Disclaimer: Opinions posted on ControlCongress.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of ControlCongress.com or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, and NO racism or violence in comments.
Q: Everyone’s always said to me “Oh, they had a very clear objective” you know, “Get rid of the Iraqis from Kuwait.” Could you explain to me in headline terms, just very briefly, why wasn’t that good enough?
Schwarzkopf: Well I think, I think… What has happened since then… is a pretty clear example of why that probably wasn’t good enough.
I mean the whole question that we hear over and over again, “Why didn’t you go to Baghdad and, and capture Saddam Hussein? Why didn’t you inflict greater damage on the Republican Guard?” When the decision was made to end the war, the decision was made, it’s because I had accomplished all of my military objectives. The things that now that people are talking about, capturing Saddam Hussein, destroying … inflicting more damage on the Republican Guard, etc., etc., etc., these are political decisions, far beyond the military realm.
I had to establish my own objectives, and my own objectives frankly turned out to be, you know, number one objective: Iraqis out of Kuwait, number two: inflict as much damage as I could on their armed forces so they couldn’t come back another day.
The kick them out of Iraq objective was one that was given to us by United Nations Resolution. But the second part of this thing; inflict maximum damage upon the Iraqi armed forces so that they cannot return, you know, shortly thereafter, was another objective that evolved. But again you’ll never find that in writing, anywhere.
Bush did listen to the generals John. And he also reacted to 17 UN Resolutions totally ignored by Saddam.
You keep trying to Monday morning QB this war. War is not an absolute science, ask any general or admiral. Circumstances change requiring altered actions on the part of competing forces.
Schwarzkopf fulfilled his MILITARY obligations as outlined prior to the 1991 invasion. There was no justification to take out Baghdad or Saddam (but he admits in his book that it would have been a bonus to remove Saddam). It was a POLITICAL decision to end the war. In fact, one could reasonably argue it was a historic marketing decision to be able to call it the ‘100 Hour War’ thus making it the most successful encounter ever.
Who knows what would be the case if we had gone ahead and taken Baghdad. Maybe we would have avoided the current war. Maybe thousands of Kurds would have survived instead of dying sans coalition support in Northern Iraq. Maybe surrender treaties would have been followed. Nobody knows, it is all conjecture.
President Bush choses a course of action based on years of non-compliance with signed treaties and UN resolutions. He consulted with military leaders including General Tommy Franks then implemented a plan. The initial invasion was an overwhelming success. Subsequently we got into nation building which is a much tougher proposition requiring cooridinated military/political efforts.
Let’s finish the job forced upon us by a radical, terrorist supporting dictator who mass murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.
Bottom line the NIE report told Bush not to invade Iraq. Also it gave him a different plan than going in on the cheap if he did. Bush fired any generals who disagreed with his failed strategy bottom line!
Rumsfeld under fire over Iraq
MSNBC-McCain says he has ‘no confidence’; Schwarzkopf expresses anger
In separate interviews, McCain, of Arizona, said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops, while Schwarzkopf, the allied commander in the first Gulf War, said Rumsfeld seemed to be passing the buck when quizzed last week about the armor supply for troops on the ground.
He estimated that 80,000 more Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.
“I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.,” McCain said. “There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.”
Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.
“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.
Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.
Ironic you mention that. There was an in-depth story about Darfur on 60 Minutes Sunday. The genocide taking place there is beyond comprehension, but it is a much more complex situation than Iraq.
Ultimately African nations need to come together and decide how they would like to act. America should support the decision and I personally hope it includes the removal and immediate execution of al-Bashir.
The question I have; what will dems (including Ron Paul, John Konop, et al) say if America chooses to act? Saddam was doing the same thing in his country. Do you anti-war folks have the will to take on nation building in Sudan?
See other thread, same subject. It seems silly to keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Gene
You said “The argument against this war is that it was almost totally unjustified”
According to whom? You? For some odd reason, the United States Congress disagrees with you as evidenced by the overwhelming support to go in. Of course, the “cut and run” mentality has since taken over the democratic party.
I repeat what I said on the other thread; Those opposed so vehemently to the war now are terribly worried that the September report will show real progress. This is clearly an affront to the agenda from San Fran Nan and Harry Reid. What I can’t figure out is why so many of you are hoping for the report to be negative? Are you so politically motivated or afflicted with BDS you’d root against your own side? Do you WANT America to lose? How about the Iraqi people? Do you want them to lose as well?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND FLY THE FLAG!
Chip Rogers for U.S. Senate -Let’s get Conservative again!
John. . . I agree with SgtMac, can we combine these threads!!!
Now to the sarge.
yes ME. . . MY argument against the war.
I always ABSOLUTELY speak for me, there are times when others may be on the same wavelength, then we come together.
In this case, we will have to deal with our congresspeople in whatever district we are in.
clear
And what IF the September report DOES show progress, does that mean that we are now justified???
We could whip Jamaica in about an hour. . . . so by your reasoning, because we can, we are justified in doing so. . . right
Some of them don’t like us too well.
“The argument against this war is that it was almost totally unjustified. ”
I have to agree with Mac on this one. The case was made by both sides to go to war, not just the Bush Administration although the Administration is the only one willing to stand by the decision and complete the mission.
“Shouldn’t the middle east nations take care of their situations and America support that !!!”
That was true until Sept 11 when the hatred towards America crossed the ocean and we were attacked. Once it affected us here, we needed to protect ourselves. We can only turn a blind eye for so long. If radical Islamists from Darfur committed to acts of 9/11. (cue the Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11 rhetoric) That is correct but much of the Middle East is involved in Terrorism and if we are going to change the region, we had to start somewhere and Iraq made the most sense.
America can focus on the past or the future. The future is winning the war in Iraq and create a fundemental change in the region. That will take generations not 3-5 years.
I believe Congress had Americas best intentions in mind when they voted for the War. Now the political objectives have taken over and we see rhetoric spewing forth.
I think many forget that we invaded Iraq because it was hurting our economy, and devaluing our dollar and it was being done as a deliberate attack and was so stated. Saddam was congratulated (before we invaded) for his wise move to sell oil in euros and hit the U.S. economically. Several articles were written about why would attack Iraq as a result of that move and use the violations of the “cease fire” and the U.S. resolution as the reason. But, the real reason was the loss of value in the dollar. Note. Immediately upon throwing Saddam out, we switched the sale of oil back to dollars.
