|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Brad,
I am not sure what we disagree about, except for the price of oil. I know very well that the US was planning the invasion way before 9/11. No disagreements here, and 9/11 was a very flimsy excuse. I never said the opposite. The goal must have been control of oil reserves: if not, what else? I assume we agree 100% here. That it was a colossal disaster for the world and the US, we also seem to agree.
The goal simply could not have been to send oil prices way up. What kind of a stupid goal would that be, with a country whose economy runs essentially on cheap oil?
Clearly the goal was to begin to reshape the politics of the Middle East and assure control over energy reserves. Iran would have been next, had the Afghanistan (don't forget this country - it is basically out of control also) and Iraq adventures not been such total disasters.
We are left with the high price of oil. If you consider that oil prices quintupled since Bush took power and that the dollar lost at best 50% against the euro, weakness of the dollar cannot have anything to do with the sharp, steady increase. And peak oil is not the cause either, because this will cause a much slower price increase.
The main reason must be the huge production shortfall from Iraq, which isn't politically stable enough to guarantee a return to pre-war quotas. We could argue why Iraq's output has slumped so much over the years, but I do not believe Bush is sabotaging the US economy to this point. He and his people are just gigantic idiots.
As to why the dollar is falling, this is of course a consequence of insane policies of borrowed money, artificially low interest rates which are failing to revive a dead economy, and in general the state of near bankruptcy of your country.
Long story, so let's leave it at that. I am sure you are qualified in your area, but your thesis that a weak dollar is the cause for the high price of gas is certainly wrong. High oil prices here in Europe are not at all "artificial". They are caused by increasing oil prices in general, for which we can clearly blame the Bush administration.
Let me know - if you wish - where it is that we actually disagree, but first look at oil prices from 2001 vs. 2008 and Iraq oil output, and let me know what you think.
Cheers
Vic
|
Mar 06 '08
1:26 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by mongomad1
Vic,
The other part is who are GW's friends and where did he make money? Oil. He has no plan to bring down his cronies from record breaking profits.
We have the oil wells surrounded, why not take it now? GW wanted to take revenge for his daddy's life being threatened by Sadaam. It is a fight against an ideal, not a place. Why not Iran, the bigger threat all along? Because we have a Pres. as dumb as a box of hammers and completely self-serving, whether he is smart enough to know that or not.
God never tells people that starting a war is a good idea. If He did, you probably should not tell people, especially all of the US.
|
Mar 05 '08
8:27 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Hi Vic. Thanks again for sharing your comments.
From all the research I have done and all the reading and analysis I have done, what you are suggesting is wrong.
The move into Iraq by the USA was planned by the neo-conservatives in advance of 9/11. This was a strategic plan that was executed according to well articulated policy agendas in public documents that I can cite for you, if you wish. One such document, which I consider required reading is this one:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276
It is quite disturbing to me that our government would go to these lengths, but then our track record suggested this would happen. Most people didn't see it coming. 9/11 occurred and that gave the Bush 43 Machine all the political capital it needed to pursue this aggressive foreign policy.
As far as the price of oil goes, I think you are completely off base. The reason the cost of gas and energy is rising here in the USA is because of the value of our dollar - our currency. The price of oil is not rising - relatively speaking - in Europe or even in Canada. And please don't confuse artificially inflated gas prices in certain European countries as a comparison to what we have (some are very "green countries").
In other words, if our dollar maintained its value against say, gold, the cost of a gallon of gasoline would be roughly the same as it was when Bush came into power. I have an accounting degree with a background in economics, but I imagine an economist could prove this is true.
The fundamental argument of mine is that these foreign excursions are not beneficial to our people. They are intended to prevent things from happening, to keep the world in order with us at the top.
I think if we minded our own business and invested our money into our own economy, we would do very well. And we would draw immense respect from peoples, nations, and cultures who for decades have been under the collective thumb of the United States.
