Page 1 of 1 pages
I wonder about the economic statistics of Iraq. What of the American contractors (and other foreign firms) that are paid by the American government (and much of this involves corruption), is that part of Iraq’s economics? In other words, are we pumping the economics for our own gains?
I also wonder at how economic statistics in a war zone could ever be really accurately collected anyway? I imagine the underground economics must be vast. Does Iraq have a tax system and if so does it collect it reliably?
Posted by Jon B on Sep 15, 2007 at 5:16 AM
An economy in the midst of a war zone can hardly be expected to thrive.
I doubt that many of us would concern ourselves with getting to work, measuring productivity or even returning phone calls while dodging bullets and IEDs.
This is whole issue absurd.
————-
What most disturbs me is that we are broadcasting every move and disagreement to the world. This idiodic behavior directly endangers our troops and benefits the enemy.
Never in history has such stupidity been carried on to this degree.
Picture Ike during the D-Day planning telling Hitler when where and how many troops would be coming.
We deserve to get creamed!
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Casting about desperately for any piece of good news, however uncontextual.
It’s like being grateful that the wind storm has knocked the whole peach crop out of the trees, because now we won’t have to bring ladders to harvest them.
(...“Surely this big f’n dark cloud has a silver lining somewhere… we just gotta find it…”)
Posted by Kuya on Sep 18, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Whattheheck,
Iraq is not WWII. This hasn’t been a war where the enemy has lines of tanks, artillery, infantry, etc. That’s what Ike planned against. This is a war of insurgency and the only way these are ever really won is to kill everyone, civilians and foes alike, because it is too hard to tell them apart. And we know that would be an insane way to wage this war considering we are suppose to be liberating the civilians and of course it’s inhumane. And even many of the wars of genocide of the past didn’t work out so well either.
The insanity has always been Bush and his neocons with their insane ideology. Not to mention Bush’s propaganda. I laugh when he claims the surge is working. How can this be so if the pullout plan for next summer only brings the troop level back to before the surge? If the surge was working they’d be able to bring home lots of troops by then.
What Bush won’t say is that he hopes that Iraqis will continue to flee the country (over 2 million from a country of 25 million pre-war), continue to die in sectarian violence, continue to die from terrorism from Al Qaeda-like groups, continue to die for health reasons, continue to move into neighborhoods of one religious sect…until the Iraqi population has been so decimated and segregated that our troop level can finally deal with the lower numbers of Iraqis. It’s a war of attrition against the Iraqi civilians.
Iraq economic numbers probably are full of crap. What interests me is Iraqi birth rates. I’ve not heard whether anyone has looked into those numbers. I can’t imagine they are populating at even zero population growth. Who would want to bring an infant into that mess? But it’s probably another aspect of the war of attrition on the population. Less births, less Iraqis.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 18, 2007 at 4:20 AM
JonB,
My alluding to Ike and WW2 had to do with the secrecy then and the blabbing now. Telling every move or even the debating of such is the most idiotic behavior ever, regardless of who is the enemy.
A better comparison is Custer at the Little Big Horn
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
WTH…
I understand your point about secrecy, but the point is mute. It doesn’t matter that we tell the world (and the Iraqi insurgency) how many troops we deploy now or later, they will oppose the occupation no matter what. You also aren’t thinking that much of what is said publicly is disinformation, purposely to both fool the opposition and the American public. That was earlier in the war, these days no amount of disinformation would help. Remember that most moves the military makes is usually made known to the Maliki government which probably has informants for the insurgency and Maliki is sure to make it known to Shi’ites.
I don’t think Bush is completely diabolical. His psychology is tough to understand. He does have this ego about being “heroic” and he is uninformed about things he doesn’t care about. He also has this religious viewpoint that I think leans toward being a Revelationist. He won’t admit mistakes and takes credit for things he doesn’t do. He has this vision thing that when all information tells him it’s wrong, he still pursues the vision. He is manipulative of other people, consider how he condescendingly nicknames reporters and people around him (Karl Rove, Turd Blossom). He is politically intelligent, that is in how to get people to vote for him.
Consider how he purchased his Texas ranch in 1999, not long before his presidential run, he was preparing for that homespun image, not to mention where to hang out for presidential vacations. Consider his campaign theme in 2000, compassionate conservative. A shot across the bow of all the other Republican candidates redefining them as conservative but not compassionate unless they supported him. Yes, these might have been Rove ideas, but Bush does what he believes will benefit himself. He and Rove thought alike, that’s why they made such a pair, but Bush probably passed on plenty of Rove ideas. In other words Bush isn’t a complete idiot and Rove was not his complete brain.
