The New Fallujah with The New Enemies

[omin]

Bush regime is surely inferior in their present theory.

1. They destroy property in Iraq, then pay for it.

2. They want to be oil trading partners, but everytime they murder one Iraqi they make an expotential amount of enemies.

The most fundamental goal in Iraq is to be trading partners with Iraq and to trade oil for a good price. Destorying property, then rebuilding it makes oil expotentially expensive. Murdering Iraqis everytime Bush regime bombs drop makes an expotential amount of enemies of civilians that will never be hunted down, because killing them means making an expontential larger amount. This logic is a brick wall, Bush regime is busting their forehead on.

Americans need to stop looking at Bush regimes so-called 'intent politics' and begin to judge this Bush regime by actions.

 

[kat]

Defies reasoning doesn't it. Invading for oil...when you were getting the most oil of any country (according to another poster here) through the oil for food program...spending billions of dollars to build the infrastructure and yet...not securing the oil...signing contracts pledging to continue to allow Iraq control of it's own oil...and pledging to leave Iraq when the interim government asks it to...Maybe..the problem isn't their logic..maybe it's what you percieve their intent to be.

 

[member 5645]

Bush regime is surely inferior in their present theory.

1. They destroy property in Iraq, then pay for it.

We have a long history of this. There's a joke amongst my British friends that says "If you want to attack a country, the USA is it. Sure you will lose but then they will build you a new house."

The long term success of the Marshall plan, Japan's rebuilding, Korea's rebuilding, etc. is proof our method works.

If the main goal, as you assert, was to make Iraq a trading partner then we could have continued the oil for food program with a blind eye, as we were the largest buyer of oil through it...or we could have even given into mass corruption like Mr. Chirac.

However, Iraq is about more than trading partners, although, that is a validation for our hefty economic investment in the first place.

This is all said without regards to the reality of the situation:
1> We have been careful in the heaviest bombing we had done since GW1.
2> Iraq as already in a mess due to the UN sanctions.

 

[omin]

We have a long history of this. There's a joke amongst my British friends that says "If you want to attack a country, the USA is it. Sure you will lose but then they will build you a new house."

We did not rebuild Japan. Japanese rebuilt Japan. Give credit for those who are responsible for the action, not those who promote a theory that doesn't represent the physics.

Bush regime will brainwash that they have taken responsibility for rebuilding Iraq, but it will be Iraqis who really do have to clean up the mess. Instead of Iraqi's using their oil capital for progressive means, they have to rebuild the progress they already achieved. Bush regime is trying to force Iraqis to buy contracters and supplies from America so the war has more incentive for American export, which discounts the oil. Energy transformation excess decreases efficiency, which defies efficient economics.

The long term success of the Marshall plan, Japan's rebuilding, Korea's rebuilding, etc. is proof our method works.

Japan was militantly subjecting other societies to themselves. An militant act against them, such as America attack of Japan, in this context therefore can have cause. The terror acts upon Iraq by Bush regime was without cause. Iraq was not harming any other society when Bush began terrorizing Iraqis. That is the main difference I see there. (I do not agree the nukes should have been dropped on humans first. The emperor should have been invited to witness the destructive power, which would have meant they would not have needed to be used. Japan would have conceded and things would not have led to unneccesary increased entropy.)

If the main goal, as you assert, was to make Iraq a trading partner then we could have continued the oil for food program with a blind eye, as we were the largest buyer of oil through it...or we could have even given into mass corruption like Mr. Chirac.

The sanctions and oil for food program was not a legitimate form of trade. It was a policy that naturally taunted Iraqis (as anyone in the same circumstance, such as Germans before WW2) to make changes in a militant way. As far as Mr. Chirac goes, he may have said recently that the US is unsuccessfull in Iraq by it's methods, but in the same speech he asserted the point that justified the actions that brought Bush regime into Iraq 'that Saddam needed to be removed', therefore spineless puppet who condemns what he approves of. He sounds like American Democrats on the issue, which is most significantly, by the proven physical results, default approval of the terror and murder of Iraqis.

