Bush asks for $87 Billion

[mattp]

Greg,

Re-read my post. I did not suggest they didn't know what they signed up for or that they shouldn't be expected to fulfill their commitment. Is it naive to think that a large number of them at least hoped, if they didn't out-and-out expect, that they'd complete their time without having to spend a year (or more) getting shot at in Iraq? Can't you find even the slightest bit of sympathy for those who gambled and lost?

[babnik]

Can't you find even the slightest bit of sympathy for those who gambled and lost?

 

no.

[mattp]

Babnik-

Do you understand the meaning of the word "sympathy?"

[babnik]

yes.

 

sym·pa·thy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smp-th)

n. pl. sym·pa·thies

 

1.

1. A relationship or an affinity between people or things in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.

2. Mutual understanding or affection arising from this relationship or affinity.

2.

1. The act or power of sharing the feelings of another.

2. A feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another; compassion or commiseration. Often used in the plural. See Synonyms at pity.

3. Harmonious agreement; accord: He is in sympathy with their beliefs.

4. A feeling of loyalty; allegiance. Often used in the plural: His sympathies lie with his family.

5. Physiology. A relation between parts or organs by which a disease or disorder in one induces an effect in the other.

 

 

they made their decision and they must live with it. i am proud that they are over there fullfilling their duty and i comend them on the bravery they are demonstrated but they did sign up to defend their country. They sighned up knowing the responsibility and they are living up to it.

[chucK]

babnik said:

i comend them on the bravery they are demonstrated but they did sign up to defend their country.

 

Bet they feel pretty hornswaggled at finding out that "defending their country" has such a nebulous meaning.

[babnik]

chucK said:

babnik said:

i comend them on the bravery they are demonstrated but they did sign up to defend their country.

 

Bet they feel pretty hornswaggled at finding out that "defending their country" has such a nebulous meaning.

 

'theirs is not to question why. theirs is but to do and die.'

 

i am sure the same was felt by those in vietnam. it is bull shit indeed, but this is not the first time this has happened and anyone signing up not knowing the history of our engagements is a fool. i am sure that most signed up because they felt that representing their country in teh armed services would be a good way to demonstrate their passion and loyalty to a country they love. if not, well... mabe they shouldn't have signed up.

[JayB]

mattp said:

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?

 

Actually, I was arguing against the notion that all every deployment or use of US forces is driven by solely by economic motives. Yeah, Afhganistan, the Balkans, Somalia - all about getting our hands on the abundance of vital resources that they control. Plausible claim. My bad. I just hope that one day we recoup the scores of billions that we have invested in getting our hands on that North Korean crude that The Dear Leader has been trying to keep from us for all of these decades.

 

 

Yes, the abundance of oil in the Middle East is what endowed the Middle East with its strategic significance, but to assert that the invasion of Iraq was precipitated solely by the desire to physically monopolize a resource that we can aquire in adequate quantities at a much lower cost on the open market, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the regime in power goes beyond silly and into the realm of willful delusion in order to preserve the Manichean "Rest of the World Good, America Bad" status quo in ones own head.

 

The first of the specific claims that the Left flank has been making is that the US invaded Iraq to control the oil, with the assumption being that there would be a net economic benefit that we derived from the action that would exceed the cost. As I showed above, that is an impossibilty, and no one has put forth any figures or arguments that come anywhere close to addressing, much less disproving this claim. Then there's the small matter having to do with the 1991 war. We had the 500,000 troops on the ground and a favorable geopolitical environment to operate in, but we left the country in Saddam's hands because....we were just there to seize his oil. Makes sense. Makes more sense that a coalition force of Europeans and Arabs would send there troops over to lend a hand in that particular effort since everyone knew that seizing the oil was our sole policy objective.

 

Moreover, if all the US wanted was access to the oil and had no concern whatsoever about what Hussein would do with the proceeds, it would have been far simpler and far more logical to strike up a deal with him, buy all of the oil he could pump, and let others deal with the consequences. Surely if Hussein were to rearm, none of his neighbors in the region would become the least bit concerned about there own safety, and begin arming themselves to the hilt in response. There is cetainly no history of armed conflict in the region, so that would be a silly thing to worry about. Never happen. Saddam rearms after years of systematic humiliation, and he'll take up kintting and crosswords to occupy himself and will never use them against anyone, and if he does its not like anyone would acutally die. Likely outcome.

 

Then there's the still more ludicrous claim that some nefarious oil company cabal orchestrated the war behind the scenes - so farfetched that you've probably got Oliver Stone shaking his head in disbelief - despite the open vote in Congress in which both parties in both houses overwhelmingly authorized the President to act. The Oil Cabal theory would also have to account for the numerous UN resolutions passed in an effort to address the Iraqi situation, because everyone knows that China and Russia were on the payroll and all about providing diplomatic cover that the cabal could use as a pretext for ultimately seizing the oil. Ditto for 1440.

