Soros American Supremacy Iraq

March 12, 2003 4:04 PM

The bubble of American supremacy by George Soros"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." (From Drudge)
posted by thedailygrowl (37 comments total)

This Drudge, is it a web site? Can I too go to it?
posted by xmutex at 4:21 PM on March 12, 2003

Let's see....

"As American and British troops prepare to invade Iraq, public opinion in these countries does not support war without U.N. authorization."

From the NYT article: "Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds"


"The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council."

Complete article here (registration may be required)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/politics/11POLL.html
posted by Oxydude at 4:31 PM on March 12, 2003

A majority also wanted to give the UN more time for inspections, BUT another bare majority thought immediate military action the best solution to the conflict. Chew on that one for a while. I'm going to be blunt here: That poll is completely fucked up and worthless.
posted by raysmj at 4:42 PM on March 12, 2003

Does George Soros rate any higher than Sheryl Crow as far as his intricate knowledge of multilayered international diplomacy? I think Sheryl's ahead, because she can play guitar. Like that other great statesman, Bono.

At least Soros uses economics metaphors. Can you imagine how gruesome his comments would be if he were a pro football player, and using sports metaphors? "The President is forth and long with England as his wide receiver but with Russia and Chirac on the defense. I would advise him to punt before he gets sacked."
posted by kablam at 4:47 PM on March 12, 2003

The poll found that 45 percent of Americans said Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in the attacks, a number essentially unchanged from a month ago.

55% that think we should attack without U.N. resolution - 45% of the idiots that think Iraq was involved in 9/11 = 10% that support going to war without the U.N.
posted by sp dinsmoor at 4:50 PM on March 12, 2003

Much of the non-western world views Soros as a criminal. Ithink he's just trying to cash in unpopularity of Bush/US policy to rehabilitate his image.

His theories are nothing but straw-men, which he does not do a very good job of demolishing.

Oh, and kablam, nobody's punted against France since WWI - since then, everybody who's tried to convert on the 4 down has scored.
posted by Jos Bleau at 4:57 PM on March 12, 2003

kablam do you really think that sports/music and international finance bear the same relationship to international diplomacy (or lack thereof)?

I would posit that an international businessman is perhaps the best non-Governmental person to comment on affairs of the world, as we all know what makes the world go 'round.

However you were probably just trying to discredit an opinion you don't share, rather than actually trying to say that international business is similar to sports or music vis a vis international affairs.
posted by cell divide at 4:59 PM on March 12, 2003

His theories are nothing but straw-men, which he does not do a very good job of demolishing.

So true for General Bleau of the 82nd Couchborne, too.
posted by y2karl at 5:13 PM on March 12, 2003

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.


Some straw man, that srgument...
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on March 12, 2003

y2karl, you need to read up on your SDB to understand the wholes of Soros' argument.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:41 PM on March 12, 2003

Who, Model airplane boy? Why not Tom Clancy then?
posted by y2karl at 6:11 PM on March 12, 2003

"So true for General Bleau of the 82nd Couchborne, too."

This goes down as one of my favorite comebacks ever.
posted by tgrundke at 6:48 PM on March 12, 2003

As for straw men -
"The Bush administration came into office with an ideology based on market fundamentalism and military supremacy."

Simply not true. 'Market fundamentalism' can mean whatever Soros wants it to - that term by itself means nothing. But as for the rest - Bush ran on a policy of disengagement from world affairs, on the most isolationist Republican platform since before WWII. His first DOD budget had NO spending increase, and this was in a time when budget surpluses were still expected to last forever.

"Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, it could not make much headway in implementing its ideology because it lacked a clear mandate and defined enemy." Also not true. Prior to 9/11 the grumpy Rummy was rumored as the fist cabinet member to be fired - why - he pissed congress off so because he wanted to cut troop strength by 1/3 to help pay for anti-terrorism/anti-hacker measures and space war. These are purely defensive measures - they reduce power-projection capabilities.

The correct sentence would read"Bush ran on an isolationist platform, based on cutting offensive military capabilities to pay for the building of purely defensive capabilities."