Also, ever since Iran has been moving its sales out of the dollar we have been stepping up the “war talk” on it but, never mention the damage selling oil in other currencies has had on the dollar.
All of the violations were real and ongoing. We had all the justification in the world and we won that war with very little loss of life in our military. We accomplished the mission.
It is the current mission of rebuilding and creating a democracy and an ally in the Middle-east we are failing at. That is a totally different mission that what we went in for and accomplished. We have to separate the two missions. One was handled quickly and effectively. The other, this one is a disaster and for good reason. It has become a political football fought on the evening news giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. However, we knew that was going to happen and it should have been taken into consideration in the planning for this second mission.
For those who say it was “unconstitutional,” until a Supreme Court rules the Legal Councils advice on the constitutionality of the President’s and Congress’s action is unconstitutional, there is no reason those in power should have to agree with us who don’t like this 2nd mission or those who claim it is unconstitutional.
If it is unconstitutional, why isn’t it being challenged in the Courts by the Democrats and a decision by the Federal Courts forced? There are two possible reasons.
The opponents of Bush may want to someday use the same powers themselves and don’t want that power challenged if they are going to regain the White House. Also, they may fear the Supreme Court in view of some rulings since the changes in the Court were made, could set precedent they don’t want on the books. They may want to wait to challenge the Constitutionality when the makeup of the Court is more favorable to them.
Whether we like it or not, the Court bases their rulings on their own interpretations more than precedence in some cases that are controversial.
However, what we face is a nation that can’t pay for their military operations without increasing our borrowing from foreign powers that don’t fully “love” us. Have you noticed how the Chinese Yuan has stopped rising in value to the dollar since we started “demanding” they make it rise faster?
We are no longer a nation the calls the shots we used to call. We are now the largest debtor nation in the world and the lenders are starting to put pressure on us in several ways. We also face 78 million “boomers” set to retire and stop paying in the payroll taxes that are immediately loaned to the general fund from the surplus, and will start drawing from those funds we depend on for loans.
The nations lending us money, selling their oil in other currencies, selling us their goods, etc. all know exactly how delicate our financial condition is. Yet, we continue to make it worse, not better and this military action, justified or not, needed or not, is hurting us and our ability to lower debt during a “boom” when most of the rest of the world is doing just that. They are preparing for the next downturn while we are like the grasshopper fiddling away our ability to weather the next “economic winter” which all in government and out of government say will come.
We are depending more and more on government spending to raise GDP (about 44% now) and as the pie shifts from private spending to government spending, our economic health gets worse and less prepared for the next downturn when even more government spending will be requested to “spur the economy on again.”
It isn’t how good things are now and they are pretty good. It is how bad it will be in a few years we have to be concerned about. If we can’t improve our debt and interest burden during a “Boom,” how are we going to do it during the next “bust?”
Because a general that was out of the military for over a decade has no access to the intellegence material. Because this knee jerk Do Nothingism totally ignores the fact that there was NOTHING else stategically we could do. We were all ready at war with Iraq. Containment was all ready breaking down. Just because the Dinocons want to hide their heads in the sand and deny all factually reality simply cause they hate Bush, doesn’t change the strategic equation the USA faced in Spring 2003. Bush was abolutely right to ignore the knee jerk Do Nothing ranting of the Neo Isolationists on Iraq.
Contrary to the wishful thinking of the Dinocons, the world is NOT going to go away just because they are too arrogantly wedded to their cold war era “realists” dogmas to evolve to the realites of a post 09-11 world.
Do Nothing only works as a strategy against a foe, like the old Soviets, who were willing to do nothing to you in return. The Islamofacists are NOT going to leave you alone no matter how hard the Neo Isolationists wish they would.
Reading through the various forms of Bush apologies, I find nothing has ever changed.
BACK the President!
AMERICA! Love it or Leave it.
Strategy on Iraq?
How does a camel deal with a single flea…
And, that is the deal with “Islamofacists.” Fleas on the camel.
But, you know, if you kill the camel the fleas will leave.
Bush was wrong, is wrong, and those following him, all three of them, are wrong.
The possible benefits of raiding Iraq to capture WMD, deny al-Qaeda a base, and stop world domination by Saddam were worth far less than the death of even one U.S. soldier.
Gene’s right on this one.
Schwartkopf was right then and the analysis hasn’t changed any in 15 years.
We have lost more than we ever could have possibly gained with the raid on Iraq.
Doing the wrong thing is always worse than doing nothing. bb et al would apply a tourniquet to your throat to stop possible bleeding from a paper cut.
Yes, you read right…America should support African nations to end the mass genocide in Darfur.
If al-Bashir becomes a global threat by getting WMD, then it escalates the situation. At this juncture, he still uses firesticks to terrorize Darfur villages. Not quite a world threat, but certainly an inhumane dictator who needs to be taken out.
Jan
re: “It has become a political football fought on the evening news giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy.”
You’re pretty reasonable until you start bringing up this “aid and comfort” crapola. Can someone tell me where Schwartzkopf’s analysis was off? And can someone please tell me which neocons in office now can hold a candle to some “real deal” conservatives?
I didn’t say his analysis is off. That is a different subject. That deals with whether we should or shouldn’t have gone in.
My comment about “aid and comfort” has to do with our form of Representative Republic. Once a decision is made to go in, then the “battles” between those who agree and disagree are to be fought behind closed doors, not on the news.
How does telling the enemy which vehicles have less armor or that we have too few troops, or that we have bad leadership help the troops who have no choice but to be there fighting. Whether we should be there or not, doesn’t change the fact those soldiers are being shot at and bombed.
I wouldn’t care who won the battles behind closed doors if they just stayed off the news and stopped giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. Even if they decided to pull every man out, fine, do it and then tell the enemy you have left but, don’t tell them you are leaving a year ahead of time or that you are trying to get them to leave since that helps the enemy plan their strategy.
Once Congress authorized the war, funded the war, and the President was given the role of Commander in Chief, disagreements are to go behind closed doors and a unified front put on the media so the enemy doesn’t know about the division that happens in every war and will always happen in every war.
