Democrats were willing dupes...again

[Hugh Conway]

I'm guessing it's satisfying to hold such simplistic views.

 

stroke, stroke, stroke, stroke, .....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Reason #4 is a war crime, and its advocates are criminal.

 

NOT!

 

Care to have a link with facts backing that up? Otherwise it's just an opinion. and as they say: opinions are like a assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

 

That was an opinion, got any facts? How about doing some research and post a link on what a war crime REALLY is.

 

 

Exactly! Repurposing a term like that only diminishes it's true meaning and does a disservice to the victims of actual war crimes.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The war was started mainly for several reasons.

 

1. We were in a defensive stance as a result of Al Qaeda's first strike initiative.

 

2. Terrorist organizations by their nature are decentralized, and are not a streamlined target such as a country, or a large conventional military is.

 

3. Iraq had strategic position.

 

4. It gave the bad guys a place to come kill us (and vice-versa), instead of waiting to see where/what they would hit next.

 

5. There were no good options. Turn the other cheek, and let's hope the bad guys go away is not a strategy. Look at Spain, they pulled out due to the terrorist threats, and Islamic factions continue to target them regardless.

 

Let's not forget, that all this played into a broader geo-political strategy.

 

Believe what you will.

 

I asked a question on this site a few months ago (I reiterate it was a question not a claim or accusation) that the a reason or the reason for invading Iraq was to set up a Forward Operating Base for the war on terror.

 

Yes, I agree with this. It was also done to get a "friendly" nation in that region which could be "westernized" fairly easily (Iraqis are relatively more educated and modern) and help set an example for other nations in the area to emulate/put pressure on neighboring regimes. Also, Iraq was the "low hanging fruit" in comparison to Iran, so we went for the more "doable" job. Of course none of this has worked out at all.

 

 

[Greta]

Well Tvashtarkatena, considering your spew is all over about every other thread on this website, it's kind of hard to ignore you 100% of the time. You should try and separate your fantasy life and reconcile the reality that you're nothing more than a chronic opinionated poster on a web forum. I just hope your mouth clamps shut a lot faster than your fingers do on a keyboard.

 

 

*** A different P.O.V.

The prominent features of the global economy in 2008 will be oil and energy issues, a U.S. dollar that is weakening yet becoming more important and a strong performance by the U.S. economy.

 

Oil prices finally will fall in 2008. Much of the price buildup in recent years has been the result of geopolitical risk introduced by Iran war scares, the occupation of Iraq, Nigerian domestic politics, Venezuelan seizures, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, the war against al Qaeda and Russia’s energy policy.

 

The world has changed. Iran is moving toward an agreement with the United States on Iraq, Nigerian politics have calmed, the market has priced in Venezuelan nationalism, states in the Malacca region have managed to get piracy under control and al Qaeda’s operations have been sequestered in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. The only wild card remaining in 2008 is the Russians, who could limit their exports of oil and natural gas as part of Moscow’s struggle with the West. However, since such restrictions would impact Russia’s own exports, any geopolitical impact on energy prices in 2008 is unlikely.

 

The expected downward trend in oil prices will not carry over to other commodities, such as food and minerals. The price increases of these products in recent years are the result of rising and more varied demand — such as the new biofuels industry’s increasing need for crops. There is no reason to expect such demand to falter, and there are no new supplies of any minerals expected to come on line that might be large enough to cause prices to substantially drop. The one exception could be foodstuffs, whose supply in large part is determined by the weather (something we do not attempt to forecast).

 

While energy prices will moderate in 2008, there will not be a collapse. Since the declines will be relatively mild and since most oil exporters have managed to save up vast sums, very few producers will suffer any substantial financial stress. In fact, nearly all oil producers will continue to accrue near-record amounts of income, stabilizing them politically and economically despite the moderate downturn in prices. The two countries to watch are Argentina and Venezuela, which both have been spending their petroleum income as fast as it has come in, and whose lack of long-term investment in production has resulted in steady output drops in output for years.

 

Yet there is another aspect to this equation. Prices have been strong since 2003 and have given rise to a major trend that will surge forward in 2008: the steady deliberalization of the energy sector.

 

Producing states — from Venezuela to Kazakhstan — are seeking to rake in as much income from energy production as they can, regardless of how dependent they might be upon foreigners to produce that energy. On the coin’s other side, consuming states — from Malaysia to Argentina — need to assert control over their energy industries in order to head off the social and economic problems caused by sustained high prices. Some countries on both sides — such as China — are afraid of how powerful their energy firms have gotten, and they see deliberalization as a means of combating that challenge. Countries such as Russia see state control of the energy sector as a good thing — and a good thing that allows other policy options. Still, more — most notably Hungary — see such intervention as a means of preventing undue foreign influence.

