|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Actually they sent special forces into the oil fields to guard them before the bombing started - that's how they were able to disable the boobie traps.
A senior administration official admits that Iraq was important because of the oil. Bush and Cheney are oil men and most of their political contributions came from the energy industry which has a huge interest in getting Iraqi oil contract. It's been admitted that WMD were just an excuse - they've caught most of the senior people that would know of the weapons plus all their underlings and despite huge monetary rewards they all say there were no weapons. If it was for humanitarian reason their are plenty odf countries with EXTREMELY worse humanitarian records -than Iraq and Bush and Co. ignore it - so I don't buy that argument. I suppose it goes against the vision of the world that some people want to have of the U.S. as the good guys, but historically wars for the most part have been fought for resources. [ June 05, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
THE GUARDIAN now has a correction on its main page regarding the Wolfowitz oil story:
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed. Oh, I almost forgot this: Another Guardian correction EDIT: BTW, maybe Rex should read this: Human Rights Report on Iraq I'm not aware of many countries that can compare, but perhaps I'm blissfully ignorant. [ June 05, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: kalthalior ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You got to be dreaming if you expect these corporate guys to do anything out of their kindness.
This war was for oil, and for Strategical considerartion, and to see if it could help the economy a little bit. If there is some good that ChickenHawk Brigade can do while making a profit, like removing an evil dictator, they will do it, but if they have to go out of their way to do some good, I recomend you buy a Hybernation chamber for the waiting. And of course, if they have to do some evil to make some profit, like cutting a sovereign country in half or recognizing a terrorist goverment that doesn't affect american interests, they will do it for sure. Its all about the money, baby. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Oh yeah. They have a great one of Phil Hartman playing Reagan. He's in the oval office acting all grandpa like for some visiting Girl Scout troop, then as soon as they walk out the door it's like, OK let's get to work! And this panel slides down on the wall and and it's this world map and he's got a room full of lackey's and he's giving them all orders like Patton or something. I think it was during the Iran Contra stuff and he giving them all detailed instructions on how to get funds here and wepons there. And then he jumps on the phone and he's talking fluent German and Chinese and all this stuff. It's a riot. I see it occasionally on Comedy Central. One of my Favorites.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Unknown_Enemy's personal point : I never appreciate when a politician takes me for an idiot. Even if I am not US citizen and do not vote for him.
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY 5 June 2003 by Dr. George Friedman WMD Summary The inability to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has created a political crisis in the United States and Britain. Within the two governments, there are recriminations and brutal political infighting over responsibility. Stratfor warned in February that the unwillingness of the U.S. government to articulate its real, strategic reasons for the war -- choosing instead to lean on WMD as the justification -- would lead to a deep crisis at some point. That moment seems to be here. Analysis "Weapons of mass destruction" is promising to live up to its name: The issue may well result in the mass destruction of senior British and American officials who used concerns about WMD in Iraq as the primary, public justification for going to war. The simple fact is that no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and -- except for some vans which may have been used for biological weapons -- no evidence that Iraq was working to develop such weapons. Since finding WMD is a priority for U.S. military forces, which have occupied Iraq for more than a month, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction not only has become an embarrassment, it also has the potential to mushroom into a major political crisis in the United States and Britain. Not only is the political opposition exploiting the paucity of Iraqi WMD, but the various bureaucracies are using the issue to try to discredit each other. It's a mess. On Jan. 21, 2003, Stratfor published an analysis titled Smoke and Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception, which made the following points: 1. The primary reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was strategic and not about weapons of mass destruction. 2. The United States was using the WMD argument primarily to justify the attack to its coalition partners. 3. The use of WMD rather than strategy as the justification for the war would ultimately create massive confusion as to the nature of the war the United States was fighting. As we put it: "To have allowed the WMD issue to supplant U.S. strategic interests as the justification for war has created a crisis in U.S. strategy. Deception campaigns are designed to protect strategies, not to trap them. Ultimately, the foundation of U.S. grand strategy, coalitions and the need for clarity in military strategy have collided. The discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not solve the problem, nor will a coup in Baghdad. In a war [against Islamic extremists] that will Last for years, maintaining one's conceptual footing is critical. If that footing cannot be maintained -- if the requirements of the war and the requirements of strategic clarity are incompatible -- there are more serious issues involved than the future of Iraq." The failure to enunciate the strategic reasons for the invasion of Iraq--of cloaking it in an extraneous justification--has now come home to roost. Having used WMD as the justification, the inability to locate WMD in Iraq has undermined the credibility of the United States and is tearing the government apart in an orgy of finger-pointing. To make sense of this impending chaos, it is important to start at the beginning -- with al Qaeda. After the Sept. 11 attacks, al Qaeda was regarded as an extraordinarily competent global organization. Sheer logic argued that the network would want to top the Sept. 11 strikes with something even more impressive. This led to a very reasonable fear that al Qaeda possessed or was in the process of obtaining WMD. U.S. intelligence, shifting from its sub-sensitive to hyper-sensitive mode, began putting together bits of intelligence that tended to show that what appeared to be logical actually was happening. The U.S. intelligence apparatus now was operating in a worst-case scenario mode, as is reasonable when dealing with WMD. Lower-grade intelligence was regarded as significant. Two things resulted: The map of who was developing weapons of mass destruction expanded, as did the probabilities assigned to al Qaeda's ability to obtain WMD. The very public outcome -- along with a range of less public events -- was the "axis of evil" State of the Union speech, which identified three countries as having WMD and likely to give it to al Qaeda. Iraq was one of these countries. If we regard chemical weapons as WMD, as has been U.S. policy, then it is well known that Iraq had WMD, since it used them in the past. It was a core assumption, therefore, that Iraq continued to possess WMD. Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials believed there was a parallel program in biological weapons, and also that Iraqi leaders had the ability and the intent to restart their nuclear program, if they had not already done so. Running on the worst-case basis that was now hard-wired by al Qaeda into U.S. intelligence, Iraq was identified as a country with WMD and likely to pass them on to al Qaeda. Iraq, of course, was not the only country in this class. There are other sources of WMD in the world, even beyond the "axis of evil" countries. Simply invading Iraq would not solve the fundamental problem of the threat from al Qaeda. As Stratfor has always argued, the invasion of Iraq served a psychological and strategic purpose: Psychologically, it was designed to demonstrate to the Islamic world the enormous power and ferocity of the United States; strategically, it was designed to position the United States to coerce countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran into changing their policies toward suppressing al Qaeda operations in their countries. Both of these missions were achieved. WMD was always a side issue in terms of strategic planning. It became, however, the publicly stated moral, legal and political justification for the war. It was understood that countries like France and Russia had no interest in collaborating with Washington in a policy that would make the United States the arbiter of the Middle East. Washington had to find a justification for the war that these allies would find irresistible. That justification was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. From the standpoint of U.S. intelligence, this belief became a given. Everyone knew that Iraq once had chemical weapons, and no reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein had unilaterally destroyed them. So it appeared to planners within the Bush administration that they were on safe ground. Moreover, it was assumed that other major powers would regard WMD in Hussein's hands as unacceptable and that therefore, everyone would accept the idea of a war in which the stated goal -- and the real outcome -- would be the destruction of Iraq's weapons. This was the point on which Washington miscalculated. The public justification for the war did not compel France, Germany or Russia to endorse military action. They continued to resist because they fully understood the outcome -- intended or not -- would be U.S. domination of the Middle East, and they did not want to see that come about. Paris, Berlin and Moscow turned the WMD issue on its head, arguing that if that was the real issue, then inspections by the United Nations would be the way to solve the problem. Interestingly, they never denied that Iraq had WMD; what they did deny was that proof of WMD had been found. They also argued that over time, as proof accumulated, the inspection process would either force the Iraqis to destroy their WMD or justify an invasion at that point. What is important here is that French and Russian leaders shared with the United States the conviction that Iraq had WMD. Like the Americans, they thought weapons of mass destruction -- particularly if they were primarily chemical -- was a side issue; the core issue was U.S. power in the Middle East. In short, all sides were working from the same set of assumptions. There was not much dispute that the Baathist regime probably had WMD. The issue between the United States and its allies was strategic. After the war, the United States would become the dominant power in the region, and it would use this power to force regional governments to strike at al Qaeda. Germany, France and Russia, fearing the growth of U.S. power, opposed the war. Rather than clarifying the chasm in the alliance, the Bush administration permitted the arguments over WMD to supplant a discussion of strategy and left the American public believing the administration's public statements -- smoke and mirrors -- rather than its private view. The Bush administration -- and France, for that matter -- all assumed that this problem would disappear when the U.S. military got into Iraq. WMD would be discovered, the public justification would be vindicated, the secret goal would be achieved and no one would be the wiser. What they did not count on -- what is difficult to believe even now -- is that Hussein actually might not have WMD or, weirder still, that he hid them or destroyed them so efficiently that no one could find them. That was the kicker the Bush administration never counted on. The matter of whether Hussein had WMD is still open. Answers could range to the extremes: He had no WMD or he still has WMD, being held in reserve for his guerrilla war. But the point here is that the WMD question was not the reason the United States went to war. The war was waged in order to obtain a strategic base from which to coerce countries such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia into using their resources to destroy al Qaeda within their borders. From that standpoint, the strategy seems to be working. However, by using WMD as the justification for war, the United States walked into a trap. The question of the location of WMD is important. The question of whether it was the CIA or Defense Department that skewed its reports about the location of Iraq's WMD is also important. But these questions are ultimately trivial compared to the use of smoke and mirrors to justify a war in which Iraq was simply a single campaign. Ultimately, the problem is that it created a situation in which the American public had one perception of the reason for the war while the war's planners had another. In a democratic society engaged in a war that will Last for many years, this is a dangerous situation to have created. [ June 06, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I begin to really doubt the integrity of Stratfor. I recall discussing this topic just as the war was beginning, comparing the relative merits of Stratfor (a paid Subscriber service) to Strategypage (a free or donation-supported site). Stratfor's read on how the battle of Baghdad would unfold was dead-on wrong, and StrategyPage hit it dead-on right. Now Stratfor is picking up the "where are the WMD's?" chant too. Well, first off, the "panic" in the US government, at least, does not yet appear to be anywhere but in the minds of those who want to see this made into an embarassment to it. Secondly, there are any number of plausible reasons why WMD's have not yet appeared in the quantity that some critics are demanding. A) They are still hidden in various places in Iraq awaiting recovery. It's not like Saddam didn't have advance warning we were coming, after all... B) They have been spirited away to other countries (my personal suspiction, and Syria is my prime suspect) and/or terrorist Groups (stock up on your duct tape...) C) The WMD's *were* destroyed before the war, but for reasons of personal/national pride, Saddam would not cooperate. (A rather fanciful theory I heard was that the WMD's were destroyed after Gulf War I, but Sadddam's cronies pretended to him that they were not to save their own skins. Like I said, rather fanciful, but given the level of dysfunctionality in these tyrranical regines, who knows?) D) Some combination of the above three. (My second choice) Major point - if by this time next year no appreciable WMD stockpiles have been accounted for, there indeed would be cause for concern politically. But, like everything else about this crazy conflict, the MTV Generation's time frame for expected results has struck again. For something that purports to be a serious outlet for strategic studes, Stratfor should know better. All the more reason I stick with StrategyPage. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Just in case anyone is interested, here is what StrategyPage has to say on the WMD issue...
