The World is Uniting Against the Bush Imperium

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The World is Uniting Against the Bush Imperium

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Is the United States a superpower? I think not. Consider these facts:

The financial position of the US has declined dramatically. The US is heavily indebted, both government and consumers. The US trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990. With US job growth falling behind population growth and with no growth in consumer real incomes, the US economy is driven by expanding consumer debt. Saving rates are low or negative.

The federal budget is deep in the red, adding to America's dependency on debt. The US cannot even go to war unless foreigners are willing to finance it.

Our biggest bankers are China and Japan, both of whom could cause the US serious financial problems if they wished. A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.

The US is heavily dependent on imports for manufactured goods, including advanced technology products. In 2005 US dependency (in dollar amounts) on imported manufactured goods was twice as large as US dependency on imported oil. In the 21st century the US has experienced a rapid increase in dependency on imports of advanced technology products. A country dependent on foreigners for manufactures and advanced technology products is not a superpower.

Because of jobs offshoring and illegal immigration, US consumers create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs reports document the loss of manufacturing jobs and the inability of the US economy to create jobs in categories other than domestic "hands on" services. According to a March 2006 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, most of these jobs are going to immigrants: "Between March 2000 and March 2005 only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults (18 to 64) went to natives. This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18 to 64 year old population."

A country that cannot create jobs for its native born population is not a superpower.

In an interview in the April 17 Manufacturing & Technology News, former TCI and Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery said that the incentives of globalization have disconnected US corporations from US interests. "No economy," Hindery said, "can survive the offshoring of both manufacturing and services concurrently. In fact, no society can even take excessive offshoring of manufacturing alone." According to Hindery, offshoring serves the short-term interests of shareholders and executive pay at the long-term expense of US economic strength.

Hindery notes that in 1981 the Business Roundtable defined its constituency as employees, shareholders, community, customers, and the nation." Today the constituency is quarterly earnings. A country whose business class has no sense of the nation is not a superpower.

By launching a war of aggression on the basis of lies and fabricated "intelligence," the Bush regime violated the Nuremberg standard established by the US and international law. Extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Iraq, along with the torture of detainees in concentration camps and an ever-changing excuse for the war have destroyed the soft power and moral leadership that provided the diplomatic foundation for America's superpower status. A country that is no longer respected or trusted and which promises yet more war isolates itself from cooperation from the rest of the world. An isolated country is not a superpower.

A country that fears small, distant countries to such an extent that it utilizes military in place of diplomatic means is not a superpower. The entire world knows that the US is not a superpower when its entire available military force is tied down by a small lightly armed insurgency drawn from a Sunni population of a mere 5 million people.

Neoconservatives think the US is a superpower because of its military weapons and nuclear missiles. However, as the Iraqi resistance has demonstrated, America's superior military firepower is not enough to prevail in fourth generation warfare. The Bush regime has reached this conclusion itself, which is why it increasing speaks of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against an opponent. If six decades after nuking Japan the US again resorts to the use of nuclear weapons, it will establish itself as a pariah, war criminal state under the control of insane people. Any sympathy that might still exist for the US would immediately disappear, and the world would unite against America.

A country against which the world is united is not a superpower.

? Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I agree with a little of that, but this guy reminds me of a left wing gardenweasel. Shrill.

Welcome back, Chad.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah, not saying I subscribe to all his thories, but the economic and foreign-political hits we are taking could be setting us up for some tough years to come. I find the debt levels we are getting into, with China and Japan holding so much of it, to be very concerning. Without money, with expensive oil, you can't do a whole lot in many ways.

It's good to be back (sort of). Costa Rica is quite a country. We "killed" that place, to be sure...actually did TOO much, really. I need a vacation from my vacation, I'm afraid.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,474
143
63
Bowling Green Ky
Got to your 1st paragraph---
"The US trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990"
and quit--you might ask this liberal advocate which blog site he gets his facts from.
You might want to look at chart below--and in additiion this admin is fighting 2 wars and payoffs on greatest natural disasters--and 911.

When you post this nonsense you need to put FCADO--in heading.
For Cool Aid Drinkers Only :)
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,297
318
83
Boston, MA
ahhh didn't this gentleman s credentials say ASSISTANT SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY UNDER REAGAN, & EDITOR FOR NATIONAL REVIEW, ya real left wing stuff
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,474
143
63
Bowling Green Ky
Shamrock--When you read article whether it be by liberal or conservative that does not have links to source of their data--it is best to check a few on ones own to determine credabilty.
Both parties are quilty of supplying #'s to their benefit--while ommitting others that aren't-- but pertinant to issue.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Got to your 1st paragraph---
"The US trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990"
and quit--you might ask this liberal advocate which blog site he gets his facts from.
You might want to look at chart below--and in additiion this admin is fighting 2 wars and payoffs on greatest natural disasters--and 911.

When you post this nonsense you need to put FCADO--in heading.
For Cool Aid Drinkers Only :)
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I did look at the chart you are so proud of that apparently "refutes" the author's claims, and in part I would say you are right to challenge part of his first paragraph. Interesting to note, in your linked chart where the real explosions in National Debt occured since 1950, and there are only three regimes of note. Bush I, Reagan and Bush II. Bush II immediately reversed the first downward trend (under Clinton) since the Carter years. I would offer a novice idea that all of the Presidents in charge at times of increased National Debt to GDP were advocates of tax cuts or at least tax increases, but that's not the point of this thread.

