Bush asks for $87 Billion

[Ratboy]

Fairweather said:

The rebate check I received almost two months ago remains uncashed in my desk drawer.

 

I never got a check for the second round. Does that mean I'm one of the poor people that got shafted?

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

murraysovereign said:

So if we're going to point fingers, let's be even-handed about it, shall we?

 

Sorry, Murray. Most Americans have little interest in any balanced history and even less willingness to be "even handed about it" if by that you mean a willingness to recognized the fact that our foreign policy is driven by corporate greed and a fundamental belief that we are and should be able to run the world.

 

Murray,

of course you're right....Zimbabwe. It should be apparent that I got my "Z's" mixed up after listing Congo. My boss was born and raised in the nation now known as Zimbabwe and now lives here for reasons that probably go without saying.

 

Mattp,

Your unsolicited apologies vis a vis this great nation typify the guilt and shame felt by so many liberals like yourself. May you wollow in it alone. I hope you don't presume to speak for us all. I think Murray's subsequent response to your grovel was spot-on.

[mattp]

[grovel]

Fairweather, I do not presume to speak for you or all of Americans. My views are my own. I do believe, however, that many Americans are not willing or interested or able to look our relationship with the rest of the world in anything like a balanced manner. How else can I (or you) explain that, as of June, most Americans thought we had in fact (already) found weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq or that, as of yesterday, most Americans think that Saddam was somehow responsible for 911? I believe these are clear examples of self-delusion: many or most Americans find a way to convince theirselves of these things even though neither our elected officials nor even the most hawkish pundits in our national media have said them.

 

I believe that you have repeatedly asserted in the media bias discussions that your views are mainstream and the liberal press is way left of center. Within the last week you told us that you really don't care if Bush"mislead" us about the reasons we were going into Iraq. If you speak for the mainstream, and if you think it is OK for our government to give us false information if that information supports the war effort, how can you say that you and this mainstream that you speak for are not wanting information that supports your view rather than information which may be accurate?

 

When you assert that "we have scattered al queda, at least for a time," are you meaning to suggest that they are today less organized or less capable of carrying out their attacks than they were two years ago? In light of their ongoing activities, and considering yesterday's news article, isn't your assertion an example of what I am talking about (again, assuming that you speak for the mainstream)?

 

You have told us that most Americans trust Fox news rather than the traditional nationally respected media. Do you assert that Fox's mission is to provide fair and balanced information?

[End of Grovel]

[scrambler]

In February 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield acknowledged the establishment of a new department in the Pentagon. The goal of this new department, known as the Office of Strategic Influence, was public relations. After disclosing that this goal included planting disinformation in the foreign media, public reaction led to the announcement that the plug was being pulled. FYI, the Pentagon is forbidden to provide disinformation to the domestic media, however, this prohibition does not apply to foreign media. Domestic news media often scavenge foreign media sources.

 

Apparently, someone lied.

Edited September 10, 2003 by scrambler

[marylou]

Greg_W said:

....but I think this is a myopic view. Nation-building and empire-building are two entirely different things. If we wanted a 51st state, why not just take Peurto Rico or Guam? We already have both of those on the hook.

 

This is a silly viewpoint and not one based in fact or logic.

 

Does this mean you consider the occupation of Iraq by the US to be "nation building"?

 

That's simply not what it could be....in the 2000 presidential debates, George W. Bush repeatedly ripped the Clinton-Gore foreign policy record. In Boston on Oct. 3, he declared that he and Al Gore "have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building." And what was Bush for instead? "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." And so, he continued, his focus wouldn't be nation-building but rather "rebuilding the military power."

 

[j_b]

Greg_W said:

mtn_mouse said:

If you read between the lines, it is clear that Bush wants to make Iraq the 51st state.

 

Not really sure if this is a troll, but I think this is a myopic view. Nation-building and empire-building are two entirely different things. If we wanted a 51st state, why not just take Peurto Rico or Guam? We already have both of those on the hook.

 

This is a silly viewpoint and not one based in fact or logic.

 

i think '51st state' was a figure of speech. nation building is just a euphemism for having a favorable environment in which western corporations can control iraqi national resources. which is why we went there since oil will run out within 50 years (situation will be critical way before then of course)

[ken4ord]

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread, but all I can say is, that we have the biggest dipshit for a president right now, and it fucking tweaks me to think we are considering spending that much money not to mention all the money we have already spent on war!! Especially where our economy totally sucks, WTF, I can't wait until this whole Bush Butthead error is over. What a fucking asshole, man and I thought his dad was an idiot, he (Bush Jr.) redefines the meaning of idiot. What an ass!!!

