re: The Effect of War on TelecomPost #107 is probably the best I've ever seen. I totally agree with the notion that the U.S. in this action against Iraq will suffer very serious long-term consequences. Utilizing completely unchallenged military might in inappropriate situations does not guarantee stability, but rather erodes it, long-term.
The U.S. needs to focus more inwardly, and to even be protectionist to some degree. Our economy is the issue for us, and because of our predominance, for the rest of the world. This inevitable military action against Iraq is incredibly poor timing, it will only make the U.S. economy much worse off. In the process, we will create long-standing animosity from various allies and non-allied countries throughout the world.
As the U.S. will suffer long-term from all of this, so will other 1st world countries. If the political establishment can not or will not wake up to the realities of all of this, then things will not be good for Telecom and other sectors of the economy not related to defense, legal, or healthcare. Those three will continue to do well, at the expense of us all.
What a great country.
Going back to #107's point about food, it's all about economic power in general. While we can do certain things that would be helpful, we don't, not because of arrogance but rather as the result of entrenched self-interest which doesn't include delivering food to needy parts of the world on a scale that really makes any difference.
The U.S. has three basic evils as I see them, and they are:
Our military is far too large and expensive to be justified. We spend far too much on our military and as Eisenhower pointed out in his farewell speech just prior to Kennedy taking office, we need to recognize that the Military-Industrial Complex have their own profit-oriented interests which do not reflect U.S. interests in what is actually needed military-speaking. Eisenhower pointed out that this sort of thing needs to nipped in the bud, which we obviously did not do.
We spend far too much on litigation and legal related matters in general. Another huge drain on our economy and something that is not reflected by our 1st World counterparts (along with Military spending).
We spend far too much on Heathcare than our 1st world counterparts. With around 11% of our GDP versus 7% for other countries, this represent spending about 50% more for healthcare.
So what to do about these three big drains on American wealth? The afore-mentiond "big three" reflect how badly things can get out-of-control with the military one rearing its ugly head regarding the immediacy of doing something against Iraq right now. Unless some 3rd political party addresses what is really wrong with the U.S., there won't be any improvement.
So Telecom and the U.S. economy in general will of course be hurt by the upcoming military action in Iraq, the occupation, and the bad feelings generated by the whole thing.
All I am trying to do is present some facts. Don't present some moral argument against war when several news sources recorded a spotted ship yesterday with French planes bound indirectly for Iraq.
Everyone is dirty and involved. I resent the argument that the US is the "only evil one" and France wants to save lives. Last time I checked, weapons don't save lives they take lives. The real reason for each country's views is called MONEY, plain and simple. The quicker you understand that, the quicker you will understand the motives of every country including the US, France, Germany, Russia, etc.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomWho was the guy staring into the TV camera telling the world "...either you are with us or you are against us..."?
Did God say "either you are with me or you are against me"?
Did God take action to wipe out Moslems and Bhuddists? Did Crusader conquer Jerusalem? Did we win Vietnam and Korea? Why the world should take that "two-for-one" choice from us?
Do you guys really think people living outside US are a bunch of ants will remain submissive to stronger powerful locus forever.... as in that "Bug's Story"? Pax Americana peace will be an era in human history much much shorter than the Pax Romana peace. What kind of "superpower" are we kidding?
I agree with the notion that economics is the driver for international policy, including war. It seems that you imply the US is somehow less culpable than the Russians, French and Chinese in this regard. Am I wrong?
Anyhow, Are you saying the fact that the French, Russians and Chinese have supplied weapons to Saddam is a justification for war?
Good post. Could you mention where you got the arms info?
I think if you look into the US side of this equation you'll find that the US is a way bigger exporter of arms and that more than one of the grave stones you mention has an occupant put there by US made weapons. In the Iraq/Iran war the US started supplying arms to Iraq and and Iraq was fighting against a very advanced Iranian airforce of US made fighter jets. I read recently that the US has stepped up its sales of arms thoughout the mideast, not just to Israel, the premise being that an armed country is more stable. This might be so, but in a few years we could just as easily be fighting against those same weapons.
The export of arms is a world-wide problem that needs attention and I think it would be hard to argue that the US always helps out the "good guys in the white hats" and Russia, France, China, et al., alway help the "bad guys".
With that said, I do feel France's building of reactors for Iraq and others, that can produce nuclear material (plutonium?, was it a breeder?) was horribly irresponsible and cudos to the Israelis for taking it out. I hope France was never paid.
BTW, I'm not condoning the arms shipments by these countries. I'm just saying that it works both ways, making us hypocrites as well. I'd like to think the US is more responsible, but I'll bet one could argue for days either way.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom There is probably no such thing as "fair and balanced" information.Testing one's position requires listening to as many perspectives as possible, applyng some critical thinking, and testing again.
