Darkness over the Land

[tabs]

Cross the river, put your foot on the throat of the Repblic, and slip the sword across her throat by proclaiming yourself dictator for life..... Hail to the President...... Long live the President......

Those are the domestic issues that need to be watched as the USA moves forward......

Do you realize that the Germans lost 250,000 men and the Russians lost 1,000,000 men at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942.

Do you realize 1,000,000 Russian civilians died during the siege of Lenningrad during WW2.

Do you realize that the French and Germans both lost approximately 750,000 men each at the Battle of Verdun in 1916.

Do you realize that the British lost 60,000 men on the Somme in one day in 1916.

Do you realize that 100,000 German civilians died in Hamburg in one day in 1943 during British and American bombing raids.

Do you think for one minute that the American people wouldn't trade that many American lives for gasoline for their SUV's?

[hardflex]

I think you would. Anyone with a Moral compass would not.

[bell]

why are you so convinced it's all about the oil?
i'm not even going to get into a debate.........
they simply should've taken saddam out last time.......marine snipers can do wonderfull things

[jyl]

When I was growing up, the antiwar protesters of the 60's were my heros. I've always wanted a chance to wear the white hat, to feel self-righteous, to question authority, to protest an unjust war.

I also hate George Bush. I despise his policies, think he's botching the economy, see his Republicans hacking away at personal freedoms, environmental protections, international cooperation, etc etc.

Yet I have reluctantly decided that Saddam has to be removed and that a war is the only practical way to do it.

Saddam is a man who has developed (and used) chemical weapons, will acquire nuclear weapons if given enough time, will similarly develop delivery mechanisms, and sits in the middle of one of the most sensitive areas of the globe. No, he won't do this in a year, or two, not while inspectors crawl over Iraq - but the U.N. doesn't have staying power and we can't leave 200K troops poised in the desert forever. Eventually the world will lose interest, and then what? Saddam's kicked the inspectors out before, and he'll do it again.

When Saddam has nuclear-tipped missiles, how are we going to stop him from funding terrorists and providing them with conventional and chemical weapons? From threatening Israel, Turkey, Saudi? From tripling the price of oil and crashing world capital markets every time he fires a test missile? From beoming the de facto leader of the radical Muslim world - a bin Laden with A-bombs?

Answer: the same way we are able to stop North Korea - in other words, we won't be able to. We can't do a damn thing about Kim the Paranoid, because he has 2 or 3 nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them with. So we (and the Japanese,and South Koreans, etc) have to give him billions in aid, build him new nuclear reactors, beg him to sign agreements, watch him tear them up . . . if you wonder what Iraq under Saddam will be like in 10 years, look at North Korea.

That's why I think we have to invade Iraq. It's not pretty, it doesn't feel good, it will trigger terrorist retaliation and global anti-Americanism. But I haven't heard of an alternative that has a high enough probability of working. Inspections, containment, diplomacy - there's lots of peaceful schemes that have maybe a 50% chance of working. 50% is not good enough for something this serious.

Let's do it, get it over with, take the inevitable consequences, and move on. Hopefully I'll see George kicked out of office anyway. My bet is that the economy will do it, because the problems with the economy run much deeper than Saddam. But on this issue, and this issue only, I reluctantly agree with the Administration.

P.S.: I do, however, think that George W has himself to blame for much of the resistance and hostility he's getting from the Europeans. When you spend the first two years of your Presidency disrespecting the Europeans (trashing the Kyoto agreements, picking tariff fights via the WTO, treating Mexico as more important than NATO) you become very unpopular in Europe. European politicians get rewarded for opposing you (how did Gerard Schroeder win re-election?) And when you really need Europe's support, you find that you have no political or goodwill capital.

P.P.S.: I re-read this, and realize that it's a bit of a rant. Sorry about that. I've agonized a lot over this and if I sound frustrated, that's because I am. Not easy for a Berkeley liberal to support the war.

[hardflex]

Jyl

first thing, remember that those with differing opinions than your own are not out to eat your children.

on fear itself, try to see the movie "Bowling for Columbine"

on your other issues, try perusing "www.theaxisofevil.net" (Kudo's to Sternn on this one). lot's of interesting reading.

Then draw your own conclusions whatever they may be.

[Rot 911]

Originally posted by tabs

Do you think for one minute that the American people wouldn't trade that many American lives for gasoline for their SUV's?

As usual Tabby you have you head up your ass. Do you realize your early 911S, assuming you really do have one, uses more gas per mile than my Jeep Liberty.?

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

I think "Bowling For Columbine" should be required viewing for every child in school. Shows you what a violence-obssesed culture we are.

Kinda OT, but it makes a point...

I used to live in Glasgow, Scotland. Over there they had reality TV shows similar to "Cops" where they had situations where "we have to use caution, because there are reports the suspect is armed with a knife" I am not advocating gun control, however i think that we simply need a little more info about how gun-crazy we are.

[island911]

Originally posted by jyl
. . . - there's lots of peaceful schemes that have maybe a 50% chance of working. 50% is not good enough for something this serious.

Let's do it, get it over with, take the inevitable consequences, and move on. Hopefully I'll see George kicked out of office anyway. My bet is that the economy will do it, . . .

Profound words, John.

Though, on the economy (being bad), I think it's a bit whiney.
WW2 the war effort was 40% of GNP. Today, the total defence cost comes out as 4% of GNP. Of that, 1/4 is devoted to war with Iraq. (1% GNP). What I'm getting at is, the economy would really suck if we had to spend 40% of GNP. It is a very good thing we are not taking a "do nothing" attitude. The cost of doing nothing could easly take us back to WW2 costs.

