2005/02/04

No Freedom Without Justice

Facts and just ordinary common sense are no longer relevant for many people today. Even those that believe in God and claim to know his word make him a partner in their crimes.
Those of us who have a clear vision, in whose minds the facts are not obscured by the impressions of a flag, words about freedom and democracy, comparisons between a dictator and good ole' Texas boy, political agendas made righteous by an inkstained finger and oh so many other irrelevant and emotional issues are now being perverted into abstraction.

The facts of an election held in Iraq where only part of the still repressed population who managed to escape death were able to vote, 1441 American military casualties in Iraq, 10,770 American wounded in Iraq, an estimated (we don't do body counts) 17,884 Iraqi civilians killed because of military intervention, lie after lie told by a U.S. President will not be allowed to subvert imperialism and the flow of middle east oil.

So wave your flag of freedom bought with innocent blood. Talk about Saddam's crimes rather than Bush crimes. Talk about Muslim fundamentalist who terrorize and ignore Christian fundamentalist whose ways and means are no different. Paint those of us fighting for truth, peace and justice as traitors because we are truthful, peaceful and want real justice for all on this planet. But, we will not ignore the facts. Mr. Bush says, "No justice without freedom." We say, "No freedom without justice."

11 Comments:

I'd heard the Iraqi casualties were far higher than the figure you used...by a factor of six or seven - and that was a few months ago. Curious as to where you got that figure....not that it matters, since to the U.S. leadership, any Iraqi deaths are simply what? Incidental? 

Posted by surrogate
2/04/2005 10:35:00 am  
“I'd heard the Iraqi casualties were far higher than the figure you used...by a factor of six or seven ...”.

Here is an excerpt from the link Dianne provided:

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/04/2005 11:15:00 am  
excellent post. i just had a conversation (re:argument) with a guy that i work with last night who is a staucnh bush supporter. i asked him what he could tell me about bush's policies, other than what he has heard from bush himself, and he could tell me nothing. all he could say was "you like clinton?! he committed perjury" so i snorted of course and said "ok. which is worse, lying about a blowjob that only ruined a blue dress, or lying about a war and getting 11,400 + people killed as a result?" he had no answer for that either and is now claiming that wmd were not the only reason we went to war and that the war is still jusitfied. i told him it's a good thing he's so sexy cause otherwise i would have to hurt him lol. 

Posted by angiekruger
2/04/2005 01:54:00 pm  
All politics is local...a quote by the late "Tip" O'Neill.

It applies here because, for the most part, people in the U.S. are doing well economically (thanks in large part to the propping up of our economy by Europe, China, and Japan). People here just don't care about Iraq, for the most part, unless they know someone personally who died, was injured, or is serving there. They don't care about a million people in the Sudan, or much else except how much a tank of gas or a loaf of bread costs them this week.

I'm an idealist, but if I had trade the lives of 100,000 Arabs against gasoline costing $6.00 a gallon, it would even make me pause and think.

If you want people in the U.S. to start paying REAL attention to what the rest of the world thinks, then the rest of the world has to stop buying U.S. dollars and Treasury bonds. Our huge deficit is funded by YOU, the Europeans, and China, and Japan...not the Arab world. We give them your dollars.

Hurt American's standard of living, and you'll get our attention.

Then again, that would trickle down and hurt your economies...and all politics is local.

Catch-22. 

Posted by Buckwheat
2/05/2005 12:22:00 am  
“...then the rest of the world has to stop buying U.S. dollars and Treasury bonds”.

Very interesting, Buckwheat. Now, I'm very much of an ignoramus when it comes to economics. This huge deficit funded by Europeans and China and Japan, and the Arab world paid by our dollars.... I'm lost :-)

Any chance of a miniature "world economics for dummies" run-down?

If not, maybe you can point me to one already existing somewhere out there? 

Posted by WhyNot
2/05/2005 10:54:00 am  
I'm an idealist, but if I had trade the lives of 100,000 Arabs against gasoline costing $6.00 a gallon, it would even make me pause and think..

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that because I understand the context and I can tell you're a nice guy.