With all due respect, Sir,
Brad
|
Feb 29 '08
2:29 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
I disagree. Such high oil prices are disastrous for the US economy (and ours too, thank you Bush). New reserves are scant, and Saddam was making deals with Asian countries (in Euros to boot). Iraqi reserves were the most strategic in the world. Oil companies will go bankrupt without new wells (and oil production has peaked almost everywhere else). The hope was to control oil prices (down) by pumping a lot of Iraqi oil. When the situation becomes more normal (it is a matter of time, it slowly will), oil production will normalize and oil prices will head down again for a while (then inexorably up again).
You are right that the US wasn't smart enough this time to execute the plan flawlessly. I truly believe some big moron in Washington thought the American invaders would be greeted with cheers.
Vic
|
Feb 27 '08
2:09 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by mongomad1
You are part right, but it is not to give us new oil reserves, it is to keep the price per barrel high. If it was about new oil supplies, the price would go down. We are not smart enough to take oil to off-set their liberation.
Instead, we alienate the Middle East ad we pay more, making oil drilled by US companies that much more valuable.
|
Feb 15 '08
8:43 pm PST
|
|
Re: brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Your approach would be common sense if the purpose of this war was indeed to fight terrorism. Nobody in the world believes this except a few naive Americans. The unstated context of this war is "oil politics", e.g guaranteeing to Western multinationals new oil supplies.
Terrorism is nothing new and I don't think it is a big concern in the world of real-politik. In fact, there's been remarkably little terrorist activity in the West lately. It is just incredible that so many Americans do not see that the Army is simply being deployed as an aid to the oil companies. Please consider this rather reasonable possibility. And especially do not put too much stock into official political discourse...The White House does not really have much of a history of telling the truth to US citizens!
Vic
|
Feb 13 '08
9:17 am PST
|
|
brad's View (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Interesting comments, folks. Many thanks for penning your thoughts.
I understand that for some, having this military as a deterrent is very important. I am not disputing this! I am not in any way saying that our military has not been effective in deterring enemy threats. It was effective in large measure during the cold war. But to what extent was the buildup necessary?
I think the threat of our standing army and special forces, combined with our technological capabilities (read nuclear, chemical, biological), is plenty to deter enemy threats!
Now mind you, this does not apply to rogue terrorists. We cannot defeat terrorism with traditional military forces. The only way to fight this type of war is with special forces. I argue that the best way to handle this "war" is to send out covert special forces into hot spots and knock out terrorist threats. If they make the news, fine. No problem. We just won't be announcing our intentions and we won't distinguish between the terrorists themselves and the nation-states that harbor them. On that point, I agree with the Bush Doctrine. But to send standing armies and build permanent military bases in areas that are sacred to these peoples, to basically occupy their native lands with our Christian armed forces, is just asking for attacks!
I mean, a lot of this is common sense, isn't it?
I am for having a strong military. I just think it would be better to have this military stationed on our home soil and only used in "clear and present dangers." Only when diplomacy has failed and only as a last resort. I don't even see the point of using a standing army any longer, since any country that is capable of assembling one likely also has the nuclear bomb. The nukes render standing armies useless, except against third-world nation-states. We shouldn't be engaging in third-world states unless in cases of clear genocide.
That's my position. I don't think it is complicated. Stop spending on military overseas, bring them home, and keep them on our shores. Fight the war on terror with limited excursions using special, small-unit forces that are very agile and mobile. Keep the brigades and companies back here at home.
|
Feb 11 '08
7:06 am PST
|
|
There is nothing wrong with U.S. Militarism (Reply to this comment)
by drdanlag
provided the Powers-That-Be would play it smart not in excess, not mindless to the point that other countries laugh at the United States. What I mean that U.S. plays it smart. Take for example, Iraq War. After the fall of Saddam Hussien, the U.S. would have pulled out its troops, leaving small token troops leaving trained Iraqis to police the country. But President Bush didn't. Instead, he sent more U.S. troops and commitments to Iraqis to rebuild Iraq and its infrastructure, spending billions of month or trillions dollars a year!
Furthermore, you can fight terrorism and terrorists with troops deployments and bad ideas. You can't fight terrorism with a mass deployment of U.S. forces. Terrorists and Bin Ladden and other U.S. enemies would bled us dry, soldiers blood and U.S. dollars. Let U.S. leaders play and plan smart, not play politics!
