Posted on 03/12/2003 4:12:41 PM PST by AndyJackson
As American and British troops prepare to invade Iraq, public opinion in these countries does not support war without U.N. authorization. The rest of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to war. Yet Saddam Hussein is regarded as a tyrant who needs to be disarmed, and the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 which demanded that Saddam destroy his weapons of mass destruction. What caused this disconnect?
Iraq is the first instance when the Bush doctrine is being applied and it is provoking an allergic reaction. The Bush doctrine is built on two pillars: (1) The United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and (2) the United States arrogates the right to preemptive action.
These pillars support two classes of sovereignty: American sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations, and the sovereignty of all other states. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. To be sure, the Bush doctrine is not stated starkly; it is buried in Orwellian doublespeak. The doublespeak is needed because the doctrine contradicts American values.
The Bush administration believes that international relations are relations of power; legality and legitimacy are mere decorations. This belief is not false, but it exaggerates one aspect of reality to the exclusion of others. The aspect it stresses is military power. But no empire could ever be held together by military power alone.
Yet that belief guides the Bush administration. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel shares the same belief and look where that has led. The idea that might is right cannot be reconciled with the idea of an open society. Hence the need for Orwellian doublespeak.
But nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. Those who make such claims are bound to be wrong at times, and so can enforce their claims only by coercion and repression. Bush makes no allowance for the possibility that he may be wrong, and he tolerates no dissent. If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists, he proclaims.
Of course, the presence of extremist views in the executive branch does not make America a totalitarian state. The principles of open society are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the institutions of American democracy are protected by the Constitution. There are checks and balances, and the President must obtain the support of the people. Nevertheless, the Bush doctrine could do untold harm before it is abandoned - as eventually it will be.
I see parallels between the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy and a boom-bust process or bubble in the stock market. Bubbles do not arise out of thin air. They have a solid basis in reality, but misconception distorts reality. Here, the dominant position of the United States is the reality, the pursuit of American supremacy the misconception.
For a while, reality reinforces the misconception, but eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable. During the self-reinforcing phase, the misconception may be tested, and when a test is successful the misconception is reinforced. This widens the gap, leading to an eventual reversal. The later it comes, the more devastating the consequences.
There seems to be an inexorable quality about this, but a boom-bust process can be aborted at any stage. Most stock market booms are aborted long before the extremes reached by the recent bull market. The sooner this happens, the better. That is how I view the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy.
The Bush administration came into office with an ideology based on market fundamentalism and military supremacy. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, it could not make much headway in implementing its ideology because it lacked a clear mandate and defined enemy. Terrorism provided the ideal enemy because it is invisible and never disappears. By declaring war on terrorism, President Bush gained the domestic mandate he lacked.
But his policies have already caused severe unintended consequences. The EU and NATO are divided. The United States is perceived as a giant bully throwing its weight around. Afghanistan has been liberated, but law and order has not been established beyond Kabul. Indeed, President Karzai must be protected by American bodyguards. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict festers.
Beyond Iraq an even more dangerous threat looms in North Korea - a crisis precipitated by President Bush in his eagerness to break with what he deemed to be Clinton's appeasement. Bush repudiated the "sunshine policy" introduced by President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea and included North Korea in the axis of evil.
Rapid victory in Iraq with little loss of life could bring about a dramatic change in the overall situation. Oil prices could fall, stock markets could celebrate, consumers could resume spending, and business could step up capital expenditures. America would end its dependency on Saudi oil, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could become more tractable, and negotiations could start with North Korea without loss of face. That is what Bush counts on.
But military victory in Iraq is the easy part. It is what comes after that gives pause. In a boom-bust process, passing an early test tends to reinforce the misconception which gave rise to it. That is to be feared here.
It is not too late to prevent the boom-bust process from getting out of hand. The U.N. could accede to chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's request for several months to complete his inspections. America's military presence in the region could be reduced, but it could be beefed up again if Iraq balks. Invasion could take place at summer's end. This would be a victory for the U.N. and for the United States whose prodding made the Security Council act resolutely. That is what the French propose, but that is not what is going to happen. President Bush has practically declared war.