I could continue sentence by sentence. He has created a fantasy-version of Bush's policies - which he doesn't refute very well.

This is a Korean publication - Soros is clearly trying to rehabilitate his image in Asia, probably to begin currency speculation there again - he's blamed for the Asian economic collapse of '97, you know. (Have you paid attention to anything the anti-globo movement has said at all?)

It's OK to hate the Bush, but if you base your arguments on fantasy rather than facts, you're going to loose to the people who base their arguments on the real world. And if your hate blinds to to the fact that a guy who's most likely trying to rip off a whole continent by mouthing things he thinks they want to hear, well you'll get what you deserve.

Oh, and y2karl, personal invective will not win you any arguments outside of gradeschool. It must be so difficult to be so full of hate ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:49 PM on March 12, 2003

Y2karl's comment about SDB is what's known in au courant circles as a "witticism."
posted by raysmj at 8:18 PM on March 12, 2003

raysmj, yes y2k was oh so witty, but is he oh so pretty?
posted by billsaysthis at 8:45 PM on March 12, 2003

Jos Bleau - Regardless of Bush's official campaign platform, there has been a tight continuity between the (officially) 'newly evolved' Bush foreign policy doctrines - of preemption and limited sovereignity for all the nations of the world under the 'Pax Americana' - and the writings of the Cheney - Rumsfeld - Wolfowitz - Perle camp at least several years prior to the 2000 election. Perhaps 9-11 created a time discontinuity which reached back from the year 2000 to influence things written by Cheney and Wolfowitz in 1992. But I doubt it.
posted by troutfishing at 9:01 PM on March 12, 2003

Actually, while I generally respect M. Soros, I think that the analogy he is trying to construct between a stock bubble and the American lurch to war isn't accurate. Particularly, stock bubbles tend to involve massive popular movements in the market towards a particular choice. In this case, America seems to become more and more dead-locked as time goes on. If Bush did not possess the executive power (whether legitimately or not, as you please) to launch the attack at his whim, I doubt this issue would be resolved either way.

The whole point of making an analogy, and this is really my main problem with the article, is to try and find similarities between two things. Ideally, this allows one to accurately predict the behaviour of one of the two things under consideration from our knowledge of the other. M. Soros' analogy doesn't really seem to do this. It's a shame that he chose this particular one to use, as I'm sure there must be some other economic activity which could in fact fulfill the purpose he intends it for.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:57 PM on March 12, 2003

you need to read up on your SDB

That has got to be the funniest thing I've heard all day.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:21 PM on March 12, 2003

I am not blind to the fact that the Open Institute Project has done a great more good for more nations than you, O barcalounger field marshal. Mostly because my nonexistent hate is either your projection of your own hate, buddy, or you're just mouthing the same old same old dittohead cliches.
posted by y2karl at 11:38 PM on March 12, 2003

That's Open Society Institute, to be sure.
posted by y2karl at 12:40 AM on March 13, 2003

y2karl is de' man!
If only I were so clever with words.....

BTW, Have you written any books? If so, tell me and I'll buy. if not, please consider doing so. Or perhaps do talk radio just to hoist Rush and Sean and Bill and (insert extreme right wingnut with his own radio show name here) upon their petards. I, for one, would be an avid listener.
posted by nofundy at 6:36 AM on March 13, 2003

Y2karl, you seem not to be able to undertsand that Soros can be a phony even though he says Bush is bad.

Sorry, I assumed that your lack of logic and the poor quality of your postings and the personal invective were the result of an average intellect blinded by hate.

Now I see you are simply of preschool mentality, unable to think rationally or respond civilly.

As for Soros, it is quite common for billionaires to establish foundations to rehabilitate their image. Someday a nice teacher will tell you about the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and so on.

And go to Indonesia and tell them what a great guy Soros is - of course he can't go himself, they'd jail him if he did. Same for Malaysia, Thailand, and a few others. And also please share your admiration for him with the anti-globalization protestors - they keep burning him in effigy for some reason.

When you grow up, y2karl, you'll learn that you often have to ask the hardest questions to and be most skeptical of those who say what they know you want to hear. Especially ones with a long history of ulterior motives.