[tabs]

Gas for your SUV's is a metaphor, I have long said this is not about oil, but about political stabilty and re ordering the region politically..... I wanted to provoke some thought and JYL...your response is exactly the kinda thing I was looking for.

The liberal champion Bill Clinton thinks ole GW is a shrewd politician. GW also inherited alot of the problems with the economy and 911 sure hasn't helped.....so to blame him is not quite on the mark.

[RickC]

What if GW is only after the oil - and maybe nursing a grudge to avenge his father?
What if it is unlikely that Saddam will gain nuclear weapons in the 20 or so years naturally left to him on this Earth?

What if all the worst fears of the Liberals (of which I am one) are true?

Like it or not, there are still compelling strategic reasons to create a different sort of Society in the Middle East.

Do you know anything of Senator Vandenberg - yes, the one the base beyond Santa Barbara is named after? Do you know of his great involvement in the pre-WWII Isolationist movement of the Republicans? Do you know how sitting in a basement in England, enduring the Nazi V-1 Buzz Bombs, he realized that with the existence of modern weapons, the security, stability and sanity of your "neighbors" was as important to the safety of one's nation as the fitness of one's own army? That after the war he championed the United Nations and NATO?

Even if those two institutions are now failing us, in the modern era we simply cannot sit by while non-democratic societies inflame their people against us. It is too dangerous.

Is this arrogant?
Yes.
Is it arrogant to believe that that democracy is better than oligarchy?
Yes.
Is it arrogant to suggest that the rights of women and minorities are important?
Yes.
Is it arrogant to suggest that Societies which reinforce the rights of all their citizens are the unstoppable wave of the future, while those which allow their female children to burn alive because their clothing is "incorrect" are headed for the dustbin of history?
Yes.

But all these things are true, whether we like it or not. We can wait for these types of countries to fall of their own weight, or we can give them a little "push."

Which will lead us to a happier future faster? We'll never know, because we have to choose one way and not the other.

War always has risks. Clausewitz's Fog will envelop us all. But it seems in the longest sense that GW's way is the most sensible course, as well as, in some strange sense, the most humane.

[tabs]

Wish I said it like that...very well put

[jyl]

We got on to the subject of the cost of the war.

I do not think the cost of the war, be it $50BN or $150BN, is a major issue.

It won't do too much to stimulate the economy, because it is a one-time event and goes either to resupply military consumables or to pay for military-related personnel. The companies that make military consumables are not the most troubled parts of the economy nor are they likely to fire up capital spending given the one-time nature of the revenue (why spend millions to increase your capacity to make munitions and MREs when you know the orders are going to dry up in a few months?) The military-related personnel will pump their pay back into the economy as consumer spending, but again that's just a one-time help to WalMart and General Motors.

Nor will a one-time government borrowing of that amount hurt the economy, because there is a huge appetite for US government bonds and issuing $50-150BN isn't going to drive up interest rates too much. It is ongoing, structural deficits that hurt the economy - of course, we're headed for those too under the Administration's budget but never mind . . .

People say "war is good for the economy" but the evidence for that is primarily WWII. I saw a chart recently, WWII cost something like $3 trillion (in today's dollars), lasted 5 years, and drove the US to a fully industrialized economy, dominant in the world, with many new technologies. Some people cite the Vietnam War, but similarly that war cost something like $0.9 trillion (today's dollars) and lasted a decade (and ultimately led to severe inflation because it was deficit financed). So those wars pumped a huge amount into the economy and continued doing so for many years. In comparison, Gulf War I cost only $0.06 trillion, lasted a couple months, and did not trigger an economic recovery. Gulf War II will cost appx $0.1 trillion and last a couple months - I don't see why it will trigger an economic recovery either. I may be off on these numbers but the point is that the Gulf Wars are peanuts in size and duration.

I think the problems with the economy are excessive debt at the household level (household debt/income is at record levels), excessive debt at the corporate level (ditto), over-capacity in most areas of production (capacity utilization is very low), a large trade deficit (the US has to import foreign capital to keep its books balanced), and the longest / largest capital markets declines since the Great Depression which has slammed everyone, from individual investors and their 401k's to corporations and their pension plans, with huge wealth losses which makes them not want to spend (indeed, SP500 companies are being forced to plow $100s to $1000s of millions into their pension plans, which is money that isn't available for wages or capital spending).

The war, even if quick and successful and not accompanied by retaliatory terrorism, is not going to cure those problems.

One thing it will hopefully do is bring oil prices back down. High oil prices are a drag on the economy. Oil at the $40/bbl level is really harmful to the economy - ask truckers who are going bankrupt at record rates, low-income families who are suddenly spending $100/wk more on fuel, airlines that are seeing jet fuel prices rise 40% in a few months, etc.) So the war may help that. But the economy was bad long before oil prices began their rise. (I would argue that what we need is a sustained, long-term effort to reduce our dependence on oil, i.e. alternative energy and conservation, which Washington doesn't seem too interested in promoting - but that's another story).

Sorry for the rambling.

[island911]

Good ramblings/ intersting. . . .though Bush ask for congress (in his last State of the Union address ) for a few billion (1700 million) just to optimize (further develop) fuel cell technology. I suppose we'll see how interested congress is.

On upping Conservation; it's generally inversely proportional (or at least related) to the cost of energy. Also, as the cost of the oil source goes up, the "alternative energy" sources become more viable. Still, oil is tough to beat on a cost per BTU.

[tabs]

The stock market liked the outcome of the last election. It has been damped by the fear of war..... everyday I look at the market, it seems to be buoyant and wants to rise. I also think that some Iraqie oil will be used to help pay for the war.

I even saw a news report that said the oil companies were promoting solar cells on SFR to generate their own electricity.....so things are moving/changing on the energy fronts. Albeit slowly.