medicineman
New Member
WOW, knock me over with a straw. I've been profering that premise for months on this site and this is the first time I've seen you agree, war for profit and you agree, way to go 7X, maybe there's hope for you yet!
Sobran on Ron Paul ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Sorry to but in, but...
People like to ask that question as if the authorities responsible for leaving Iraq will ultimately have responsibility for Bush's lack of leadership, foresight and candor. The easy answer is that no one knows what a US withdrawal might mean for on-the-ground consequences in Iraq, except one: if no US soldiers are there, they can't be killed there. I defend this thus:
If we were selfish enough to 1) invade and occupy a country that posed no real threat (and actually acted on ideology produced by conservative think tanks like the project for the new american century and faked evidence in the office of special plans in the pentagon), 2) say that their oil would pay for it, 3) Not keep track of the civilian deaths in the country and deny any scientific process that would calculate casualty counts higher than acceptable to an American audience, 4) build permanent military bases (which will what, remain empty when we "leave"?) and an embassy the size of the vatican, while giving no bid contracts to companies that have never finished giving all iraqis electricity and water (which they have been paid billions for), then what would be the problem with leaving them in a mess? We've let them live with an ever-increasing mess for the past 4.5 years. It was always a selfish policy, and though the question seems selfless to a point--in asking what will happen to Iraq--the decision will be defended by what happens to our interests, economy, etc.
I refuse to say this war isn't lost simply because the President, the decider and liar himself, says that those who actually withdraw are to blame. The mission we "accomplished" and stay even now to accomplish, was a myriad of over-generalizations and propaganda, and thus has no actual connection to the real world of living and dying that has become that wretched country of criminals and victims. We are there to stabilize a country we have destabilized and destroyed; but there is no way for us to fix it.
You guys were talking about colbert (and should watch the white house correspondent's dinner he speaks at last year; that was golden) and he said something very poignant: a guest told him we had lost the war and he responded, saying that it was like losing a lot of money in the stock market, but not having actually lost until you put your sell-order in...
I'm for selling, not because it's the selfish american thing to do, but because we should see withdrawal as a step towards progress in iraq. Progress, in the selfish sense, would mean manipulation with minimal risk of loss. Either the government that we have put up will succeed, or it will fail. If it succeds, we will supply its armies with armaments and tote its successes as proof that american military force can actually build a nation... If it fails, then a defense secretary will fly over to arm its successor against a group/country (like Iran, for instance), and we will turn our heads like the hundreds of times before while he keeps order with rapists with machine-guns; but at least the guns will be sold.
I'm for selling because it's the only rational decision left which will mean less loss of life immediately; that can't be a bad thing. We'll have to live with the rest, as we've fucked this thing up beyond description.
What I'm really wondering is how the US will continue to spend it's defense budget (we're going to exceed one trillion next year for the first time in our history) if we're not at war...
People like to ask that question as if the authorities responsible for leaving Iraq will ultimately have responsibility for Bush's lack of leadership, foresight and candor. The easy answer is that no one knows what a US withdrawal might mean for on-the-ground consequences in Iraq, except one: if no US soldiers are there, they can't be killed there. I defend this thus:
If we were selfish enough to 1) invade and occupy a country that posed no real threat (and actually acted on ideology produced by conservative think tanks like the project for the new american century and faked evidence in the office of special plans in the pentagon), 2) say that their oil would pay for it, 3) Not keep track of the civilian deaths in the country and deny any scientific process that would calculate casualty counts higher than acceptable to an American audience, 4) build permanent military bases (which will what, remain empty when we "leave"?) and an embassy the size of the vatican, while giving no bid contracts to companies that have never finished giving all iraqis electricity and water (which they have been paid billions for), then what would be the problem with leaving them in a mess? We've let them live with an ever-increasing mess for the past 4.5 years. It was always a selfish policy, and though the question seems selfless to a point--in asking what will happen to Iraq--the decision will be defended by what happens to our interests, economy, etc.