 

In 2008, energy deliberalization will be the game of the day, and Stratfor expects the following countries to be particularly active in asserting the role of the state: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, China, South Korea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Japan and Canada.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar — which has slipped by 50 percent in the past six years — will give more ground in 2008, since the trends that have shaped the past few years have not yet run their course. Unconvinced that the euro would succeed, central banks dumped European currencies when it was launched in 1998. They now are dialing back from that position, as well as purchasing more gold. Both of these trends have a negative impact on the U.S. dollar, and both have more room to run.

 

None of this is a vote of no confidence in the dollar; contrary to the crowing out of Venezuela, Iran and, on occasion, Russia, the dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s de facto currency. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, the role of the U.S. dollar in the international economy is increasing.

 

All of the energy-producing economies sell their products in U.S. dollars. The Chinese yuan is de facto pegged to the dollar, and nearly every other economy in the western Pacific Rim is loosely pegged to it as well. Combine the dramatic increase in the size of the Chinese economy and the pileup of dollars in the Arabian Peninsula from high oil prices (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries members earned more than half a trillion dollars in 2007 from oil alone) and the result is a de facto dollar bloc.

 

Yet none of these economies boasts sufficient size or sophistication to handle all of this inflow, and how they manage such vast sums will prove a major development of 2008.

 

Many of the Arab oil states have chosen to invest in economic diversification so that they will not suffer as they have in times past the next time oil prices plunge. To this end, they are investing heavily in refining and heavy chemical industry facilities, both at home and in consumer countries. In most cases, the Arabs are providing only the capital for such ventures, with either imported expatriates or foreign hosts providing both the labor and the management for the projects. The Russians, of course, are investing in their own geopolitical push and are attempting to purchase as much energy infrastructure in Europe as possible (something the Europeans are resisting fiercely), while the Chinese are hoping to use at least some of the cash to bail out those of their state-owned enterprises that are worth saving. But even this leaves the vast majority of the accrued monies untouched — in dollars or U.S.-based investments.

 

Beyond the tactical details, the bottom line is that most of Asia, the Arabian Peninsula and the United States have de facto merged into a single system of exchange that has become more important in purely economic terms than the U.S. relationship with Europe. Not since the heady days of the British Empire has a single currency held sway over so much of the world. Yes, these entities are diversifying their investments, which is reducing the value of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the euro, but the more important trend is the strengthening of the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world — forming the base of the reserve economy of the world.

 

Combine weaker energy prices (which free up resources) with a lower dollar (which boosts exports) and the U.S. economy is primed for a strong performance in 2008. A brief slowdown in early 2007 shook out some inconsistencies that built up during the post-9/11 boom, and the stage is set for another extended expansion.

 

Many will mourn that the subprime lending crisis is about to cause major problems — and perhaps even a recession. Stratfor sees these fears as overblown for two reasons. First, mortgages that enter default are different from other defaulted loans in that mortgages have their own built-in collateral in the form of houses. Rather than getting back pennies on the dollar, creditors likely will recoup most of their money. This, combined with the fact that not all subprime loans will go bust, drastically reduces subprime’s impact.

 

Second, every so often, the Western financial sector needs a shock to remind itself that it is not Asia and that loans need to be evaluated on strict economic criteria before being granted. During the 2005-06 subprime surge, this lesson had been forgotten. Now it has been remembered, and banking institutions have forced the mortgage broker industry to rate loans more appropriately. As a result, most of those brokers have gone under, and many construction projects have lost funding. Those who have been hurt worst are those who leveraged subprime mortgage assets (and should have known better).

 

This rationalization of risk is bad for the housing sector in the short run but excellent for the banking sector and the wider economy in the longer run. Yes, one sector has taken hits and will take more in 2008. But the primacy of economic rationality already has reasserted itself. This is a core strength of the U.S. and Western systems; without it, these economies would look like Japan’s. The knocks resulting from the subprime crisis could indeed take some shine off of growth in 2008, but that would simply change it from a banner year to “merely” a strong year.

 

The global trade agenda will be somewhat muted in 2008. Talks on the next World Trade Organization round, Doha, have been all but suspended, and no major economy will join the organization in the next year. Neither will there be any progress on other major deals among or within trade blocks — largely a result of European efforts to push through their newest treaty (an echo of the constitution that failed in 2004) and the U.S. presidential election. Trade talks will be limited to ironing out a few minor bilateral deals between the United States and small powers — deals that are now before Congress — and between the European Union and its former colonies.