I agree that blogs in general have blurred the lines between truth and opinion, and that you need to check facts and figures. But it is common practice around here for some who don't agree with an overall post or viewpoint to dismiss the whole enchilada due to one small point - or to change the subject to someone or something else (re: Clinton).

The author is putting forward a realistic and sensible thought that America UNDER BUSH II is entering into some dangerous scenarios due to choices made and policies enacted UNDER BUSH II. Financially our country is not in a strong spot. We are highly indebted to countries that could present serious problems for us militarily down the road. They can exert financial pressure on other countries (much like the US has done and will continue to do) to get them to go along with their agendas. You see things like Russia working with China on many fronts. You see the European nations coming together to increase their bargaining power and industrial/business worth in the world order and creating a single monetary system. You see our current administration engaging in pre-emptive wars based on mis-or-hidden information or outright lies, depending on which party you support. Countries that once could support the US unconditionally in situations like the first Gulf War that are now not so supportive - if they are at all. You have this administration essentially hanging our strongest ally - Britain - out to dry with blame for intelligence that helped form our "decision" to go to war. You have this administration using and abusing the United Nations depending on what the want to accomplish. Pointing to it as a reason FOR doing things, and then saying it is useless and not worth following or being a part of when the members don't agree with you.

Finally, you have a commander in chief that looks like an uneducated oaf any time he is in the public eye, and I would suppose people in any other country would think the people who elected such a person are suspect in their own intelligence. And I really believe that is true. I am - and always have been - embarrassed that George Bush II is the face of this country abroad. I have never felt this way about any other president. I at least did not feel embarrassed to say they were my President, even if I didn't agree with what they stood for.

I think our country has taken a big hit during the Bush II years. And I don't think we'll see that all play out immediately, but in the coming years.

One last point...you blame the debt partially on wars and natural disasters, 9-11. This is a fair point in part. However, the largest gulper of our $$ remains the Iraq war, which was completely an elective war sponsored by this administration. It was their choice to do it, and it is completely on them and they are responsible for ever dollar that goes on the toteboard. And they still haven't gotten the man responsible for 9-11 and much of the sponsored terror that we "fight" to this day.

Nice job, Dubbya. You get a big "Thanks, but No Thanks" from me.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Chadman said:
However, the largest gulper of our $$ remains the Iraq war, which was completely an elective war sponsored by this administration. It was their choice to do it, and it is completely on them and they are responsible for ever dollar that goes on the toteboard.

Exactly! I've mentioned that exact point to Wayne several times, but he just ignores it and recycles that crap again a month or two later.

And Katrina? Please. Our debt and spending was out of control years before it hit.

Try these:

1. Massive tax cuts in the midst of two wars.

2. Zero spending bills vetoed by W.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
shrill-meister general here...

i wonder when the kumbaya klub will stop seething and smoking grass and realize the serious realities of the world?....

all this diplomatic gobbeldygoop is garbage...this guy is a moron in search of a pronoun....

""entire world knows that the US is not a superpower when its entire available military force is tied down by a small lightly armed insurgency drawn from a Sunni population of a mere 5 million people.""

entire military force?....what do we have?...a 2 million man army?...how many are in iraq?..close to a 300 vessel naval armada?.....the strongest(by far) air force in the world?....

the preeminant economic force...we fall,the world economy collapses...

asshat..

the only thing we don`t have is the will....and guys like this..the 5th column...are the real problem...

how do you insitute diplomatic initiatives when the france`s ,the russia` and the chinese.....with u.n. vetos..... refuse to stop maniacs from getting wmd`s because they are making money by selling them the technology and weapons to start ww3?......

as hitler didin mein kampf,,the saddam`s and the ahmadinnerjackets pronouncing that they intend to wipe a thriving democracy off the face of the earth when they get those weapons.....

pronouncing that he intends to "spread the nuclear technologies around" when he succeeds...

""TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s supreme leader said Tuesday that the country is ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries. Meanwhile, Tehran threatened to halt all cooperation with the U.N. atomic energy agency if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions, warning that it might hide its nuclear program if the West takes any other “harsh measures.”

Iran’s warning to the U.N. watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, came from Tehran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. They were the strongest words of defiance yet ahead of a Friday deadline, set by the Security Council, for Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or material for warheads.

“Military action against Iran will not end our program,” Larijani said at a conference on the energy program. “If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently.” ...

IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said Tuesday it would not comment on the statements from Iran. He said no public statements were planned ahead of director Mohamed ElBaradei’s report to the Security Council and the agency’s board, expected by week’s end.

The remarks on sharing nuclear technology by Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, came as he met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

“Iran’s nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists,” Khamenei told al-Bashir.""

this is ww2 redux......it`s so fuking clear it`s staggering....

btw..i agree that we have our problems.....

anybody think that those problems cease to exist through capitulation?...by letting the corrupt u.n. make foreign policy for us?....

reading this crap is like hitting your head against a brick wall....
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top