I refuse to say this war isn't lost simply because the President, the decider and liar himself, says that those who actually withdraw are to blame. The mission we "accomplished" and stay even now to accomplish, was a myriad of over-generalizations and propaganda, and thus has no actual connection to the real world of living and dying that has become that wretched country of criminals and victims. We are there to stabilize a country we have destabilized and destroyed; but there is no way for us to fix it.
You guys were talking about colbert (and should watch the white house correspondent's dinner he speaks at last year; that was golden) and he said something very poignant: a guest told him we had lost the war and he responded, saying that it was like losing a lot of money in the stock market, but not having actually lost until you put your sell-order in...
I'm for selling, not because it's the selfish american thing to do, but because we should see withdrawal as a step towards progress in iraq. Progress, in the selfish sense, would mean manipulation with minimal risk of loss. Either the government that we have put up will succeed, or it will fail. If it succeds, we will supply its armies with armaments and tote its successes as proof that american military force can actually build a nation... If it fails, then a defense secretary will fly over to arm its successor against a group/country (like Iran, for instance), and we will turn our heads like the hundreds of times before while he keeps order with rapists with machine-guns; but at least the guns will be sold.
I'm for selling because it's the only rational decision left which will mean less loss of life immediately; that can't be a bad thing. We'll have to live with the rest, as we've fucked this thing up beyond description.
What I'm really wondering is how the US will continue to spend it's defense budget (we're going to exceed one trillion next year for the first time in our history) if we're not at war...
7xstall
Well-Known Member
that's a hell of a question... got long winded as this is speculative fun and games.
i don't think an immediate pullout would be best, more like a phased withdrawal coupled with a very ruthless offensive effort against the more organized extremist groups. this would at least give the impression that we're not beat (as their propaganda will project), only taking a different approach.
my take on the bad news of a cut and run:
a full pullout today would be a massive political embarrassment.
it would fuel the extremists and reinforce their belief that they won this jihad thing they're so obsessed with.
it would result in the loss of Lots of civilians and the tiny progress we've made with infrastructure.
China/Russia would probably step in and look like a hero, resulting in huge political momentum and capitol for them.
the good? news:
1. we already know that Syria, Iran and Turkey are hoping for the opportunity to get in there and annex/absorb resources. Saudi Arabia has also spoken publicly about going in if we leave and taking over, for the most part, in "defense" of the Sunni minority..
these countries can clean up their own backyard, might be a win/win. what we're seeing unfold today is what would have happened if Saddam had been assassinated or died anyway.
i bet gas prices would quickly sink back to $1.10-$1.50.
2. defense spending would be under control and we could focus on important issues and innovation, get our military on the right track. they shouldn't be involved in nation building or any building at all. we'd get to reform the military back to it's purpose and make it very lean. the recruiters are so pinned against the wall that standards are being lowered, it needs to go the other way. fight smart, not hard.
3. we could rebuild our political power from the ground up. we've seen who our friends are and we could use this as a great reason to completely bail on the UN.
4. though i believe there would be an initial morale boost in the extremist world, it would be short lived. so, they think they won, big deal. they still have to do business with us and to do so means that the smarter portion of muslims would need to squelch the crazies and stabilize their countries.
.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
the difference between my view and yours is that i don't think all this profiteering was intended. in fact, i think it's quite buffoonish and shows a serious lack of planning.
.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Agreed everything you have sdaid right here 7x.that's a hell of a question... got long winded as this is speculative fun and games.
i don't think an immediate pullout would be best, more like a phased withdrawal coupled with a very ruthless offensive effort against the more organized extremist groups. this would at least give the impression that we're not beat (as their propaganda will project), only taking a different approach.
my take on the bad news of a cut and run:
a full pullout today would be a massive political embarrassment.
it would fuel the extremists and reinforce their belief that they won this jihad thing they're so obsessed with.
it would result in the loss of Lots of civilians and the tiny progress we've made with infrastructure.
