Who will be the next world power?

Good posts Onifre. I don't know why people always jump to the "conspiracy" angle when this is discussed. What's so conspirational about business wanting to make a profit? (A LOT of profit) What's so conspirational about ruling powers wanting to maintain or increase their powers? (A LOT MORE power) What's so conspirational about business wanting to usurp/lobby/join the ruling powers to make money? Eg., the US military: The US dept of defense spends as much as the rest of the world combined. This is ridiculous. The US military is hardly about defense. It's about profit. A LOT of profit. Half Trillion $ worth of profit. You'll note there is no difference between Bush and Obama's annual military budget. That's why the US wants conflicts abroad. GE, Westinghouse, Dupont, etc. Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Black Water, etc. These companies don't have dispirate interests. They all love the smell of napalm in the morning. And then re-stocking more napalm. And then more napalm. Ka-ching! Why do people think there has to be conspiracy in profit and power? It's both natural and obvious in a capitalist or fascist nation.BTW, just got back from three weeks traveling across China. I am jetlagged, zzzz. Unfortunately, China and this subject of next super-power is so complex I don't have anything specific to add to this thread (sorry), except, I think the rulers SHOULD worry about a revolution. The police state in China is terrible. China has very scary security. I was often searched and questioned for no reason. I visited another similar police-state-nation two years ago, Myanmar. Americans should know with every small liberty/right we allow our government to take away from us we become more like those nations. But I suppose as long as our government/elite rulers takes liberties and rights away gradually, the slow-witted critical mass won't complain until it's too late. I am reminded of the boiling frog experiment when the frog doesn't leap out in time.LASTLY, Oni, if you are getting short on comic material, you might want to consider an oriental trip. Superstition and hyper-contradictions abound which allow some humorous observations. The sexism/discrimination is a major downer though.regardsEdited by dronester, : clarity

Hi Straggler,Errrm, this isn't very difficult to figure out Straggler. Regarding "How do they do it" and "Who is exactly "They"", . . . just off the top of my head, here's a few thoughts:1. Dick Chaney, former Vice President of the US, was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000. Halliburton is US-based oilfield services corporation that was given many no-bid contracts during the illegal Iraq war. It's an understatement to say they made spectacular profits.2. Every year the military industrial complex has their annual sales convention. Just like every other business, salespeople meet with their hopeful clients hoping that their brand of napalm, or phosphorous bombs, or, cluster bombs, or whatever other "illegal" weapons, will be the hit of the season and many orders will be placed. To me, its quite sickening as to how slick and "main-stream" this convention has become. It is just like any other business convention.3. Military Industrial Lobbyists. The US government is the best that money can buy. Literally. I can't imagine another group of lobbyists besides the pharmaceutical business that is so entrenched in our government.4. Gleeful eagerness of US government officials to use "military solutions" over diplomatic solutions. Former United States Secretary of State., Madeline Albright said, "What's the use of having troops [weapons] if you are not going to use them".5. Members of Congress who get campaign money from the military contractors.I am sure others can build to this list. But it should be sufficient to answer your question "What would happen if the elected government chose to reduce the military budget?" Never gonna happen.cheersEdited by dronester, : add #5 item

Hey Straggler,Note, we are drifting off-topic. Though you attack conspiracy straw men arguments throughout your post, I think your final conclusion is that no conspiracy theory is supported. If so, then we are in agreement . . .Although I wrote a very long reply, I feel compelled to only add these few points:1. The corporate media (Fox "News" and the "liberal" NY Times: check out the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. They show the supposed "liberal" New York Times to be quite conservatively/fascist biased) CAN and DOES often effectively marginalize candidates (Nader, Perot, Kucinich, Dean). (Also, NY Times' self-censoring invisible support for Bush II has been jaw-slacking). But, yes, you are correct, SOMETIMES. . . Yes, I concur. Where is the conspiracy theory in this? There is only so much propaganda, misinformation, and bias that is successful. Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their ways?2. Bribery is one sort of effective manipulation. Perhaps you missed my #5 item addition from my last post? Members of Congress get "campaign money" from the military/business contractors.3. Of course. This seems what Oni (and I for the lesser part) have been unsuccessfully expressing. The idea is that the corporate media TRIES to keep the public in the dark. USUALLY successfully.To learn more, an excellent read is Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky "Manufactured Consent". The book argues that mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations and how they effect politics.Onifre, this topic is usually your bailiwick, if you can clarify/improve any of my thoughts, please do.cheersEdited by dronester, : additionEdited by dronester, : formatting clarity

Good posts Oni. Off the top of my head, here are four things that show things are NOT a-changing:1. US continues to sell weapons to Israel (including illegal phosphorus bombs when used against civilians) despite US laws preventing arms shipments to nations with human right violations.2. "Courageous" SoS H. Clinton Calls Israeli Home Demolitions, "not very helpful". (Wow, what a completely different tact than what C. Rice used. Golly gee, a peaceful Israel/Palestine solution is right around the corner!)3. Expanding Afghanistan war.4. More money for C-17 transport planes that the Air Force doesn't want, and the Secretary of Defense explicitly asked to *cut* them from the budget. The only people who still want the planes are the contractors who make money even if the finished planes sit idle, and the members of Congress who get campaign money from the contractors.