Publishing that division gives the enemy hope and helps them plan what to do. You can be opposed to the war as a citizen and the news won’t be covering it like they will a politician. Politicians have a responsibility to fight against a war decision but, he also has a responsibility to keep behind closed doors once we are at war and have troops in the line of fire.
If we were a democracy and the people had to make the decisions, it would be different. We elected representatives to fight these things out in public when it doesn’t put lives in jeopardy but behind closed doors when we are at war or have our troops in danger.
How would you like to be under orders to ride in the vehicles in Iraq that are being targeted because some politician back here is telling the enemy they are vulnerable? How would you like to be one of the troops that the politician is saying is being poorly led or under manned or demoralized?
What is said on the news here by our politicians carries a lot more weight than what we say and the troops are affected by it. While it gives the enemy hope, it also weighs on our own personnel who have no choice but to do what they are ordered to do.
That is why some of wrote to the President and our Congressmen and warned them about doing this “re-building” and acting under the government of Iraq where our military would be very limited in what they could do. We told them the politicians would do exactly what they have done and that the President better be prepared for it. He wasn’t. If for no other reason, I was expecting exactly what has happened because of how much our Congress has split and fight so much between the parties that common sense in matters like our military operations has gone out the window. They would rather put our troops in harms way than lose any votes or be accused of working with the “other party” to reach agreement on support or to not support and not fund a military action. And, if either party is in the minority, instead of continuing to try and persuade the majority they are wrong, they run to the media and broadcast the world that “I am right and they are wrong.”
They are like a bunch of spoiled children in both parties that every time they can’t have their way they stomp their feet and run to throw a temper tantrum on the news. Not all, of course, but enough that it threatens any chance of meaningful work to get this nation on the right course before the “boomers” retire and stop paying payroll taxes we loan the surplus of to the general fund, to pay for many things we need and want.
re:
“How does telling the enemy which vehicles have less armor or that we have too few troops, or that we have bad leadership help the troops who have no choice but to be there fighting.”
Jan
They already know this. They’ve done field tests. They have nothing better to do. What’s the alternative, keeping quiet (which many patriots did for the first couple of years) and give the neocons carte blanche? (We’d already be fighting Iran)
There is no excuse for putting what goes on behind closed doors on the news. It isn’t the specific details as much as our leaders making public statement about them that give the enemy the “comfort” that they are winning.
Just because you are in the minority on an opinion doesn’t give you the right to get on the news when our troops are in harms way. Vote against the funding, vote against authorization, call in experts, fight til your blue in the face but stay off the news channels with your “doubts” and “accusations” just because you are in the minority.
Jan Paul Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Just because you are in the minority on an opinion doesn’t give you the right to get on the news when our troops are in harms way. Vote against the funding, vote against authorization, call in experts, fight til your blue in the face but stay off the news channels with your “doubts” and “accusations” just because you are in the minority.
You are obviously unaware that if they have access to our media, they also have access to, say, British media. The British media actually reports on things U.S. media ignore. Some of these stories are of the variety you describe as being so abhorrent. You may not like it but we have freedom of the press, and unfortunately, censorship is against our American free speech principles.
As for the rightness vs wrongness of invading Iraq, maybe some of you conservacons would listen to one Richard Cheney; he said the result would be a quagmire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
I have said all along that the quagmire is the plan. In chaos the oil looting can proceed virtually un-noticed. After four years still no meters on the wells. Curious.
One more time around the mulberry bush: We already won. We beat the Iraqi Army. “aid and comfort to the enemy”? You can’t even define the enemy.
Jan this “aid and comfort to the enemy” thing really get me. Especially in the climate of fear of free expression these days that the neocons have engendered. “The” enemy depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? What if some people think the Lithuanians are the enemy? “The enemy” is a crock of SH-T!!” Get it? F.Y.I. My biggest enemies are the enemies to the Constitution, rule of law, and National sovereignty.
Bill, we are not talking about restricting free speech of the public. We are talking about the Congressional representatives during a time of war.
It is wrong to put our troops in more jeopardy like they do. I also didn’t say they can’t say anything they want. I just said to do it behind closed doors.
I am sure you remember when you served, how what politicians said about the military carried a lot more weight then some commentator or average citizen being interviewed. I certainly remember what was said when I served during Vietnam even though I was on subs and not actually in Vietnam. What they say does affect morale.
The other thing is that there is no need for it. They don’t change anything by getting on the news and distorting facts or even by telling actual facts that could be covered behind closed doors. This is not something like a tax bill where public broadcasts are needed to inform the public on the details. This is people’s lives on the line and they are getting them killed.
The broadcasts are the same as “confirming” what the enemy believes they know. It gives them more credibility among their supporters. It makes it easier to get recruits and funding. It gives them the psychological advantage both sides always seek in a war.
I am sure you probably also remember how important the psychological aspect of war is. Remember how both sides in WW II and other wars were always trying to create false impressions of strength as well as actual? Remember how we lost virtually every battle in WW II to the Japanese for a couple of years ’til we rebuilt. Yet, we were always trying to present a positive spin on things to keep morale up.
We even arrested and convicted people who gave speeches and printed a pamphlet protesting the draft because it undermined the military in WWI (SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)) The Supreme Court, however, during peace, said that activity wasn’t in violation of the law.
However, it was a “declared war,” and maybe that is another reason Congress should do what is the responsible thing and actually declare a war instead of these half measures they do. However, how do you declare a war against a terrorist group in many nations? It is one thing to say a nation is responsible and go to war against it but, to say you will go into any nation that has members of a terrorist group you are threatened by is different.
Still, our Congress has a responsibility to the troops once they are committed anywhere against anybody and their lives are on the line.
I am off on a cruise and not sure if I will get to check for your response Bill. Have a great day and I do respect your intention to not limit free speech. I don’t want our speech limited and I don’t want the speech of our Representatives limited behind closed doors where these things are supposed to be decided by them.
Jan Paul,
How does it help to be silent about a quagmire? The fact that people want silence is a tacit admission that the war is lost. No one cares about criticism if they are winning.
Pay no attention to Caroline. Her favorite expressions (and only expressions as far as I can tell) are “tacit admission,” which she’s used a few thousand times on this blog, “fundies,” “neo-cons,” and “seggies,” which don’t seem to appear in any dictionary actually written in English.