However, Iraq is about more than trading partners, although, that is a validation for our hefty economic investment in the first place.

That statement defies the principle of economic. You have to understand we want economic, not hefty economic. That meant dealing with Saddam and let Iraqis deal with Saddam, while we stay out of their affairs and just trade.

This is all said without regards to the reality of the situation:
1> We have been careful in the heaviest bombing we had done since GW1.
2> Iraq as already in a mess due to the UN sanctions.

Carefull, yeah right! All the damage that is done by bombing is collateral!

I do agree with you that the sanctions did make a mess.

 

[franznietzsche]

We did not rebuild Japan. Japanese rebuilt Japan. Give credit for those who are responsible for the action, not those who promote a theory that doesn't represent the physics.

Japan was under US military rule for six and half years. During this time the fundamental political, economic, and social structure of japan was entirely redrafted.

Japan was militantly subjecting other societies to themselves. An militant act against them, such as America attack of Japan, in this context therefore can have cause. The terror acts upon Iraq by Bush regime was without cause. Iraq was not harming any other society when Bush began terrorizing Iraqis.

Saddam violated a cease-fire agreement in 1998 from GW I which gave us the right to invade and depose him then. The 2003 justifications political maneuvering and unnecessary under international law. The invasion should have happened under clinton.

That is the main difference I see there. (I do not agree the nukes should have been dropped on humans first. The emperor should have been invited to witness the destructive power, which would have meant they would not have needed to be used. Japan would have conceded and things would not have led to unneccesary increased entropy.)

We dropped the first nuke on hiroshima and they still refused to surrender. So no, a test demonstration would ahve been innefective. So no, Japan would not have surrendered to a test firing, they didn't surrender to the first real bomb, and in fact they didn't surrender until just hours before a third bomb was to be dropped. And as for increased entropy, I'm just shaking my head in shame. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with geopolitics.

The sanctions and oil for food program was not a legitimate form of trade. It was a policy that naturally taunted Iraqis (as anyone in the same circumstance, such as Germans before WW2) to make changes in a militant way. As far as Mr. Chirac goes, he may have said recently that the US is unsuccessfull in Iraq by it's methods, but in the same speech he asserted the point that justified the actions that brought Bush regime into Iraq 'that Saddam needed to be removed', therefore spineless puppet who condemns what he approves of. He sounds like American Democrats on the issue, which is most significantly, by the proven physical results, default approval of the terror and murder of Iraqis.

I like pie. Do you like pie? I like coherency. You don't like coherency?

That statement defies the principle of economic. You have to understand we want economic, not hefty economic. That meant dealing with Saddam and let Iraqis deal with Saddam, while we stay out of their affairs and just trade.

I really hate to be a grammar nazi, but i need to be able to understand what you are saying, because i have no idea what you mean to say here.

Carefull, yeah right! All the damage that is done by bombing is collateral!

I do agree with you that the sanctions did make a mess.

This i understood what you're saying, but the point of the first sentence is lost on me.

 

[omin]

It's interesting you confuse the best points I make. I give up. Ignorance can never know.

 

[Smurf]

Awww god, will the textbook regurgitations of Japan and Korea STOP ALREADY!

USA wasn't rebuilding anything (not Japan, not germany, not korea) out the goodness of their heart, they were doing it to create foreign markets for American goods (Think McDonalds, Baseball, ect).

This is not the same as what's happening in Iraq.. In Iraq the government pays people to destroy iraq, and then pays them to build it again.. this is classic corporate exploitation of the government.
It is possible that one of the goals in Iraq was too create a market for Americans goods, it was possible it was to get the oil, but if that plan did exist I think it has been scrapped by Bush in favour of getting out before it starts to cost him.


And the Atom Bomb was not at all necessary, it was a scare tactic against the Soviets at the expense of the Japanese.

 

[russ_watters]

Awww god, will the textbook regurgitations of Japan and Korea STOP ALREADY!

