Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

However, it is unlikely that commodity prices will fall, at least in the short term. The current rise in commodity prices is not due to domestic forces or policy choices, but rather primarily to China's "catastrophic success" in growing its economy.

Quite true, but "catastrophic success" in growing its economy can lead to financial crisis such as that which hit the Asian tigers in 1997.

I think that may be part of his point.

No its not. How will a Chinese financial crisis, as opposed to a US crisis, affect the US? How did the Asian crisis affect the US?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

However, it is unlikely that commodity prices will fall, at least in the short term. The current rise in commodity prices is not due to domestic forces or policy choices, but rather primarily to China's "catastrophic success" in growing its economy.

Quite true, but "catastrophic success" in growing its economy can lead to financial crisis such as that which hit the Asian tigers in 1997.

I think that may be part of his point.

No its not. How will a Chinese financial crisis, as opposed to a US crisis, affect the US? How did the Asian crisis affect the US?

First, didn't that late 90's Asian Contagion come damn close to affecting us in a big way?

Two, if the Chinese economy collapses they will not longer be able or willing to support the dollar, and then we're done for. But the most likely trigger will be the other way 'round, with US consumers no longer able to buy so many Chinese products. But any way you look at it the various points of vulnerability in this whole arrangment are frightening.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets. But that's already been argued in these threads ad infinitum.

Slashing taxes was not a break from the past. In Reagan's lifetime, both Republicans (Harding, Coolidge) and Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) had cut taxes.

Like I said, same old same old arguing

No its not. Republicans have been opposed to high income taxes from the beginning of income tax. They cut taxes in the 1920's. They wanted to cut taxes in the 1940's. The supported the 1960's cuts and argued for more cuts in the 1970's. They enacted cuts in the 1980's, opposed increases in the 1990's and cut them in the 2000's. Income tax cutting is standard conservative Republican policy. Bush ran on tax cuts, and he started enacting them before 911. In no way shape or form was slashing taxes a break from the Republican past. It wasn't progressive when Reagan did it and it wasn't progressive when Bush did it.

It is Bush's response to terrorism that is a break from the past, that is different from what Reagan did. Reagan is the only other president who had a major deadly attack on Americans occur during his term. Bush has acted differently than Reagan did.

You have pointed out before the Democrat's new isolationism. This is a break from the past. And it has been labeled as progressive. But it is only progressive if it represents progress. That is, is our future going to be Democratic isolationism, or Republican nation building? If the former, then the Democratic isolationists are the progressives. But if the latter, then Bush is the progressive.

The new isolationisam was a reaction against conservative foreign policy that involved the US replacing democracies with dictators like we did in Iran in 1953 and many times in Latin American in the first three quarters of the 20th century. Bush isn't doing that. Karzai isn't a strongman put in by the US to replace the democratically elected Taliban. Bush's political opponents don't believe that Bush really want to install democracy in Third World countries because he was a conservative and conservatives always used to be opposed to democracies in Third World countries. So they think there must be a catch--Bush doesn't really give a damn about democracy--its a conspiracy backed by the oil companies.

But maybe, just maybe, he is serious. After all, Bush has talked about being a "transformational president".

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

A piece in this morning's Sun-Times is an indication that we are very much still in 3T mode. In case you though the excess of the 90's were over, a sotry published in the New York Times about the bonuses on Wall Street estimated that $15.9 billion is to be handed out to traders, analysts and bankers, on top of their already hefty salaries. And yet we keep hearing about more and more layoffs at companies. If we were in 4T, would there be considerably more outrage over such practices.

Of course, you're right, but what kind of outrage? Will it be, 'they should be the first against the wall', kind of outrage, or a more subdued, 'enough of this foolishness'?

I hope it's the latter, but fear it may be the former. :shock:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

It is Bush's response to terrorism that is a break from the past, that is different from what Reagan did. Reagan is the only other president who had a major deadly attack on Americans occur during his term. Bush has acted differently than Reagan did.