It is to be hoped that Iraq's conquest will be swift and relatively painless. Removing Saddam is a good thing; yet the way President Bush is going about it must be opposed. In the long run, an open society cannot survive unless the people who live in it believe in it.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and of the Open Society Institute. - Ed.
...The Bush doctrine is built on two pillars: (1) The United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy;...
The first pillar is merely an assertion on the part of Soros. The administration hasn't stated that their goal is to "maintain unquestioned military supremacy." Their first duty is protect and to defend the United States.
And another?
These pillars support two classes of sovereignty: American sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations, and the sovereignty of all other states. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
I suppose it does - if one presupposes the equality of every nation state that exists. Is that what Mr. Soros is asserting here?
I like to believe that the American hegemony and the resultant Pax Americana are the result of Devine Intervention in world affairs.
Some of us regard Milkin to be a hero. He rescued the bond market in the 1980s, and Ivan Boesky, a real crook, got off easy by fabricating lies against Milkin to suit the wishes of prosecutors going after 'the big fish.' Soros, of course, has greased the right palms. Like Ross Perot and Larry Ellison, his billionaire status rests on being the favored child of omnipotent government.
In the last 100 years, can anyone provide better examples of governments as benefactors, than the United States and Great Britain?
We've seen the German model. We've seen the Soviet Russian model. We've seen the Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese models. Which one of these models was better than the United States, more fit to resolve issues around the planet, without subjegating it's citizens? We've seen European, Central and South American, Asian, Australian and African models. None surpass the United States.
The United Nations is often touted as the natural planetary governing body. Hooey! The United Nations can't point to one single victory in it's existance. Cyprus, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, a number of places in Africa... the list is extensive. Where the United Nations has raised it's ugly head to get involved, it is still involved. Perhaps someone else can think of an instance of success. I can't. Not only that it fails to rail on terrorism, coddles terrorist leaders and won't even denounce present slavery or white genocide in Africa. The United Nations is one of the most prominant frauds ever perpetrated on this planet's citizens.
We liberated the Pacific. We helped liberate Europe and Northern Africa. We have rebuilt more nations that most nations have ever conquered. We turned governments from pariah states without war in some instances. Nicaragua was one. There was an insurgency that removed the communist government there, but they did the heavy lifting by election, once Nicaragua realized a communist nation wasn't going to fly without free elections in this hemisphere. Then there's the USSR.
We have helped liberate France, Germany Belgium, Italy, a number of other states in western Europe, a number of Eastern European states, a number of former Soviet States, Japan, the Pillipeans, South Korea, Parts of China and other places. We even liberated the citizens of Soviet Russia. What did we take for ourselves. What lands did we demand to remain property of the United States? What riches did we denude the conquered countries of?
Soros mentions the willingness of constituent citizens to live under a certain system. He addressed Afghanistan and misses the one right under his fat ass. For all the carping the United States is doing a job that no other nation or agency on the planet can or will do. If even one middle east state develops the bomb outside of Israel, Isreal will go first and we will be next.
My question to Mr. Soros is this. Mr. Soros, do you like living in a free nation? Do you consent to be government by a free Republic? I ask because if you do want to be governed by a free Republic, you better recognize that that free Republic must do certain things to maintain itself as a free Republic.
Our President George W. Bush isn't perfect. His supporters and I go round and round from time to time, when I disagree with him. When it comes to national defense, I'm going to be right in there supporting him unless he's going to dismantle it. I would urge Mr. Soros, the intellectual wanna bees from the media and the entertainment industry to do a little self-assessment. Do you want a free Republic or don't you?