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Let me make the following paraphrase : "it is reported all americans are KluKlux Klan supporters" Then me asking "but General Woundwort, why do you burn black people ?". Such a STUPID statement and grave accusation based on nothing is as stupid as the statement on the UK minister. Hell, from what I know, you could be of african origin. But anyway, thanks for the article. It helped me to remind that you sometime need to pay to get quality news or analysis. [ June 08, 2003, 10:10: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Let me make the following paraphrase : "it is reported all americans are KluKlux Klan supporters" Then me asking "but General Woundwort, why do you burn nigers ?". Such a STUPID statement and grave accusation based on nothing is as stupid as the statement on the UK minister. Hell, from what I know, you could be of african origin. But anyway, thanks for the article. It helped me to remind that you sometime need to pay to get quality news or analysis.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A pity. Well, suit yourself. If you had finished the article, you would have noted that they put the time frame as to when we will know if Iraq still had WMD even sooner than I did - about September. Well, the truth will out sooner or later, to somebody's grief - Bush's or his enemies. In the meantime, I'll go back to my Highliner Mod and let this thread pass - the tone of discussion here is a bit ugly, and the possibilites for constructive dialogue seemingly nil. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I just watched on BBC the interview with former weapon inspector (sorry, forgot his name). When asked about "missing stockpile of VI gas and anthrax", he said it was based on 1991 data. He also said Iraqi' VI gas and anthrax spores are completly inactive after three years. Thus, they possed no danger in 1994.. It is 2003 and Bush/Blair still scare us with those mythical weapons. And please don't tell me they did not know the facts. Well, may be Bush dos't, but Blair !! It really sucks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
So the war is about oil. Bush and Cheney are oil men. Now, I do believe in the business world high demand, low supply increases profits. Soooo, if the war is about oil, and Bush et al making money from it....Why in the world did our troops protect the oil fields?
If we wanted Iraq's oil for ourselves to stimulate the U.S. economy, why in the world would we want to STOP buying oil with food, knowing we produce way more food than we know what to do with? Before the war we were the major exporter of Iraqi goods. 47% of all Iraq's exports came to the U.S., more than any other country(CIA Fact book if you'd like to check my source). So I still do not understand how this war was for Oil. What I do understand is that Iraq threatened us, and refused to prove they had destroyed WMD. What exactly am I missing here? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You are thinking too simplistically. Sure, Bush and Cheney are looking out for their own interests. Just like the Saudis are looking out for their interests by trying to keep the price of oil in a certain range. If it goes too high, people can't afford to continue consuming and the economy crashes. End of profits. If it goes to low, the price doesn't cover production costs (drilling wells, building tankers and refineries, paying bribes to politicians, etc.). End of profits. There is a 'zone' that they want the price of oil to stay within.
So yes, the war could have been about oil. Because securing the supply from the second largest known reserves in the world is a good way to stabilize the price for the long-term future. The new Iraqi regime will have essentially the same interests as the Saudis. They want the price to be high enough to make a good profit, but not so high that it drives the Western economies down. That way they would get maximum return on their resource, and so would their corporate partners in the US (and other western countries). Personally, I think the oil is just a perk. It's far more likely that the war was simply imperialism. The US can't have this dictator defying them for years and years and maintain credibility as ruler of the world. Gotta get rid of him. It was obviously not for any of the stated reasons. They kept changing to suit the moment. He was just grasping for whatever 'hot button' he could find to over-ride the objections. But it seems equally unlikely to have been about oil. The development of Russian and other central-asian oil reserves is well underway. We'll be swimming in oil within 10 years. We could have left Iraq to wither and die for the rest of the century with no problem to oil supplies. [ June 07, 2003, 23:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fi...wmd/index.html
Interesting article Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? Hmmm... I do hope that the reason this war happened was because of the threat. For if it was about economics and securing those economics for the 21st centry that is frightening. As is those who support war for economic gains. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
In my opinion only, I think time is what is needed before final disposition on the whys and what nots of the war. There had to be something there as both Bush and Blair knew they would catch flak if nothing was found. Therefore, since they are still uncovering mass graves and other things, My opinion is that more time needs to be given before any condamnation for the reasons of the war in regards to other reasons then mass destruction weapons. Also don't forget, the Iraqi's had years to hide or redeploy them during years prior to the invasion. As for informants, My opinion again, is that until the proof of Sadam's true whereabouts, whether alive or dead is determined, many Iraqis are scared to give info for fear of repriasals or that he is alive and planning his comback..
