How many Americans are employed in the military or military related industry-must run into millions.

These peoples taxes and buying power-run a large slice of the US economy.

It is no *theory*, but hard cold fact.

You have just described the American way of fleecing the sheep, down to a tee.

The economy of this country for the past 50+ years has been dependent on war and military spending to keep it running.

Gore Vidal --among others-- has written about it at length, explaining with detailed facts and figures just how the scam is run.

It is a war economy. Period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Security State____________________Gore Vidal

"We can date from January 1950 the strict governmental control of our economy and the gradual erosion of our liberties, all in order to benefit the economic interest of what is never, to put it tactfully, a very large group — defense spending is money- but not labor intensive."

"What is the national security state? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947 [NSC-68]; it was then implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything that the United States had ever known before."

"Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better 'scare the hell out of the American people.'

"Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general published a list of dissident organizations (on December 4, 1947).

"The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman's successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state."

Hardly a fact.

If Defense spending as a percentage of GDP were increasing you'd have a point. But the fact of the matter is that defense as a percentage of GDP has been dropping steadily.

The percentage was much higher in the past. Defense spending accounted for 11 to 12 percent of GDP during the Korean War and into the late 1950s. During the Vietnam War, it was about 9 percent of the GDP. In 1972, the percentage dropped to about 7 percent and hovered around 5 percent for the rest of the 1970s.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15285

I'll tell you *why change it*.

Because building a nation's economy on war --and on the pain and bloodshed and fear and suffering and deaths that it causes-- is callous and inhuman. It is an abomination, and no human in their right mind would suppport it or want a part of it.

The sheep-like masses in America only support it because they're too stupid and too propagandized and brainwashed to even realize that that is what is being perpetrated and that they are the ones enabling it.
Let's assume you're right FT. What do we do about it? How do we educate "the sheep-like masses in America"?

Because if what you hypothesize is true, no humane person would support or allow this to take place.

Before ww2 the US was down and out to a certin extent,trying to recover from the depression,
how did it escape depression and catapult itself to global superpower-war.
Barring our industry and our ability to manufacture shit on an unprecedented scale because we had the most productive populace on Earth, Paul - you're absolutely right; war is the only thing we've ever had to rely on since. Good call.

Barring our industry and our ability to manufacture shit on an unprecedented scale because we had the most productive populace on Earth, Paul - you're absolutely right; war is the only thing we've ever had to rely on since. Good call.
Oddly enough-this wasnt even meant as being anti Bush.
Its firmly what I believe.

I could go further and say-the Israeli conflicts have been used to some extent to test new weapons systems in battlefield conditions,but.........


I think the mindset is firmly stuck-every generation of Americans seems to have to sacrifice some of they're children-to feed the beast.

How this cycle of militaryism can be broken-without severly damaging the economy and leaving America exposed to attack-I havnt the faintest idea,
zero,no clue whatsoever-sorry.

Oddly enough-this wasnt even meant as being anti Bush.
Its firmly what I believe.

I could go further and say-the Israeli conflicts have been used to some extent to test new weapons systems in battlefield conditions,but.........


I think the mindset is firmly stuck-every generation of Americans seems to have to sacrifice some of they're children-to feed the beast.

How this cycle of militaryism can be broken-without severly damaging the economy and leaving America exposed to attack-I havnt the faintest idea,
zero,no clue whatsoever-sorry.

Rather than asserting that the US economy is dependent on or based on the military why don't you loons come up with some statistics that actually demonstrate that notion. Then you won't have to endure being called crackpot lunatics who are worthy of our derision and scorn.

Oddly enough-this wasnt even meant as being anti Bush.
Its firmly what I believe.
I wasn't offended and I certainly wasn't defending Bush here; I was just calling you out on what I thought to be an incredibly stupid hypothesis of yours. That's not to say that war doesn't serve as a boon to our economy, it absolutely does, but it's internal and short lived. It's beyond preposterous (in the extreme) to theorize that "war" is what made us a "superpower".

Why....is that what they teach Irish children in school nowadays??? :(

I wasn't offended and I certainly wasn't defending Bush here; I was just calling you out on what I thought to be an incredibly stupid hypothesis of yours. That's not to say that war doesn't serve as a boon to our economy, it absolutely does, but it's internal and short lived. It's beyond preposterous (in the extreme) to theorize that "war" is what made us a "superpower".