USA wasn't rebuilding anything (not Japan, not germany, not korea) out the goodness of their heart, they were doing it to create foreign markets for American goods (Think McDonalds, Baseball, ect).

So what? The fact that it is in our interest to have a stable and prosperous world does not reduce the amount of real good that the Marshall Plan did any more than donating to charity strictly for the tax benefit reduces the money's usefulness to the charity.

This is not the same as what's happening in Iraq.. In Iraq the government pays people to destroy iraq, and then pays them to build it again.. this is classic corporate exploitation of the government.
It is possible that one of the goals in Iraq was too create a market for Americans goods, it was possible it was to get the oil, but if that plan did exist I think it has been scrapped by Bush in favour of getting out before it starts to cost him.

Same as above: a stable and prosperous Middle East would provide a selfish benefit to the US: cheap oil, no wars, no economic uncertainty that the instability causes. This is even without the added benefit, 10 years from now, of more consumers for American goods. So even if you think the US is doing this only for selfish reasons, the goal is still positive.

All that said, you cannot deny that the US does frequently act primarily out of altruism - and we'd do more out of altruism if the UN didn't so frequently stand in our way as they are doing right now with Rwanda.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, you didn't have to raise that last point. Surely, you know that the US ranks among the lowest (if not the lowest) among developed countries, in terms of percentage of GDP that goes towards foreign aid.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you didn't have to raise that last point. Surely, you know that the US ranks among the lowest (if not the lowest) among developed countries, in terms of percentage of GDP that goes towards foreign aid.

Among the lowest in terms of percent (when not including the US military...), highest in terms of raw dollars. Spin as desired.

In any case, I was talking about something far more valuable than money: we're often willing to give our lives to help others.

 

[Smurf]

If by others, you mean your corporations and the wellbeing of the American upper class, then yes you are willing to give your lives for it, often without realising it because the media is telling you something completely different.

 

[Gokul43201]

Counting raw dollars (rather than percentage of GDP) is really what 'spin' is. That you raised that point without putting yourself behind it, only makes it 'subtle spin'.

 

[Smurf]

I think I'm going to write a theory about how people on forums spend more time arguing about arguing than about what they're arguing.

 

[Polly]

In any case, I was talking about something far more valuable than money: we're often willing to give our lives to help others.

Russ, I do not mean to be rude, honestly, but can you ever accept that there are people who just do not want your help and they do not like your way of life? Maybe I have a thick skull but I just cannot understand this arrogance and fixation about spreading your "plastic culture".

 

[russ_watters]

If by others, you mean your corporations and the wellbeing of the American upper class, then yes you are willing to give your lives for it, often without realising it because the media is telling you something completely different.

I don't see how sending the military to Somalia benefited the upper class.

Russ, I do not mean to be rude, honestly, but can you ever accept that there are people who just do not want your help and they do not like your way of life? Maybe I have a thick skull but I just cannot understand this arrogance and fixation about spreading your "plastic culture".

Arrogance? Well, Somalia is a good example - they successfully fought off our attempt to help them. But I don't see what is arrogant about wanting to save Somalians from starvation and genocide. The people who didn't want us there, by and large, were the warlords.

How about Yugoslavia? Was it arrogant to want to stop the genocide and depose a criminal dictator?

Like it or not, Polly, there are places that need our help. And the part of my "way of life" that I want to spread is peace, prosperity, stability, and health - culture has nothing to do with it. It is objective fact that the Western way is the only proven way to achieve those things.

 

[russ_watters]

Counting raw dollars (rather than percentage of GDP) is really what 'spin' is. That you raised that point without putting yourself behind it, only makes it 'subtle spin'.

Why is that spin and saying it the other way not? It is a fact that the US gives more aid than any other country. Its tough to call a fact "spin" - how you apply it is up to you. Besides, the post you objected to says nothing at all about money and doesn't rank the US's altruism in any way. You're looking for something that isn't there.