These are opinions only just some ideas Mac |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And who will be doing that rebuilding? Who has already secured the billions of dollars worth of contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq's devastated infrastructure? Yup, you guessed it, Bush and his cronies. His colleagues, freinds and financial backers all have fingers in the pie. Pick your own supporting article. That said, I don't believe this was the primary reason for the war, it was just a tasty little bonus. I think what it really comes down to is global dominance, as outlined in the PNAC. Anything else is just a cover-story, imho. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Artista: Laura Brannigan
Música: Auto Controle "Oh, a noite é meu mundo A luz da cidade pintou, garota Durante o dia nada importa É a noite que elogia Durante a noite, sem nenhum controle Pela parede algo está quebrando Visto branco enquanto você caminha Pela rua da minha alma Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle Você me pegou vivendo somente para a noite Antes da manhã vir, a história conta Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle Outra noite, outro dia se passa Eu nunca me paro para saber porque Você me ajuda a esquecer de exercer minha função Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle Eu, eu vivo entre as criaturas da noite Eu não tenho a força para tentar e lutar Contra um novo amanhã, Então suponho que eu só acreditei nisto Que o amanhã nunca virá Uma noite segura, Eu estou vivendo na floresta de meu sonho Eu sei que a noite não é como parecia e Eu tenho que acreditar em algo, Então eu me farei acreditar nisto Que esta noite nunca acabará Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh Oh, a noite é meu mundo A luz da cidade pintou, garota Durante o dia nada importa É a noite que elogia Eu, eu vivo entre as criaturas da noite Eu não tenho a força para tentar e lutar Contra um novo amanhã, Então suponho que eu só acreditei nisto Que o amanhã nunca virá Uma noite segura Eu estou vivendo na floresta de meu sonho Eu sei que a noite não é como pareceria Eu tenho que acreditar em algo, Então eu me farei acreditar nisto Que esta noite nunca acabará Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle" I'm learning Portugese now with the songs I used to like when i was in kindergarden. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . . . [ June 09, 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: Aloofi ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Hey, I just found a picture of my first love!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I remember fighting with another kid because of her...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Amazing the things that can be found Online. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
But I remember her with a longer hair.... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Good translation.
(I spot an age difference here... I was entering high school when 'Self Control' started playing in these parts.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif How good is your Portuguese ? Try to find anything by Os Mamonas Assassinas, I think you'll like them ! |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Is it there any good writer that you would recommend? Reading original works have always helped me. Oh, I didn't do that translation. I was looking for Portuguese verbs Online and I found it. I think the song should say "Você levou meu auto" instead of "Você levou meu ego", right? Or maybe I didn't get the song's meaning in English to begin with.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Talk about OT.
Here are a little piece of music to bring the thread back on topic (prolly posted before, but who cares). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Real Saddam |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds
Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff Sunday June 15, 2003 The Observer An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist. The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer Last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.' The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer Last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq. The row is expected to be re-ignited this week with Robin Cook and Clare Short, the two Cabinet Ministers who resigned over the war, both due to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated in the run-up to the war. It will be the first time that both have been grilled by their peers on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over what the Cabinet was told in the run-up to the war. MPs will be keen to explore Cook's explanation when he resigned that, while he believed Iraq did have some WMD capability, he did not believe it was weaponised. The Prime Minister and his director of strategy and communications, ALastair Campbell, are expected to decline invitations to appear. While MPs could attempt to force them, this is now thought unlikely to happen. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is expected to give evidence the week after. The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
THis is from the WP.
Interesting read A Plot to Deceive? By Robert Kagan Sunday, June 8, 2003; Page B07 There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed Last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent. This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place." The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt. Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report Last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998. Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin." On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for." Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them? The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats. Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems." Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe. Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them." Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared Last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush. Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too. So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either. The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post. © 2003 The Washington Post Company |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This all leads to some really interesting speculation. It seems that if Bush/Blair et al had been deceiving us on the existence of WMD that they would have been prepared to plant evidence to justify their position after they had control of Iraq, as not finding WMD is entirely too embarassing. Add to that the fact that has been repeatedly brought up that even opponents of the war thought Saddam had WMD and it leaves us with an a real puzzle.
It seems to me that there are three possibilities. First, it could have all been destroyed prior to the war, but Saddam was unwilling or unable to accurately document the destruction. Possible but unlikely. Second, they could still be hidden in Iraq. Only time will tell on this one. Third, and I think scariest, is the possibility that they were moved out of Iraq, probably to Syria. Again, only time will tell. There is the fourth possibility, that they didn't exist at all, but I think the WP article Tesco quoted was pretty thorough in refuting that. I just hope that, assuming it is out there somewhere, we find it before it finds us. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I always thought that the "WMD" that the 'bad guys' have are over rated.