China/Russia would probably step in and look like a hero, resulting in huge political momentum and capitol for them.
the good? news:
1. we already know that Syria, Iran and Turkey are hoping for the opportunity to get in there and annex/absorb resources. Saudi Arabia has also spoken publicly about going in if we leave and taking over, for the most part, in "defense" of the Sunni minority..
these countries can clean up their own backyard, might be a win/win. what we're seeing unfold today is what would have happened if Saddam had been assassinated or died anyway.
i bet gas prices would quickly sink back to $1.10-$1.50.
2. defense spending would be under control and we could focus on important issues and innovation, get our military on the right track. they shouldn't be involved in nation building or any building at all. we'd get to reform the military back to it's purpose and make it very lean. the recruiters are so pinned against the wall that standards are being lowered, it needs to go the other way. fight smart, not hard.
3. we could rebuild our political power from the ground up. we've seen who our friends are and we could use this as a great reason to completely bail on the UN.
4. though i believe there would be an initial morale boost in the extremist world, it would be short lived. so, they think they won, big deal. they still have to do business with us and to do so means that the smarter portion of muslims would need to squelch the crazies and stabilize their countries.
.
Besides The United States has been more effective since the end of Vietnam by doing fly in strikes than they have been staying in an area.
For one, Our troops are not really trained to fight the kind of war we have to fight today.
One thing I will point out as to what we are doing wrong is sending Condi Rice into Arab countries to do negotations.
The Administraition doesn't seem to realize that is an Insult to Arabs.
Women in Arab countries have been second class citizines in those countries for hundreds of years.
A woman's opinion does not matter in those countries.
Besides Condi Rice (before the Bush Administraition) served on the board of directors for the Carnegie Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the Chevron Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Rand Corporation, the Transamerica Corporation, and other organizations.
So really where do her priorities lay?
you guys really think that there's an actual war on terror? that it's not just a slogan? I assume that when you guys say "they" that you're meaning al-quaeda-esque terrorists, but, as was posted a while back, we're at war against a strategy. Even our generals, in a special forces documentary done for national geographic, say that the defense, or--perhaps more popular word with this crowd--resistance that we can expect will be in the form of "terrorism" or an insurgency using extreme guerilla tactics; the US could not be fought against any other way, as we have kept on spending money on the armed forces as if the cold war never ended.
I can't help but think that Americans a little late in realizing, 7x, that the insurgents we are fighting are not simply "terrorists"--and this is the beauty of that "war on terror" title: any force that violently resists the change of the middle eastern landscape can be labeled extremist. radical/extremist+ violence= terrorist, and becomes someone else we can, and should, fight. But these people are Iraqis, these bombings are religious and factional reprisals against their rivals. You guys talk about russia and china coming in as if the situation were not already to the point where they (extremist groups) already act as if we had lost, only we're still there to be shot at and feared as an overwhelming force to confront. We can only talk of Iraq as a terrorist state because terrorists have come in through borders that were never closed the entire war. Don't we think that Iraqi groups, groups that have become fiercely nationalistic in the face of the occupation, will defend their own turf? And who, in God's name, would be willing to back up their claim on Iraq with military force? Russia? Really? China spends $37 billion/yr. on defense: how would they afford to contain Iraq militarily, and if not that way, then how?
"China/Russia would probably step in and look like a hero, resulting in huge political momentum and capitol for them."
Sorry, don't know how to use the quote function...
That sounds really smart, but 7x, I don't know what that could possibly look like, or what it would mean. How could any outsider "step in and look like a hero" in this? The only possible means is through the support of one of the factions (as you noted saudi arabia possibly coming in to help the sunni minority). How would Russia/China even equate with this scenario?
The only possible answer I can imagine as legitimate would spell capitol with an "a." Oil. We might fear competition for Iraq's oil contracts once it opens to the foreign markets, something we would miss out on without the pressure of our forces and the war the government itself there would face if they sold it to us after all we've done. Is that a worthwhile reason to stay? Defending our investment? That's why we're keeping troops there even after they leave...