[JayB]

j_b said:

i think '51st state' was a figure of speech. nation building is just a euphemism for having a favorable environment in which western corporations can control iraqi national resources. which is why we went there since oil will run out within 50 years (situation will be critical way before then of course)

 

Any nation on the face of the Earth can "control" all of the oil it needs by...buying it. Ireland's millitary capabilities are probably not sufficient to procure very much oil by force, but somehow they manage to get all of the petroleum products they need, delivered right to their door, by....paying for them. All of this from that entity known as the "market." I know they don't bring copies of rudimentary economics texts to the Marx/Engels circle jerks but really...

 

No nation has a monopoly on the supply, and while OPEC could withhold supply for a limited time and inflict some economic damage on the rest of the world, this action would ultimately suppress demand to the point where the nations withholding supply would see a serious dent in their revenues, which none of them could afford to sustain for very long, seeing as they are barely making enough to keep their bloated state sectors afloat at current revenue levels. Meanwhile skyrocketing prices bring additional fields online, non-embargo states sell all of the oil that they can pump to bring additional supply online, petroleum companies undertake massive efforts to uncover new supplies, and consumers find ways to economize by enhancing energy efficiency. It's already happened once during and after the embargo in the 70s, and would happen again, most likely at an accelerated pace.

 

In the simplistic analysis championship, the "Blood for Oil" crew wins hands down.

 

[Luna]

Huh? Talk about simplistic. So, we've been spending a ton of money to help prop up regimes in Iran (in the past) and Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait; and are spending over 110 billion the past several months because - what? -we like sand?

 

Do you think we would give a rat's ass if there were no oil there? That's naive.

[Bug]

I just read the whoooooole thread. Thank you all for agreeing that GW has f---ed up enough. Vote anti Bush. Of course, most of you will not vote at all but that should be reserved for a different thread. I do not have hard fast numbers but there are a few observations that I find interesting and would like to share. First, Tax rebates are a simplistic form of monetarist economics that the republican party clings to even after 12 years of it failing with Reagan -Bush followed by 8 years of prosperity under Keyensian policies. Bush loses big on that one.

Second, the US has a long history of smashing foreign governments, democratic and otherwise, when it helps our corporations make a profit. Study latin America at the turn of the century. I'll post an interesting letter from a general from 1933 when I get to work tomorrow. 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. Why didn't we do that in Afganistan and Iraq? Cut off the head using murky means and let the assholes shoot each other. It takes time but it works far better in the long run. All we did by attacking Afganistan was piss them off and unify their wavering factions. Iraq could have been settled with one well placed bomb. Mark my words on this one folks, what we did in Iraq will go down in history as the biggest mistake of the 20th and the 21st century. We are only making it impossible for those who support us to be supported by the wider Arab world. Remember Israel? Arabs do and they do not think of us as being separate from Israel. We need to find a graceful way to exit Iraq ASAP and continue to help with the rebuilding. Fourth, We have been lied to and our grandparents' grandparents have been lied to. Our first three presidents did not want the job. Anyone who does want it should be automatically disqualified for reasons of insanity. TRUST ME, nobody gets the nomination of their party without telling a bunch of big whopping lies to you and me. Our campaign finance system has left us prey to the highest bidder. Currently that is Halliburton. You do know that our VP was CEO of that corp before he joined Bush's ticket? Cheney personally oversaw the rebuilding of Iraq's oil production infrastructure after our first desert tantrum. Fifth, the Bush family has no connection to you and me. They are about as warm and fuzzy toward the mainstream American as a cat is to a mouse. Bush has reservists and national guard over there for a year. He is yanking funds from programs that help the middle class and pouring them into the military industrial complex. Sixth, President Eisenhower stated in his exit speech that the greatest threat to democracy was the growing power of the military industrial complex. He was a republican by the way. When Bush senior started to attack Clinton for his actions as a young man, it was Perot who stopped Bush in his tracks by saying something to the effect of, "Do you really want to open up what you and I have been doing for fifty years to make the billions we have made"? They were both up to their ears in government defense contracts. How do you think GB senior could afford to give GW $38 million? It was a earlier Bush who made millions on a loan to the Nazi party for the purchase of weapons building equipment.

For my money, I'll take the party that gave us the guy who got a blow job and lied about it.

To quote another poster: "Flame suit on".

[j_b]

oil is the ultimate strategic commodity since it fuels the world economy. iraq 'happens' to be in the middle of 2/3 of the world reserves. controlling iraq means controlling oil prices and availability at a time when competition over a soon dwindling resource is increasing.