Fuel based weapons , nuclear and cluster type weapons are very deadly. Especially the Fuel based weapons. The germans used to use one in ww2 that the allied soldiers called snow. A bomber would fly over the normandy coast and release these white phosphorous fragments ( the size of soap ) They looked like a blizzard. They would also fire them out of the bigger guns. Anything they touched would burn. Anyways enough of the history lession on anti-personal weapons. Here is one that is off topic. Quiz time Who invented the first APC?( armored personal carrier ) What battle was it first used in? What was it made out of ? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco, that isn't that different from, say, napalm. And you're missing the "mass" in "mass destruction". Chemicals I would argue don't fit, but biologicals properly dispersed do..since the breed. Nukes of course..one bomb, minus one city or for the smaller ones a good chunk of it.
EDIT: compare that to, for example, the car bombing of the WTC in 1993. As it is it did fairly minor damage. With a nuke onboard instead? The entire WTC complex gone as a -minimum- for a very small weak nuke. [ June 17, 2003, 02:58: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
2) Trojan War 3) Wood in the shape of a horse http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif well, did I win a prize? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
My first inclinations was to dismiss chemical weapons as "not that bad" myself, but then I did a little checking into the sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995. While the number of deaths wasn't terribly high, twelve or so, several thousand people wound up in the hospital.
The Terrorist Attack with Sarin in Tokyo Further, there seems to be some long term effects of sarin on memory that are concerning, though more study is needed. Effects of Sarin on the Nervous System... There also are a number of studies indicating that low levels of sarin exposure may be a contributing factor to Gulf War syndrome. Gulf War Syndrome Research... All in all, pretty nasty stuff, and while not nukes, I believe they would be more effective in a terror role than conventional explosives. As far as things like cluster bombs are concerned, it is highly unlikely that terrorists are going to have the means to deliver cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives or other "conventional" munitions. The reason we didn't want Saddam to have WMD was primarily the fear that he would pass them on to terrorists. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"All in all, pretty nasty stuff, and while not nukes, I believe they would be more effective in a terror role than conventional explosives."
Point. Something about screwing with the air you're breathing freaks people out more than explosives..hmm, imagine that. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This is almost a must read. Could be true of could be pure recycled hay. But it seems to demand some debate.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...480226,00.html |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"Emergency anti-terrorism" powers abused. Peaceful protestors are denied their rights to protest by officers quoting anti-terrorist legislation.
How long before any form of public protest, or unbiased reporting, or membership of opposition political parties constitutes "terrorism" and justifies the use of "emergency powers"? It's a slippery slope... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Thermo. Now add the USA side to that link. Cause you know its there.... And you know where it leads to...
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[edit: looks like I came off a lot stronger than I intended, or rather I used stronger language than was warranted. Must be more carefull in the future, and for now I'll just back off. Sorry, Tesco.]
[ September 11, 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
another interesting article
Sources: THE SIERRA TIMES, February 9, 2003 Title: "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq" Author: William Clark FEASTA, January 2003 Title: "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq" Author: Cóilín Nunan THE NATION, September 23, 2002 Title: The End of Empire Author: William Greider Faculty Evaluators: Wingham Liddell Ph.D, Tony White Ph.D , Phil Beard Ph.D., Thom Lough Ph.D. Student Researchers: Effren Trejo, Kathleen Glover, Dylan Citrin-Cummins President Richard Nixon removed U.S. currency from the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the world's supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Countries must provide the United States with goods and services for dollars - which the United States can freely print. To purchase energy and pay off any IMF debts, countries must hold vast dollar reserves. The world is attached to a currency that one country can produce at will. This means that - in addition to controlling world trade - the United States is importing substantial quantities of goods and services for very low relative costs. The Euro has begun to emerge as a serious threat to dollar hegemony and U.S. economic dominance. The dollar may prevail throughout the Western Hemisphere, but the Euro and dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros. Since then, the value of the Euro has increased 17%, and the dollar has begun to decline. One important reason for the invasion and installation of a U.S. dominated government in Iraq was to force the country back to the dollar. Another reason for the invasion is to dissuade further OPEC momentum toward the Euro, especially from Iran- the second largest OPEC producer, who was actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports. It is estimated that the dollar is currently overvalued by at least 40%, burdening the United States with a huge trade deficit. Conversely, the euro-zone does not run huge deficits, uses higher interest rates, and has an increasingly larger share of world trade. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider use, the dollar will no longer be the world's only option. At that point, it would be easier for other nations to exercise financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole. Faced with waning international economic power, military superiority is the United States' only tool for world domination. Although, the expense of this military control is unsustainable, says William Clark, "one of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel." If American power is ever perceived globally as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order, the U.S. systems of control can be eliminated and collapsed. When acting against world opinion - as in Iraq - an international consensus could brand the United States as a "rogue nation." Updated By William Clark: Only time will tell what will happen in the aftermath of the Iraq war and U.S. occupation, but I am hopeful my research will contribute to the historical record and help others understand one of the important but hidden macroeconomic reasons for why we conquered Iraq. The Bush/Cheney administration probably believes that the occupation of Iraq and the installation of a large and permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region will stop other OPEC producers from even considering switching