Excellent point. The great myth of American journalism is that "fair and unbiased reporting" is even possible in such emotional issues. Not admitting a bias is more dangerous than making it clear. At least if I know where you stand it is easier to listen more critically. A reporter or editor or publisher will always have a point of view and they will always be affected by this point of view. The bias creeps in more with what is not said than with what is said. And this is what makes it hard to pin down. One thing is clear however. I don't see any "unbiased reporting" about the war on American cable news shows. They all seem pretty enthousiastic about it and pretty reluctant to criticize the government for the lies and half truths that have been told to date (e.g. the bald faced lie that there is a Saddam connection to 911). I get my news from a variety of sources, American and foreign, from MSNBC and the NY Times to TF1 and LeMonde.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom There is probably no such thing as "fair and balanced" information.Testing one's position requires listening to as many perspectives as possible, applyng some critical thinking, and testing again. <\b>
Excellent point. The great myth of American journalism is that "fair and unbiased reporting" is even possible in such emotional issues. Not admitting a bias is more dangerous than making it clear. At least if I know where you stand it is easier to listen more critically. A reporter or editor or publisher will always have a point of view and they will always be affected by this point of view. The bias creeps in more with what is not said than with what is said. And this is what makes it hard to pin down. One thing is clear however. I don't see any "unbiased reporting" about the war on American cable news shows. They all seem pretty enthousiastic about it and pretty reluctant to criticize the government for the lies and half truths that have been told to date (e.g. the bald faced lie that there is a Saddam connection to 911). I get my news from a variety of sources, American and foreign, from MSNBC and the NY Times to TF1 and LeMonde.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomRegardless of war, the telecom sector of the industry would never recover. With all the corruptions ( Excessive salary, huge stock options, corrupt board of directors, loan to executives, charging of personal expenses to the company, false statements about the cpmpany's finances, insider trading, incompetence, adhoc CEO appointments, no powers to shareholders, large number of companies making the same products, over supply of money, exported workers from the third world countries, excessive immigration etc.), we will not be able to sell in the overseas market. People do not want to buy products from bandits.
As far as the war morality is concerned, no country rerdless of military strengths, should be allowed to invade another country.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomLook. I don't like Bush much either but it actually works for him to screw up your facts so badly.
On Bush: 1. Born Again Cristian
True but usually we spell it Christian. ;-) This is an unreliable sign of evil though: Jimmy Carter is too.
2. University Drop Out
Nope. He graduated from Yale and then got an MBA from Harvard.
3. Reformed Alcoholic and Drug User
The key is reformed here.
4. Elected in texas on Concealed Weapons Stance
You have to remember that it doesn't mean the same thing here as it might in NYC. Concealed carry is not uncommon in the south and west. Different strokes for different folks. In practice, it hasn't made much difference (I live in Dallas).
5. Can give a rats ass about the environment
True. This is pretty much the only thing you haven't struck out on so far.
6. Cannot form his own presidential council uses uses daddy's people
This wouldn't have been so bad if his daddy had been better at choosing his. ;-) In case you miss my point it is this: this in itself isn't such a bad thing. The problem is that his Daddy's people were bad when he had 'em and they are worse now. The really scarey ones are the ones at the next level down (like Wolfowitz).
The U.S. needs to focus more inwardly, and to even be protectionist to some degree. Our economy is the issue for us, and because of our predominance, for the rest of the world. This inevitable military action against Iraq is incredibly poor timing, it will only make the U.S. economy much worse off. In the process, we will create long-standing animosity from various allies and non-allied countries throughout the world.
As the U.S. will suffer long-term from all of this, so will other 1st world countries. If the political establishment can not or will not wake up to the realities of all of this, then things will not be good for Telecom and other sectors of the economy not related to defense, legal, or healthcare. Those three will continue to do well, at the expense of us all.
What a great country.
Going back to #107's point about food, it's all about economic power in general. While we can do certain things that would be helpful, we don't, not because of arrogance but rather as the result of entrenched self-interest which doesn't include delivering food to needy parts of the world on a scale that really makes any difference.
The U.S. has three basic evils as I see them, and they are:
Our military is far too large and expensive to be justified. We spend far too much on our military and as Eisenhower pointed out in his farewell speech just prior to Kennedy taking office, we need to recognize that the Military-Industrial Complex have their own profit-oriented interests which do not reflect U.S. interests in what is actually needed military-speaking. Eisenhower pointed out that this sort of thing needs to nipped in the bud, which we obviously did not do.
We spend far too much on litigation and legal related matters in general. Another huge drain on our economy and something that is not reflected by our 1st World counterparts (along with Military spending).
We spend far too much on Heathcare than our 1st world counterparts. With around 11% of our GDP versus 7% for other countries, this represent spending about 50% more for healthcare.
So what to do about these three big drains on American wealth? The afore-mentiond "big three" reflect how badly things can get out-of-control with the military one rearing its ugly head regarding the immediacy of doing something against Iraq right now. Unless some 3rd political party addresses what is really wrong with the U.S., there won't be any improvement.
So Telecom and the U.S. economy in general will of course be hurt by the upcoming military action in Iraq, the occupation, and the bad feelings generated by the whole thing.