It's very easy to insult people here anonymously, its quite another to argue against them successfully. You can't do both.

And if realworld bravery somehow make it's way into your character, let me know when your Mommy let's you come to Chicago - you can then tell me face to face what brave little boy you really are ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2003

that General Bleau of the 82nd Couchborne wisecrack really stung
posted by y2karl at 7:19 AM on March 13, 2003

I guess my arguments are too powerful to refute, huh?

At least you could try to think up some new insults - what's the matter, is mommy at work now?

Like I said, when you're old enough to travel all by yourself, let me know.

Till then, I wish you and George Soros good luck - he'll get richer of the backs of the poor, and you'll happy with it becuse he mouthed a little Bush-hate along the way.

Sucker.
posted by Jos Bleau at 7:37 AM on March 13, 2003

Much of the non-western world views Soros as a criminal. I think he's just trying to cash in unpopularity of Bush/US policy to rehabilitate his image.

From Googling, it seems that, apart from the wacko trilateral/Masons/Rothschilds conspiracy theorist fringe, you march alone on this one.

His giving has inspired comparisons to an earlier age.

"George Soros is the only American who rivals the great philanthropists of the 1890's, John D. Rockefeller Sr., Andrew Carnegie and Julius Rosenwald," said Nelson Aldrich Jr., the editor of The American Benefactor, a quarterly, and who is himself a cousin of the Rockefellers.

Alfred Stepan, who helped found the Central European University, a $55 million Soros project in Budapest, noted the scale of Mr. Soros's philanthropy. "If you rank a donor by assets, Soros is nothing," said Mr. Stepan, a fellow at All Souls College at Oxford. the Ford Foundation, for example, which committed $342 million in 1996, has assets estimated at $8 billion. But, Mr. Stepan added, "if you measure it by dispensed gifts, especially in proportion to income, Soros is the world's single largest donor, individual or foundation."

New York Times, December 17, 1996
"A Giver's Agenda: A special report; With Big Money and Brash Ideas, A Billionaire Redefines Charity"
by Judith Miller

His theories are nothing but straw-men, which he does not do a very good job of demolishing.

You ever hear of the concept of using links to bolster your pulled from your ass assertions with, ah, reputable sources?

Ironically, it is the United States that stands in the way of a political alliance, with a membership much broader than NATO, dedicated to the promotion of an open society. We are caught in a trap of our own making. We used to be one of two superpowers and the leader of the free world. We are now the sole remaining superpower and we would like to think of ourselves as the world's leader. But that is where we fail, because we do not observe one of the basic principles of the open society. Nobody has a monopoly of the truth.

We are willing to violate the sovereignty of other states in the name of universal principles, but we are unwilling to accept any infringement of our own sovereignty. We are willing to drop bombs on others from high altitudes, but we are reluctant to expose our own men to risk. We refuse to submit ourselves to any kind of international governance. We were one of seven countries that refused to subscribe to the International Criminal Court; the others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. We do not even pay our dues to the United Nations. This kind of behavior does not lend much legitimacy to our claim to be the world's leader.

To reclaim that role we must radically alter our attitude toward international cooperation. We cannot bomb the world into submission, but we cannot withdraw into isolation either. We cannot and should not be the policeman of the world; but the world needs policemen. Therefore, we must co-operate with like minded countries, and, abiding by the rules we seek to impose on others, work together to build an open society.
posted by y2karl at 7:54 AM on March 13, 2003

I guess my arguments are too powerful to refute, huh?

as if...
posted by y2karl at 7:55 AM on March 13, 2003

"Turning Dollars into Change" Savvy financier George Soros gave away $1 billion in Europe. Now he's turned homeward with some unusual ideas and deep pockets

Time International
September 1, 1997
Vol. 150 NO. 9
posted by y2karl at 8:11 AM on March 13, 2003

Nice job recycling your previous protests - you phoned mommy at work, didn't you?

I guess she was too busy to come up with anything really new for you. Oh well, I'll wait till she can come home.