the denomination of their oil sales from dollars to Euros. However, using the military to enforce dollar hegemony for oil transactions strikes me as a rather unwieldy and inappropriate strategy. Regrettably, President Bush and his neo-conservative advisors have exacerbated "anti-American" sentiments by applying a military option in Iraq that is in essence an economic problem. History may not look kindly upon their actions. Despite the U.S. media reporting otherwise, the current wave of 'global anti-Americanism' is not against the American people or against American values - but against the hypocrisy of militant American Imperialism. The foreign polices of the neoconservatives may be creating the regrettable emergence of a possible European-Russian-Chinese alliance in an effort to counter American Imperialism. It appears that the structural imbalances in the U.S. economy, along with the Bush administration's flawed tax, economic, and most principally their overtly imperialist foreign polices could result in the dollar's reserve currency status and/or oil transaction currency status being placed in jeopardy or at the very least significantly diminished over the next 1-2 years. In the event that my hypothesis materializes, the U.S. economy will require restructuring in some manner to account for the reduction of either of these two pivotal advantages. What is needed is a multilateral meeting of the G-7 nations to reform the international monetary system. Given that future wars will become more likely over oil and the currency of oil, the author advocates that the global monetary system be reformed without delay. This would include the dollar and euro being designated as equal international reserve currencies, and placed within an exchange band along with a dual-OPEC oil transaction currency standard. Additionally, the G-7 nations should also explore a future third reserve currency option regarding a yen/yuan bloc for East Asia. A compromise on the euro/oil issues via a multilateral treaty with a gradual phase-in of a dual-OPEC transaction currency standard could minimize economic dislocations within the U.S. While these proposed multilateral reforms may lower our ability to finance our current massive levels of debt and maintain a global military presence, the benefits would include improving the quality of our lives and that of our children by reducing animosity towards the U.S., while we rebuild our alliances with the E.U. and world community. Creating balanced domestic fiscal polices along with global monetary reform is in the long-term national security interest of the United States, and necessary for the Global economy. Hopefully these proposed monetary reforms could mitigate future armed or economic warfare over oil, ultimately fostering a more stable, safer, and prosperous global economy in the 21st century. Update by Cóilín Nunan: At the time this article was written, the suggestion that Iraq's move to selling oil for euros had something to do with the US threatening war against the country was just a theory. It still is a theory, but a theory which subsequent US actions have done little to dispel: the US has invaded Iraq, installed its own authority to rule the country and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only (1). But the story doesn't end there: the US trade deficit is still widening and the dollar falling. More and more oil exporters are talking openly about selling their commodity for euros instead of greenbacks. While Indonesia has only been considering it (2), Malaysia's Prime Minister Dr Mahathir has been strongly encouraging his country's oil industry to actually do it (3), which has led the European Union's Energy Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, to comment that she could see the euro replacing the dollar as the main currency for oil pricing (4). Iran meanwhile has been giving all the signs that it is about to switch to the euro: it has been issuing eurobonds, converting its foreign exchange reserves from dollars to euros and having warm trade negotiations with the EU. According to one recent report it has even started selling its oil to Europe for euros and encouraging Asian customers to pay in euros too (5). Should US talk of 'regime change' in Iran not be seen in the light of these facts? The media largely appear to think not since there has been little discussion of the dollar-euro connection with the 'war on terror'. What discussion there has been may well be expanded upon in the future as neither the threat to the dollar and the US economy or the US threat to world peace are likely to go away any time soon. 1. Carola Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, 'Iraq returns to international oil market', Financial Times, June 5 2003, http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1054416466875 2. Kazi Mahmood, 'Economic Shift Could Hurt U.S.-British Interests In Asia', March 30 2003, IslamOnline.net 3. Shahanaaz Habib, 'Use euro for oil prices, says Dr M', The Star, June 16 2003, http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...oil&sec=nation 4. Reuters, 'EU says oil could one day be priced in euros', June 16 2003, http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/030616/energy_euro_2.html 5. C. Shivkumar, 'Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms', June 16 2003, http://thehindubusinessline.com/stor...1702380500.htm Loser. Why not look back at all the Posts i have made over the Last 2 years on this topic. For a change. Prove me wrong ok. Cause I am sick of this i need proof and when it is posted or has been posted it is ignored because it goes against what certain people think. I have been asking as well for people to convince me that I am wrong on what I think, I have yet to see anything from anyone. The information is out there. Read. And you do know what I am talking about. So why not post your arguements against what i stated. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ah, Tesco, always such unbiased reports. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I for one would love to see the US declared a rogue nation. You know that big US trade deficit? All gone. Think what would happen to the economies of all the countries that are on the receiving end if the US was no longer buying their goods. Then of course there would be the loss of foreign aid, and the people of the US would probably cut down on out-of-country charitable giving as well. In short, I don't see any coalition of countries out there trying to cut us off from the rest of the world, it would be economic suicide. Of course, I'm sure that the war on Iraq was started for oil, though. Just look at how much we're getting out of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif And 9-11 was surely self-inflicted. In fact, I bet Bush was flying one of the airliners that crashed into the WTC, but bailed out just before impact. It makes as much sense as the other conspiracy theories that keep being floated around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Actually I was thinking we would debate the Saudi actions in detail without the weight of the full picture. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides there are better ways to spend $87B. [ September 11, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ah, Tesco, always such unbiased reports.