I believe Bush has low regard for the masses, that he thinks he is above them. He speaks to the masses when he needs them in his fake homespun way, such as campaigning or pushing a political issue. He doesn’t care about most people unless he needs them, and then it’s only temporary. He trusts only a few people who become his inner circle. His low regard for humanity certainly includes Iraqis. And a war of attrition on the Iraqi population has become the strategy by default and no one from the White House would ever say so publicly.
Bush has no trouble with telling lies, but part of that is because he believes what he says..he lies to himself, believes it, then tells us the lie. But in other cases he knows he’s fibbing but comes up with some sort of reason it’s OK. He justifies the lie, probably along the lines of “means to an end” or “people don’t need the whole truth.” I remember an interview with Bush about 6 months ago. He answered a question about whether he was thinking of his legacy, Bush said “He leaves that to others.” I was incredulous. Does anybody really believe that? That he doesn’t think about how history will judge him? It was a lie.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 19, 2007 at 6:27 AM
JonB,
Bush appears to have a very limited range of interests and knowledge. It’s too bad we can’t draw up a job description requiring Pres. candidates to have a comprehensive view of history. If only being aware of the Middle East 20th century events no one in his right mind would set democratization as any kind of goal. Viet Nam should have taught the lessons of guerilla war with unidentifiable enemies and ideological conflicts.
I remember Reagan telling how he faked a ball game he was reporting on radio back in the 1930s
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 20, 2007 at 8:52 AM
If I was some sort of election dictator and could change the system anyway I wanted, it would be drastically different.
Sure, a filled out job application would be required, and it would be extensive. Complete list of past occupations, a series of questions designed to pinpoint ideology, college degrees with grade points, among the items to be answered. I would have a sit down test on many subjects, economics, history, world affairs, math, science, etc. The application and test results would be made available to the public in every way possible. Further all candidates running would be subjected to periodic alcohol and drug testing (many Americans are subjected to this, how come politicians aren’t?).
Beyond that, major reforms. Presidential races would be by popular vote eliminating the Electoral College. I would institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to give third parties and independents a fighting chance. I would institute Clean Campaigns which is federal and state funded elections, no private donations to candidates, this could also include blind donations where a donation from citizens are put in a pool and a person can’t know which candidate receives the money.
Somehow we have to make the actual voting process (the first step in democracy) accurate. I don’t trust my vote is counted correctly, does anybody? A person should be able to review their vote after an election has been counted. I should be able to go down to city hall and check to see if my paper receipt matches to a master list, a number could be assigned to me on my paper trail and then listed on the master list along with my choices.
I would want a more direct democracy approach. I would rather vote on issues than vote for politicians. I think the people should have more say on policies. I doubt “bridges to nowhere” at the federal level would pass a national vote. If Alaskans (nowhere bridge) wants something, those citizens can vote on it and pay for it themselves.
Finally, I would find someway to reduce the influence of lobbyists. I understand the right to redress the government, but corporate-paid lobbying was probably not what the founding fathers had in mind.
On a theoretical level. What if we made political parties illegal? Not a two party system or one party system (communism, fascism), but a no party system. Every candidate would have to stand on their own. Certainly like-minded candidates would vote together on aligned issues, but they wouldn’t need to vote together for party reasons. But Clean Campaigns would have to be instituted with a no party system to keep party machines from rising up.
And the media would be required to cover all debates, I’m thinking TV most of all. Consider if all TV stations (air and cable) had to broadcast debates as well as blocks of individual candidate time (say 15 min. blocks of equal time). Sure we might be bored, but the voters who cared would view it, others would read a book or something else. Campaigns wouldn’t have to be so long given the availability of a place to get out their message.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 20, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Jon B,
A lot of good reform ideas there.
I
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 20, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Hello whattheheck,
I think our military personnel have been set up for a fall since it was decided to invade Iraq in the first place. So hopelessly unrealistic! They were in the midst of the challenge of Afghanistan, nowhere near the finish of that confrontation, and then the course was taken that divided human and material resources, leaving both venues lacking. Militant medievalism ends up with a shot in the arm and a growing constituency, the US ends up looking either idiotic or evil, depending on the week, with those in uniform being let down, used up and having to take it in the face all these years. Logistically foolish, tactically unsound, strategically insane.
I realize the milk can’t be unspilled, but I do believe going into Iraq freaked the whole deal, if dealing with the jihadist menace was truly the agenda (I would also point to political evangelism in the US as a menace, but that’s a topic for another thread). But we know that the faction who promoted Bush into power had a prior agenda for Iraq, and therefore our soldiers and marines are mired in it, using 9/11 as the pretext and falsehoods about battle-ready WMDs as the supposedly clear and present danger.