 

Some good points made by some, but after reading through this entire thread, what I cannot get out of my mind right now is what a complete fucking retard you are, Serenity! Please tell us its all a joke, we took the troll hook, line and sinker, and that you dont truly believe what you have said....please.

[Serenity]

There is a whole different train of thought out there that simply does not follow the liberal democratic party line hook line and sinker. I've seen firsthand the evidence of poor journalism in the middle east and elsewhere. I sometimes feel compelled to offer up a different perspective. I remember there was a time in the not so distant past when it wa actually considered prudent to examine different options rather than blindly follow the mainstream trend. Right now the mainstream trend is only partially supported by facts, while being driven by hype. If you don't like it that's too bad.

 

Seeing FW's post reminded me how a Washington Congressman led the charge towards capitulation.

[kevbone]

I voted for Bush. Twice. And if the choices were the same vs Gore or Kerry--even with the hindsight I now possess--I would not change my vote.

 

 

I am speechless…….you would vote for the guy who brought the US economy to a standstill? And ripped up the constitution?

 

Wow! I know there are crazy insane people out there……but FW…….jeez……

 

[JayB]

Which specific conflicts does this apply to in your mind?

 

Which people are currently less free than they would have been had the US not intervened or taken sides in a particular conflict? Are there any cases where - to your mind - US taking sides has had the opposite effect? Can the US actions in all of the above cases be completely understood in terms of the economic advantages associated with them?

 

The conflict that comes best to mind is Indonesia's civil war. You might remember that Suharto slaughtered 500,000 suspected "communists", many of whom were ethnic groups not in favor, with US backing. The communists may well have exacted a similarly bloody toll but that is alternative history.

 

Given the timeline, it seems like Cold War era political calculations might have had more to do with which side the US backed in this conflict than outright economic gain - but I'm not familiar with the history.

 

In any event - even if you assume that the US had the least honorable motives for choosing a particular side in a conflict, you need take an equally unflinching glance at the party on the opposite side, and what the likely outcome would have been had they prevailed. There may be a number of cases where a mini-Netherlands would have sprouted amidst the wreckage of the previous regime, but an honest appraisal of those most likely to secure power such conflicts doesn't support this conclusion. In most of the cases, what you'd get is a regime that is equally repressive, brutal, and corrupt - if not more so - and ill disposed towards the US and western values.

 

 

[Bug]

There is a whole different train of thought out there that simply does not follow the liberal democratic party line hook line and sinker. I've seen firsthand the evidence of poor journalism in the middle east and elsewhere. I sometimes feel compelled to offer up a different perspective. I remember there was a time in the not so distant past when it wa actually considered prudent to examine different options rather than blindly follow the mainstream trend. Right now the mainstream trend is only partially supported by facts, while being driven by hype. If you don't like it that's too bad.

 

Seeing FW's post reminded me how a Washington Congressman led the charge towards capitulation.

After 6 years of Bush you think this only applies to Liberals!?

Wasn't it "the mainstream trend" to jump into a war in Iraq?

And weren't ALL the listed reasons for that invasion proven to be LIES?

You are an ideologue.

Think boy. THINK.

[Off_White]

What a major treatise Mike!

 

Unless Mike is writing for Stratfor, this is not his work. unattributed source

 

An interesting read though, thanks for posting it Serenity.

 

Here's another forecast for the future, an article from the New York Times Magazine back in January by Parag Kahanna, entitled "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony." It's a long feature article, so I'll just post a link rather than the full text.

[mattp]

THINK.

 

Serenity has some good insight sometimes and I enjoy reading his posts but I gotta agree with Bug here. Serenity writes that McDermott was among those urging “capitulation.” Say WHAT? He appears here, as many did then, to be holding on to the idea that Saddam posed some significant threat and that we were safer attacking him then rather than keeping him contained and waiting for further inspections and diplomacy (this is what McDermott was advocating). Remember the arguments that McDermott was like Chamberlain in the 1930’s, appeasing Hitler?

 

I’ve said it before and I think it is worth noting again: all you had to do was to read the newspapers and pay attention and you knew, before we invaded, those arguments were bunk. We knew that the inspector Hans Blix said Saddam had no nuclear weapons, that Saddam hadn’t been able to threaten anybody outside his country for years, that he didn’t allow Al Queda to operate in Iraq, that the alleged aluminum tubes and Urainium purchase efforts were bogus, etc. We knew that Chalabi and his pals were opportunists and their claims could not be substantiated. TO get this information, you had to read the newspapers all the way to page ten – not just the headlines. And you had to ignore the “mainstream” group think caused by the fog of 911.