Something else that has been pointed out, I think it was Mike Gravel, but may have been Paul, was to talk honestly about American gasoline prices. I think, after having lived almost a year in Europe, that the people clinging to gasoline prices at $2.00 a gallon as some sort of normative standard are ludicrous! Americans don't, or ever did they, pay $2.00 a gallon, as it costs billions of dollars per year hosting soldiers in 100+ countries per year to stabilize oil prices: this brings the cost up to $7/gallon. That's higher than the European price we would complain about, but it's a hidden cost.
I can't help but think that Americans a little late in realizing, 7x, that the insurgents we are fighting are not simply "terrorists"--and this is the beauty of that "war on terror" title: any force that violently resists the change of the middle eastern landscape can be labeled extremist. radical/extremist+ violence= terrorist, and becomes someone else we can, and should, fight. But these people are Iraqis, these bombings are religious and factional reprisals against their rivals. You guys talk about russia and china coming in as if the situation were not already to the point where they (extremist groups) already act as if we had lost, only we're still there to be shot at and feared as an overwhelming force to confront. We can only talk of Iraq as a terrorist state because terrorists have come in through borders that were never closed the entire war. Don't we think that Iraqi groups, groups that have become fiercely nationalistic in the face of the occupation, will defend their own turf? And who, in God's name, would be willing to back up their claim on Iraq with military force? Russia? Really? China spends $37 billion/yr. on defense: how would they afford to contain Iraq militarily, and if not that way, then how?
"China/Russia would probably step in and look like a hero, resulting in huge political momentum and capitol for them."
Sorry, don't know how to use the quote function...
That sounds really smart, but 7x, I don't know what that could possibly look like, or what it would mean. How could any outsider "step in and look like a hero" in this? The only possible means is through the support of one of the factions (as you noted saudi arabia possibly coming in to help the sunni minority). How would Russia/China even equate with this scenario?
The only possible answer I can imagine as legitimate would spell capitol with an "a." Oil. We might fear competition for Iraq's oil contracts once it opens to the foreign markets, something we would miss out on without the pressure of our forces and the war the government itself there would face if they sold it to us after all we've done. Is that a worthwhile reason to stay? Defending our investment? That's why we're keeping troops there even after they leave...
Something else that has been pointed out, I think it was Mike Gravel, but may have been Paul, was to talk honestly about American gasoline prices. I think, after having lived almost a year in Europe, that the people clinging to gasoline prices at $2.00 a gallon as some sort of normative standard are ludicrous! Americans don't, or ever did they, pay $2.00 a gallon, as it costs billions of dollars per year hosting soldiers in 100+ countries per year to stabilize oil prices: this brings the cost up to $7/gallon. That's higher than the European price we would complain about, but it's a hidden cost.
Also, defense spending is not going down. I noted in my last post that defense spending will increase again to over $1 trillion. Boeing announced yesterday that the US, with the most advanced military machines in the world, would soon face competition from China and other countries if we did not quickly (i.e. next fiscal year) buy new airplanes from them. I don't think a comment is necessary here: obviously, Boeing knows that a statement like that will increase funding, as no one is willing to allow new technology to go anywhere else but our bases.
"We know we could rebuild our political power from the ground up. we've seen who our friends are and we could use this as a great reason to completely bail on the UN."
Okay, but it seems especially arrogant, even if it is a body of inaction in many ways, to invade Iraq to "enforce UN resolution"--a position few in the UN themselves held--and then, seeing the lack of support from Europe because of the stability European states had seen under Saddam, like France for instance, deciding to bail on the UN because...
I'm sorry, you'd have to defend that one a little better than mentioning it just in passing. How would dismantling the very institution that Bush thought would bolster his case in the entire world be advantageous to an American government seeking to repair its reputation "from the ground up"? My friends, the UN is not responsible for a loss of American power. We have squandered that ourselves. How would removing ourselves from that institution be anything but counterproductive? Do we get to dictate world policy now without even the semblance of diplomacy?