 

Who is the silly one here again?

 

 

[mattp]

JayB

I don't think anybody ever said that

all every deployment or use of US forces is driven by solely by economic motives.

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself.

 

 

[j_b]

mattp said:

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself.

 

i wonder if he will ever make it to greg_w top 3 list. i suspect not.

[chucK]

JayB said:

The first of the specific claims that the Left flank has been making is that the US invaded Iraq to control the oil, with the assumption being that there would be a net economic benefit that we derived from the action that would exceed the cost. As I showed above, that is an impossibilty, and no one has put forth any figures or arguments that come anywhere close to addressing, much less disproving this claim.

 

I don't think you've addressed your evil homonym j_b's point that your "net economic benefit" argument is "silly". It is not the oil companies and the reconstruction contractors who are paying the bills of military action. It is us. The "cabal" are the buddies of GW who stand to make money from the chaos, while we, the taxpayers, pay for the costs of access to the oil supplies and cleanup of the mess.

 

 

Then there's the small matter having to do with the 1991 war. We had the 500,000 troops on the ground and a favorable geopolitical environment to operate in, but we left the country in Saddam's hands because....we were just there to seize his oil. Makes sense. Makes more sense that a coalition force of Europeans and Arabs would send there troops over to lend a hand in that particular effort since everyone knew that seizing the oil was our sole policy objective.

I think you could explain it thusly. First, we had already gained complete control of the Kuwaiti oil. Second, leaving Sadam's government in power kept Saudi Arabia beholden to us. Thus, we got Kuwait's oil and were virtually guaranteed Saudi oil and so there didn't seem to be a big reason at that time to march right into what George JR has indeed shown us is an ugly shitstorm.

 

[JayB]

yes, that is one explanation. You can explain the fact that when you depress the spacebar on your keyboard, little invisible flying elves that live inside your computer make it move across the screen. That is one explanation for the phenomena. Somone may even believe that, but that doesn't mean anyone else should in the absence of factual evidence to support such a claim. Argument by conjecture is not a winning strategy IMO.

 

I have actually addressed that several times, e.g.

 

"Then there's the still more ludicrous claim that some nefarious oil company cabal orchestrated the war behind the scenes - so farfetched that you've probably got Oliver Stone shaking his head in disbelief - despite the open vote in Congress in which both parties in both houses overwhelmingly authorized the President to act. The Oil Cabal theory would also have to account for the numerous UN resolutions passed in an effort to address the Iraqi situation, because everyone knows that China and Russia were on the payroll and all about providing diplomatic cover that the cabal could use as a pretext for ultimately seizing the oil. Ditto for 1440"

 

I mean, it's not like there are any checks and balances built into the Constitution that could possibly curtail anyones efforts to use the public office of the Presidency for private advantage. That was a phenomenon wholly unknown in all of the centuries prior to the arrival of the Constitution, so the fellows drafting the document naturally failed to address such things and left us with a prostrate Congress that is a mere supplicant before anyone who wants to abuse the office to make a buck. Now I get it, that's why Congress, including most of the Democratic candidates, authorized the resolution that authorized the President to use force against Iraq. All in the oil company's pocket. That's also why Tony Blair argued so passionately for intervention. Everyone knows he's a right-wing hack put in place to serve as a mouthpiece for American oil interests. Ditto for Jose Pereya, and all of the heads of state in the Vilnius group.

 

Besides, if the Democrats ever got wind of such a plan, they would never think to publicize it because they have no interest whatsoever in regaining the office of the presidency on the basis of hard, facutal evidence documenting the conspiracy. The fact that they are well on the way to nominating Dean as their front runner gives some credence to this notion, but still. And I mean, Nixon was able to execute a simple burglery in perfect secrecy, and Clinton was able to engage in private sex acts in the oval office without anyone ever knowing, so it's pretty likely that an administration could manipulate the entire edifice of the American government and the millitary to serve their every whim as part of secret plot to enrich themselves without any evidence of their plan coming to light. I mean, it's not like Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld have net worths in the tens of millions of dollars, and no one in the administration was making any money in the private sector, so it makes quite a bit of sense that they'd have to use the Oval Office to do so. Much less effort than investing their assets and letting compound interest take over.

 

Stong theory, impeccable evidence, and some very strong arguments out there to support j_b's claim. I would the expect Black Hellicopter crowd to believe such things, but am very surprised that the two of you do. Oh well.

 

At least we can agree that Exit 38 is the state's premier climbing destination, so that's something.