I suspect she’s bought into the whole “new-world” language business where anything is considered acceptable.
Mac,
Like I said, I guess you only understand things when they are brought down to your level. I’ll keep it in Jr. High when responding to you from now on.
stopping at a motel for the evening with internet connection. The U.S. is still the greatest nation on earth. Now, we have to try and hang on to it.
What is was referring to has no bearing on whether we should be there or not. I don’t think we should be.
However, once our government does decide to use the military, our Congressmen are not to keep quite about a quagmire, just not hash it out on the news.
Nor are we to be quiet about things we don’t like. What Lincoln said is still applicable today.
Quote:
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feeling, till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy, that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptable government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy.
If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public Safety does not require them—in other words, that the constitution is not in it’s application in all respects the same, in cases of Rebellion or invasion, involving the public Safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life. http://tinyurl.com/2whubu
=========================
This is no different than any other military action. Some were justified and some were questionable. Lincoln was called a “king” because of his suspension of habeas corpus. He was ridiculed and of course, assassinated for his strong mannered handling of the civil war.
Our representatives, not us, are who authorize military action and who fund it. It is they who have to fight the battles over what is authorized and funded. It serves no purpose for them to carry out those battles on the nightly news. I side with Lincoln’s opinion on this. Also, I side with the Supreme Court’s belief (may not be the same now as it was when they ruled in the case I referred to) that during times of military action, there should be some restraints not required during peacetime.
It is one thing for a politician to get on the news and say he has concerns or difference that he is working out with the rest of Congress behind closed doors, without revealing exactly what they are. If you can’t trust him to represent you, then don’t re-elect him.
The bulk of the Congressmen getting on the news could care less how many of our military personnel are put in jeopardy. They are only interested in getting votes and keeping their elected office and I include many, but not all, in both parties.
As I said, I don’t believe we should be there but, we made the commitment and we need to either change it and then withdraw or uphold the commitment. I believe the government of Iraq has given us reason to change the commitment.
But, remember, the sale of oil in dollars is still important to this administration and whatever other hidden agendas might exist, the value of the dollar is tied to the sale of oil in dollars and was the main reason we went into Iraq once Saddam’s sale of oil in euro’s started dropping the value of the dollar.
Remember that before we went in, there were articles stating we would go in because of that fact alone.
In Nov. 2001
quote:
Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro
By Charles Recknagel
Baghdad’s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and to encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency.
Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense. http://tinyurl.com/abfkj
========================
When this article was written, they saw no sense to the decision. Note the change in opinion by some a couple years later.
Quote:
“The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
“The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq — or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq — is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way.” (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran — the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).” http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
=====================
And this
Quote:
So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 20002, 3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq’s conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.
One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush’s ‘axis of evil’.
A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez’s rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
==========================
Now, if you want to talk about something unconstitutional, then talk about this. We actually invaded Iraq to try and stem the loss of value to the dollar. We are talking about Iran because of the dollar much more than any nuclear threat from them. We are spreading hate (not that Chavez isn’t bad) about Venezuela’s Chavez more about the dollar than anything else.
Just because we have bad monetary policy is not justification for going to war. Yet, the U.S. Congress, knowing fully well why we were really going to war, if they have any understanding or the role of oil to the dollar, authorized this war either for political reasons they could use later, or because they thought the violations by Saddam were enough of an excuse to take him out and restore the sale of oil to dollars as happen as soon as we won the war.
Then, we started the “rebuilding” which was hoped to install a “friendly” government that will always keep the sale of oil in dollars. I guarantee, that all officials in the Iraq government know what Saddam did with oil sales, how successful he was at hitting the value of the dollar and how much we will do to keep that oil being sold in dollars.
However, now that other nations are moving away from the dollar, the U.S. may soon feel that Iraq isn’t worth the effort since the dollar is going to weaken anyway due to the other things going on with the dollar. I am sure it even more complex than this, now, due to the changes taking place in the world, who is holding our currency reserves, who is loaning us money, etc.
But, the thing is that even the Congressmen getting on the news are misleading the voters. They are more interested in their own power than in telling the voters the whole truth about Iraq and many other things about this military activity and things going back decades dealing with the middle-east and how we used them to weaken Russia, take out people we didn’t want, and shore up the dollar after we went of the Bretton Woods monetary policy in 1971 when we agreed to protect OPEC nations that sold oil in dollars.
It isn’t even the oil itself. It is the value of the dollar. It is also why we don’t produce more oil here. We needed to have all the sales of oil from foreign sources we could get to create demand for dollars to buy oil with. Since we were the largest consumer of oil, that meant we could demand oil sales in dollars easier than a nation that only bought a little from the OPEC nations. We have been trying to keep the dollar demand up for years with many policies that caused voters to wonder why we did what we did because they didn’t know we had to create demand for the dollar around the world to keep its value up. We did, by the way, do a very good job of doing that.
So, as you can see, I have no faith in this Administration nor either party since both have been involved in things to keep the dollar shored up and using smoke and mirrors to hide the real reasons behind some of the things both parties have been doing.
That is just like why they don’t tell the voters the real reasons they are trying to increase quotas to “legally” immigrate 67 to 100 million more immigrants. They keep the voters sidetracked with their rants on the nightly news that have little to do with their real agendas.
But more and more people are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and that may be why both parties are losing members to the ranks of independents and the approval rating is so low.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am
From PBS Frontline interview:
Q: Everyone’s always said to me “Oh, they had a very clear objective” you know, “Get rid of the Iraqis from Kuwait.” Could you explain to me in headline terms, just very briefly, why wasn’t that good enough?
Schwarzkopf: Well I think, I think… What has happened since then… is a pretty clear example of why that probably wasn’t good enough.
I mean the whole question that we hear over and over again, “Why didn’t you go to Baghdad and, and capture Saddam Hussein? Why didn’t you inflict greater damage on the Republican Guard?” When the decision was made to end the war, the decision was made, it’s because I had accomplished all of my military objectives. The things that now that people are talking about, capturing Saddam Hussein, destroying … inflicting more damage on the Republican Guard, etc., etc., etc., these are political decisions, far beyond the military realm.