If that is the case, then we ourselves have become the world's threat: a highly militaristic, rogue nation, which seeks to impose its radical vision and will on the rest of the world through violence and bloodshed. We even arm the sunni insurgents in Iraq in the hopes they will fight al-Quaeda. Perhaps we should attack ourselves as the next enemy in the global war on terror; if we don't, the world definitely should. Why not start now? A pre-emptive strike? (i hope no one thinks this is anything but satire)
"We know we could rebuild our political power from the ground up. we've seen who our friends are and we could use this as a great reason to completely bail on the UN."
Okay, but it seems especially arrogant, even if it is a body of inaction in many ways, to invade Iraq to "enforce UN resolution"--a position few in the UN themselves held--and then, seeing the lack of support from Europe because of the stability European states had seen under Saddam, like France for instance, deciding to bail on the UN because...
I'm sorry, you'd have to defend that one a little better than mentioning it just in passing. How would dismantling the very institution that Bush thought would bolster his case in the entire world be advantageous to an American government seeking to repair its reputation "from the ground up"? My friends, the UN is not responsible for a loss of American power. We have squandered that ourselves. How would removing ourselves from that institution be anything but counterproductive? Do we get to dictate world policy now without even the semblance of diplomacy?
If that is the case, then we ourselves have become the world's threat: a highly militaristic, rogue nation, which seeks to impose its radical vision and will on the rest of the world through violence and bloodshed. We even arm the sunni insurgents in Iraq in the hopes they will fight al-Quaeda. Perhaps we should attack ourselves as the next enemy in the global war on terror; if we don't, the world definitely should. Why not start now? A pre-emptive strike? (i hope no one thinks this is anything but satire)
entropic
Well-Known Member
Did anyone catch the Daily Show last week where they used the cliche "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend", just like nearly every news anchor on cable used to describe the new strategy of giving the Sunni Insurgents weapons on the premise and promise that they would only attack the rival insurgents, the daily show extended it to show that Al-Quaeda is our friend.
Watch it here Crooks and Liars » The Daily Show: Arming the Sunnis or "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Watch it here Crooks and Liars » The Daily Show: Arming the Sunnis or "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
7xstall
Well-Known Member
hi clekstro, welcome to the site!
my personal definition of terrorist is someone who is creating violence for irrational ends (ie, 72 pre-teen virgins and grapes for eternity) or someone who uses irrational violence for an otherwise rational end (the Rodney King beating). either way, it deviates from effective application of force because the purpose of the message is lost in the delivery.
when considering China's defense spending you have to understand torque; high gears and low gears on a bike for example. the USA defense spending scheme has very little torque, many peddles get us a short way down the road. we waste incomprehensible amounts of money whereas the Chinese waste nothing. we do the R&D, the testing, the inventing, trial and error then we send the final product to them for cheap production. how much do you think they've gleaned like this? they make parts for our latest night vision equipment, radar, lasers, GPS, lab/diagnostic equipment, latest generation plastics and metal alloys, energy storage, conductors...you get the idea. every 1$ we spend in our budget saves them $.95. the amount they report on defense spending is also not considered accurate by any think tank. for example, they don't report expenditures on military manufacturing (tanks, ships, weapons - they only report imported purchases) and when you consider that their reported figure has increased 10-20% every year for a decade - well, that's significant.
about their involvement, China/Russia would gladly broker and facilitate peace agreements between the various factions in Iraq. they would spend very little money on this because they would only send more diplomats and business men, no soldiers. the middle east is of extreme importance to both of them and you're right about the oil. China has been working on a deal to build a massive pipeline from Afghanistan since 1998 and Russia has also been very close to Iran (who's building their nuclear power plants and their many underground fortresses?). every country that is not "with" us is with them (China/Russia) and that's no coincidence, this is high stakes but i still think we should let the chips fall as they may in the larger middle east geopolitic spectrum.
good point with the gas prices and i agree, using coercive force instead of free trade is far more expensive but we have yet to learn this lesson. being the only super power has gotten to our head!
as far as the UN, it's a failed concept and it does nothing but provide cover for a new level of the most expensive cronyism in the history of mankind. the UN serves absolutely no purpose, nothing it does is advantageous to Americans. if the EU wants to keep it let them, but we don't need it or the problems it brings and our military should never ever be at the beck and call of a foreign government.