So, it's up to us to bring down the US economy because Americans don't care enough? I think there are enough Americans to jolt the market if they were just organized and committed. But, I understand even less than WhyNot about economics, so I need the brief also.
 

Posted by Dianne
2/05/2005 01:05:00 pm  
It's an old article, but this Washington Post article explains some of it. Foreign governments and corporations have been the lifeblood of our deficit-ridden economy.

(I hope the link works)

Where else would the 450 billion dollar deficit be financed from? Not American's savings...our saving rate is dismal, and certainly not from American banks, who would prefer to charge usurious interest rates to consumers than invest in government bonds. 

Posted by Buckwheat
2/05/2005 06:46:00 pm  
This is very interesting Buckwheat. Thanks.

I took this from the article:

In a speech this March, Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and now the president of Harvard University, warned of "a kind of global balance of financial terror," in which the economic well-being of the United States depends on the actions of foreign governments..

Bush intolerance of the rights of other countries doesn't bode well in this scenario. I imagine a large part of the US population is like myself in that they have no idea what is happening in the market. It sounds like the risk of financial terror spoke about by Mr. Summers is greater than the risk of another 9/11.  

Posted by Dianne
2/05/2005 10:59:00 pm  
Thanks Buckwheat,

Yes the article is still there, 2 pages, and I "kind" of understood most of it :-)

The main thing that still escapes me is how/why is this seemingly artificial way of world economy.

From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong for I'm really interested, the wealth of a country is not determined by its actual "production of goods" capacity per se, but by the investment ppl (or govs) put in it. In other words, a multinational biggie, say Walmart or Carrefour (to use not just US companies) thrive not just because they have a good sellable product but because investors pour their money in them.

Am I anywhere near it? Sorry about my ignorance in the field, but it you (or anyone else, of course) could be patient enough to answer my dumb questions, I'd truly be grateful. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/05/2005 10:59:00 pm  
The point is simple.

If countries wish to genuinely influence America, they can do so by withdrawing their financial support (i.e. buying dollars to artificially prop up the value of the U.S. economy). The U.S. does it on a routine basis when it withdraws foreign aid from countries it disagrees with...

...and what product is it that the U.S. government is producing that has such value? (Not Walmart, etc.)

War? Human rights abuses? Veiled threats to sovereign nations to toe our line or else?

It would seem that other nations are investing in their own demise...a new empire.

Conversely, for Americans, the risks inherent in allowing other nations to determine our economic future is great. Would you borrow money from loan sharks and guarantee that your children will pay, confident that they'll figure a way to do so? What is said sharks decide to call the note?  

Posted by Buckwheat
2/05/2005 11:50:00 pm  
From an Oct. 23, 2004 editorial

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) summarizes the global economy as follows: "Outside of the United States, Japan's highly touted growth surge ended in the spring, while China has applied selective measures to cool off its economy and met with mixed results. Europe, especially Germany, continues to languish at low growth levels while monetary tightening by the Bank of England has cooled the housing bubble in the United Kingdom and slowed the economy. Forecasts of 2005 global growth, already set below 2004 levels, are contingent upon an oil price of $30 to $35 per barrel. Even though oil is above $50 per barrel and the effects of U.S. policy stimulus have largely run their course by now, few analysts have been discussing the likelihood of a global recession, but such an outcome is looming. Acknowledging that possibility instead of denying it is a necessary condition to avoid a recession next year."

According to John Makin, resident scholar and the director of fiscal policy studies at AEI, there is one major dynamic that is driving the global economy at the current time, excess capacity.

" The U.S. effort to alleviate excess capacity by boosting demand ironically contributed to a global capacity problem by creating a rush of lending to Asia that helped to boost global supply. This combination, of course, contributed to a surge in America's external deficit that has widely been associated with the expectation of a weaker dollar. The spillover of U.S. demand-boosting fiscal and monetary policy into Asia, awash with a swelling supply of traded goods, was accommodated and recycled by Asia's central banks. Aggressive purchase of dollars and recycling of those dollars back into U.S financial markets via purchases of U.S. government and agency securities helped to sustain U.S. demand growth at stable interest rates and prices."
 

Posted by Dianne
2/06/2005 12:02:00 am  

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home