You have pointed out before the Democrat's new isolationism. This is a break from the past. And it has been labeled as progressive. But it is only progressive if it represents progress. That is, is our future going to be Democratic isolationism, or Republican nation building? If the former, then the Democratic isolationists are the progressives. But if the latter, then Bush is the progressive.

The new isolationism was a reaction against conservative foreign policy that involved the US replacing democracies with dictators like we did in Iran in 1953 and many times in Latin American in the first three quarters of the 20th century. Bush isn't doing that. Karzai isn't a strongman put in by the US to replace the democratically elected Taliban. Bush's political opponents don't believe that Bush really want to install democracy in Third World countries because he was a conservative and conservatives always used to be opposed to democracies in Third World countries. So they think there must be a catch--Bush doesn't really give a damn about democracy--its a conspiracy backed by the oil companies.

But maybe, just maybe, he is serious. After all, Bush has talked about being a "transformational president".

I'm starting to get serious about my 'two spirals' perspective. One spiral is focused on the Islamic Awakening and its aftermath. Religious fundamentalist autocratic factions rejecting capitalism and democracy are actively using terror against both the West and their own corrupt establishments.

The other spiral is far more internal. In places like Somalia, the Balkans, East Timor, Sudan and elsewhere, rich minorities and poor majorities initiate genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rapes and politically induced famine.

While these two spirals are not entirely unrelated -- there are definitely dominant minorities and ethnic tensions in the Islamic Middle East -- the two might be kept separate. The tactics employed against each might properly be different.

Clinton was more focused on establishing an international response when ethnic strife result in major human rights violations. When East Timor erupted, the US needed offer no troops, just transports and political support. The Clinton Doctrine of international intervention in the face of anarchy was well on the way to being established. This was a Democratic interventionist policy.

Bush 43 is more focused on Islamic terror. Whether his motivation involves, oil, suppressing WMDs, fighting terror, or spreading democracy is debatable. I suspect various members of the Bush administration value different goals, and a single operation can support them all.

But if one believes in the realpolitik interpretations, America's shutting Russia and France out of the oil redevelopment contracts -- especially when they had an inside track with Saddam's administration -- blew Clinton's attempts to establish an international coalition capable of muting the upcoming crisis one ethnic disaster at a time. The efforts in the Sudan fell short, and are apt to continue falling short. The Democratic international cooperative policy has been shattered by Bush's preemptive unilateral approach.

Bush 43's approach also seems unsustainable. The US ground forces at their current level are sufficient to occupy a single medium sized country. Until Iraq is stabilized, we can't make unilateral preemptive progress anywhere else, and Iraq isn't stabilizing very quickly. Thus, if we do get a world crisis, the current Bush strategy just isn't going to work without allies, a truly massive mobilization, or more likely both.

So, I see two plausible approaches to crisis. Clinton's was containment of threats to the West combined with cooperative intervention when human rights violations go hypercritical. Bush's approach is preemptive unilateral elimination of threats to the United States, while placing far less emphasis on massive rights violations leading to anarchy.

Which leaves me with a few questions. Can we launch preemptive unilateral attacks on all nations that might harbor terrorists? Is the major driving theme of the crisis going to be Islamic terrorism, or a series of AIDS / ethnic / religious / economic break downs in third world cultures resulting in anarchy and terror?

Thus, I don't see it purely as a question of Republican nation building and Democratic isolationism. We have to establish which spiral, if either, is the greater threat, and focus sufficient resources and tactics to deal with both concerns. Both Clinton and Bush 43 addressed real problems. I just feel Clinton had set up a better and more sustainable long term pattern for addressing his problem than Bush 43 has for the other. Meanwhile, Bush 43 has badly damaged the pattern Clinton attempted to establish.

Both Clinton's and Bush 43's schemes were departures from previous US policy. Both shifted US foreign policy as the Cold War no longer dominated all other concerns, and the superpowers withdrew various military, political and economic tentacles which had suppressed many Third World difficulties.