Please review my message #77. Before your quotes, you have may have skipped over the very important qualifying word "SOMETIMES . . .". Strange how I even uppercased the word for emphasis. For clarity, I finished the "Yes, I concur" paragraph with a question that used another qualifier, again, uppercased.Perhaps it was just bad writing/paragragh formatting on my part. If so, I apologize.Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Hi Bluescat48,Thanks for the clarification of phosphorus bomb use.I also want to use "depleted uranium" weapons in my arguments. But am unsure of it's illegality (internationally) and of its long term health risks. I have done much googling, but can't find any "final" word. Can you assist at all?Thanks

Silly? Hmmm. Perhaps, but . . .During the Bush Administration, it might seem they got their way OFTEN ENOUGH. Millions dead in an Illegal war based on lies, . . . supported by the corporate media. Shredding of constitution and liberties such as habeas corpus, torture, wire-tapping, . . . supported by the corporate media. Increased spending and graft for the industrial military complex (while decreasing social spending), . . . supported by the corporate media.Would you also regard these facts above silly?How about . . .Did you know that General Electric owns NBC? Did you also know that General Electric produces military hardware? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias that NBC might have in news programming?How about media military analysts placed on major broadcast networks with ties to the Pentagon? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias they might have toward "military-solutions"?http://mediamatters.org/research/200804290005What you call a cynical outlook, others might call reality-based.I am fond of quotes. Here is another favorite . . . I wish others (especially the once valued fourth estate) had less blind trust in government/big-business/corporate-media as I.regardsEdited by dronester, : clarified quotesEdited by dronester, : fixed quotes again. erroneous use of dBcode! Grrr.

Errr, thanks for the encouragement Kuresu. It would have been better if you said "Congrats. You found a liberal progressive organization that finds a conservative bias in the SUPPOSEDLY LIBERAL NY Times."1. You are correct, the Times DOES OCCASIONALLY publish solid expose. However, effective propaganda doesn't just control what you read, it also controls what you don't read. Sins of omissions also serve the propaganda. Eg., according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), The Times had an embargo of all criticism of Bush before the 2004 election.2. I noticed you only derided Mediamatters and not the two specific examples. Are the examples true or not? (BTW, the first example didn't come from Mediamatters)3. These two examples weren't meant to be the only knockout pieces of evidence I hang my entire case on. Like a court case, if I can present enough quality evidence, then I hope to persuade an impartial jury. I also included some examples in message #70, #77, and #81. Do you wish to contest those examples too? For example . . .4. I think EVEN YOU would agree with me that there IS graft in the US' half trillion $ ANNUAL defense budget. Eg., money for C-17 transport planes that the Air Force doesn't want, and the Secretary of Defense explicitly asked to *cut* them from the budget. The only people who still want the planes are the contractors who make money even if the finished planes sit idle, and the members of Congress who get campaign money from the contractors. C'mon Kuresu, that's just wrong. And you know only a tip of the iceberg. Will you agree on this point.5. Have you read Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky "Manufactured Consent"?Thanks for Google Scholar suggestion. Talk to ya on Monday.regards

Errm, I didn't accuse you specifically, it was meant as a general statement that went with the previous quote.Thanks for the reply, I won't be able to respond fully until Monday. Thanks for your patience, have a good weekend.