Why....is that what they teach Irish children in school nowadays??? :(America and American issues are not discussed that much in Irish Schools-anyway.

In 1940 US Unemployment was 14.6 % Defence Employment was 17.6 %

by 1945 US Unemployment was 1.9 % Defence Employment was 40.4 %

After WW2 people had money and there was a baby boom.
Granted the US was in debt up to its eye balls-so was everyone else.

As the US holds the largest gold reserves and International Trading are done
in dollars-these along with the US public spent their way into what you see today. Superpower.

All this was created as a result of WW2 Military spending-a trend which continues to this day.

US-biggest arms exporter in world.

The Military machine has been dictating things ever since.

Defence Contractors employing millions,

Lockheed Martin
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
General Dynamics
Raytheon
United Technoligies
Science Applications
TRW
Health Net
L3 Communications

All these big companies,employing hundreds of thousands,
all with subsidery companies employing more,
supply contractors-hundreds of thousands,if not millions emloyed,
all drive the US economy,wage packets-totaling-god knows.

War and War manufacturing is a profitable business.

I'll tell you *why change it*.

Because building a nation's economy on war --and on the pain and bloodshed and fear and suffering and deaths that it causes-- is callous and inhuman. It is an abomination, and no human in their right mind would suppport it or want a part of it.

The sheep-like masses in America only support it because they're too stupid and too propagandized and brainwashed to even realize that that is what is being perpetrated and that they are the ones enabling it.

Let's assume you're right FT. What do we do about it? How do we educate "the sheep-like masses in America"?

There is very little hope of doing anything "about" it.

Only a massive and relentless campaign, instituted immediately, of teaching ALL students in the public schools in this country to think critically would have any chance of turning the tide.

And I think we both know that such a campaign is NEVER going to happen, because it would be absolutely antithetical to the agenda of the ruling powers-that-be.

Because if what you hypothesize is true, no humane person would support or allow this to take place.

It is not a lack of *humanity* that causes the mindless collective of the **American Public** to allow themselves to be led to the slaughter (both personal and economic) of perpetual war--and to go so far as to actively advocate it themselves-- that the *powers-that-be* have coerced them into participating in.

It is abject ignorance, and the brainwashing that they have undergone since birth.

War and War manufacturing is a profitable business.
Nobody's arguing that; war IS a profitable business, but that wasn't my point. No doubt, our war effort in 1941 augmented (operative word here) our rise to preeminence, but it most certainly wasn't the cause of it directly.
US-biggest arms exporter in world.
And you think THAT'S what we bank on here!?! Dude, arms exportation amounts to nothing more than piss money that was, at one point in time, used to finance small wars we couldn't be seen financing directly. Tangent aside, it's not a lot of money to us either way. OTOH, it is to Russia. Hell, outside of oil, titanium, and vodka, their economy DEPENDS on it.

How this cycle of militaryism can be broken-without severly damaging the economy and leaving America exposed to attack-I havent the faintest idea,
zero,no clue whatsoever

?!?

As to the first part, it is true that if the government here were to suddenly cease the rampant militarism and endless wars and spending on Defense, it would cause a huge disruption in the economy. (which only points up the need for this country to stop using wars and military spending as the foundation for the economy)

However, as to the second part........it is not this country's ceaseless military meddling and aggression around the globe that 'keeps us from being exposed' to attack.

It is instead the very thing that is causing the rest of earth's inhabitants to hate this country and to carry out the attacks in the first place.

Prae-My point is,US Administrations feel obliged to wage war,every so often,
to keep the wheels of this machine well oiled and moving.

Take an example of a billion dollar corporation I didnt even bother mentioning,
Haliburton-one of its main shareholders,Vice President Cheney.

Overcharged the Government millions of dollars for services in Iraq,
was given NO-BID contracts, contracts for Iraqi reconstruction worth billions.

NO-BID oil contracts worth billions-financed by 'The UN oil-for-food-programme'-you know that evil programme- Europeans made sooo much money from-same one.

I believe the single biggest beneficiary of it was jailed in Texas last week.

These same companies who 'influence' so much of how the United States as a nation operates,by paying campaign funds,running ads on TV radio.

All these favours are called in when the time is right-as regards defence spending, foreign aid, joint military co-operation, and you think its a drop in the ocean.

