[Krusty]

Conservatives, break out your tin-foil hats pictures (or just don't bother with the link).

This little clip (16 min, 13 of real interview) is a short interview with an author who very succinctly describes the way the US Economic empire works (with specific examples)
Real Player Link from Democracy Now Economic Hit Men

I had a lot more commentary, but fuggit ... just watch the vid if you are so inclined. I found it completely fascinating. **"Liberals" will not be surprised and conservatives will call it conspiratorial nonsense, but I think it pretty well represents the liberal viewpoint without all the hotheaded personal attacks that usually go along with political views. Either way, whether you view it as fact or fiction, its just a very interesting piece and worth a watch.

** By "liberals", I mean virtually everyone on the entire planet with the exception of half of the US population who insist our foreign wars are somehow driven by ethical or "self-defense" reasons.

[OldManMac]

Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to read the book, and it is now on my reading list.

[vmarks]

Besides the wild conspiracy theories and claims he makes, a few things don't add up:

1) He was bribed to not write this book on more than one occasion, by his own admission.
So, he's untrustworthy on that score, he accepted the bribe and is now speaking. He says he had a change of heart on 9-11, that 9-11 was the result of so-called-EHM actions. So he's a part of the 'blame America first' club. Irresponsible and reprehensible.

2) He talks about how those who defied so-called-EHMs were killed by hit-men (CIA, by his claim.)
So why is he still alive, if what he says is true?

[Millennium]

I'm with vmarks on this. It doesn't add up, not that it wouldn't be patently ridiculous even if it did.

[spacefreak]

Once you get through all the Ward Chruchill-esque crap, a premise of Perkins is that we loan more money to countries than they can possibly repay so that we can take over their economies.

Well, guess what.... they don't have to take the loans. If Halliburton sells a big job to a foreign country on credit, it is that nation's responsibility to pay. If they can't, they probably shouldn't have ordered and taken delivery of those goods and services that they agreed to buy.

Much of the rest of his rant is of the usual anti-American variety.

The world is (and always has been) made up of a bunch of gangs battling for power. I like my gang. Not only are we effective, but we strive to do things in ways that provide opportunities for individuals to achieve personal success and happiness.

Perkins' obviously had a problem with the US being the top dog. What he doesn't state in that interview is which gang (or nation) he wished could be leader of the pack.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Besides the wild conspiracy theories and claims he makes, a few things don't add up:

1) He was bribed to not write this book on more than one occasion, by his own admission.
So, he's untrustworthy on that score, he accepted the bribe and is now speaking. He says he had a change of heart on 9-11, that 9-11 was the result of so-called-EHM actions. So he's a part of the 'blame America first' club. Irresponsible and reprehensible.

I dunno ... he pretty clearly stated that he wasn't really bribed per se ... more like given lucrative "assignments" that didn't amount to much just to keep him from writing his book. I don't know if you could call him part of the "Blame America first" crowd ... he was in a position to know what the US was up to ... perhaps he's blaming America accurately. And as spacefreak noted, its a matter of opinion as to whether or not there is any blame to spread in any case -- the countries did accept the deals.

Originally posted by vmarks:

2) He talks about how those who defied so-called-EHMs were killed by hit-men (CIA, by his claim.)
So why is he still alive, if what he says is true?

Again, he was talking specifically about leaders of nations who defied EHMs wishes on matters of US national dominance. "Offing" an EHM such as he claims to be wouldn't help achieve that aim since EHMs are not in a position to make such decisions for a country. Killing an EHM won't make a foreign country "fall in line" with US wishes ... killing a stubborn national leader who actually makes decisions for that country might.

Otherwise, I'm glad the flame fest didn't get to crazy here. The point of my post wasn't so much to present this guy's claims as gospel truth. Rather, it was to show some of the underlying assumptions that many of us "liberals" hold. Namely:

1) The US is the most powerful nation on earth right now. No nation gets to that level by playing nice and being fair all the time. In other words, US dominance isn't something passive, we are actively and constantly exercising our influence (military, economic, whatever) to maintain and expand that position. Many people would say "Duh .. that's what every country does" but I think its important to realize this when we start trying to divine the reasons for some of the things we do as a country. The idea that the Iraq War being the result of this exercise of power seems to me to be a much more reasonable explanation of why we are there and how we got there than the "WMD" and "Iraqi Freedom" arguments that seem a little ... *ahem*... weak if you look at what has really unfolded over the last couple of years (e.g. "slam dunk" intelligence that turned out to be completely false) Much of what we have done over the decades (Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran etc. etc etc) all seem to make more sense when viewed from this perspective. Similarly, the things we haven't done (such as intervene in humanitarian crises in Africa) are explained by the economics/power model as well ... why bother if there is nothing in it for us ??

Note, this isn't "America hating", its not silly indignation about the role of the US in the world, and its not screaming "Fascist" at our leadership (though many liberals espouse those sentiments as well). Its simply saying that this the economic/power model seems like a more credible and consistent explanation for what we do than the "moral right" arguments that are usually given for what we do. It sure makes a whole lot of sense to have invaded Iraq for strategic reasons .. the ostensible reasons given sure seem awfully .... wrong.

Its funny that spacefreak would describe the world as "a bunch of rival gangs battling for power". Yet, many conservatives would instead see the world in more moralistic terms ... a place where America is out there doing "good" while our enemies are out there doing "evil". America isn't out there doing "good" or "evil", IMHO. Its out there exercising its power and influence. This is, I think, what most "liberals" believe ... not the touchy-feely, peacenik-y, "blame America first" views that are oft attributed to them (myself included).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Its funny that spacefreak would describe the world as "a bunch of rival gangs battling for power". Yet, many conservatives would instead see the world in more moralistic terms ... a place where America is out there doing "good" while our enemies are out there doing "evil". America isn't out there doing "good" or "evil", IMHO. Its out there exercising its power and influence.

Just because my gang chooses to retain it's powerful position does not mean that it does no good. That is where my gang differs from many other gangs. My gang has always tried to do the right thing when it comes to individual rights and opportunities for the masses. That's what we do and how we operate.

At the same time, however, it is imperative that my gang protect itself and our interests. We may be good folks at heart, but we can become champion fighters if the gang is threatened.

I don't see how it's funny, or how my view contradicts that of other conservatives. I think most conservatives know that we did not ascend to power by practicing appeasement. We had/have to outmanuever our competition to ensure that our values and opportunities are protected.