(Two invitations served, and I am on neither guest list. For christ's sake, I'm standing right in front of you! Sheesh. (Damn that Stile, he said I would be more likeable/credible with an avatar!)Hey Straggler,I broke this long missive into five parts, starting with this Part 1 . . .I am a little dismayed that I am having difficulties fully persuading you of my viewpoint. As long as I am not claiming big-business always gets its way, only that its historic interaction with the government largely influences the nations course, I don't see the reason for such a drawn out discussion. Oh well, . . .Re-reading the thread helped me re-evaluate our discussion. It seems like you are near agreement. Sorta. Here's a quick replay:1. You replied to my post #70, and said my Cheney reference was an obviously excellent example. But unfortunately, you also thought it was an anomaly. (Sheesh.)2. In my message #70, the 5th point read: You apparently missed this item. In your post # 72 you ask: In my post # 77, I re-posted this: You never replied to this repeated point. The first time you didn't reply, perhaps it was a simple oversight. But does the second non-reply indicate concession?Anyway, add high-paid lobbyists and crony insiders, and large-scale manipulation is inevitable.Also, you haven't responded to my items from my post #100, (although post #100 was addressed to Kuresu). As I wrote in post 100, my argument won't be won using one large single fact, but rather, many smaller significant ones. IF I am scoring any points, then you could acknowledge them to help move the discussion forward.3. Your post #83, you conclude about Oni and my views: Marvelous.4. In your post #99: Again, marvelous. This indicates that you think you have at least a somewhat skeptical nature toward government, . . . maybe even similar to me.So, with these specific points in mind, I am hypothesizing that we have at least somewhat similar viewpoints. How similar? Let's use the ol' one-to-ten scale. "One" is complete blind trust toward the government. Think Britney Spears when she said: The other side is "ten". Maybe an Oregon aluminum-hat-wearing, anarchist-survivalist-conspiracy-theorist of all things.I would place myself on this scale as a "seven". AS A GUESS, I would place you as an average "five". If you agree this is nearly true, I would be wasting my time and effort to get you to see a measly two-point difference in our philosophies. Thanks for the interesting discussion, but we are done.If you agree, save yourself some time and effort and disregard the following posts.If you don't agree or are merely curious, then proceed to the next posts . . .`Edited by dronester, : Confused replies from Kuresu with you, re-edited

Part 2, keeping in mind you live in London, Here's a brief American history lesson:The founding fathers were not as democratic as US schools have made them. Some urged there to be a King. Equal rights were non-existent. Blacks and women could not vote. And more importantly to our discussion, only property owners could vote. The thinking was, only the rich (elite rulers) could properly govern the nation. The unwashed masses needn't concern themselves with the politics of the day. Indeed (I know how very much you like my quotes), here's another favorite of mine regarding the true purpose of government: Though some attempt to subvert the quote, I believe it clearly shows the purpose of American government 200 hundred years ago, . . . as it does today.Part 3 coming up . . .

OK, here's Part 3, . . .I strongly agree that the government, corporate media, and big-business act together to control/enhance their power and profits.Since you entertained my Cheney example, but thought it was an anomaly, perhaps I just need to show you more examples of cronyism/interaction. OK, then let's specify some of the players in the these "vague" terms:BIG-BUSINESS/DEFENSE INDUSTRYHere are some of the military mega-corporations that suck corporate welfare from the tax-payers teat. I wanted to mostly concentrate on military contractors who get nearly half a TRILLION dollars of contracts EVERY year from the US's "defense" budget. (If I write half TRILLION dollars enough times, perhaps a reader may think a half TRILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL budget is a lot of money. For instance, according to UNICEF, just a tenth of that amount would nearly cure world hunger or all worldwide treatable childhood diseases (like malaria). But I guess that isn't as important as military graft. Rant off):
General Electric,
Westinghouse,
Lockheed Martin,
Boeing,
Northrop Grumman Corp,
Ratheon,
TRW,
General Dynamics,
Halliburton,
Carlyle Group, etc..So what? First off, there are the enormous campaign donations.So what? They usually give to BOTH Democratic AND Republican parties but never to independent or socialist parties. Doesn't that overwhelmingly indicate they don't care which party wins? Do you think this makes for FAIR presidential candidate races? Or might things be . . . manipulated?CORPORATE MEDIAGENERAL ELECTRIC owns NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.WESTINGHOUSE owns CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.DISNEY owns ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America, ESPN, Lifetime Television, othersTIME-WARNER TBS owns America Online (AOL), CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network.NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS owns Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and NEWS BroadcastingWho owns CNN? or MSNBC? ABC? : LA IMCSo what? Hmm, wasn't General Electric and Westinghouse in the first list also? Hmm, interaction of business and corporate media? Conflicts of interest? Cronyism much?GOVERNMENTFrankly, any American historical political list of cronyism is nearly infinite. I wouldn't even scratch the surface. I read Joe Conason's book "Big Lies" and he writes it would be possible, but GRIM and MORALLY EXHAUSTING, to write only about the Bush family connections. From just a few generations back, Bush family and associates in international companies range across every sector of modern economy: oil, banking, equities, venture capital, computer software, life insurance, high tech security, real estate, cable television, fruit and vegetable imports, irrigation, airline, etc. As Oni and I have said before, the cronyism is so entrenched, it hardly matters if a Democrat or Republican is elected. Perhaps it wouldn't even matter if an independent or socialist became president.OK, how about one specific example of Bush cronyisms, . . . how about the Carlyle Group. From Conason's "Big Lies, "[the Carlyle Group is] . . . possibly the most influential and successful company based on crony capitalism. Carlyle Group's web site described it as "an investment strategy focused upon the intersection of government and business". Among Carlyle's partners are numerous Reagan and Bush I administration figures including R. Darman (advisor to Bush I), James Baker III Secretary of State, campaign chairman, chief attorney for Bush II. The firm involving his father and father's closest associates was awarded Texas public investment contracts at the beginning and end of Bush II Governor's term. Two other notible figures involved was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. And in Saudi Arabia where Carlyle serves as defense advisor to the kingdom . . . the BIN LADEN family were also investors. Hmmm, I don't recall reading this in any corporate media. I wonder why?Ok, how about an example from a democratic President. Of all the cronyistic things Clinton approved, in my opinion, few were worse than the pro-big-business-over-the-population's-interest "Telecommunications Act of 1996".From Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Wikipedia . . . Perhaps, just perhaps, if we had more than a handful of major corporate-media companies, maybe, just maybe, some of them would have done their job of notifying the public that Bush II was lying about Iraq, and possibly thwarting the immoral and illegal Iraq invasion. IMO, this is a grand lesson of what happens when the public or the institutions that are supposed to serve the public are subverted, instead to serve big-business. Does this not emphasize how little it matters which democrat or republican party wins the presidency?Part 4 coming up . . .