I had to establish my own objectives, and my own objectives frankly turned out to be, you know, number one objective: Iraqis out of Kuwait, number two: inflict as much damage as I could on their armed forces so they couldn’t come back another day.
The kick them out of Iraq objective was one that was given to us by United Nations Resolution. But the second part of this thing; inflict maximum damage upon the Iraqi armed forces so that they cannot return, you know, shortly thereafter, was another objective that evolved. But again you’ll never find that in writing, anywhere.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Bush did listen to the generals John. And he also reacted to 17 UN Resolutions totally ignored by Saddam.
You keep trying to Monday morning QB this war. War is not an absolute science, ask any general or admiral. Circumstances change requiring altered actions on the part of competing forces.
Schwarzkopf fulfilled his MILITARY obligations as outlined prior to the 1991 invasion. There was no justification to take out Baghdad or Saddam (but he admits in his book that it would have been a bonus to remove Saddam). It was a POLITICAL decision to end the war. In fact, one could reasonably argue it was a historic marketing decision to be able to call it the ‘100 Hour War’ thus making it the most successful encounter ever.
Who knows what would be the case if we had gone ahead and taken Baghdad. Maybe we would have avoided the current war. Maybe thousands of Kurds would have survived instead of dying sans coalition support in Northern Iraq. Maybe surrender treaties would have been followed. Nobody knows, it is all conjecture.
President Bush choses a course of action based on years of non-compliance with signed treaties and UN resolutions. He consulted with military leaders including General Tommy Franks then implemented a plan. The initial invasion was an overwhelming success. Subsequently we got into nation building which is a much tougher proposition requiring cooridinated military/political efforts.
Let’s finish the job forced upon us by a radical, terrorist supporting dictator who mass murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Bottom line the NIE report told Bush not to invade Iraq. Also it gave him a different plan than going in on the cheap if he did. Bush fired any generals who disagreed with his failed strategy bottom line!
Rumsfeld under fire over Iraq
In separate interviews, McCain, of Arizona, said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops, while Schwarzkopf, the allied commander in the first Gulf War, said Rumsfeld seemed to be passing the buck when quizzed last week about the armor supply for troops on the ground.
He estimated that 80,000 more Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.
“I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.,” McCain said. “There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.”
Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.
“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.
Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Which NIE are you referring to?
Here’s one from 10/02 describing Iraq’s WMD program — http://tinyurl.com/2×7ekb
Bottom line John, we invaded…get over it.
Are you now supporting Cindy Sheehan as well as John Edwards?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Man!!! bb,
you suuuure love to quote the U.N. resolutions when it suites you
there is OUT & OUT slavery in the Sudan. . . .
a righteous cause to fight them on,
The U.N. has resolved and resolved over and over about it.
Why aren’t you and SgtMac screaming that we should help those poor women and children
Militarily
((( let the crickets begin chirping. . .. chirrrp chirrrp.)))
Gene out
August 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am
The Pope has written papal bulls against it .
(((chirp chirp ))))
Gene out
August 14th, 2007 at 11:05 am
the U.N. has sanctioned Israel over and over .
((( chirp chirp chirp )))
Gene out
August 14th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Gene,
Ironic you mention that. There was an in-depth story about Darfur on 60 Minutes Sunday. The genocide taking place there is beyond comprehension, but it is a much more complex situation than Iraq.
Ultimately African nations need to come together and decide how they would like to act. America should support the decision and I personally hope it includes the removal and immediate execution of al-Bashir.
The question I have; what will dems (including Ron Paul, John Konop, et al) say if America chooses to act? Saddam was doing the same thing in his country. Do you anti-war folks have the will to take on nation building in Sudan?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Wait, BB!!!
You saying that the African nations should get together and fight this war and America support that. . . am I reading this right???
Shouldn’t the middle east nations take care of their situations and America support that !!!
Gene Out
August 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I don’t think anyone is against a righteous fight, but the key word is righteous.
The argument against this war is that it was almost totally unjustified.
Gene out
August 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
See other thread, same subject. It seems silly to keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Gene
You said “The argument against this war is that it was almost totally unjustified”
According to whom? You? For some odd reason, the United States Congress disagrees with you as evidenced by the overwhelming support to go in. Of course, the “cut and run” mentality has since taken over the democratic party.
I repeat what I said on the other thread; Those opposed so vehemently to the war now are terribly worried that the September report will show real progress. This is clearly an affront to the agenda from San Fran Nan and Harry Reid. What I can’t figure out is why so many of you are hoping for the report to be negative? Are you so politically motivated or afflicted with BDS you’d root against your own side? Do you WANT America to lose? How about the Iraqi people? Do you want them to lose as well?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND FLY THE FLAG!
Chip Rogers for U.S. Senate -Let’s get Conservative again!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
John. . . I agree with SgtMac, can we combine these threads!!!
Now to the sarge.
yes ME. . . MY argument against the war.
I always ABSOLUTELY speak for me, there are times when others may be on the same wavelength, then we come together.
In this case, we will have to deal with our congresspeople in whatever district we are in.
clear
And what IF the September report DOES show progress, does that mean that we are now justified???
We could whip Jamaica in about an hour. . . . so by your reasoning, because we can, we are justified in doing so. . . right
Some of them don’t like us too well.
Let’s go kick their ass, then drink their rum
Gene out
August 14th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“The argument against this war is that it was almost totally unjustified. ”
I have to agree with Mac on this one. The case was made by both sides to go to war, not just the Bush Administration although the Administration is the only one willing to stand by the decision and complete the mission.
“Shouldn’t the middle east nations take care of their situations and America support that !!!”
That was true until Sept 11 when the hatred towards America crossed the ocean and we were attacked. Once it affected us here, we needed to protect ourselves. We can only turn a blind eye for so long. If radical Islamists from Darfur committed to acts of 9/11. (cue the Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11 rhetoric) That is correct but much of the Middle East is involved in Terrorism and if we are going to change the region, we had to start somewhere and Iraq made the most sense.
America can focus on the past or the future. The future is winning the war in Iraq and create a fundemental change in the region. That will take generations not 3-5 years.