Prae-My point is,US Administrations feel obliged to wage war,every so often,
to keep the wheels of this machine well oiled and moving.

Take an example of a billion dollar corporation I didnt even bother mentioning,
Haliburton-one of its main shareholders,Vice President Cheney.

Overcharged the Government millions of dollars for services in Iraq,
was given NO-BID contracts, contracts for Iraqi reconstruction worth billions.

NO-BID oil contracts worth billions-financed by 'The UN oil-for-food-programme'-you know that evil programme- Europeans made sooo much money from-same one.

I believe the single biggest beneficiary of it was jailed in Texas last week.

These same companies who 'influence' so much of how the United States as a nation operates,by paying campaign funds,running ads on TV radio.

All these favours are called in when the time is right-as regards defence spending, foreign aid, joint military co-operation, and you think its a drop in the ocean.

I'm curious to know where you got this nonsense that Cheney is/was one of Haliburton's main shareholders? You been reading these lunatic websites again?

Just as an aside Haliburton was awarded their contract by the Clinton Administration.

You been reading these lunatic websites again?
OK Ya got me there waldo.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09//26/politics/main575356.shtml

Just as an aside Haliburton was awarded their contract by the Clinton Administration.
As the US invaded Iraq on March 20 2003, I think youll find President Clinton,
well, wasnt President anymore.

I'm curious to know where you got this nonsense that Cheney is/was one of Haliburton's main shareholders?

Wow! You really don't know anything. Cheney was also the head of Halliburton. "Living is easy with eyes closed..misunderstanding all you see".
Dude you have been so brainwashed by Rush and Hannity, its scary.

OK Ya got me there waldo.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09//26/politics/main575356.shtml

Nothing in that article says anything about him being a major shareholder.



As the US invaded Iraq on March 20 2003, I think youll find President Clinton,
well, wasnt President anymore.

You will want to check when Haliburton was originally awarded the contract to provide said services to the military.

Wow! You really don't know anything. Cheney was also the head of Halliburton.
I'm well aware of that and it does nothing to advance or support the argument that cheney was a major shareholder. try again.

Nothing in that article says anything about him being a major shareholder.

According to this looney website Mr Cheney sold $40 million dollars worth of Haliburton stock.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6D9163BF932A3575BCOA9649C8B 63

Halliburton has 876 million shares outstanding. Cheney's holdings are a drop in the bucket. 81% of Halliburton's shares are held by mutual funds and pension plans. Such posiitons are infinitely larger than whay cheney holds.

And to put to rest other silly notions.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

what about the children who will suffer from not having their government handouts if you stop paying taxes?

According to this looney website Mr Cheney sold $40 million dollars worth of Haliburton stock.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6D9163BF932A3575BCOA9649C8B 63
Correct - which most certainly indicates that he's NOT a "main" shareholder of Halliburton stock, doesn't it? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly here, it also indicates he never was.
As the US invaded Iraq on March 20 2003, I think youll find President Clinton,
well, wasnt President anymore.
:rolleyes:

Are you kidding with this shit!? Dude, your point is so divorced from reality, it's scary. Come to think of it, I can't believe I actually feel the need to clarify why, so you know what....I'm not gonna.

"Living is easy with eyes closed..misunderstanding all you see".
You know, it's always nice to take pointers on "living with your eyes open" from a cocksure teenager. How 'bout next time you're offering lessons on life and the "truth" behind American politics, you let me know ahead of time, and I'll be sure to sign up for your free online tutorial. :thumbs: :rolleyes: Tool.

Halliburton has 876 million shares outstanding. Cheney's holdings are a drop in the bucket. 81% of Halliburton's shares are held by mutual funds and pension plans. Such posiitons are infinitely larger than whay cheney holds.

And to put to rest other silly notions.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

Not to begrudge a fine point,But usually when one is CEO {V.P.}
Board member,it's because they control the number of inside {restricted}
shares.Not necessarily the outstanding shares.Most companies
try to hold back a controlling interest of shares in blocks.
Like,this Board member,has so many blocks of shares and so on.
Plus Board members get additional shares as a form of Bonus in good
years.

I'm not gonna.
Fair enough-I'll respond to waldo then.

No doubt I will find myself reminding you of what you said,at a later date.

New York Times-17 September 2003.