But which approach might be considered 'progressive'? I see Clinton as the truer heir of FDR's Four Freedoms. When these freedoms are denied in the extreme in the form of genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rape and political famine, it is proper for the international community to intervene. This is 'progressive'. The Rights declared by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence are being extended and applied to a larger community. That is the arrow of progress. Those following the arrow of progress are progressive.

Bush 43? The orders the US army was given were not to secure the Iraqi public freedom from want, from fear, to speak and to worship. They were told to guard the oil fields, the pipelines, and the oil ministry building. I can appreciate that it may well be very important to provide a stable supply of oil over the duration of the coming crisis. It might be, that even if the Bush 43 administration is unwilling to publicly talk about establishing a steady oil supply, that the goals and plans set forth in the New American Century document and implemented in Operation Iraqi Freedom are valid and vital.

But no matter how valid and vital the oil might be, it is nothing unless the Iraqi people do achieve freedom from fear, from want, of speech and of religion. These freedoms are great gifts which are hard to grant at the point of a bayonet. Without nation building, without the truly progressive goals, no oil. Fancy and noble speeches aside, I am not sure Bush 43 feels this in his veins.

His veins are too full of oil.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The orders the US army was given were not to secure the Iraqi public freedom from want, from fear, to speak and to worship. They were told to guard the oil fields, the pipelines, and the oil ministry building.

I don't believe any efforts were made to secure oil pipelines. The principal objective as I recall was to advance to Bagdad as rapidly as possible. There was a lot of worry about the oil fields being set ablaze (as happened in Kuwait) and they did worry about that, but it seemed to be this was ancilliary to the primary objective of subduing the nation as quickly as possible. Orders that we NOT given to the invading forces was to secure Iraqi weapons, particularly WMDs. Thus we can be quite certain that preventing Iraqi weapons from falling into the hands of terorrists was NOT an objective of the invasion.

I can appreciate that it may well be very important to provide a stable supply of oil over the duration of the coming crisis. It might be, that even if the Bush 43 administration is unwilling to publicly talk about establishing a steady oil supply, that the goals and plans set forth in the New American Century document and implemented in Operation Iraqi Freedom are valid and vital.

Nearly two years after the invasion Iraq still isn't producing even the small amount of oil they did before the invasion. If the invasion was to secure oil its a bust. As things stand now, Iraqi oil reserves will never be developed and most of their oil will stay in the ground, the world will have shifted to a new energy paradigm before it can be extracted.

But no matter how valid and vital the oil might be, it is nothing unless the Iraqi people do achieve freedom from fear, from want, of speech and of religion. These freedoms are great gifts which are hard to grant at the point of a bayonet. Without nation building, without the truly progressive goals, no oil. Fancy and noble speeches aside, I am not sure Bush 43 feels this in his veins.

You are right, there will be no significant oil without a stable government in Iraq. But this was always so and known to be so before the invasion. Thus, the invasion CANNOT be about oil without establishing a successor government to the old regime. First and foremost this problem of succession has to be addressed before we can even talk about oil. Surely you must see this.

If the war was about oil, then the nature of this successor government is irrelevant. The form chosen would be whichever provides stability in the shortest amount of time and for the lowest cost. What would NOT be chosen is colonial adminstration, because this would require a long-term massive US presence in the country that would cost far more than the value of all the oil in Iraq. So this means setting up an indigenous strongman to rule the nation as a US client state. There is no evidence that something like this has even been attempted.

Before the war, what the adminstration talked about wrt this issue was to try to encourage a democracy to take root in post-Saddam Iraq. And the actual policy since the invasion is consistent with an objective of holding elections as soon as possible. This evidence indicates that the war was undertaken not to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists (as was advertised), nor to secure Iraqi oil for US use (as adminstration critics charge) but rather to attempt to replace the Baathist regime with a more democratic one.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets. But that's already been argued in these threads ad infinitum.

Slashing taxes was not a break from the past. In Reagan's lifetime, both Republicans (Harding, Coolidge) and Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) had cut taxes.