I believe Congress had Americas best intentions in mind when they voted for the War. Now the political objectives have taken over and we see rhetoric spewing forth.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I think many forget that we invaded Iraq because it was hurting our economy, and devaluing our dollar and it was being done as a deliberate attack and was so stated. Saddam was congratulated (before we invaded) for his wise move to sell oil in euros and hit the U.S. economically. Several articles were written about why would attack Iraq as a result of that move and use the violations of the “cease fire” and the U.S. resolution as the reason. But, the real reason was the loss of value in the dollar. Note. Immediately upon throwing Saddam out, we switched the sale of oil back to dollars.
Also, ever since Iran has been moving its sales out of the dollar we have been stepping up the “war talk” on it but, never mention the damage selling oil in other currencies has had on the dollar.
All of the violations were real and ongoing. We had all the justification in the world and we won that war with very little loss of life in our military. We accomplished the mission.
It is the current mission of rebuilding and creating a democracy and an ally in the Middle-east we are failing at. That is a totally different mission that what we went in for and accomplished. We have to separate the two missions. One was handled quickly and effectively. The other, this one is a disaster and for good reason. It has become a political football fought on the evening news giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. However, we knew that was going to happen and it should have been taken into consideration in the planning for this second mission.
For those who say it was “unconstitutional,” until a Supreme Court rules the Legal Councils advice on the constitutionality of the President’s and Congress’s action is unconstitutional, there is no reason those in power should have to agree with us who don’t like this 2nd mission or those who claim it is unconstitutional.
If it is unconstitutional, why isn’t it being challenged in the Courts by the Democrats and a decision by the Federal Courts forced? There are two possible reasons.
The opponents of Bush may want to someday use the same powers themselves and don’t want that power challenged if they are going to regain the White House. Also, they may fear the Supreme Court in view of some rulings since the changes in the Court were made, could set precedent they don’t want on the books. They may want to wait to challenge the Constitutionality when the makeup of the Court is more favorable to them.
Whether we like it or not, the Court bases their rulings on their own interpretations more than precedence in some cases that are controversial.
However, what we face is a nation that can’t pay for their military operations without increasing our borrowing from foreign powers that don’t fully “love” us. Have you noticed how the Chinese Yuan has stopped rising in value to the dollar since we started “demanding” they make it rise faster?
We are no longer a nation the calls the shots we used to call. We are now the largest debtor nation in the world and the lenders are starting to put pressure on us in several ways. We also face 78 million “boomers” set to retire and stop paying in the payroll taxes that are immediately loaned to the general fund from the surplus, and will start drawing from those funds we depend on for loans.
The nations lending us money, selling their oil in other currencies, selling us their goods, etc. all know exactly how delicate our financial condition is. Yet, we continue to make it worse, not better and this military action, justified or not, needed or not, is hurting us and our ability to lower debt during a “boom” when most of the rest of the world is doing just that. They are preparing for the next downturn while we are like the grasshopper fiddling away our ability to weather the next “economic winter” which all in government and out of government say will come.
We are depending more and more on government spending to raise GDP (about 44% now) and as the pie shifts from private spending to government spending, our economic health gets worse and less prepared for the next downturn when even more government spending will be requested to “spur the economy on again.”
It isn’t how good things are now and they are pretty good. It is how bad it will be in a few years we have to be concerned about. If we can’t improve our debt and interest burden during a “Boom,” how are we going to do it during the next “bust?”
August 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Because a general that was out of the military for over a decade has no access to the intellegence material. Because this knee jerk Do Nothingism totally ignores the fact that there was NOTHING else stategically we could do. We were all ready at war with Iraq. Containment was all ready breaking down. Just because the Dinocons want to hide their heads in the sand and deny all factually reality simply cause they hate Bush, doesn’t change the strategic equation the USA faced in Spring 2003. Bush was abolutely right to ignore the knee jerk Do Nothing ranting of the Neo Isolationists on Iraq.
Contrary to the wishful thinking of the Dinocons, the world is NOT going to go away just because they are too arrogantly wedded to their cold war era “realists” dogmas to evolve to the realites of a post 09-11 world.
Do Nothing only works as a strategy against a foe, like the old Soviets, who were willing to do nothing to you in return. The Islamofacists are NOT going to leave you alone no matter how hard the Neo Isolationists wish they would.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Reading through the various forms of Bush apologies, I find nothing has ever changed.
BACK the President!
AMERICA! Love it or Leave it.
Strategy on Iraq?
How does a camel deal with a single flea…
And, that is the deal with “Islamofacists.” Fleas on the camel.
But, you know, if you kill the camel the fleas will leave.
Bush was wrong, is wrong, and those following him, all three of them, are wrong.
The possible benefits of raiding Iraq to capture WMD, deny al-Qaeda a base, and stop world domination by Saddam were worth far less than the death of even one U.S. soldier.
Gene’s right on this one.
Schwartkopf was right then and the analysis hasn’t changed any in 15 years.
We have lost more than we ever could have possibly gained with the raid on Iraq.
Doing the wrong thing is always worse than doing nothing. bb et al would apply a tourniquet to your throat to stop possible bleeding from a paper cut.
MD
August 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Gene,
Yes, you read right…America should support African nations to end the mass genocide in Darfur.
If al-Bashir becomes a global threat by getting WMD, then it escalates the situation. At this juncture, he still uses firesticks to terrorize Darfur villages. Not quite a world threat, but certainly an inhumane dictator who needs to be taken out.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Jan
re: “It has become a political football fought on the evening news giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy.”
You’re pretty reasonable until you start bringing up this “aid and comfort” crapola. Can someone tell me where Schwartzkopf’s analysis was off? And can someone please tell me which neocons in office now can hold a candle to some “real deal” conservatives?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I didn’t say his analysis is off. That is a different subject. That deals with whether we should or shouldn’t have gone in.
My comment about “aid and comfort” has to do with our form of Representative Republic. Once a decision is made to go in, then the “battles” between those who agree and disagree are to be fought behind closed doors, not on the news.
How does telling the enemy which vehicles have less armor or that we have too few troops, or that we have bad leadership help the troops who have no choice but to be there fighting. Whether we should be there or not, doesn’t change the fact those soldiers are being shot at and bombed.