 

 

 

Any reflection based on the barest knowledge of history suggested that we were not going to march in there as liberators and have peace and democracy take hold without a serious struggle.

 

McDermott was one of very few politicians willing to stand up and speak this truth. Whether he was a heroic rogue or a pandering opportunist is debatable. Whether he was right is not.

 

Those, like Serenity, who argued then and maintain now that Saddam posed a serious enough threat that our invasion was a good idea were reacting to the horror of 911, and the reality that Saddam, a bully with nothing to lose, was standing up and poking our dear leader Bush in the eye and gaining from this. I can understand someone’s doing that THEN, but how can Serenity, Fairweather, or anybody else refuse to reevaluate that stance now?

 

[Off_White]

Matt, you should read "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)", an excellent book on cognitive dissonance. All will become clear.

[billcoe]

There is a whole different train of thought out there that simply does not follow the liberal democratic party line hook line and sinker. I've seen firsthand the evidence of poor journalism in the middle east and elsewhere. I sometimes feel compelled to offer up a different perspective. I remember there was a time in the not so distant past when it wa actually considered prudent to examine different options rather than blindly follow the mainstream trend. Right now the mainstream trend is only partially supported by facts, while being driven by hype. If you don't like it that's too bad.

 

Seeing FW's post reminded me how a Washington Congressman led the charge towards capitulation.

 

I agree that it's nice to see different viewpoints and persepectives, and we certainly get the "Oh the US is always wrong and so fucked up" viewpoint on this site way too much.

 

HOWEVER, put quotation marks on writings you are citing or borrowing, and links where appropriate Mike.

[Bug]

I agree that it's nice to see different viewpoints and persepectives, and we certainly get the "Oh the US is always wrong and so fucked up" viewpoint on this site way too much.

We are and always will be "fucked up".

The FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY to discuss it and act on our beleifs is what makes this country great.

[mattp]

and we certainly get the "Oh the US is always wrong and so fucked up" viewpoint on this site way too much.

 

Bill, if you are referring to the frequent rantings from myself and others who are beside ourselves over what has happened lately, and often willing to take a critical view of something out government may have done years ago too, you are greatly misunderstanding the message if you think these posts add up to "the US is always wrong and so fucked up."

[glassgowkiss]

McDermott. McDemocrat. McDupe.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm

 

 

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

[Fairweather]

McDermott. McDemocrat. McDupe.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm

 

 

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

 

Explain. I'll bet you can't. Saudis? Sure. Saudi does not equal Taliban. Why are you so xenophobic and hegemonic, Gutter Slop?

[Fairweather]

I voted for Bush. Twice. And if the choices were the same vs Gore or Kerry--even with the hindsight I now possess--I would not change my vote.

 

 

I am speechless…….you would vote for the guy who brought the US economy to a standstill? And ripped up the constitution?

 

Wow! I know there are crazy insane people out there……but FW…….jeez……

 

Because neither of the two things you assert are true.

[Peter_Puget]

Dupes? Hardly. More like willing self serving participants in anti-US propaganda

[mattp]

Fairweather: a simple google search will answer your question about what Glasgow is referring to.

[Fairweather]

Entertain me.

[Peter_Puget]

 

Fairweather: a simple google search will answer your question about what Glasgow is referring to.

 

 

Mattp -

 

Is this what you are referring too?

a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

If so please show me a google link to a site indicating Bush hosted the Taliban. Just a naive request.....

Edited March 28, 2008 by Peter_Puget

[StevenSeagal]

McDermott. McDemocrat. McDupe.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm

 

 

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub!

 

Explain. I'll bet you can't. Saudis? Sure. Saudi does not equal Taliban. Why are you so xenophobic and hegemonic, Gutter Slop?

 

Not Bush, but Unocal Texas:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html

 

http://www.1888articles.com/when-the-taliban-came-to-texas-00x0hcw474.html

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

 

 

Gushed Cheney in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is."

[Peter_Puget]

Steven - If true wouldn't Mattp be a liar of Bushian proportion?

[JayB]

Dupes? Hardly. More like willing self serving participants in anti-US propaganda

 

Que? Un computador muy interesante..

[StevenSeagal]

Steven - If true wouldn't Mattp be a liar of Bushian proportion?

 

No, actually. I believe Mattp only said "a google search will clarify what glasgow what talking about". And that certainly is a true statement.