 

the simplest but still meaningful explanation is usually the right one. if we were interested in 'nation building' we would have tackled pakistan (an unstable dictatorship that has plenty of wmd).

[JayB]

Luna said:

Huh? Talk about simplistic. So, we've been spending a ton of money to help prop up regimes in Iran (in the past) and Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait; and are spending over 110 billion the past several months because - what? -we like sand?

 

Do you think we would give a rat's ass if there were no oil there? That's naive.

 

If your thesis that there is a one-dimensional economic explanation behind every American use of force was correct it would have to explain every use or deployment of that said force.

 

We currently have significant numbers of troops permanently stationed in Europe, Korea, and Japan on a permanent basis. Are we spending billions "propping up" these nations to secure favorable prices on a commodity? If so, please identify it. Better yet, put forth figures in which you demonstrate that the tax-revenues generated by these expenditures actually exceed the outlay required to secure them - which would be the only reason to undertake such ventures if the objective was to make money - then do the same for Iraq. I'll even give you a hand. Take the total potential taxes generated by profits on the sale of Iraqi oil, then divide to the total projected cost of invading, occupying, and rebuilding Iraq, plus interest.The figure you'll get will be a rough estimate of the number of years it would take for the intervention to break even. Add that figure to the current date, and you'll have a rough idea of when the US will turn a profit on this one. This will probably be easy for you, since you naturally took all of these factors into account prior to reaching your conclusions.

 

Once you have finished, continue and explain the intervention and continuing expenditures in Afghanistan using the nuanced command of geopolitical strategy and economics that you've displayed above. Having done so, you'll naturally be able to explain every millitary engagement since Vietnam using the same compelling logic. Start with some of the more recent ones, like Kosovo and Somalia and work your way back.

 

Toodles,

[Fairweather]

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.

[JayB]

j_b said:

oil is the ultimate strategic commodity since it fuels the world economy. iraq 'happens' to be in the middle of 2/3 of the world reserves. controlling iraq means controlling oil prices and availability at a time when competition over a soon dwindling resource is increasing.

 

the simplest but still meaningful explanation is usually the right one. if we were interested in 'nation building' we would have tackled pakistan (an unstable dictatorship that has plenty of wmd).

 

See above.

[JayB]

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.

 

Pinochet and his regime were terrible, but neither come anywhere close to regimes that the left enthusiastically supported for the duration of the past century, and will gleefully support in the future if there is ever

a nation masochistic enough to attempt a Marxist revival.

[Fairweather]

JayB 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.

 

Pinochet and his regime were terrible, but neither come anywhere close to regimes that the left enthusiastically supported for the duration of the past century, and will gleefully support in the future if there is every a nation masochistic enough to attempt a Marxist revival.

 

How true, JayB. This is the real threat to our liberties.

 

I'll get flamed for this, but how many hundred-thousands (millions?) of lives were saved by Peron and Pinochet because they acted extrajudicially against communists within their borders? Granted, they were terrible regimes, but just look at what has happened to countries like Columbia that let these movements take hold. And how many more have died there.

Edited September 11, 2003 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Dalai Lama Weighs In on War on Terror

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

 

WASHINGTON — The Dalai Lama (search) said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that it is too early to judge whether the Iraqi campaign was warranted.

 

Click to learn more...

"I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press just after he met with President Bush at the White House.

 

"In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long more effective," said the Dalai Lama, who implored Bush to avoid a violent response by the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The exile Tibetan leader, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (search) in 1989, said the Vietnam War increased suffering and was a "failure." But, he said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy."

 

He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan (search) -- "perhaps some kind of liberation."

 

"The people themselves, I think, suffer a lot under their previous regimes," the Dalai Lama said. But he was adamant that the United States not lose sight of rebuilding Afghanistan amid other, more pressing issues.

 

"Now another problem, Iraq problem started, so neglect about Afghanistan, that's wrong," he said. The United States "should follow up," he added.

 

Iraq, he said with a chuckle, is "more complicated" and will require hindsight to judge. "This moment, too early to say," he said.

 

The Dalai Lama said he had "briefly mentioned" his concerns to Bush during their meeting in the White House residence. He deflected a question about Bush's response with a laugh. "Just -- I mentioned, that's all," he said.

 

 

...It looks like j_b and Mattp are even more peace-loving than the Dali Lama himself.

[j_b]

at this point, the idea is not to turn a profit (or at least not directly) but to not lose our status as the only superpower. which would surely happen if, say, major oil producers started trading in euros, as iraq was talking about doing before the war or if we did not get the oil we need to run our economy the way it has been running.