I wouldn’t care who won the battles behind closed doors if they just stayed off the news and stopped giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. Even if they decided to pull every man out, fine, do it and then tell the enemy you have left but, don’t tell them you are leaving a year ahead of time or that you are trying to get them to leave since that helps the enemy plan their strategy.
Once Congress authorized the war, funded the war, and the President was given the role of Commander in Chief, disagreements are to go behind closed doors and a unified front put on the media so the enemy doesn’t know about the division that happens in every war and will always happen in every war.
Publishing that division gives the enemy hope and helps them plan what to do. You can be opposed to the war as a citizen and the news won’t be covering it like they will a politician. Politicians have a responsibility to fight against a war decision but, he also has a responsibility to keep behind closed doors once we are at war and have troops in the line of fire.
If we were a democracy and the people had to make the decisions, it would be different. We elected representatives to fight these things out in public when it doesn’t put lives in jeopardy but behind closed doors when we are at war or have our troops in danger.
How would you like to be under orders to ride in the vehicles in Iraq that are being targeted because some politician back here is telling the enemy they are vulnerable? How would you like to be one of the troops that the politician is saying is being poorly led or under manned or demoralized?
What is said on the news here by our politicians carries a lot more weight than what we say and the troops are affected by it. While it gives the enemy hope, it also weighs on our own personnel who have no choice but to do what they are ordered to do.
That is why some of wrote to the President and our Congressmen and warned them about doing this “re-building” and acting under the government of Iraq where our military would be very limited in what they could do. We told them the politicians would do exactly what they have done and that the President better be prepared for it. He wasn’t. If for no other reason, I was expecting exactly what has happened because of how much our Congress has split and fight so much between the parties that common sense in matters like our military operations has gone out the window. They would rather put our troops in harms way than lose any votes or be accused of working with the “other party” to reach agreement on support or to not support and not fund a military action. And, if either party is in the minority, instead of continuing to try and persuade the majority they are wrong, they run to the media and broadcast the world that “I am right and they are wrong.”
They are like a bunch of spoiled children in both parties that every time they can’t have their way they stomp their feet and run to throw a temper tantrum on the news. Not all, of course, but enough that it threatens any chance of meaningful work to get this nation on the right course before the “boomers” retire and stop paying payroll taxes we loan the surplus of to the general fund, to pay for many things we need and want.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
re:
“How does telling the enemy which vehicles have less armor or that we have too few troops, or that we have bad leadership help the troops who have no choice but to be there fighting.”
Jan
They already know this. They’ve done field tests. They have nothing better to do. What’s the alternative, keeping quiet (which many patriots did for the first couple of years) and give the neocons carte blanche? (We’d already be fighting Iran)
August 14th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
There is no excuse for putting what goes on behind closed doors on the news. It isn’t the specific details as much as our leaders making public statement about them that give the enemy the “comfort” that they are winning.
Just because you are in the minority on an opinion doesn’t give you the right to get on the news when our troops are in harms way. Vote against the funding, vote against authorization, call in experts, fight til your blue in the face but stay off the news channels with your “doubts” and “accusations” just because you are in the minority.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Jan Paul Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Just because you are in the minority on an opinion doesn’t give you the right to get on the news when our troops are in harms way. Vote against the funding, vote against authorization, call in experts, fight til your blue in the face but stay off the news channels with your “doubts” and “accusations” just because you are in the minority.
You are obviously unaware that if they have access to our media, they also have access to, say, British media. The British media actually reports on things U.S. media ignore. Some of these stories are of the variety you describe as being so abhorrent. You may not like it but we have freedom of the press, and unfortunately, censorship is against our American free speech principles.
As for the rightness vs wrongness of invading Iraq, maybe some of you conservacons would listen to one Richard Cheney; he said the result would be a quagmire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
I have said all along that the quagmire is the plan. In chaos the oil looting can proceed virtually un-noticed. After four years still no meters on the wells. Curious.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Jan
Colonialism is distasteful to most Americans. Deal with it.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
One more time around the mulberry bush: We already won. We beat the Iraqi Army. “aid and comfort to the enemy”? You can’t even define the enemy.
Jan this “aid and comfort to the enemy” thing really get me. Especially in the climate of fear of free expression these days that the neocons have engendered. “The” enemy depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? What if some people think the Lithuanians are the enemy? “The enemy” is a crock of SH-T!!” Get it? F.Y.I. My biggest enemies are the enemies to the Constitution, rule of law, and National sovereignty.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:03 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
August 15th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Bill, we are not talking about restricting free speech of the public. We are talking about the Congressional representatives during a time of war.
It is wrong to put our troops in more jeopardy like they do. I also didn’t say they can’t say anything they want. I just said to do it behind closed doors.
I am sure you remember when you served, how what politicians said about the military carried a lot more weight then some commentator or average citizen being interviewed. I certainly remember what was said when I served during Vietnam even though I was on subs and not actually in Vietnam. What they say does affect morale.
The other thing is that there is no need for it. They don’t change anything by getting on the news and distorting facts or even by telling actual facts that could be covered behind closed doors. This is not something like a tax bill where public broadcasts are needed to inform the public on the details. This is people’s lives on the line and they are getting them killed.
The broadcasts are the same as “confirming” what the enemy believes they know. It gives them more credibility among their supporters. It makes it easier to get recruits and funding. It gives them the psychological advantage both sides always seek in a war.
I am sure you probably also remember how important the psychological aspect of war is. Remember how both sides in WW II and other wars were always trying to create false impressions of strength as well as actual? Remember how we lost virtually every battle in WW II to the Japanese for a couple of years ’til we rebuilt. Yet, we were always trying to present a positive spin on things to keep morale up.
We even arrested and convicted people who gave speeches and printed a pamphlet protesting the draft because it undermined the military in WWI (SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)) The Supreme Court, however, during peace, said that activity wasn’t in violation of the law.
However, it was a “declared war,” and maybe that is another reason Congress should do what is the responsible thing and actually declare a war instead of these half measures they do. However, how do you declare a war against a terrorist group in many nations? It is one thing to say a nation is responsible and go to war against it but, to say you will go into any nation that has members of a terrorist group you are threatened by is different.
Still, our Congress has a responsibility to the troops once they are committed anywhere against anybody and their lives are on the line.