.
my personal definition of terrorist is someone who is creating violence for irrational ends (ie, 72 pre-teen virgins and grapes for eternity) or someone who uses irrational violence for an otherwise rational end (the Rodney King beating). either way, it deviates from effective application of force because the purpose of the message is lost in the delivery.
when considering China's defense spending you have to understand torque; high gears and low gears on a bike for example. the USA defense spending scheme has very little torque, many peddles get us a short way down the road. we waste incomprehensible amounts of money whereas the Chinese waste nothing. we do the R&D, the testing, the inventing, trial and error then we send the final product to them for cheap production. how much do you think they've gleaned like this? they make parts for our latest night vision equipment, radar, lasers, GPS, lab/diagnostic equipment, latest generation plastics and metal alloys, energy storage, conductors...you get the idea. every 1$ we spend in our budget saves them $.95. the amount they report on defense spending is also not considered accurate by any think tank. for example, they don't report expenditures on military manufacturing (tanks, ships, weapons - they only report imported purchases) and when you consider that their reported figure has increased 10-20% every year for a decade - well, that's significant.
about their involvement, China/Russia would gladly broker and facilitate peace agreements between the various factions in Iraq. they would spend very little money on this because they would only send more diplomats and business men, no soldiers. the middle east is of extreme importance to both of them and you're right about the oil. China has been working on a deal to build a massive pipeline from Afghanistan since 1998 and Russia has also been very close to Iran (who's building their nuclear power plants and their many underground fortresses?). every country that is not "with" us is with them (China/Russia) and that's no coincidence, this is high stakes but i still think we should let the chips fall as they may in the larger middle east geopolitic spectrum.
good point with the gas prices and i agree, using coercive force instead of free trade is far more expensive but we have yet to learn this lesson. being the only super power has gotten to our head!
as far as the UN, it's a failed concept and it does nothing but provide cover for a new level of the most expensive cronyism in the history of mankind. the UN serves absolutely no purpose, nothing it does is advantageous to Americans. if the EU wants to keep it let them, but we don't need it or the problems it brings and our military should never ever be at the beck and call of a foreign government.
.
you don't question after this mess the fact that if we had listened to the UN we wouldn't be in iraq? And besides, even the semblance of international discourse is a positive feature that deserves to continue. We aren't forced to send troops without already wanting to do it ourselves, so I can't quite agree with you there... Kosovo, "Iraq." I would argue that there is more cronyism in the US government itself than in the UN, as VP Cheney's secret energy meetings should show. Right afterwards we're in a war that sees his old company--of course representatives of halliburton were at these meetings, talking about how to get iraq's oil fields up and that's effects on the energy policy--getting no bid contracts, and fraudulently spending millions of the tax payers dollars. It's also fair to have a body which every country can be member of to serve, in theory, only world peace and security. THE UN IS NOT THE PROBLEM, IT IS OUR ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON OIL AND AN ARMED FORCES THAT MUST BE USED TO BE DEFENSIBLE. Just yesterday, as I posted, Boeing's CEO announced that the US airplanes currently in operation must be replaced to avoid competition/and or the development of better technology in china/russia.
I agree that China would love to get its hands on that oil. We put a pipeline through afghanistan (karzai, of course, was on the board of an oil company before being picked for Pres.) right after we invaded and never bothered defeating the enemy before we invaded the next oil-laden land.
I agree that China would love to get its hands on that oil. We put a pipeline through afghanistan (karzai, of course, was on the board of an oil company before being picked for Pres.) right after we invaded and never bothered defeating the enemy before we invaded the next oil-laden land.
medicineman
New Member
the difference between my view and yours is that i don't think all this profiteering was intended. in fact, i think it's quite buffoonish and shows a serious lack of planning.