Good and timely review! Thanks Brad!
donald
|
Feb 10 '08
7:05 pm PST
|
|
It's a no brainer... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
to cut military expenditures for the welfare of the country.Many economic studies have quantified the drag on the economy caused by the investment in non-productive sectors like defense. Only a fearful populace can be convinced that all those expenses are good for the average American instead of the military lobbies.
The US spends about 50% (!!) of its GDP in defense-related areas (including benefits to veterans). How can anyone say "the problem lies elsewhere"?
As for foreign aid, statistics show that the US is the stingiest country in the developed world, contributing a pitiful 0.17% of GNI in foreign aid (sponsoring coups d'etat does not count as aid), well below the pledged 0.7% (only Sweden is above 1%, as of 2006).
Let's put things in perspective. Foreign aid is definitely not an issue here. Only someone who is thoroughly misinformed can believe the US is a generous country. As this essay correctly states, one of the things that is breaking America is the defense budget.
Vic
|
Feb 10 '08
1:49 pm PST
|
|
How about we cut off foreign aid first? (Reply to this comment)
by mongomad1
We spend billions sending food and aid to people that hate us. They will not even allow a US insignia to be on what we send in many cases and we oblige. Keep the military and let evil dictators starve their people. Sherman's march was far more evil than anything going on now.
Constant revolutions will prevent rich countries unwilling to establish a middle class from stockpiling weapons to be a threat to us. Until every American goes to bed with a full stomach, let the other countries' people starve. It is not our responsibility.
If that idiot in office was not in bed with the American Oil companies that love steep gas prices, we would take enough oil to off-set the price of the war we wage for God knows what.
This is the 2nd dumbest/useless president in our history. He barely is above Carter, the treasoner that he is.
Why is it a left and right thing when there have been many years with the left in office. It is the lobbyists/special interest groups that run this country, you heard? Try to get elected without them. Try to stay alive by crossing the promises you make them...
|
Feb 10 '08
1:26 am PST
|
|
Where has all this money gone? (Reply to this comment)
by walkerpkw
We as a country continue to spend more than we make plus the fact we import more than we export. The military and defense dollars spent in Iraq will continue to flow well after the war efforts have subsided (rebuilding?). The war efforts initially were to stop terrorists and establish a new democratic Iraqi government, and cheap oil seems to be way down the road, what we're paying at the pumps and to heat are homes is evident.
Does anyone get the feeling this war will end when Osama Bin Laden's head's on a platter?
|
Feb 09 '08
6:52 pm PST
|
|
Re: I respect your opinion, brad (Reply to this comment)
by brad
High Michael. Thanks for your comments.
Others have made the same argument. But America now and since Reagan is a much different country than when Ike or JFK ran this thing.
Our foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War has ruined our standing in the World. All of the interventions in foreign states, puppet governments, supported coups, "foreign aid," and war have collectively brought the rest of the world against us.
The money we have spent on foreign policy, and in particular since the end of the cold war, has been mostly wasted. It is not our place to police the world and it is not our place to tell others how to govern. This is not a sustainable policy and you ought to know it. You call yourself a history buff at your profile. If that is true, then you know well enough how this foreign policy of ours, particularly since the beginning of the Cold War but even before then, has cost us.
Lots of blood, and lots of treasure.
We are broke and we can't fix it. That's the situation right now. Failure to recognize this will only make the problem worse and perhaps unresolvable.
Brad
|
Feb 09 '08
12:32 pm PST
|
|
I agree with you (Reply to this comment)
by jenniferkateab
and feel you have expressed your thoughts eloquently. It seems lately that whenever our country needs money to pay for something, we borrow it! That really bothers me, because our national debt is horrendous and just keeps getting worse...
Thanks for your essay!
Jennifer
|
Feb 09 '08
9:03 am PST
|
|
I respect your opinion, brad (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
But you're wrong. Defense expenditures as a percentage of GDP are lower now than in the 80's and much lower than during the Kennedy and Eisenhower years. The problems lie elsewhere.
|
Feb 09 '08
8:01 am PST
|
|
|
|