 

not every conflict we are involved in has the same immediate motive. many things are needed to maintain our economic supremacy and they don't necessarily involve turning a profit right away (talk about simplistic btw). however, all of our actions in the middle east for the past 70years (be they suppressing arab nationalism, islam or whatever) ultimately have the same purpose: controlling oil resources.

[JayB]

Specifics. Still waiting for economic rationale for intervening in Somalia, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Throw in Vietnam, Korea, and both World Wars for fun. Be sure to omit any reference to the geopolitical circumstances which precipitated WWII and sustained the Cold War as per your thesis. This should be good. Some parts will require math though....

 

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 (hint: If you spend more than you make on an investment, you then have a *loss* not a *profit*), yet this will have little or no affect on the Blood for Oil crew because such things (the fact that the US could sell every ouce of oil in Iraq and still lose an enormous amount of money)have very little to do with the motivations for this belief.

 

The only way a producer can exert complete control over the price of a commodity is by means of a durable monopoly. There never has been, nor will there ever be such a situation with respect to oil, and market forces ultimately obliterated the attempt to create one in the 1970s. The fact of the matter is that Middle Eastern regimes have to sell their oil or implode, and given their high birth rates, bloated state sectors, and persistent failure to diversify or modernize their economies, this will remain true indefinitey. Even if some figure succeeded in creating an Islamic Megastate and cut off all oil supplies to the world, this would be true, as the said state would eventually have to sell oil to someone if they wanted to oh, say - eat - and while the economic damage would be massive, they would suffer at least as much, and most likely quite a bit more than the oil consumers if they tried such a move. Finally, the unprecedented demand resulting from such a restriction in supply would eventually both restore oil to the market and lead to permanent shifts away from oil in energy production in the manner that I outlined above, both of which would be detrimental to the people in the masochistic Megastate for the remaider of its existence, if it hadn't already crumbled by then.

 

As an aside, I think its especially ironic when Lefties pretend that they have elevated themselves above the pedestrian economic concerns which preoccupy the rest of mankind, or espouse ideals and/or champion causes inimicable to the orderly operation of the global economy, in that any suffering brought about by events which have an adverse affect on the economy always have and always will have a massively disproportionate impact on the folks that the Left claims to be most interested in helping, e.g. the poor and downtrodden around the world. Yeah, a collosal (yet transient) petroleum embargo recession that utterly suppressed demand for the few things that the folks in the third world can actually produce and sell to buy food, medicine, machinery, etc and ultimately precipitated starvation, plague, and catastrophic social unrest in the world's poorest nations would be just the thing to teach Uncle Sam a lesson.

 

*You may need to look this up

[scrambler]

Damn, all along I thought the reason we were in the Middle East was to support the Bible thumpers who write books on the fulfillment of biblical prophecy!

[j_b]

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.

[mtn_mouse]

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

[Bug]

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

 

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as

something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a

small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the

benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

 

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a

nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with

America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then

it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag

follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

 

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy

investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight

for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of

Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

 

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is

blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle

men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations,

and a "Big Boss"

Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

 

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.

Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four

months in active military service as a member of this country's most

agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned

ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that

period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for

Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a

racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

 

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of

it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a

thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties

remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of

higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

 

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil

interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for

the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the

raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of

Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify

Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in

1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to

the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China

I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

 

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a

swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al

Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in

three districts. I operated on three continents.

 

- Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General - United States Marine

Corps [Retired]

[Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz,

Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917,

Distinguished service medal, 1919, Retired Oct. 1, 1931, Republican

Candidate for Senate, 1932]

 

Expanded version

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

Add'l background on Gen Butler

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Butler_SD.htm

--

 

[Bug]

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.

You're right.

This is from the PI

Chile honors Allende on Pinochet coup eve

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 · Last updated 6:58 p.m. PT. Chile honors Allende on Pinochet coup eve. By EDUARDO GALLARDO ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER. SANTIAGO, Chile - Salvador Allende, the Chilean Marxist president deposed in a coup, was honored Wednesday in a ceremony at the palace were his life ended 30 years ago.He died defending democracy and the dignity of his post as president, said his daughter Isabel, a wr

Last modified: September 10, 2003

I had Argentina on the brain because of their dogged adherance to monetarist principles as they tailspinned into economic oblivion. I personally know a man who was CIA in Chile in the early 70's. It was late and I was writing fast. But I was still RIGHT!!!

Wish I had time to continue this during the day but alas this damn job keeps bugging me.

[EWolfe]

87 Billion....