You can't be serious. Cheney privatized the military under the first Bush presidency, then under Bush II, started a war (The Iraq War) to make his company the richest contract company on earth. The secret energy meetings attended by Cheney and Haliburton and all the oil companoes were all about Iraq and the possibilities There. This war was started explicitly for profit. I'll stand by that untill I'm dead and buried. You can try and convince me otherwise but your "we went to free the Iraqi people" arguements smell to high heavens. BTW If that was the reason, we failed miserably.
You can't be serious. Cheney privatized the military under the first Bush presidency, then under Bush II, started a war (The Iraq War) to make his company the richest contract company on earth. The secret energy meetings attended by Cheney and Haliburton and all the oil companoes were all about Iraq and the possibilities There. This war was started explicitly for profit. I'll stand by that untill I'm dead and buried. You can try and convince me otherwise but your "we went to free the Iraqi people" arguements smell to high heavens. BTW If that was the reason, we failed miserably.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
if the UN had listened to us several years ago bush wouldn't have had the intel that convinced him and many others that there were WMD. the UN did nothing to enforce inspections, accounting, etc. i don't think it really did anything except cut sadam fat checks for his oil, which he spent on who knows what..
also, i disagree fully about the need for an elite international social club. the "semblance of discourse" is more unproductive and debilitating than silence because it consists of smoke and mirrors, photo ops and one liners...all useless except to the creators and consumers of mass-media, where do citizens benefit from this?
the UN can command our troops, that's wrong. the only people commanding our troops should be holding an American flag.
government is cronyism, that's what it's purpose is, and after seeing clinton hire so many unexperienced/inadequate people *this will become a can of worms if you open it* for high-value positions, what's so bad about cheney meeting with industry experts to gain insights? the industry was completely shut out of the process that IT CREATED for 8 years because of politics. the feds didn't invent energy, or power distribution; they need to be listening to the people in the business.
the world doesn't need formal "entity" groups to be members of, that's counterproductive. we're a member here, we're a member there, division...
dependence on oil is also not the problem, it's our relationships and how we treat people. i will say that even though you missed the boat on everything else you do have the defense cycle right, it's a snowball.
.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
if they were secret meetings how do you know about them? you must have been there!
lol
.
medicineman
New Member
So now you're a comedian. The minutes of these meetings are so secret that they've been covered by executive priveledge, (I'm sure If a democrat was in, you'd be screaming to high heavens). I wonder what all those executive priveledges will be like under a Democrat. Maybe we'd actually get single payer medical. Lets just say that I'm a pragmatist and a pretty good guesser. Secret energy meetings= War in Iraq And 3.00++ gas, am I gettin warm?
What evidence, and we'll just start from the top, do you have that says that we took pointers on intelligence from the UN? You're telling me that bush traveled to NY to give a speech on iraq intel, much of which was blatantly fabricated, to report to the world what they had already told him? And secondly, how many years ago, be more specific! And what did they report!?! We built up Saddam, not the Europeans. We funded him against the Iranians throughout the late seventies and early eighties. No french pictures (that I know of) with french defense ministers shaking hands with a dictator!if the UN had listened to us several years ago bush wouldn't have had the intel that convinced him and many others that there were WMD. the UN did nothing to enforce inspections, accounting, etc. i don't think it really did anything except cut sadam fat checks for his oil, which he spent on who knows what..
also, i disagree fully about the need for an elite international social club. the "semblance of discourse" is more unproductive and debilitating than silence because it consists of smoke and mirrors, photo ops and one liners...all useless except to the creators and consumers of mass-media, where do citizens benefit from this?
the UN can command our troops, that's wrong. the only people commanding our troops should be holding an American flag.
government is cronyism, that's what it's purpose is, and after seeing clinton hire so many unexperienced/inadequate people *this will become a can of worms if you open it* for high-value positions, what's so bad about cheney meeting with industry experts to gain insights? the industry was completely shut out of the process that IT CREATED for 8 years because of politics. the feds didn't invent energy, or power distribution; they need to be listening to the people in the business.
the world doesn't need formal "entity" groups to be members of, that's counterproductive. we're a member here, we're a member there, division...
dependence on oil is also not the problem, it's our relationships and how we treat people. i will say that even though you missed the boat on everything else you do have the defense cycle right, it's a snowball.