Like I said, same old same old arguing

No its not. Republicans have been opposed to high income taxes from the beginning of income tax. They cut taxes in the 1920's. They wanted to cut taxes in the 1940's. The supported the 1960's cuts and argued for more cuts in the 1970's. They enacted cuts in the 1980's, opposed increases in the 1990's and cut them in the 2000's. Income tax cutting is standard conservative Republican policy.

Revisionist history seems to become you. The buyer of your books ought to beware. But this is the music your buyers want to hear, so any cautionary note I might sing will doubtless fall on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

...Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets...

I'm still pounding my froggie knee over that one.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I'm still pounding my froggie knee over that one.

Regardless about what one thinks about whether Reagan helped defeat the Soviets (I actually do think that's true) it is absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about Dubya and Iraq and the WOT when one understands the different contexts.

There might be onanastic troglodytes out there who aren't able to tell the difference, though. I don't know if it's the Kool-Aid drinking or the gay porn that does it. :?

To say that Reagan had something imnportant to do with the undoing of the USSR is equivalent to saying that Nixon had somethingthing important to do with ending the Vietnam war. Take either Republican out of either scenario and you get the same result.

I can assure you, my friend, that Russian people do not attribute anything to the Gipper for their emergence from communism. I think it was rock 'n' roll. Pink Floyd had much more to do with bringing down The Wall than any old drugstore cowboy from California with saddle sores on his brain. And I have a very reliable Russian source who says Frank Zappa did it.

Honestly, Croak, don't you truly think FDR should have stopped the war after we destroyed the Nip navy at Midway? Should he not have left the Nazis in Europe, too, to fall on their own? Surely all those millions who perished beneath the weight of the Roosevelt fist were much better off brown-shirted or yellow-bagged than dead.

How is it that you can admire and cheer a "Gray Champion," like the killing machine FDR was, yet despise and caricature the "Cowboy" Reagan who toppled the "evil empire," with American "exceptionalism,"without firing a shot? Is it blood you desire? Or was there just true sadness in your heart to see the commies whimper in Red Square?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

To say that Reagan had something imnportant to do with the undoing of the USSR is equivalent to saying that Nixon had somethingthing important to do with ending the Vietnam war. Take either Republican out of either scenario and you get the same result.

I can assure you, my friend, that Russian people do not attribute anything to the Gipper for their emergence from communism. I think it was rock 'n' roll. Pink Floyd had much more to do with bringing down The Wall than any old drugstore cowboy from California with saddle sores on his brain. And I have a very reliable Russian source who says Frank Zappa did it.

But...of course Reagan had something to do with the collapse of the Soviet empire. I think the SU would have collapsed anyway, eventually, but RWR certainly speeded up the process. Through our 80s arms race, he simply spent the Russians under the table...put them in a position where they had to "put up or shut up" (as he liked to say). The Russkies couldn't afford to maintain a high enough defense budget to hold together its empire in the face of American military spending...so rather than ante up, they folded. I was never a Reagan fan (still am not) but I absolutely do give him credit for this. Without Reagan we might only be witnessing the collapse of the Soviet Union around NOW, with possibly horrific side effects.

Of course, the jury really is still out on whether we avoided WW3 with the Russians, or merely postponed it. Putin shows signs of evolving into the same sort of demagogue his Soviet predecessors were, albeit an elected one. Though my guess is that, regardless, they'll be on our side in the coming war with China.

Oh, please, you guys, I can't take this Americanized standup comedy anymore. I'm going to wet my lily pad. The map of world is actually bigger than the megalomaniac boundaries of these United States Under God of America, you know, and FDR was not a killing machine. If that's true then Eisenhower, a Republican, was a dirty traitor for warning us about the impending dangers of the Industrial-Military Complex.

I have a book before me -- Decline Of An Empire -- first published in 1978 (in French) by H?l?ne Carr?re d?Encausse, who explains why and how the USSR will corrupt and dissolve before the twentieth century runs out. Ronarld Reagan doesn't even get honorable mention in it, and I doubt if he ever read this book. But some of his publicists probably did, and with enough creative imagination to suppose that the threat of Star Wars scared those commies right out of their red pamamas. But if you can beieve that, and also conclude that FDR brought on WWII by conspiring with Tojo to attack Pearl Harbor, I guess you can believe the Hollywood version of world history.