 

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

JayB-

Are you just playing dumb here, or are you totally unable to consider that there could be more than one reason behind any given action? It is not all-or-nothing, here, but there are a lot of friends and former employers of the highest level Bush administration officials, and a lot of very big donors, who are making a ton of money on this whole thing. And the at least some of the Democrats have pointed that out.

[chucK]

Jay,

You usually write some pretty intelligent comments but this shit full of misdirection, strawmen and fabrications is worthy of Rush. You got a future dude.

 

Campaign contributions. It's all legal. Bush and his cronies are rich (I guess?), they don't need money (whatever?, though Cheney's 200K$/year from Haliburton and Haliburton's NO BID contract in Iraq smell pretty fishy in juxtaposition), but they do so love power! Big money entrepeners help out the politicos, the politicos return favors in form. All legal or at least so complicated that the implications are lost on 60% of Americans, unlike burglarly or lying about a sexual liason.

And yes, Tony Blair is a right-wing hack serving oil interests.

 

 

[JayB]

Why did the Democrats endorse the action with a nearly unanimous vote then? Did the figures in the administration from the oil business have any less interest in and potential to gain from the affair when the matter was brought to a vote? Why Blair? Why Pereya? Why the Vilnius group? Any plausible action would not only have to have factual evidence to support it, but also explain their motivations and behavior in a credible manner. This is but one of the many reasons why the Cabal theory is unconvincing.

[Jim]

I think one of the logic mistakes you're making is turning this into a republican/democratic issue. It's not. Countries will act to protect their percieved interest not out of the goodness of their heart (or rarely).

 

We used the boogie man of communism for too long to upsurp democratic regiemes in other countries to protect "national interest". It's like ignoring the elephant in the room to say oil is of no issue in our intervention in Iraq. Your simplistic dismissal of a complex issue of percieved national interest, a group of neoconservatives that have been preparing for this since the first Bush, admin, and the non-reply of your reasoning of why we are there leaves your agrument vacant.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

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?

 

Now you're just plain-old demagoguing, Matt. I never said Pinochet was a "benevolent" dictator. I put forth the idea that he may have been the lesser of two evils vs. communism.

 

You sure know how to take the "moderate" out of "moderator".

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

JayB

I don't think anybody ever said that

all every deployment or use of US forces is driven by solely by economic motives.

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself.

 

 

Once again here, Matt. JayB's post that you (partially) quote was touge-in-cheek satire to almost anyone with the slightest inkling of intellect. In typical fashion, you quote out of context and present this as evidence to your cause.

[mattp]

Sorry, Fairweather, if you think I misquoted you. I DO think it is rediculous to suggest that Pinochet may have saved thousands or millions of lives by killing communists. Where do you get this stuff? And no, I don't think I took JayB out of context. He plainly responded to what he imagined to be the assertion that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to take their oil.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

Sorry, Fairweather, if you think I misquoted you. I DO think it is rediculous to suggest that Pinochet may have saved thousands or millions of lives by killing communists. Where do you get this stuff?

 

Once again Matt...

 

You typically don't "misquote", you just take your opponent's argument to the n'th degree, and then argue against the absurd. Strange tactic, but if it works for you....

 

 

My theory regarding Chile and Argentina in the 1970's can be demonstrated by the innocent lives lost in Columbia (ongoing. 50,000) and Peru (Remember "Shining Path"?) where marxist movements were allowed to grow. Our (American) interest in those countries was in stopping the spread of Soviet-style communism, and I don't think those efforts were without validity.

[Jim]

[My theory regarding Chile and Argentina in the 1970's can be demonstrated by the innocent lives lost in Columbia (ongoing. 50,000) and Peru (Remember "Shining Path"?) where marxist movements were allowed to grow. Our (American) interest in those countries was in stopping the spread of Soviet-style communism, and I don't think those efforts were without validity.

 

Now who's stretching things by making comparisons between a guerreila group and an established government. Allende was democratically elected!!! An institution we supposedly admire.

[mattp]

Fairweather, did you or did you not say that you thought that

how many hundred-thousands (millions?) of lives were saved by Peron and Pinochet because they acted extrajudicially against communists within their borders?

I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to.

 

You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise?

[j_b]

anyhow allende was a social-democrat. similar to the social democrats who have had power at various moment throughout western europe (who were our allies even then). and the people murdered in chile were mostly trade-unionists, farm worker organizers and such.

 

it's quite fitting for extremists to say that butchering thousands would save lives.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

Fairweather, did you or did you not say that you thought that

how many hundred-thousands (millions?) of lives were saved by Peron and Pinochet because they acted extrajudicially against communists within their borders?

I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to.

 

You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise?

 

...and you, Matt have yet to respond to my presentation on the story about comments made by the Dhahli Lama.....etc...

