Paranoid, per your eg link, I'd have to suggest that the author isn't seeing all the numbers. For example, he says Lebanon's poverty rate is 28% doesn't mention that Israel's poverty rate is 21%. Sure, the US may have given Lebanon $40 million but Paris II has been pitching in. Lebanon had 15 to 16 years of civil war. Syria had been in the country until the so-called "Cedar Revolution" ended Syria's occupation in 2005. There was also an economic downturn following Rafiq al-Hariri's assasination. Unemployment in both countries is about the same. Curiously, the work force is about the same, too, even though Israel's populiation is larger. It may be that Israel's military is not counted as part of the workforce. Also, there are an estimated million people in Lebanon's workforce who are foreign workers. That makes the two workforce figures about the same. Israel's public debt is 99% of income, whereas Lebanon's is 150% largely due its civil war and Syria's occupation.
Don't take this personally, but I don't think much of Chomsky. He is a smart guy and has contributed a lot, but the more I read what he has written, the less I think of his writing, especially in the polical arena.
As far as Iran goes, who knows? The United States always has contingency plans for every part of the world at any given time. Sometimes more information is required. I seriously doubt there will be an invation of Iran. There are concerns over Iran's nuclear program, but they are years away from success. But, more recently, with Iran being implicated in the current hostilities with in Israel and Lebanon (some missiles were from Iran), there is a definite need for more intel. Even so, I believe the US will be quite restrained as far as Iran goes, militarily speaking.
Would you have opposed the CIA's attempt to avoid the Sandanista's take-over of the Nicaraqua by organizing the Contras' attempt at socialization? I think this was during a time when the domino theory was in effect. Most likely the thinking was that we wanted to maintain some semblance of order with the population having more power, instead of allowing all the power to go to the top man.
America's will never use a hydrogen bomb. I don't foresee any event that would demand it. Countries that work to create such a weapon, do so for face and for leverage. Some think N Korea already has such a bomb; I disagree. A leader of such a country would demonstrate it at the first opportunity.
Proliferation? ?The threat and use of violence is stimulating nuclear proliferation along with jihadi terrorism." I completely disagree. Such terrorism and attempts at proliferation would proceed despite any action the United States would take. Why wouldn't they?
SDI: Why would we want anyone to inspect our missiles? Anyway, Russia and China weren't too worried about it. Reaction to the withdrawal by both Russia and the People's Republic of China was much milder than many had predicted, and followed months of discussion with both Russia and China aimed at convincing both that development of a National Missile Defense was not directed at them. When Reagan was presient, he even suggested that the Russians would be given access to the SDI technology. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case, now. This technology might even be given to some other countries.
The United States is better equipped to figure out what can be used against us and what countermoves we can take against such hypothetical weapons.
BTW, Cheney, Bush and company are not "making a hell of a lot of money out of the Middle East right now." I see no evidence that this is the case. Any money received by Cheney, for example is money he has already earned, not money he is earning from current operations by Halliburton.
Gotta go. |