Guess everything is biased eh AK. That one on the money is rather interesting. As is the history between those in charge , the companies they came from , the fininical dealings they had with people and countries. War against Communists and all the Things that happen in that war. All biased of course. Why is that AK ? Its all documented. Why is it a conspiricy theroy. Because it has not made the 6pm news , or the sunday edition of the local newspaper. What theroy am I promomoting here ? Please tell me. And are you saying that economics has no play in the events that have been going on for the Last little while ? Again. Attack the poster. Why not show me the error of my thoughts. Where I am wrong and where I am right. Many of the 'biased' Posts and links have stood up against the grain. 'conspiracy theories ' an example to me would be WMD in Iraq, Buried, or given away to Iran and Syria. AK my friend we have a difference of opinion on what is going on in the world. There is nothing wrong with that. What it does show is that we know each other enough to post stuff we find interesting knowing that each other will read it and either dismiss it agree with it or not care. George Bushes Grandfather profited off the Nazi's Just as the current bushes profited off the Saudies and the Ladin clan. Or is this just more of those 'conspiracy theories ' or is this the ' conspiracy theory ' i am promoting ?? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I'd like the money article a bit more if all the reference links weren't dead or passworded.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco: My main point (obviously hidden in my sarcasm) is that, despite what the money article stated, it is highly unlikely that the nations of the world are going to declare the US as a rogue nation due to the fact that it would destroy them economically.
My little shot about unbiased articles was a reference to the fact that in just about every OT thread, whether or not it has anything to do with Iraq (amazingly, the article actually fits this particular thread), these little Posts show up with links to articles showing how the US was evilly scheming to take over the world or some such. You are certainly within your rights to post those, and I feel that I am within my rights to make fun of them. I hardly feel that I am attacking the poster. Incidently, I find it hard to take seriously any article that comes from a page that sports the following picture: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newup...1063323419.bmp |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Now, even worst than the cheese eating surrender monkeys, here is the chineese currency plot.
================================================== =============== STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT http://www.stratfor.com 11 September 2003 ================================================== =============== Politics, Deficits and the Chinese Currency Debate Summary The White House is under serious pressure to strong-arm China into doing something about the perceived undervaluation of the yuan. Beijing is not going to budge, but this won't hamper the Bush administration from using the issue in attempts to turn down some political heat on the domestic front. For all the rhetoric that will be thrown around about China, there is another, countervailing force at work that actually might keep Asian currencies from appreciating against the dollar: the need to finance the growing U.S. budget deficit. Analysis In the latest U.S. salvo against China's pegged currency, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced legislation that seeks to impose an across-the-board tariff increase of 27.5 percent on Chinese imports unless Beijing drops its decade-old currency peg to the U.S. dollar. The introduction of the bill follows Treasury Secretary John Snow's trip to Asia in early September, when he made a very public show of trying to convince Chinese leaders to drop the currency peg and reach a kind of market economy self-actualization by freely floating the yuan. Not surprisingly, the Chinese response was a diplomatic but very firm "no thank you," with Premier Wen Jiabao telling Snow that a stable Chinese currency was in the interests of both China and the United States. The best Snow could get was a vague commitment to consider a wider currency basket for the yuan -- an idea that Beijing tends to pull out when one trading partner or another begins to complain too loudly about its fixed exchange rate. In fact, China has absolutely no intention of dropping the currency peg in the foreseeable future, for myriad reasons. The fixed currency has paid tremendous dividends for China over a decade that has been marred by currency instability in the rest of Asia, particularly in terms of attracting and keeping foreign investment. China's new political leadership is not about to rock the boat, particularly considering the various structural weaknesses of the Chinese economy, such as its fragile banking system. Also, any decision to change the currency regime will require years of internal debate and buy-in from the country's vast political bureaucracy. Finally, China might not agree that its currency is undervalued: Imports are actually growing more quickly than exports, and Morgan Stanley predicted Sept. 5 that at current rates, China could run a trade deficit in less than a year. China also has a fundamental geopolitical reason for its resistance to change. Diplomatic sources tell Stratfor that Beijing is very concerned that the United States and other rich Western countries would seek to manipulate China's freely floating currency in a way that would give foreign governments substantial influence over the nation's economy and China's future in general. Maybe officials in Beijing have been listening to too many of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's fiery speeches. Nevertheless, the concern raises serious questions about national security for Beijing. As Wen more or less told Snow, altering the currency regime is fundamentally not in China's national interest, and the fact of the matter is that the White House can do nothing to change that. One can't blame Snow and the White House for trying, however. And even though Snow came back without any real commitments from Beijing, his trip was actually a success for the Bush administration in two important ways. First, the administration was able to demonstrate a good-faith effort at addressing the issue of American export competitiveness, which many argue is tightly linked to jobs. Though most economic indicators show the U.S. economy now chugging along at a healthy click, the recovery has stubbornly failed to create jobs in significant numbers. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and there are reasons to believe that job creation may well be on the horizon, such as historically low business inventories. However, the longer the employment numbers disappoint, the greater the chance that consumers -- followed by nervous corporations -- will rein in spending, which could short-circuit the recovery. The phrase "jobless recovery" is appearing more and more in the U.S. media, and this is a major worry for the White House as it prepares for next year's election. President George W. Bush is vulnerable on the jobs issue: The U.S. manufacturing sector has shed 2.7 million jobs over the Last three years, a number that the Democrats already are citing with gusto. This figure is also a substantial concern for American industry, which has been trying for years to deflect criticism that its search for cheap foreign labor is behind the loss of American jobs. The Republicans and U.S. manufacturing interests share an interest in laying blame for the employment situation somewhere else -- preferably very far away. This leads to the second success of Snow's visit: The White House and representatives of the U.S. manufacturing sector have succeeded in painting China as the big, mean monster that is stealing American jobs by dint of its unfair currency policies. The argument goes that the undervalued yuan has created a vastly uneven playing field that makes it impossible for U.S. manufacturers to compete with Chinese competitors in foreign markets. Moreover, the undervalued yuan also prices U.S.-made products out of the rapidly expanding Chinese market. The resulting American trade deficit with China is then linked back to joblessness in the United States. Those objectives -- painting the White House as proactive on jobs and making China a scapegoat for unemployment in the United States -- were the more realistic goals of Snow's trip than getting an actual commitment out of China, and they were met. This is a very defensive political strategy that seeks to appease one group (business) while deflecting criticism from another (labor) on the jobs issue. If the scapegoating of China has its desired effect on domestic politics, the stage will be set for a lengthy period of China-bashing in the United States. The currency issue has suddenly overtaken Washington like some kind of mutant Asian virus, with lobbying Groups and business interests from a range of industries joining the chorus of criticism and demanding that something be done. Data like the record $11.3 billion U.S. trade deficit with China in July will add more fuel to the fire. The National Association of Manufacturers praised Snow's efforts but demanded that China "move quickly to end the undervaluation of the yuan." One of the lawmakers behind the Sept. 9 legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), noted that "the political forces behind this bill are unusual, probably will never be duplicated again, but that shows you how deep the problem is." Graham also acknowledged that the U.S. Treasury Department helped to draft the legislation. The din will only get louder, especially as China fails to make any substantial concessions. There is an irony in all of this that also links back to Snow's trip to China. One of the few things he got out of Beijing was a commitment to purchase more U.S. treasury bonds. Asian investors are the largest foreign owners of U.S. treasuries; Japan, China and South Korea owned a combined $696 billion in T-bills at the end of June. Washington desperately needs them to keep buying, especially considering the sharply rising U.S. budget deficit and the expanding costs for the occupation in Iraq. Though the international appetite for U.S. debt remains healthy, the recent fall in bond prices might have the Treasury Department a little worried about attracting more buyers. If the Chinese government follows through on its commitment to buy U.S. bonds -- which it can, considering its enormous stash of hard currency reserves -- then Beijing will have substantial leverage of its own that that can be used to take some pressure off of the currency issue. Although this won't quiet the rhetoric in the United States, it will ease Chinese fears that Washington might try to retaliate. The same issue applies to floating Asian currencies such as the Japanese yen and the South Korean won. In a variation on the China theme, East Asian countries have been criticized in the United States for keeping their currencies artificially low to improve their own export competitiveness. One way they can drive the value of their currencies down is by purchasing U.S. treasuries, since this increases the overall supply of their currencies in the global market. So, as the United States issues more bonds to finance the war in Iraq and the expanding deficits -- and as countries like Japan and South Korea purchase more U.S. debt -- Asian currencies actually might travel in the opposite direction than the White House needs them to politically. On the other hand, if Asian currencies appreciate against the dollar, these countries would have less need and desire to hold dollar-denominated U.S. assets. In a high-deficit situation, this actually provides a disincentive for the United States to support the sharp appreciation of certain Asian currencies. Nevertheless, the White House will do what it can to keep the economic debate focused not on jobs or the impact of deficits, but rather on a selfish and recalcitrant China. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
In other words, China will step into the role Japan played 20 years ago. "We must look at this rising economic power carefully because it may be dangerous - see, it's taken your job away already !"
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
AK I see my point was missed as well.
Debate the work. Debate the concept. Proove it wrong. I would like to see that for a change. Instead of Dismisal at the wave of a hand. P.S. I did not state that the USA is taking over the World. on a side note i saw this in a sig today. Liked it so I am passing it on. "A coward has no scar." (Zimbabwean Proverb) |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The newspapers I have at hand here and the news on TV and radio have not the slightest bit of "Schadenfreude" in it, quite the contrary: They/we are troubled that so many American soldiers die every week from the hands of terrorists/guerrilla. What they claim is that we foretold that there would be no easy victory and that we in Germany got the impression that the US government was to optimistic in its post war plans. Really, there not the slightest bit of joy (=Freude) in seeing this coming true.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.