Mel Brooks is my Gray Champion.

Well said, my dear Croak: irreverent, unserious and completely evasive; the Warren Beatty approach to the present geo-political scene, baby.

Is it any wonder why the Left is itself so irrelevant these days? Michael Gecan, a leftist himself, has recently charged that his brethren, like Croaker here, are blinded by the stars:

• Thirty-two years ago, in the Auditorium Theatre of Roosevelt University in downtown Chicago, I believe I witnessed the destruction -- actually, the self-destruction -- of the Democratic Party...

And, from the vaunted Village Voice, Gecan, here finds a destructive generation at the root of it all:

• These guys were pretty good at breaking things?just plates and glasses then, bigger things later. They felt they were entitled to break things. For them and their fans, it was fun, a form of entertainment. And they were confident that someone else would clean up the mess. Some scholarship kid. Some black with no last name. Some immigrant who couldn't speak the language. Some daddy or mommy. Some lawyer or public relations consultant or underling, years later.

Pretty good stuff there. 8)

Originally Posted by Croakmore

To say that Reagan had something imnportant to do with the undoing of the USSR is equivalent to saying that Nixon had somethingthing important to do with ending the Vietnam war. Take either Republican out of either scenario and you get the same result.

I can assure you, my friend, that Russian people do not attribute anything to the Gipper for their emergence from communism. I think it was rock 'n' roll. Pink Floyd had much more to do with bringing down The Wall than any old drugstore cowboy from California with saddle sores on his brain. And I have a very reliable Russian source who says Frank Zappa did it.

Regardless, troglodytic comparisons of the sort I was referring to are contemptuously amusing. :wink:

Kool-Aid apparently even comes in sh*t brown for our more cavernicolous and maleficent posters.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

But...of course Reagan had something to do with the collapse of the Soviet empire. I think the SU would have collapsed anyway, eventually, but RWR certainly speeded up the process. Through our 80s arms race, he simply spent the Russians under the table...put them in a position where they had to "put up or shut up" (as he liked to say). The Russkies couldn't afford to maintain a high enough defense budget to hold together its empire in the face of American military spending...so rather than ante up, they folded. I was never a Reagan fan (still am not) but I absolutely do give him credit for this. Without Reagan we might only be witnessing the collapse of the Soviet Union around NOW, with possibly horrific side effects.

I would have to agree with you here, except that had things kept going here in the US the way they did in the 70s, we might well have surrendered needlessly to the Soviets in the late 80s or early 90s, which could well have given them enough additional wherewithal to keep their empire afloat long enough to finally collapse towards the end of the coming 4T - taking all of their satellite states with them. (Including us, in that scenario).

Of course, the jury really is still out on whether we avoided WW3 with the Russians, or merely postponed it. (snip) Though my guess is that, regardless, they'll be on our side in the coming war with China.

Will they? Right now, it looks to me like Russia is heading for becoming an ally of China (or, more likely, a controlled satellite, much as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were during the Cold War.).

If none of you have ever checked out the webcomic Sore Thumbs, you should, at least once. You might recognize at least one of our posters in the character of Fairbanks Greensworthington. You might also see similarities between other posters and the rest of the cast, but Fairbanks is the easiest to figure out, particularly if you read the Bible verse on the index page.

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Oh, please, you guys, I can't take this Americanized standup comedy anymore. I'm going to wet my lily pad.

Oh, yes, you just can't stand the rain, anymore, huh? What a phony baloney you are, Croak:! A frog masquerading as a gentleman. A fraud masquerading as the truth. :?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

If none of you have ever checked out the webcomic Sore Thumbs, you should, at least once. You might recognize at least one of our posters in the character of Fairbanks Greensworthington. You might also see similarities between other posters and the rest of the cast, but Fairbanks is the easiest to figure out, particularly if you read the Bible verse on the index page.