Till then, you can chew on these -

"In a weekend speech, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, known for his anti-Western outbursts, singled out billionaire American trader George Soros as the demon behind the fluctuating money markets and compared currency speculators to international criminals and drug traffickers. Currency traders buy and sell national currencies for profit in global markets, much as other investors trade in stocks, bonds and commodities."

If you read this review of his book, you'll find that he's been saying the same thing all along - no matter what the actual circumstances of the day have been. And his predictions have been wrong and wronger since.

GEORGE SOROS PROFITS FROM
SELF-CREATED CRISIS IN PERU

If you follow his deeds, read his works and then connect the dots, you'll find that he supports 'open societies' as a tool to manipulate weak autocratic ones into currency crises, where he then makes billions.

It's always the same story "I raped and pillaged your country's finances to help you - see how bad those aweful crony capitialits are! See how evil market fundamentalismis?" Yeah, it's all the fault of market fundamentalism - but it's always him that walks away with all the money. Donating a small percentage his wealth just provides cover.

There's lots more on this that I don't have time to dredge up now - but but I work for a living. Ask you mom about that - she'll tell you what a drag that is.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:32 AM on March 13, 2003

Time for a trip to the time-out corner, methinks.
posted by cardboard at 9:08 AM on March 13, 2003

Dismissing an idea simply by attacking the man who argues the point is a bit childish, in my opinion. Whether it be Soros or Martin Sheen. Personally, I don´t care for Soros, but the article he wrote brings up some interesting points. I was hoping to find some provocative comments but instead I find this type of stuff:

I guess my arguments are too powerful to refute, huh?

At least you could try to think up some new insults - what's the matter, is mommy at work now?

Like I said, when you're old enough to travel all by yourself, let me know.

Sucker.


Sometimes Metafilter is just a waste of time....


-
posted by sic at 9:28 AM on March 13, 2003

sic, where were you when I was trying to make my point in a civil manner and was subject to personal abuse for it, with a couple of atta-boys thrown in from others?

I dismissed no one's point simply because of who they were - I analyzed Soros's words and provided reasoning and evidence to support my assertations to the contrary. You can disagree with my ideas, but those were my methods. That's what MeFi is supposed to be about, right?

But for that I was attacked again.

And when I finally sank to the occasion, then I became the bad guy, in your eyes, it seems.

"...the article he wrote brings up some interesting points" I never said otherwise, or questioned the wisdom of posting it. And I never mentioned Sheen.

Sic, I'd have loved it if you jumped in at the first sign of personal abuse, instead of at the end.
posted by Jos Bleau at 10:06 AM on March 13, 2003

Listen, Jos Bleau, you refute yourself with your truly pathetic first link:

That prompted a reaction from U.S. Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, who declared: "Experience suggests that market movements are not dominated by a small group of currency speculators, let alone one person, who happens to be a U.S. citizen." He said traders take advantage of market trends, "but they do not have the ability to cause the trends."

Later, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said currency problems can "almost always be traced to the policies of the government involved." He called Soros "an honorable individual who has done a lot of good things around the world." Taking direct aim at Mahathir, Burns said: "It's a very serious issue to name one individual, and we don't think that's appropriate."
Soros, a 66-year-old Hungarian-born financier, is considered one of the world's premier currency speculators, and his massive selling of the British pound in 1992 was a key factor in forcing London to drop plans to join the European monetary system.

What makes him a particularly tempting target for Southeast Asian politicians is his role as a philanthropist and self-proclaimed democracy advocate. Through his Open Society Institute, he is said to be actively supporting the democracy movement in Burma, which is under repressive military rule. Malaysians, including Mahathir, have accused Soros of attacking local currencies as a form of punishment against Southeast Asian countries for admitting the Burmese junta to ASEAN.

I lack the Adobe acrobat, so pdf's are wasted on me.

As for your last link, it comes from a site that features links to Colloidal Silver/Chemtrails/Emerging Diseases /Forbidden Cures/Immunity Boosting
Nutrition/Mind-Body Connection/Ozone

Jesus, Christ, Give me a fuckin' break... An Art Bellworthy wingnut website--That's the best you can come up with? Oh, it is.... Your links suck major.