You see folks, if we can't back Bush and our free Republic now, when the hell will we be able to? I don't expect Bush to get a free pass all the time. I'm going to be here to make sure he doesn't get one from time to time. But when it comes to terrorism, the prevention of third world nations and terrorists to obtain the bomb and other WMDs, or the attempt by China to use proxy states to take down our free Republic, I'm not only going to be directly behind Bush, I'm going to be pushing.
Mr. Soros I'm getting a little tired of assessments that seek to caste the United States as a new pariah state. If you don't know better, screw you and your bubble!
Emphasis mine.
Stick to stocks George. While it may not have appeasement by Clinton, history has – already – demonstrated it was a mistake. It makes absolutely no sense to blame the situation in North Korea on Bush. And unless I am misreading him that is what he is doing.
--Boot Hill
Soros got his premise about the "Bush pillars" wrong. If the premise is wrong, that which follows is all faulty.
This is not a dispute over water rights. Al-Quada has set out to destroy us and our way of life. There is no reasoning with that kind of enemy. They started this war. They declared it a fight to the death. With terms so clearly defined, they must die if our lives are valuable enough to fight for.
Mr. Soros may think his life is not worth fighting for, so let him have a seat in downtown Baghdad while he waits for Saddam to help him "out".
No George, but pontificating nonsense and leading an elitist backstabbing limousine liberal lifestyle sure turned you into alot of hot air.
George is still bitter from his little dance with the internet bubble. He waited 3 years and then went long in early 2000, lost several billion in 60 days and if I recall correctly fired the top man and closed the fund. Kind of lost his magic touch without his sleazy palm greasing inside info. Thanks for playing George, now shut up and go hug a communist.
And like all socialists, he loves to moralize on the "immorality" of standing up to serial murderers such as Saddam Hussein.
And here I thought he was the Antichrist.
Somebody post that photo of people jumping out of the WTC on 9/11/2001. Suits Soros just fine.
--Boris
| People: | George Soros |
| Occupation: | Chairman |
| Institution: | Soros Management Fund Open Society Institute |
| Contributions: | Since 1991, Mr. Soros has contributed well over $15 million to: The Lindesmith Center, part of his Open Society Institute |
Clearly, this man is no friend of conservatives.
--Boot Hill
Free Republic Stock Market/Economy Discussion List. Freep Mail me if you want on or off this list.
He builds up a bunch of straw men to knock them down with his arguments.
Assuming for a minute that 9/11 was NOT a nefarious plot hatched by GW Sr. and the Illuminati/Skull&Bones, etc, then one is led to the inescapable conclusion that the US was ATTACKED by muslim terrorists, most likely supported by Iraq, on 9/11. Furthermore, it was BETRAYED by France and the socialist UN with article 1441 who promised one thing then and say something else now, and that it was BLACKMAILED by N.Korea during the socialist patsy/coward Klintoon's term.
Perhaps America is just setting things right to create a place, which is not "safe for democracy" in the global sense, is "safe for democracy" in the United States so that American children can grow up without worrying about a neurotic muslim fanatic setting off a dirty nuclear bomb or a jealous socialist revolutionary setting off a car bomb in order to create "paradise on earth" based on HIS view of paradise...
The world often denies you any ideal choices. I'm not at all happy with the way this country has diverged from what the Founders intended, but it's important to realize that things could always be worse. One likely way for them to get worse, is for good men to do nothing, simply because the ideal choices they insist on having aren't on offer.
The market isn't as stupid as it looks at first glance. Most arbitrage opportunities get argitraged away. If you want to look into currency arbitrage, take a look at the Economist Mac PP index below from 16 Janyuary. Sell Iceland and Switzerland and buy Argentina, China, Russia and the Phillipines. Capital controls can keep a currency out of sync for a while, so I wouldn't bet on China. I think the Swiss run a corrupt economy, so they sound like a good bet. I happen to have visited and liked Iceland, so I couldn't bet against those Scandinavian beauties. They also are highly educated, uniformly speak English, and sit on top of some gigantic broadband pipes between Europe and North America.
Sorry, couldn't get the graph to post. It's on the Economist's Web Site, subscriber pages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.