I am off on a cruise and not sure if I will get to check for your response Bill. Have a great day and I do respect your intention to not limit free speech. I don’t want our speech limited and I don’t want the speech of our Representatives limited behind closed doors where these things are supposed to be decided by them.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Jan, ya worry me!!!
Gene out
((((just kidding)))))
((((a little)))
August 15th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jan Paul,
How does it help to be silent about a quagmire? The fact that people want silence is a tacit admission that the war is lost. No one cares about criticism if they are winning.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jan
Um, the only thing I ever served was chicken nuggets when I worked for a catering company.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Jan Paul
Pay no attention to Caroline. Her favorite expressions (and only expressions as far as I can tell) are “tacit admission,” which she’s used a few thousand times on this blog, “fundies,” “neo-cons,” and “seggies,” which don’t seem to appear in any dictionary actually written in English.
I suspect she’s bought into the whole “new-world” language business where anything is considered acceptable.
To quote her, “good luck with that.”
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!
Chip Rogers for U.S. Senate!
August 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Mac,
Like I said, I guess you only understand things when they are brought down to your level. I’ll keep it in Jr. High when responding to you from now on.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
stopping at a motel for the evening with internet connection. The U.S. is still the greatest nation on earth. Now, we have to try and hang on to it.
What is was referring to has no bearing on whether we should be there or not. I don’t think we should be.
However, once our government does decide to use the military, our Congressmen are not to keep quite about a quagmire, just not hash it out on the news.
Nor are we to be quiet about things we don’t like. What Lincoln said is still applicable today.
Quote:
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend, into a public meeting, and there working upon his feeling, till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy, that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptable government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy.
If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public Safety does not require them—in other words, that the constitution is not in it’s application in all respects the same, in cases of Rebellion or invasion, involving the public Safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life.
http://tinyurl.com/2whubu
=========================
This is no different than any other military action. Some were justified and some were questionable. Lincoln was called a “king” because of his suspension of habeas corpus. He was ridiculed and of course, assassinated for his strong mannered handling of the civil war.
Our representatives, not us, are who authorize military action and who fund it. It is they who have to fight the battles over what is authorized and funded. It serves no purpose for them to carry out those battles on the nightly news. I side with Lincoln’s opinion on this. Also, I side with the Supreme Court’s belief (may not be the same now as it was when they ruled in the case I referred to) that during times of military action, there should be some restraints not required during peacetime.
It is one thing for a politician to get on the news and say he has concerns or difference that he is working out with the rest of Congress behind closed doors, without revealing exactly what they are. If you can’t trust him to represent you, then don’t re-elect him.
The bulk of the Congressmen getting on the news could care less how many of our military personnel are put in jeopardy. They are only interested in getting votes and keeping their elected office and I include many, but not all, in both parties.
As I said, I don’t believe we should be there but, we made the commitment and we need to either change it and then withdraw or uphold the commitment. I believe the government of Iraq has given us reason to change the commitment.
But, remember, the sale of oil in dollars is still important to this administration and whatever other hidden agendas might exist, the value of the dollar is tied to the sale of oil in dollars and was the main reason we went into Iraq once Saddam’s sale of oil in euro’s started dropping the value of the dollar.
Remember that before we went in, there were articles stating we would go in because of that fact alone.
In Nov. 2001
quote:
Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro
By Charles Recknagel
Baghdad’s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and to encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency.
Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense.
http://tinyurl.com/abfkj
========================
When this article was written, they saw no sense to the decision. Note the change in opinion by some a couple years later.
Quote:
“The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
“The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq — or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq — is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way.” (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran — the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
=====================
And this
Quote:
So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 20002, 3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq’s conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.
One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush’s ‘axis of evil’.
A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez’s rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
==========================
Now, if you want to talk about something unconstitutional, then talk about this. We actually invaded Iraq to try and stem the loss of value to the dollar. We are talking about Iran because of the dollar much more than any nuclear threat from them. We are spreading hate (not that Chavez isn’t bad) about Venezuela’s Chavez more about the dollar than anything else.
Just because we have bad monetary policy is not justification for going to war. Yet, the U.S. Congress, knowing fully well why we were really going to war, if they have any understanding or the role of oil to the dollar, authorized this war either for political reasons they could use later, or because they thought the violations by Saddam were enough of an excuse to take him out and restore the sale of oil to dollars as happen as soon as we won the war.
Then, we started the “rebuilding” which was hoped to install a “friendly” government that will always keep the sale of oil in dollars. I guarantee, that all officials in the Iraq government know what Saddam did with oil sales, how successful he was at hitting the value of the dollar and how much we will do to keep that oil being sold in dollars.
However, now that other nations are moving away from the dollar, the U.S. may soon feel that Iraq isn’t worth the effort since the dollar is going to weaken anyway due to the other things going on with the dollar. I am sure it even more complex than this, now, due to the changes taking place in the world, who is holding our currency reserves, who is loaning us money, etc.
But, the thing is that even the Congressmen getting on the news are misleading the voters. They are more interested in their own power than in telling the voters the whole truth about Iraq and many other things about this military activity and things going back decades dealing with the middle-east and how we used them to weaken Russia, take out people we didn’t want, and shore up the dollar after we went of the Bretton Woods monetary policy in 1971 when we agreed to protect OPEC nations that sold oil in dollars.
It isn’t even the oil itself. It is the value of the dollar. It is also why we don’t produce more oil here. We needed to have all the sales of oil from foreign sources we could get to create demand for dollars to buy oil with. Since we were the largest consumer of oil, that meant we could demand oil sales in dollars easier than a nation that only bought a little from the OPEC nations. We have been trying to keep the dollar demand up for years with many policies that caused voters to wonder why we did what we did because they didn’t know we had to create demand for the dollar around the world to keep its value up. We did, by the way, do a very good job of doing that.
So, as you can see, I have no faith in this Administration nor either party since both have been involved in things to keep the dollar shored up and using smoke and mirrors to hide the real reasons behind some of the things both parties have been doing.
That is just like why they don’t tell the voters the real reasons they are trying to increase quotas to “legally” immigrate 67 to 100 million more immigrants. They keep the voters sidetracked with their rants on the nightly news that have little to do with their real agendas.
But more and more people are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and that may be why both parties are losing members to the ranks of independents and the approval rating is so low.