'Senate Democrats challenged Vice President Cheneys recent assertion that he had severed all his ties to his former employer-The Haliburton Company-which has recieved more than $1bn in Federal contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil fields and provide services to the military.
Senator Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ] said Mr Cheneys current financial disclosure form showed his holding of 433,333 Haliburton stock options and continuing to recieve deferred compensation'.

In response Mr Cheney claims all his remaining stock options valued at $7,800,000 went to 3 charities.
Capital Partners for Education.
George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates.
University of Wyoming.

A trust Administrator was given power of attorney to sell options at some future time and to give after tax profits to the three charities-he still in fact owns the shares until they are sold.

The CRS concluded that holding stock options while in elective office constitutes a 'financial interest' whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities,and deferred compensation is also a
'financial interest'.

New York Times-17 September 2003.

'Senate Democrats challenged Vice President Cheneys recent assertion that he had severed all his ties to his former employer-The Haliburton Company-which has recieved more than $1bn in Federal contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil fields and provide services to the military.
Senator Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ] said Mr Cheneys current financial disclosure form showed his holding of 433,333 Haliburton stock options and continuing to recieve deferred compensation'.

In response Mr Cheney claims all his remaining stock options valued at $7,800,000 went to 3 charities.
Capital Partners for Education.
George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates.
University of Wyoming.

A trust Administrator was given power of attorney to sell options at some future time and to give after tax profits to the three charities-he still in fact owns the shares until they are sold.

The CRS concluded that holding stock options while in elective office constitutes a 'financial interest' whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities,and deferred compensation is also a
'financial interest'.

Paul, is there a point here that supports your earlier claims? If so i'm missing it.

First off, I fully agree Waldo - I'm not seeing it either. That said....
The CRS concluded that holding stock options while in elective office constitutes a 'financial interest' whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities,and deferred compensation is also a
'financial interest'.
What - you mean like campaign contributions, PAC money, and lobbies don't?

When distilled to its base, this Cheney/Halliburton thing is nothing but a goddamned witch-hunt, and a poorly reasoned one (even for a witch-hunt), at that.

Paul, is there a point here that supports your earlier claims? If so i'm missing it.My initial point was/is that the US economy NEEDS military spending and/or war every dcade or so,to sustain growth.

To keeps millions of American workers in employment,to have its defence forces about 20 years ahead of anyone else.

You haven't demonstrated that one either.

You haven't demonstrated that one either.
Well I did demonstrate-tho not to the effect I wished-granted, that Cheney does in fact still have Haliburton shares in his name.

That aside Federal spending on Defence AND Defence related programmes is expected to reach 51% on the budget for 2008.

The Companies I listed earlier,plus ones I left out such as Haliburton,employ hundreds of thousands of workers,the companies who supply them plus the companies who supply the suppliers employ millions of workers,these workers,they're taxes and what they spend they're wage packets on,employ millions more workers-the whole military machine drives the economy.

We MuST KiLL PaUlC, Wald-oOoO - he'S On To uS.....We'rE ALL wOrrKinGGGG foR thEE MilATarY, AnD sOmeHoW - ThIIS caRbON BaSed, IriSSh HumAn-OOid..oid..oid foUUnd OOOuT!!!!! - DUUuuuUUuRRr....

HeeE tOOOOo must HaVe Ac,ac,acCEss to ThE hIgHLee cLaSS-ifIeD PnAC..nac..nac DoCCuMeNNtS - UhhhhHHHhh - durp, deee-durP....

Paul where have you demonstrated that 51% of the Federal budget will be spent of defense and defense related items? Nor have you demonstrated that the US runs off the defense industry. This latter is an absolutely inane notion and demonstrably wrong.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1998/06/art3full.pdf

Trying to jam cos like Haliburton or KBR or Boeing or.... where the majority of their business comes from outside is ridiculous.

Even tho you were opting out of the discussion-as I like ya-welcome back in.

Dont be so goddamn grumpy.

Now-I think that what I said makes sense.

I guess it boils down to 'why fix what isnt broken'.

Its the bullshit attached to the 'blood and glory' that I find most offensive.

Waldo:

Gonna go off topic for a moment here and ask you a question.

Everytime we get together-on different subjects,

I always find myself ending up giving long responses to very short questions,

is there a reason for this?

Waldo really inspires one to want to be RIGHT, if you ask me. :p

Waldo:

Gonna go off topic for a moment here and ask you a question.