Part 4,ELECTION FIASCOAnother big sub-topic, surprisingly it wasn't brought up in our thread, . . . here's a quick overview . . .ELECTION FRAUD. Surely you heard about American "irregularities" such as unclear butterfly ballots, dangling chads, insufficient voting booths for democratic precincts, proprietary programmed electronic voting machines with no papertrail, pushpull polls, police intimidation at the voting booths, and the purging of thousands of legal names that were illegally put on a convict-no-right-to-vote list, etc. As the supposed democracy-beacon to the world, America's voting procedures is in actuality like a banana republic. The dirty tricks of the two major parties is completely unethical and often illegal.SYSTEMATIC VOTER DISENFRANCHISING. About HALF of all American eligible voters vote. They are convinced no matter what they do, nothing will matter. Individually, perhaps they are right. After 9/11, the Bush administration urged the population to go about their business and continue to shop. Big daddy Bush and his administration will take care of the bad boogey men. Best not to look or care at what Bush will be doing to keep your family safe. Afterall, government business should not concern the population, should it?MOST IMPORTANTLY, PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ARE A SCAM . . . They are sponsored by MAJOR CORPORATIONS! The bi-partisan committee, The Commission on Presidential Debates, Commission on Presidential Debates decides how long, where, how many, what questions will be asked, what questions will NOT be asked, and whether or not to exclude other candidates based on made-up criteria. It reduces the election process to a TV game show. It's a complete sham. And just one more way big-business, corporate media, and the government can ATTEMPT to successfully control voters decisions.Eureka StreetPart 5 coming up . . .

Part 5, the Conclusion . . . I think I kind of already answered these questions way back in my message #59: I have OFTEN asserted there is little policy difference in the Republican and Democrat parties. The needs of the population (universal health care, education) usually comes second to big-business. The same military contractors have been around for decades, their needs always come first. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a H. Clinton administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a Mike Huckabee administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in Romney administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a McCain administration. The budget for the military would get the largest cut, and health care and education, the smallest cuts.You never heard a democratic or republic candidate say he /she wanted to weaken/decrease the military budget. The media would portray that person as weak on terrorism. And the American public's cowardly manner after 9/11 guarantees they'll never vote for that type of candidate. This leaves candidates like Nader, Kucinich, and Dean out.HOWEVER, note my past message #77 "Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their complete ways?" Admittedly, big-business is buffeted to a small degree against the will of the population. But, perhaps you would have to go back to 1933's
Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal to find examples of big-business taking a back seat to the populations interests.As Oni has speculated, big-business probably competes to get their favorite of the elites elected. But in the end, either of the two party candidates would continue the same half TRILLION dollar military budget.Phew. I hope these five posts convincingly show that the government, corporate media, and big-business act together to control/enhance their power and profits.cheerio

Thanks for the reply Kuresu. That is my main point I was trying to make. In actuality that is completely true. In practice, much to my dismay, we've seen the last Bush administration not hampered at all by any threat of purse string restrictions. I remember I specifically criticised Pelosi for not using control of the purse strings in one of my posts (not this thread).regards