Anyway, I think the US's military action should be included in that. The US is the driving force behind virtually every UN or NATO action. People who want to belittle the US's contribution to the world community always choose to leave out the fact that places like Yugoslavia would still be places of dictatorship and genocide if it weren't for US. Kuwait would still be under Saddam Hussein if it weren't for us.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you want to feel good that the US spends more dollars towards eliminating global poverty than say, Singapore (pop. ~ 4 mill.), then go ahead.

If you think counting total dollars is the right way to judge "altruism" then you probably disagree with the way most studies characterize charitability.

 

[Dissident Dan]

not securing the oil

What are you talking about? That was about the first thing they did.

 

[Burnsys]

People who want to belittle the US's contribution to the world community always choose to leave out the fact that places like Yugoslavia would still be places of dictatorship and genocide if it weren't for US. Kuwait would still be under Saddam Hussein if it weren't for us.

What are you talking about! America has suported and gived weapons to more dictators that they overtrown.. without going furter, the school of americas, they trained all the genocides and dictators of latin america there! AND THEY SUPPORTED SADDAM TO in the 80'.. do i have to show you the picture of saddam and rumsfeld shaking hands again?!

 

[Polly]

Russ, I asked you a stupid question, the answer is now glaring me in the eyes. My apologies if I have hurt your feelings. My family and I went to Disneyland, the Yellow Stone Park, Ocean World, Las Vagas and crossed a few other states briefly about about 10 years ago. I remember the vastness of your land, the endlessness of your pipelines and how care free and friendly and genuinely well intention the people were. I am sure I can say the same thing about you if I know you.

 

[kat]

What are you talking about? That was about the first thing they did.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I had this in mind when I posted:

Looting, sabotage and the continued lack of security at oil facilities are the most recent problems the industry and its American overseers must address in order to get petroleum flowing again, especially for export.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0610looting.htm

 

[Smurf]

but the oil corporations don't want more oil, less oil means they can charge much higher prices while paying the same amount to get it out of the ground.

 

[russ_watters]

If you think counting total dollars is the right way to judge "altruism" then you probably disagree with the way most studies characterize charitability.

No, I don't think counting dollars at all is the right way to judge altruism - you brought it up. I was simply highlighting the spin in your characterization.

IMO, altruism is a lot more complicated and includes action. The US's altruistic actions are unmatched by anyone no matter how you feel like slicing the data.

Russ, I asked you a stupid question, the answer is now glaring me in the eyes. My apologies if I have hurt your feelings. My family and I went to Disneyland, the Yellow Stone Park, Ocean World, Las Vagas and crossed a few other states briefly about about 10 years ago. I remember the vastness of your land, the endlessness of your pipelines and how care free and friendly and genuinely well intention the people were. I am sure I can say the same thing about you if I know you.

Don't sweat it - I'm impossible to offend. Besides, the characterization that the US is doing some sort of "cultural imperialism" is extremely widespread - its just not the issue here. And its a real issue - its just more about McDonalds than Somalia. Its just a different issue.

but the oil corporations don't want more oil, less oil means they can charge much higher prices while paying the same amount to get it out of the ground.

That post appears to be a misunderstanding of how the oil industry works. "the oil corporations" aren't the ones pumping the oil - the various countries in the Middle East (including Iraq) pump the oil, then sell it to American companies at these high prices. American companies are actually buying the oil at these high prices and simply passing the costs on to consumers. The oil companies do not profit from higher oil market prices.

 

[GENIERE]

The oil companies do not profit from higher oil market prices[/b].

I think they do, but I’m not sure. In any case the oil companies are more altruistic than the norm as shown in this report:

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/ACF164.pdf

“The latest published data for the second quarter 2004 shows the profit margins of the oil and natural gas industry averaged 7.1 percent compared to an average of 7.6 percent for all U.S. industry…”

French oil producer, Fina Elf SA, at a profit margin .5% higher than US companies is a little less altruistic to their customers.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/profile.asp?symb=490541&sid=132213&siteid=bizjournal