Everytime we get together-on different subjects,

I always find myself ending up giving long responses to very short questions,

is there a reason for this?

Let's call it the socratic method of learning.:)

Waldo really inspires one to want to be RIGHT, if you ask me.

Nice to know i've inspired you. You can also be left, it doesn't really matter. As long as the facts support your position.

The socratic method of learning-gotta look that one up.

Paul - our government also hires millions of educators, police and firemen, postal workers, social workers, and a sundry of other people who "work" only to wash our balls financially. I'll let you in on a little secret here.....they're a hugely inefficient business machine (which is clearly a euphemism) that spends gross amounts of our money on "services" which are, supposedly, for our benefit (and I use that word loosely). Of course they employ people, and of course our "economy" depends on their employment. In short, your entire supposition here is moot. Our INDUSTRY is what supplies them the money they operate with in the first place.

As regards spending-it really depends on whos figures you wish to support.

No doubt yous will be Offical figures-which dont include past conflict,national debt incurred from past conflict and veterans.

Take these out and spending drops to 31%.

Nice to know i've inspired you. You can also be left, it doesn't really matter. As long as the facts support your position.
Niiiiiice! LOL!

Paul - our government also hires millions of educators, police and firemen, postal workers, social workers, and a sundry of other people who "work" only to wash our balls financially. I'll let you in on a little secret here.....they're a hugely inefficient business machine (which is clearly a euphemism) that spends gross amounts of our money on "services" which are, supposedly, for our benefit (and I use that word loosely). Of course they employ people, and of course our "economy" depends on their employment. In short, your entire supposition here is moot. Our INDUSTRY is what supplies them the money they operate with in the first place.
Most if not all the above mentioned are paid from taxes raised.

If you like you could argue that the very people employed in the Defence related workforces taxes contribute to paying these people.

Lets face it-The Weapons Industry has massive influence over the entire economy.

Most if not all the above mentioned are paid from taxes raised.
Correct.
If you like you could argue that the very people employed in the Defence related workforces taxes contribute to paying these people.

Oh, so your supposition here is that our defense dept. pays their salaries from money collected BY these people????

No, dude - their operating budget comes from businesses that turn a profit, but the problem lies in the fact that they're spending more than they're taking in.

Now do you see why I hate socialism? At this rate, we're gonna wind up like France.
Lets face it-The Weapons Industry has massive influence over the entire economy.
I won't argue with that. So do schools, police and firemen, the IRS, and the Post Office.

Hmmmm-Lets see now.
Government people are paid from tax revenus.

Tax revenue is aquired thru profits and wages spent.

Wages spent comes from employment-a lot of it from Military related services and Industries.

Military Industries make huge profits from Government Contracts-paid by taxes.

Its all a merry go round isnt it.

France: A beautiful country-great cuisine-great culture-great soccer team-Paris-fine wines-great language-fiercely independant-good cars-St Tropez-great lovers [not that youd know]-fast trains.

Cant see much wrong with that-oh thats right-a couple of old guys formed a Government in Vichy long long ago-yep-they're a real bad country.

France: A beautiful country-great cuisine-great culture-great soccer team-Paris-fine wines-great language-fiercely independant-good cars-St Tropez-great lovers [not that youd know]-fast trains.

Cant see much wrong with that-oh thats right-a couple of old guys formed a Government in Vichy long long ago-yep-they're a real bad country.

lol - Yes my dear, France is a beautiful country - I love the countryside the best - Provence, and oh yes their wines.

-great lovers [not that youd know]-LMAO!!

That was mean, paul. :)

Thought youd like that one :)

France: A beautiful country-great cuisine-great culture-great soccer team-Paris-fine wines-great language-fiercely independant-good cars-St Tropez-great lovers [not that youd know]-fast trains.

Cant see much wrong with that-oh thats right-a couple of old guys formed a Government in Vichy long long ago-yep-they're a real bad country.

What Good cars.?
Napa Valley and Oregon State have even better Wines,on the whole.
The French Rivera ain't what it once was - To Catch a Thief - {1955}
Neither is the Catskills,but that's because of Hillary.
No need for Good Jewish Comics,when a Hillary is around for
better and quicker laughs.
I could Go on.

I could Go on.Please do :)

Lets face it-The Weapons Industry has massive influence over the entire economy.