Enjoy!

Oh, yeah. Go Jesus!

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

But no matter how valid and vital the oil might be, it is nothing unless the Iraqi people do achieve freedom from fear, from want, of speech and of religion. These freedoms are great gifts which are hard to grant at the point of a bayonet. Without nation building, without the truly progressive goals, no oil. Fancy and noble speeches aside, I am not sure Bush 43 feels this in his veins.

You are right, there will be no significant oil without a stable government in Iraq. But this was always so and known to be so before the invasion. Thus, the invasion CANNOT be about oil without establishing a successor government to the old regime. First and foremost this problem of succession has to be addressed before we can even talk about oil. Surely you must see this.

If the war was about oil, then the nature of this successor government is irrelevant. The form chosen would be whichever provides stability in the shortest amount of time and for the lowest cost. What would NOT be chosen is colonial administration, because this would require a long-term massive US presence in the country that would cost far more than the value of all the oil in Iraq. So this means setting up an indigenous strongman to rule the nation as a US client state. There is no evidence that something like this has even been attempted.

Before the war, what the administration talked about wrt this issue was to try to encourage a democracy to take root in post-Saddam Iraq. And the actual policy since the invasion is consistent with an objective of holding elections as soon as possible. This evidence indicates that the war was undertaken not to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists (as was advertised), nor to secure Iraqi oil for US use (as administration critics charge) but rather to attempt to replace the Baathist regime with a more democratic one.

We seem to agree that the WMD cover story was a lie. We seem to agree that replacing the Baathist regime with a more democratic one is necessary to get the oil. The latter is consistent with the New American Century neo-con manifesto. We might disagree on whether the desire to bring democracy to the Iraqi people is the real goal. Surely, if Bush wanted to expand democracy by force, he could fine a dictator with a smaller army -- though not necessarily as much oil -- to convert at the point of a sword? No, the New American Century manifest is clear enough on the need to secure the oil supply, to establish a well based US military presence in the Middle East. The Bush 43 neo-cons knew where they wanted to go well before the election. Indeed, their manifesto was originally written in an attempt to convince Clinton to change course.

Regardless of intent, I agree that the neo-cons have not secured a flow of oil. I don't see it likely in the near term.

I would place the blame on a lack of understanding of the difficulty of the problem of replacing the Baathists with democracy. Various Iraqi exile organizations fed the Bush 43 Administration biased intelligence slanted to convince the US that such a transformation would be easy. The Bush administration wanted to believe these lies, and created unusual reporting channels in the intelligence infrastructure that enhanced the credibility of the exile's lies, and suppressed criticism and verification of the lies by the professional intelligence community.

Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom was planned incorrectly. Forces were sent to secure the wrong objectives. They were more concerned with Saddam repeating a torching of the oil wells than anarchy in urban areas. The Iraqi Army was dismissed wholesale, rather than turned to help maintain order. While many professionals believed more occupation forces were required, the exiles' assurances that the exiles would be welcomed gave the OIF planners a false sense of confidence. The wrong number of soldiers secured the wrong objectives due to major disinformation campaigns and inadequate protections from same.

This might also be an echo of the 'On to Richmond' effect. It was believed that if the Yankees could take the Rebel capitol, the war would be over quick and easy. Not an uncommon set of assumptions. I don't think it would have worked in 1862 either.

Thus, while I don't see Bush 43 as an evil villain, he is very ready to lie about his motivations. In the process of setting up disinformation campaigns to fool the American people, he proved quite able to fool himself. What happened is not at all what he intended, much though he might pretend otherwise.

We'll just have to see what gets elected in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We seem to agree that the WMD cover story was a lie.

Yes

We seem to agree that replacing the Baathist regime with a more democratic one is necessary to get the oil.

No, there is no requirement for a democratic government. Replacing Saddam with another dictator would serve better.

The latter is consistent with the New American Century neo-con manifesto.