And for a guy who complains about personal invective, I don't see how General Bleau of the 82nd Couchborne or barcalounger field marshal is all that harsh. Your response--




And if realworld bravery somehow make it's way into your character, let me know when your Mommy let's you come to Chicago - you can then tell me face to face what brave little boy you really are ...

is beneath contempt.

As if citing Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, known for his anti-Western outbursts, didn't put you there already...

I really didn't mean to piss you off so but your lame attack on Soros was so weak, it deserved attention. And this filled with hate crapola--what is up with that? Judging from the evidence here, that's your problem--not mine.
posted by y2karl at 10:18 AM on March 13, 2003

I dismissed no one's point simply because of who they were - I analyzed Soros's words and provided reasoning and evidence to support my assertations to the contrary.
posted by y2karl at 10:27 AM on March 13, 2003

You could refute Soros sentence by sentence--the reasoning and evidence thing, I guess--but, naturally, couldn't actually be bothered to do so.

I would be interested in your response to these last four:

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.

That is pretty much what worries most thinking people. Note that all the Johnny-Come-Lately center-left warhawk webloggers and journos are jumping ship, having just jumped on... I'm sorry, but the only thing I hate is having my life in these guys' hands. I just don't think they have a clue about what they're doing and they're scaring the hell out of me.
posted by y2karl at 10:54 AM on March 13, 2003

Soros made great sense to me....
Just saying, don't want to piss off any wingnuts or anything...
If you can't refute the argument, attack the messenger?
posted by nofundy at 10:58 AM on March 13, 2003

Sorry, y2karl, I just coulnd't feel the love until now. My bad.

"I really didn't mean to piss you off so" - well, since your comment was insult and nothing else, you didn't do that very well, did you?

And as for bravery, that comment was wrong as well and I apologize. We all know that the bravest people are those who insult others via couch jokes anonymously. Over the internet.

And let's look at that terrible attack on Soros, who is so needful of your defense:

"Much of the non-western world views Soros as a criminal."
This is a fact, not an opinion. Which you do have not addressed.

"Ithink he's just trying to cash in unpopularity of Bush/US policy to rehabilitate his image."
That's an opinion on my part, but if that's an attack, I'd like to explain to me how it is, and how what you've said to me isn't. Other than couch references, you haven't addressed this either.

"His theories are nothing but straw-men, which he does not do a very good job of demolishing."
Once again, an opinion but hardly an attack. I give you half a point there becuse you mentioned it later, but you still haven't addressed that with other than ad-hominem attacks on me.

Since it wasn't an attack, it must have looked very 'week' indeed - and hence it 'deserved attention'. Ah, there's that bravery again - attacking the weak attack. Even if there was no attack to begin with.

Poor little George Soros - without you do defend him from non-attack attacks whatever would he do with billions?

As for the last 4 lines - well, duh, war the war may be easy, reconstruction is a dicey proposition, and if you don't like Bush then you think it's bad that he'll win the war. That's about as obvious as they get.

Why not throw in some more couch references? That makes you both brave and right.
posted by Jos Bleau at 1:25 PM on March 13, 2003

"Much of the non-western world views Soros as a criminal."

This is a fact, not an opinion. Which you do have not addressed.

No, it's pitiful spin, a crap lie which you buttressed with the crap links of the year. Colloidal silver, ozone, chemtrails--yeah, right. You smeared Soros from the git go and then lyingly, unconvincingly claimed you were about evidence and reason.

Ah, there's that bravery again - attacking the weak attack. Even if there was no attack to begin with.

I made two cracks at your expense, repeated them merely to point out I made two little jibes--after you went crybaby ballistic with the insults---and you pretend I'm insulting you again, Jos Q Sensitive Bleau. Well, OK.

Gee, I made the mildest of jokes at your expense, said something funny at which a couple of people laughed. (The latter is what really offended you. ) Two little jokes and your thin skinned crybaby ego goes into overdrive when someone laughs. Man, you are pathetic.
posted by y2karl at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2003