 

You seem to think that you are owed a response to every sentence you write preceeding a question mark, but that you are somehow free to pick, choose, and decontextualize your responses to others as you see fit. And when you can't redress coherently, you go back to the old "you're just blaming those evil liberals" or the "left wing media, huh" playbook, or summarize with some other smug commentary.

 

So here we go.....

 

) "We don't support the UN." But where was the UN when we acted against Serbia at the behest of the Europeans? And who is, by far, the biggest $$$ contributor to the UN? We are. (Not even counting our arrears.)

 

) "...AlQueda being less effective ...wishful thinking on your part..." A recent report indicates that over 60% of AlQueda's leaders are either dead, in third-party custody, or captured and in Guantanomo. I'd say that makes them less effective.

 

In the future I'll try to break out, and reply to each question presented by you ala MtnGoat. Won't that be fun?

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

mattp said:

JayB-

Are you just playing dumb here, or are you totally unable to consider that there could be more than one reason behind any given action? It is not all-or-nothing, here, but there are a lot of friends and former employers of the highest level Bush administration officials, and a lot of very big donors, who are making a ton of money on this whole thing. And the at least some of the Democrats have pointed that out.

 

I wouldn't deny that there may be officials in this administration who have an interest in enriching themselves and their cronies by manipulating public policy in favor of their favorite industry, whatever that may be. I think that such individuals have been present in every single government established in this country since Jamestown, and will be present until this country no longer exists. Ditto for the rest of the world.

 

I also suspect they are smart enough to know that these days odds of doing so successfully decrease in direct proportion to the exposure that their efforts get in the media. That's why the said individuals use things like riders in appropriations bills to get tax breaks, errect tarrif barriers against competition, waive costly regulations and other assorted, low profile methods to get what they want in Washington. These small measures increase operating profit at the public's expense far more reliably and immediately than following the form-sinister-ubersecret-cabal-and-decieve-congress-and-the-pentagon-into-doing-our-bidding method.

 

Having an interest in manipulating public affairs for private advantage is nothing new. The previous statement is very close to Ambrose Bierce's definition of Politics in "The Devils Dictionary." However, having an interest in hijacking the government to serve one's private ends is one thing, being both capable and guilty of it in practice is quite another. Motive does not equal guilt, and while I agree that there's a motive here, no one - despite the presence of scores of groups in congress, the media, NGO's, etc that are literally desperate to discredit and unseat the administration by any means at their disposal - has yet to come forward with any legitimate evidence whatsoever to support the outlandish claim that there's a coterie of oilmen acting in collusion with the Pentagon, the President, and Congress to hijack the apparatus of the American government and seize Iraqi oilfields by force for their own personal benefit. Some Oil execs may fantasize about such things late at night, but the odds of them realizing their fantasy are low enough to put anyone that believes such a thing can occur without anyone getting ahold of incriminating evidence, or more importantly that the institutional safeguards built into the structure of the US Government are weak and feckless enough to permit such a brazen abuse of power (changing the wording on an energy bill yes, sending 150,000 troops and pursuading Congress tho spend hundreds of billions of dollars on behalf of your private crusade - uh - no), puts one in very strange company indeed. That's a theory that I would only expect to hear amongst Larouche supporters off in the ideological fever swamps. I could never quite picture you as a subsriber to "The New Federalist," but who knows.....

[mattp]

Fairweather,

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your Dalai Lama thing. I didn't know you expected a response from me on that particular post. Am I supposed to tell you whether I agree with the Dalai Lama or whether his reported statements impact my sense of whether or not our invasions were justified? The answer is no. I don't think we set out to liberate Afghanistan and unless we change course pretty quick, I don't think we will be seen to have done so when historians look back on it. Yes, Taliban is out - for now - and some As queda training camps are gone, and some bad guys have been killed.... Iraq? I still think we should not have gone in when we did but I agree it is not over yet.

 

About the UN-

We thumb our nose at the UN whenever it suits our purposes, ignore it most of the rest of the time, and occasionally ask everybody ELSE in the world to go along with it. I haven't studied UN history all that much, but even when we support some UN policy, I think we usually don't lend all that much military support to their objectives. You tell me if I am wrong.

 

About Al queda -

Is Fox news or wherever you get your information really that distorted? As queda continues to carry out bombings around the world, and I think that even Bush's people pretty much acknowledge that they are as much of a threat now as they were before 911, while they do at the same time try to say we've made progress. And lots of people are saying that we've given them a big boost with our war on terrorism that they can characterize as a war on Islam.

 

So you respond to a couple of my points. Thanks. But don't take up Mountain Goat's style: his responses were exhausting, many didn't make any sense at all, and he often completely failed to address the main points made by his adversaries.