I am not aware of a focus on democracy in that blueprint. Is there?

We might disagree on whether the desire to bring democracy to the Iraqi people is the real goal. Surely, if Bush wanted to expand democracy by force, he could fine a dictator with a smaller army -- though not necessarily as much oil -- to convert at the point of a sword?

The desire is to install a demoncrcacy in an Islamic nation that could serve as a launching point for similar shifts elsewhere. I cannot think of an Arab nation that would be easier from a pragmatic (and legal) standpoint than Iraq for this project. Iraq was weak and we were already at war with them.

No, the New American Century manifest is clear enough on the need to secure the oil supply, to establish a well based US military presence in the Middle East. The Bush 43 neo-cons knew where they wanted to go well before the election. Indeed, their manifesto was originally written in an attempt to convince Clinton to change course.

And it was written before 911. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (Crusaders) was specifically the cassus belli leading to 911. Placing large numbers of crusaders in Iraq, site of the ancient Caliphate and location of important Shiite holy places would seem to be making the same mistake all over again. Can the adminstration totaly rely on the Dept of Homeland Security to prevent another 911? Will the American people continue to support the neocon objectives if additional attacks continue to occur? Is taking such a risk consistent with this (poltically) risk-adverse administration?

I would place the blame on a lack of understanding of the difficulty of the problem of replacing the Baathists with democracy. Various Iraqi exile organizations fed the Bush 43 Administration biased intelligence slanted to convince the US that such a transformation would be easy. The Bush administration wanted to believe these lies, and created unusual reporting channels in the intelligence infrastructure that enhanced the credibility of the exile's lies, and suppressed criticism and verification of the lies by the professional intelligence community.

Here you assume for some strange reason that installing a democracy is somehow necesary to get the oil. Why not a more pliant dictator? Our whole falling out with Saddam was due to a misunderstanding. This is the weakness of your argument. The United States has never promoted democracy in Third World nations as a means of advancing our own economic interests.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Democrats & Liberals

• "The U.S. should strike [Iraq], strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." --Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-West Virginia (Nov. 14, 1998)
  
  "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces, their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998
  
  "Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations." -- U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002)
  
  "Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and..." -- Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq (2002)
  
  "Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to 'use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'"-- Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2002

We seem to agree that the WMD cover story was a lie.

Yes

It was a rather grand and long running conspiracy. 8)

If the WMD story was a lie, it was Saddam's lie, told in the hope of keeping Iran from attacking Iraq. Unfortunately, where that subject was concerned, the solution to one threat was the provocation for the other. IOW, if Saddam had told the truth about not having any WMD left, without any ambiguity whatsoever, then Iran might well have attacked, instead of us - or at least he thought so. In yet another of his miscalculations, he was apparently more worried about Iran than he was about us. Thus, his refusal to come clean concerning his lack of WMDs, until it was too late.

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

If the WMD story was a lie, it was Saddam's lie, told in the hope of keeping Iran from attacking Iraq. Unfortunately, where that subject was concerned, the solution to one threat was the provocation for the other. IOW, if Saddam had told the truth about not having any WMD left, without any ambiguity whatsoever, then Iran might well have attacked, instead of us - or at least he thought so. In yet another of his miscalculations, he was apparently more worried about Iran than he was about us. Thus, his refusal to come clean concerning his lack of WMDs, until it was too late.

Or maybe he just preferred US occupation to Iranian occupation (considering what Middle Eastern countries tend to think about EACH OTHER...)

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

If the WMD story was a lie, it was Saddam's lie, told in the hope of keeping Iran from attacking Iraq. Unfortunately, where that subject was concerned, the solution to one threat was the provocation for the other. IOW, if Saddam had told the truth about not having any WMD left, without any ambiguity whatsoever, then Iran might well have attacked, instead of us - or at least he thought so. In yet another of his miscalculations, he was apparently more worried about Iran than he was about us. Thus, his refusal to come clean concerning his lack of WMDs, until it was too late.

I am not 100% sure what Bob and Mike agreed on when they said the WMD story was a lie, though in Mike's case I think I have a good idea.