.
Second claim: the UN did nothing to enforce inspections. That's true, unless you count the inspections themselves, which the UN, in spite of the fact that the US carries an immense amount of weight in that body, didn't have the gall to "enforce" i.e. threaten invasion if inspectors were not allowed. Hans Blicks wrote his reports on Saddam, and everyone had their suspicions. But they had asked for more inspections from the beginning, and even after Bush's speech.
Your third claim about UN corruption is spot on, and deserves more investigation. It is a fact that at least some of european policy against invading Iraq was due to the fact that they, too, enjoyed immense oil at the cost of the Iraqi citizens, and that UN officials were bribed with millions of dollars to turn a blind eye to the UN "Oil for Food" program. That was disgraceful, but it doesn't match what has been done by us, not in any stretch of the imagination. And even if it had done nothing but cut checks, what were we doing the entire time but cutting the biggest check. Don't believe me? I'll prove it:
"The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation. A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together. "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
That's from the Guardian, May 17, 2005. Read it and weep. The only evidence you might muster for the contrary position is a press release from the White House denying it. In fact, all you see is the administration calling for compliance with the investigation, telling it to "really investigate" without considering that the US had the leading role on the Security Council, meaning that we were aware from the onset what was going on. Quite the spin you have on this...
Fourthly, I could understand a critique of an international body like the G8. That is completely and totally, an 'elite international social club.' The eight most powerful nations gathered in Heiligendamm recently to discuss how power and money would respond to the world's problems. The difference between the UN and the G8? Let's start with the fact that one is a body of eight compared to 191. The UN is housed in the US, is funded in majority by the US, rarely departs from the opinion (see the new Iran call for sanctions as a response to our trembling over the possibility that Iran could develop nuclear weapons, and that only if they wanted to, IN TEN YEARS!) of the US. How is this body, if one were to truly critique it, not merely smoke and screen designed to be the semblance of discourse with the world on our part? The funny thing is that the media coverage you would be critiquing, this dubious world source of one-liners and such, is your own coverage of the UN. Think about that.
How, in God's name, would the US ever allow that the UN command them? When has this happened, and what possible scenario or documentation do you have to support such a claim? The UN, which once again, is under heavy US influence, would only take US forces to war if they already wanted to go. WE were the ones that wanted in to Kosovo, and the UN agreed that would be beneficial for the world. I'm sure our own UN diplomats had their own one-liners for that one
.I'm sorry, but your point about Cheney is ludicrous. Cheney, if you recall that he was CEO of an energy services firm, was himself a fucking expert. You're telling me that he needs secret meetings to discuss a forward-thinking energy policy that encourages the production and research into new technologies that would respect the earth's climate and create more jobs? He'd have a hell of a lot of support from liberals if he had! No, secret meetings would have determined how the energy industry would respond to an invasion of Iraq. And what reflects more cronyism, Clinton's appointments or the fact that Cheney didn't want to give up his post as CEO when he became VP? OR the fact that he gave no bid contracts worth billions to companies... drum roll... he probably met with!?! Conservatives like to tote Clinton's sins as if they somehow diminish their own. That's only because of the structure in the US that demands accountability of government corruption through the political profits of the other party... i.e., you attack republicans for democrats, and demand they investigate, etc. The sad part is the lack of a functioning system on the whole. We are a two-party one party state. A system that doesn't allow a third party into power is a one party state unto itself. So don't deflect criticism of this administration by putting it onto the opposite party. Attack both instances of corruption, and you'll be a better american for it.
But I know, i've missed the boat somewhere. But I'm a lot less lost than if I were on it!