That's interesting in light of Cheney's 1% doctrine, i.e., even if there is a 1% probability of an event happening, namely a nuclear attack, it has to be treated as though it's a 100% probability. That became a self fulfilling prophecy with the invasion of Iraq. Industry calls the shots and tells government what to do. The latest emphasis on nuclear energy is all lobbyist driven and will be funded by government, which is to say, by taxpayers. We can have nuclear energy, spearheaded by a French firm, but we turn around and tell Iran they can't? Does that make sense? I have this vague recollection from the movie Reds that John Reed talks about WWI as being a way to protect J.P. Morgan's investments. Maybe there is something more at stake than Iran getting nuclear energy? Clearly bullying is in the mix, but corporate interests made a lot of money in Iraq, and a lot of money from the treasury simply disappeared. So who's going to profit from another war, and why are we lukewarm to chasing down the nuclear black market? The movie Lord of War (I didn't see it) is about the huge worldwide arms trade, and the U.S. is the largest arms exporter. In a Keynesian military based economy, war along with exporting arms are perfectly natural. We think back with fondness on WWII, and Vietnam was essentially without consequences. Nothing happened to us or to them after we pulled out, and who cares about 3 million of them anyway. The Vietnamese are never even mentioned, as the Iraqis are usually not mentioned by mainstream outlets, but, 3,000 Americans boys were killed is constantly mentioned. Logically, if anybody cared about the American boys they wouldn't be in Iraq, so clearly it's all rhetoric. In WWI it was J.P. Morgan, today it's ... Haliburton? ExxonMobil? ...? Unfortunately Iraq turned into such a turning point for this country. Industry just doesn't set good foreign policy, among other policy. -----Original Message----- >From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jan 26, 2007 10:50 PM >To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Project to Help Prevent Nuclear Terrorism > >On 1/27/07, Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> One wonders why our representatives need to be written to. Don't they know >> what's going on? What's your guess why they're doing nothing at all? Same >> reason I guess that nobody moved a muscle about Iraq for years. They live >> on a different planet than we do, a planet loaded with lobby money and >> denial, powerful combination. It's amazing how people have to be prompted >> to do the darnedest things, when they're not acting like lemmings that is. >> I wonder if these meetings will be more productive than Al Gore's project. >> Thousands of people, imagine that. >> >> > >It is, perhaps, worth noting that the Bush administration and the >formerly Republican Congress steadfastly refused to fund programs to >ensure the safe disposal and safeguarding of nuclear material left >pretty much lying around in the former Soviet Union. Ditto for >screening containers shipped to the USA for the transport of nuclear >or other nasty devices. > >The former would have opened the door to those who might want to >suggest the inspection and securing of nuclear material in the United >States. The latter would have inconvenienced large corporate >interests. > >(Whoops! Opening the door for politics again. Time to get back to >poetry, perhaps a bit of philosophy.) > > >-- >John McCreery >The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN >Tel. +81-45-314-9324 >http://www.wordworks.jp/ >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, >digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html