[Grovenet] The Iraqi View

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

You just made the case of every anti-democratic head of state! And it's
valid if history says anything. Our sort of "democracy" is exceedingly
inefficient and expensive. Historically, we rape resources whether they're
cheap labor, minerals, forests or the harvest of the sea. We consume them at
a rate far exceeding that of most nations. We spend billions on hammering
Iraq where millions of lives  could have been saved in other places and
millions of Americans could have been educated and prepared for a
significant role in life for the same money. 

But we'd rather hammer Iraq.

Dictators have constantly said that we are wasteful and must eventually
collapse due to our inability to husband our resources and compete with the
world. 

And it's arguably true that an intelligent dictator can make things happen
more efficiently. Mussolini really did get the trains running on time, to
the astonishment of the citizens of 1938 Italy. In this country in the
1990's the Mayor of San Francisco got his city's transit trains running on
time too: he abolished the schedules. Whenever a train arrived or left was
the time it should arrive or leave. No train was ever early or late,
according to Mayor Brown. 

That is just the sort of idiotic thinking that often characterizes America. 

But look at the cost of dictatorship. It's pretty high. No one can do
anything except what the state decides they can do. One needs "permission"
to live somewhere, to work somewhere, to buy anything or do anything. But
countries who submit to it have grown and thrived when the government was
reasonably intelligent, and they've seldom squandered more under a stupid
dictator than America does on a "good" day. 

Can we long survive this way after the last of our resources is gone?

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:13 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] The Iraqi View



On Sep 10, 2007, at 11:07 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Nevertheless it's one of the best plans I've ever seen, David.
>
> So why don't the people of the USA demand it?
>
> I keep watching the candidates for a sign of a plan, but so far all
> I hear are broad generalities and platitudes. I suspect that's  
> because that's what the candidate feels will "get by" alienating  
> the fewest prospective voters.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire

Thank you.

I don't believe that the people of the USA set policy or even demand  
policy.

In general, I feel that they cast votes for candidates based upon one  
or two major issues and an opinion of the candidate's electability  
and attractiveness.  Other than "single issue" candidates and "single  
issue" voters, there is a compromise in expressing a desired policy  
through the elective process.

If there is an important issue, citizens may attempt to communicate  
with Congress or the Administration.  They may fund political parties  
or special interest groups, if a group exists that covers that  
issue.  Again, except for "single issue" groups the effectiveness of  
the "demand" is blunted by the realities of fund raising and lobbying  
activities.  And, as we found in the processes to formulate a  
national energy policy and a national prescription medical policy,  
the interests of well funded professional lobby's will be heard  
better than the demands of "the people of the USA".  This is  
especially true where then is less than a complete consensus.

In the case of Iraq, there isn't a special interest group dedicated  
to building a stable Iraq without the presence of US troops.  We have  
groups that want the troops out, and troops that want an American  
presence in the Middle East, but I doubt that any group (except for  
people with relatives in Iraq) has much of concern for building an  
Iraq independent of American geo-political interests.  Even our  
military, who have given so much to secure Iraq, are bound by the  
rules of international politics.  No matter how much they may care  
for the civilians who are living and dying in Iraq, when the US  
military pulls out they will leave those people to their own resources.

Some capitalists like Warren Buffett may become rich by taking the  
long term view, but in general, large scale capitalism is biased to  
the short term view.  Extraction industries are concerned with the  
cost of getting the minerals out of the ground, not the cost of what  
happens later.  Factories are built with an eye to reducing the  
manufacturing costs, not the environmental costs.  The whole energy  
infrastructure is geared toward producing kilowatts, fuel, and BTU's  
rather than the long term cost of the impact on the global  
environment.  Where industries have taken a longer term view,  
globalization has taken the jobs and profit and sent it to places  
with a shorter view.

David



_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet