Bush asks for $87 Billion

[EWolfe]

[allthumbs]

MrE, hmmm, never ceases to amaze me that you find humor in shit like that. What's the point? TOOL

[Jim]

JayB said:

 

If you add up the cost of Iraq in dollars, plus the real-interest* we will pay to finance it, and factor in the economic losses which will result from higher interest rates, and the diversion of capital away from productive investments and into taxes to cover the bill, the cost of the intervention (a more realistic way to look at the costs) becomes even more staggering, and the notion that we are there for purely economic reasons looks still more absurd

 

I think this is one of the points - duh!

 

Oh I know, where in there because of WMD, oh nevermind that one, no - where there to break up Al Queda and the 911 ploters - oh they were never there and were from Saudia Arabia nevermind, I know - it's to liberate the Iraqis and have democracy blossom overnight - oh nationbuilding is not so easy nevermind. Oh- Iraq is now a hot bed for terrorists - that's it.

[JayB]

j_b said:

i'll repeat again: not every military involvement has to turn a profit to mean that it enables control of supply and/or markets.

 

examples: intervening in both the balkans and afghanistan fills the vaccuum left by the soviets while these regions also happen to be major trade routes for energy. thus controlling these regions also amounts to having a say in the transfer of oil and gas between producers and client states. it is thus going to be difficult to show the profit that you hold as the lithmus test of whether or not such moves were ultimately motivated by economics.

 

i can't resist pointing out the silliness of your argument about loss and profit. what you say would hold true if those who stand to make a profit actually paid for the investment. but as far as i know, american taxpayer (the one paying for the investment) is not spelled c.o.r.p.o.r.a.t.e a.m.e.r.i.c.a. (which stands to make a profit, i.e. haliburton, bechtel, etc ..)

 

and the part about needing a durable monopoly to control prices does not hold much water either. it may hold true if you want to keep prices high, but if you want cheap oil you only need to make sure that supply exceeds demand. to do that you don't need a durable monopoly but control over significant resources.

 

The point was actually that we don't need to physically control resources to aquire all that we need, all we need is the money to pay for it and the market will take care of the rest. The only exception is when someone has a true monopoly on supply, which has never been, and never will be true in the case of oil. Besides, your claim has been that the US's motivation for invading Iraq was to secure the oil supply (not necessary) or for monetary gain (impossible to achieve in practice). The notion that oil companies are capable of orchestrating this whole venture, or would deem the risk of even contempating an attempt to try something that would utterly destroy their companies when they were already making considerable profits without taking any such risks is even more laughable.

 

Yeah - the motion authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq didn't pass by an overwhelming majority in both parties, and in both houses of Congress. There was actually a secret Cabal of oil execs that orchestrated the whole thing behind closed doors. Sound reasoning, and lots of evidence to support that one. Throw in references to Area 51, UFO's, etc. and you'll be on your way to a article worthy of inclusion in the Weekly World News right next to the story about the Werewolf Pimp terrorizing hookers in Havana.

 

The best part about this theory is the bumbling inneptitude of this cabal, which failed to seize the Iraqi oil when we had a half a million troops over there in '91 and an environment in which world opinion would have been soundly behind driving straight into Baghdad and toppling the regime. Makes sense.

[Jim]

Ok - then from your view - why are we pumping so much money into this trough then? Lemme guess one or all of the following:

 

WMDs

cause Iraq was an imminent threat

cause Saddam was bad, we are good

911 and terrorism

 

Seems to me that it's a strategic US interest, and that interest is oil. You've provided no other believable reason. We've mucked around there a lot - if their main export were broccoli do you think we would care about the region?

[Jim]

*****In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C.Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s resources (Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, April 13, 1999)

 

****Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, in which he pronounced his strong support for sanctions

 

From: Text as posted at www.chevrontexaco.com/news/archive/chevron_speech/1998/98-11-05.asp At the time, Condoleeza Rice, currently US National Security Advisor, was a board member of Chevron and one of the company’s supertankers was named after her. Though it is tempting to insist on the many oil and energy industry connections of the Bush administration, including the President and Vice President Cheney, oil issues have consistently had a heavy influence on US foreign policy, regardless of party or personalities

 

But I guess all this is has no bearing on our policy implementation eh?

 

[j_b]

The point was actually that we don't need to physically control resources to aquire all that we need, all we need is the money to pay for it and the market will take care of the rest.

 

i hate to bring you back to reality but you keep hanging your hat onto free market economics as the panacea to get access to as much oil/at the right price when needed while in fact it can readily be shown in the workings of most industries within the us (militari-industrial complex, oil, agriculture, natural resources,cattle, computer software, etc ...) that they benefit from subsidies, cost-plus and/or non-competitive contracts, and/or they eventually attempt to close out competitors by every means possible but fair competition. so much for the market ruling the day without interference in the third world .... while in fact it is not the case here.

 

as to the specifics of the energy market, it is obvious that most oil producers do not strictly follow market principles because they use oil supply as a political tool or simply because they want to control the price of their oil. which, we don't like one bit because first world economics rest on a constant supply of cheap oil. and this is precisely our problem .... remember the premise is whether unfriendly governements or we will control supply and price, as demand is bound to skyrocket. this is a simplification of course because we are also interested in determining who will get the energy needed to develop their economy (i.e. china and others) at a time when energy is the number 1 problem of the future.

 

or more fundamentally, even in an ideal/never seen before perfect world, where the market price for oil was strictly determined by supply and demand (and there is little we want to do about demand), making sure there is abundant supply to keep prices down is what it's all about. considering the number of enemies we have among oil rich nations, controlling the resource is a necessity.

 

from your failure to address my point w.r.t. investment, profit and loss, i'll take it you agree with me that taxpayers will pay for the cost of intervention (including blood cost) while profit will be reaped by corporate entities, thereby making your argument about the cost analysis of the intervention irrelevant to say the least.

Edited September 11, 2003 by j_b

[EWolfe]

Jim said:

Ok - then from your view - why are we pumping so much money into this trough then? Lemme guess one or all of the following:

 

WMDs

cause Iraq was an imminent threat

cause Saddam was bad, we are good

911 and terrorism

 

...don't forget the Ultra-Consrvative Christian perspective many of us share with our brethren in the Middle East

[mattp]

Am I wrong, or do I remember correctly that they sacked one of their generals who came out in May and said that they didn't have enough American troups in Iraq and we were going to need many more to keep the peace? Does anybody remember this?

[Fairweather]

mtn_mouse said:

Fairweather said:

Bug said:

Third, the way we helped Pinocett in Argentina was by organizing the assassination of their democratically elected president. Yes, the CIA was there in force.

 

Pinochet was the dictator in Chile. Not Argentina.

 

Allende was the dictator in Chile. I was there and in Panama in 1972. Pinochet was in Argentina

 

Mtnmouse,

 

With all respect, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile:

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ci.html

[Peter_Puget]

graph

[Peter_Puget]

g2

[mattp]

Jim said:

Oh- Iraq is now a hot bed for terrorists - that's it.

 

Prior to our invasion, Iraq was probably one of the the least active of all middle east nations in terms of exporting terrorism -- certainly behind Israel (occupied territories), Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan. Now it IS probably at or near the head of the class as a "hotbed" and a rallying cry for any Islamic malcontent who dislikes the U.S. or thinks they can get ahead by fighting the Jihad.

 

I've said it earlier in the thread, but we got side-tracked arguing about whether capitalism is better than communism and whether Pinochet was in Chile or Argentina or whether he saved thousands or perhaps millions of lives.

 

Whether you like it or not, I think we have to stay in there at this point, no?

[chucK]

I agree Matt. We're in there now. It'd be even more of a crime (and create a bigger mess) to cut and run now. Committed. So suck.

 

I read an opinion piece the other day about how the GI's are getting screwed. The writer was in Vietnam and he made the point that in Vietnam kids were sent over there with a one-year time limit on their service. If they survived a year, they got sent home. According to the writer, this gave some hope in a hellish situation. Each day you didn't get killed, you checked it off on a little calendar, and were that much closer to salvation.

 

The guys in Iraq have no such guarantees. They just have to wait around there with basically no idea of when the terror of getting picked off is gonna end. That's pretty harsh. Just the other day the paper talked about the national guard and reservists getting their terms extended to "at least" spring. That's right, no max date, just "you gotta stay longer".

 

I'd say that the powers that be oughta do something about this, but, shit, I can't think of what they could do, short of starting up the draft. Which would of course be so suck.

 

Nasty situation.

[Jim]

mattp said

I've said it earlier in the thread, but we got side-tracked arguing about whether capitalism is better than communism and whether Pinochet was in Chile or Argentina or whether he saved thousands or perhaps millions of lives.

 

Whether you like it or not, I think we have to stay in there at this point, no?

 

I would agree. Unfortunately this is what happens when you have an dipshit administration that wants to apply simplistic soultions to sophisticated world problems. The guys in the trenches are stuck and we back home have a huge bill.

[JayB]

What course of action (or inaction) would you all have endorsed? Seems like you've got three options; abandoning the efforts at containment altogether, continuing the embargo, or removing Hussein by force. There are costs and benefits associated with each option, but none is risk or cost free.

 

If I recall correctly, when confronted with the necessety of making concrete choices, it seemed as though the preferred option on the Left was to continue the embargo in some form, even though the left had spent the previous decade rightfully decrying the humanitarian costs of the embargo. But simply ending the embargo and walking away while covering our eyes (the only option left if you want to end the embargo and have ruled out the use of force to remove Hussein) and ears to the potential consequences and chanting "La La La La La" doesn't seem to be an especially well informed or nuanced approach to the problem either.

[Greg_W]

chucK said:

I agree Matt. We're in there now. It'd be even more of a crime (and create a bigger mess) to cut and run now. Committed. So suck.

 

I read an opinion piece the other day about how the GI's are getting screwed. The writer was in Vietnam and he made the point that in Vietnam kids were sent over there with a one-year time limit on their service. If they survived a year, they got sent home. According to the writer, this gave some hope in a hellish situation. Each day you didn't get killed, you checked it off on a little calendar, and were that much closer to salvation.

 

The guys in Iraq have no such guarantees. They just have to wait around there with basically no idea of when the terror of getting picked off is gonna end. That's pretty harsh. Just the other day the paper talked about the national guard and reservists getting their terms extended to "at least" spring. That's right, no max date, just "you gotta stay longer".

 

I'd say that the powers that be oughta do something about this, but, shit, I can't think of what they could do, short of starting up the draft. Which would of course be so suck.

 

Nasty situation.

 

Chuck,

 

Vietnam was a different situation, personnel-wise. Those troops were mostly draftees. The current U.S. Army in Iraq is volunteer; this is their job, they have chosen this as their current career. Don't say they are getting screwed until you ask them how they feel about it. Many, I am sure, are glad to be out doing for real what they have been practicing for so many years.

 

I do agree, though, that Iraq is a nasty situation all around.

[Peter_Puget]

GregW -

ChucK listens to NPR give him a break. They don't show pics like this in the NYT! Or tell these stories on NPR.

 

 

PP

[babnik]

faq! that is a sight! boys from 101 re-inlisting on their door step. you cant BUY propaganda like that!

[Jim]

JayB said:

What course of action (or inaction) would you all have endorsed? Seems like you've got three options; abandoning the efforts at containment altogether, continuing the embargo, or removing Hussein by force. There are costs and benefits associated with each option, but none is risk or cost free.

 

If I recall correctly, when confronted with the necessety of making concrete choices, it seemed as though the preferred option on the Left was to continue the embargo in some form, even though the left had spent the previous decade rightfully decrying the humanitarian costs of the embargo. But simply ending the embargo and walking away while covering our eyes (the only option left if you want to end the embargo and have ruled out the use of force to remove Hussein) and ears to the potential consequences and chanting "La La La La La" doesn't seem to be an especially well informed or nuanced approach to the problem either.

 

I'll take a crack at it - ignoring your usual sophmoric remarks. And this is my opinion - can't speak for others. Keep the embargo, Iraq was contained and no threat to others. Keep the inspections going to keep his feet to the fire. Hell, we've been in there several months and no WMDs. Sure he was trying to play games but he was squeezed and under control. Keep our allies with us with strong UN behind the scenes negoiations so that if we caught him with something then the US could go in with allies, not alone.

 

Our current stradegy is a failure. We went in alone, despite warnings from our own state department. Now we're eating crow and begging the UN to help us. Iraq is destabalized, terrorists are now there when they weren't before, the common folks are losing faith that we can do it. Shit, Bagdad still doesn't have steady electricty. We're stringing our overcommited forces to pot shots every day - with extensions of tour for 50 year old reservists (I know 2).

 

There was no immediate need to rush in and destabalize the place, by ourselves, half cocked.

[babnik]

Bagdad still doesn't have steady electricty.

 

neither does new york

[chucK]

Greg,

 

You're right. The current personnel over there are volunteers and thus it seems reasonable to hold them to a commitment they made freely. I guess my comment was mostly to point out what a shitty situation those folks over there are in right now. The opinion piece was going a little further and saying that just for morale's sake that Bush et al should institute some kind of time limit thing. Sounds reasonable until you think carefully about the logistics. I don't know how they could make that promise (genuinely anyway) since they don't have unlimited manpower and they have no idea of how long this will go on.

 

 

[mattp]

This thread is starting to get humorous:

 

Fairweather says Pinochet was not a vicious dictator but a benevolent saver of thousands if not millions of lives;

 

JayB tries to maintain the argument that it has nothing to do with a desire to control what goes on in an oil-rich part of the world;

 

GregW opines that reservists who signed up in peace time and expected to play war games for one weekend a month are probably glad to be on active combat duty for at least a year.

 

 

Have I said anything quite that silly?

[Greg_W]

mattp said:

This thread is starting to get humorous:

 

GregW opines that reservists who signed up in peace time and expected to play war games for one weekend a month are probably glad to be on active combat duty for at least a year.

 

 

Have I said anything quite that silly?

 

Mattp, individuals who sign up for the reserves are often former "Regular Army", but a large number are "weekend warriors". Do you honestly think that people who sign up for the Reserves don't understand that active duty IS A POSSIBILITY? How naive do you think these people are? Seems like you aren't giving these people much credit for understanding the commitment they made.

[chucK]

Mattp,

Aren't you gonna call anyone "fucko"?