Where I would agree with the statement "the WMD cover was lie" is in regards to the urgency with which Bush pursued it.

First, all intelligence agencies thought Hussein had WMD: French, American, Russian, German, Israelis, . . . everyone. Hussein's attempts at making his enemies, both foreign and domestic, think he had them was the problem and/or they really were there but got ferried out during the build-up to war (which is unlikely but still to my mind possible).

But nevertheless, Bush added an extreme urgency compontent to the the already existing and legitimate importance component ("legitimate" insomuch as everyone thought the WMD were acutally there).

Bush and his various mouthpieces, esp. Ari Fleischer, droned on about "clear and present danger" and "mushroom clouds over our cities". Ari even outright agreed with the "imminent threat" assessment.

Therefore, the Bush Administration was stating that Iraqi WMD were to be used on us in short order. To say otherwise is utter, utter disingenuousness (or sheer ideological, Kool-Aid drinking blindess).

To say that Iraqi WMD were an imminent threat to the United States is to say one of three things:

1. Hussein's governement had an established working relationship with Al Qaeda and was giving WMD to them.

2. Hussein had his own agents in the U.S. ready to use WMD

3. Hussein had some other delivery system in place, such as ballistic missiles.

Let's start with the last first. #3 is obviously ludicrous, and the Bush Administration didn't even bother to insinuate that one.

At the time, i.e., in 2002 and early 2003, the Bush Administration had no indication of an effective network of Iraqi agents in America, with or without WMD. So #2 is out.

As for #1, Iraq's dealing with Al Qaeda amounted to

A) Communications between Baghdad and Al Qaeda wherein the former almost always rebuffed the latter.

B) Reports of an alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi agents. Most in the intelligence community do not believe this meeting took place.

C) Al Zarqawi having a base in northeastern Iraq. It is ASTOUNDING that the White House tried to make a connection here, considering that the Al Qaeda bases were well within the AMERICAN sphere of influence in Kurdish Iraq, and well out of Hussein's reach. Al Zarqawi only went to Baghdad in the month before the US invasion and the intelligence community believes he did this outside of Hussein's direction.

BTW, where ever here I invoke what "the intelligence community" thinks, I invite anyone to disprove it. And up front I will tell you I don't give a rat's ass what Hopeful Cynic thinks on the subject since he does not discuss things fairly.

It is clear to me that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even became President, and he was looking for ways to use 9/11, probably from that very day, to achieve that objective. The reason? I think Bush is a True Blue believer, indeed a "Faith-Based President", and he has bought into the Neocon Wet Dream hook, line, and sinker.

Unfortunately this seminally-emissive dream and Dubya's equally seminal faith have seriously clouded his judgement. What we have now is a Middle East that is less safe than in 2002, Al Qaeda still operative with Osama bin Laden still alive and active, Iran moving forward with it's nuclear program, and North Korea building a new atomic bomb every few months along with new longer-range delivery systems. Hell, lets add a pourous border with more illegal aliens pouring in than ever before in our history and suggestions on Dubya's part that we make these folks "guest workers". I wonder how many of those aliens actually speak Arabic.

Now, should we have invaded Iraq? Under those conditions I think it was stupid. I see nothing wrong with pre-emptive invasion and unilateral action under the right circumstances. IF the Bush Administration really did think Hussein was giving WMD to Al Qaeda or was about to disperse them here themselves, you're damn tootin' we should act and tell the Frogs to f**k themselves. But that wasn't the case. We engaged in behavior that was not appropriate to take and it has hurt us enormously as a result. Now if we need to deal with a real threat like North Korea, our credibility, which is an enormously valuable commodity, is greatly, greatly diminished. What an insane loss.

And ALL OF THIS doesn't even touch on Dubya's abject failures with prosecuting the war (which is still going on, BTW, it didn't end in May 2003). This could fill up a whole new post. The only thing I'll touch on there is: What ever happened to the Powell Doctrine?!?!?!?!?