You keep making this assertion. Time to pony up the proof. No rhetoric, actual numbers.

You keep making this assertion. Time to pony up the proof. No rhetoric, actual numbers.

Here are some numbers, from a remarkably-similar thread (http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=241014&postcount=17) last year.

You keep making this assertion. Time to pony up the proof. No rhetoric, actual numbers.

How about the fact that we spent over $600 billion in 2004 on defense. That's more than the rest of the world spent in total that year and almost ten times what the next nearest country spent (China at $65 billion).

How can spending that kind of money not have a major impact on your economy?

Accounting for the fact that most of these men and women have families (wives, husbands, children, step-children, un-remarried former spouses), then it is fair to say that an enormous portion of the US population and economy depend upon the military/technology/industrial complex for their bread and butter.
It's truth. So many of the nation's local communities' economies depend on the business of war that we would in fact be disastrous for us to switch to a different economy. We're a nation of warriors, that much will remain so for quite some time.

I just wish millions of folks could find something else to base their paychecks on than the whims and dictates of generals and warmongering politicians.

I wonder, can we afford it? Can we spend $600 billion and rising to fuel our military machine while the civilian economy as a whole suffers, Social Security runs dry, droughts ravage the nation, oil wells dry up, housing markets slump while we still have huge shortages of affordable housing, our dollar drops in value faster than a Columbian hooker? Can we not cut back to, say, perhaps only as much as the next 10 countries combined, , instead of 14, and use the other money to solve some glaring social and economic problems?

I wonder, can we afford it? Can we spend $600 billion and rising to fuel our military machine while the civilian economy as a whole suffers, Social Security runs dry, droughts ravage the nation, oil wells dry up, housing markets slump while we still have huge shortages of affordable housing, our dollar drops in value faster than a Columbian hooker? Can we not cut back to, say, perhaps only as much as the next 10 countries combined, , instead of 14, and use the other money to solve some glaring social and economic problems?

You'd think so wouldn't you? You'd think we could spend half of what we do now, which would still put us way ahead of the next nearest country and we'd still have far and away the strongest military in the world...for half the cost.

You'd think so wouldn't you? You'd think we could spend half of what we do now, which would still put us way ahead of the next nearest country and we'd still have far and away the strongest military in the world...for half the cost.Sure would. THink it will happen? I dont. The rich didnt get that way by giving concessions. Like i said in another post, for the rich there just isnt "enough".

Here are some numbers, from a remarkably-similar thread (http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=241014&postcount=17) last year.

" Consider this " !
That's it Dear Watson.
Some herein are just NOT Considerate.
Mere Lackey Loons.Toady ingrates.
Unsophisticated Philistine practioners of Parroting Parades.
Like those in a Gay Pride Parade.
Same doggone thingy.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Hmm,dats nice to know.
Say...BTW I'm havin a difficult time assessing last months
Allforums bill.
Did yours seem a bit on the high side,also.?

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Gunz are expensive toys for big boys you know :)

Fool: ?

Fool: ?

paul;

:@@:

Surely you realize by now that you are trying to elicit a response from a person who cannot communicate --much less argue about complicated subjects-- coherently.......

.........??

How about the fact that we spent over $600 billion in 2004 on defense. That's more than the rest of the world spent in total that year and almost ten times what the next nearest country spent (China at $65 billion).

How can spending that kind of money not have a major impact on your economy?

In a $13 trillion economy not much.

Probably as much again in suppliers.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

So the loony website is revealed. A classic case of figures don't lie and liars figure.

Great math they do. don't count a chunk (social security) of gov't revenue (where did that suddenly go, just disappeared into the ether.....apparently the gov't gets people to work for free:rolleyes:) and attribute all the debt to past military spending. :rolleyes::rolleyes: and "the military portion" of other departments. :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Paul you're not going to convince any accountant, economist, or rational human being that what you've provided is remotely accurate. That is so fraudulent it's not even a good try.

You know its funny Waldo,

I said to myself, 'should I post the link or not'.

If I do post it-the posters in denial will knit pick the link,

and guess what.

Now-I could always look into the links of every company in the United States,

make a list of who works in Military related Industry,

then I could do it again for their suppliers-and their suppliers suppliers,

but as Ive proved my point and life is too short,I wont bother.

Face it-America depends of war and military to exist.