I truly wonder how in the hell we’re going to get out of this mess without further bolstering the jihadist enemy and fostering an Iraqi regime that ends up being as oppressive as Saddam’s, if only to contain the chaos the invasion triggered. I read recently that the troop surge has led to the lowest levels of violence since 2006. As if 2006’s violence was in any way a benchmark of success! That sure sounds like cold comfort to me, both for the people of Iraq and for anyone in an American uniform. That the troops have had more successes than anyone thought they could is laudable in the context of the insanity, but they should have been allowed to complete the more vital mission in Afghanistan, with unequivocal (that is, undivided) material and political support.
I’ll be so glad when that dolt is out of the White House, but I wonder if it will make any practical difference for the men and women in uniform who are bearing the brunt of all this.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 21, 2007 at 12:51 AM
And I’d clean-sweep the Congress too, if they worked for me. Bounce their sorry asses straight out the door, both sides of the aisle. They say they work for us, but there’s little I can think of that bears out such platitudes. If I did my job so poorly I’d be panhandling for a living.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 21, 2007 at 12:53 AM
WTH..
Term limits is a tricky subject. On the one hand it’s nice to have fresh faces, on the other hand it’s good to have experience. Most Americans would be upset with a job market that forced you to lose your job based on a term limit. I’m not really for term limits, although I would try to find ways for incumbents not to have such a campaign advantage over challengers, clean campaigning would help achieve that.
I also believe in hearings. To me that’s one of Congress’ most important functions, investigating the other branches of government, checks and balances. It may seem like grandstanding on TV, but we’re talking C-Span, not exactly a ratings giant. They do need to take some legal actions against some of the witnesses when they discover misconduct or perjury. When one political party holds Congress and the presidency investigations dwindle to nothing, note the period in Bush’s first six years. A no party system might solve this. But investigations are part of a sunshine policy that enables Americans to know more about our government and society. One thing I’d like to see NOW is open meetings of the House and Senate ethics committees. These are behind closed doors and the two parties basically cut deals to not rock each others boats.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 21, 2007 at 4:51 AM
Kuya and Jon B,
It seems as though nearly everyone except those responsible for our invasion of Iraq realizes and is willing to admit it was a bad idea poorly managed. The military performed well under extreme conditions, but there was simply no thought given to the post combat problems.
We are way too dependent on foreign energy sources. We had thirty years after the 1970s oil embargo wakeup call and did essentially nothing more than eyewash.
Al Gore didn
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM
WTH…
You might be interested in a book called The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler.
He sets out the premise that when Peak Oil (the point that the oil producing world can’t supply the oil using world, demand out-paces supply) fully hits, then America will have no choice but to deal with a long recession and a contraction of the auto/suburban lifestyle.
I find this very possible. Peak oil may have already hit as the actual peak can’t be recognized until a few years AFTER the peak. An indication that peak oil has arrived is fluctuating oil prices as well as a upward trend in price. The fluctuating prices we’ve seen in the last few years are due to the various places in the world that have some problem delivering oil at the rate they have in the past. Being dependent on oil from nations such as Nigeria, Chad, Venezuela, the Middle East, Russia, etc. is becoming problematic. Hurricanes disrupting production in our sphere such as this year in Mexico, two years ago for us in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now, let’s be clear. The US doesn’t get its’ oil from everywhere. But what is important is a reasonable price on the world market as well as a predictive price. Right now the price of oil is at an all-time high. But not adjusted for inflation, the late 1970s holds that record which by the way was the peak oil point for US production and because of that we were affected by the oil embargo and OPEC. I don’t see anywhere for the price of oil to go but up (the trend line), the questions are how fast the price rises and what actions are taken to deal with it.
For the suburbanite living an hour drive from work rising prices isn’t good (the average drive time in the US is at a high, nearly an hour). For the price of nearly everything, the oil price will push inflation. For the airlines and its’ customers, a general rise in oil price becomes even more problematic. At some point in time the cost to fly may not be worth the flight due to the rise in ticket costs.
Kunstler in his book doesn’t see a quick alternative to gas automobiles. I tend to agree. Ethanol is a mistake. Even the small amount of increased use has pushed up corn prices and the increased production of biofuels has pushed up soy prices. We can’t grow our way to fuel because it will cause the rise of food costs. The author thinks our efforts to continue a suburban/auto lifestyle is useless. He laments the poor state of our railroad system as this will become much more important to us for both shipping and travel.
His analysis of what the future will be for the US isn’t good. He suspects a breakdown in government in dealing with the problems. He suspects mass movements of people, mostly out of the desert Southwest and the South due to high energy costs to live in those regions. He certainly lays out a future scenario from things that are happening today and he wrote the book a few years ago.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 22, 2007 at 4:35 AM
Jon B,
Thanks for the book reference. I am familiar with the subject through articles by Dr. Joe Duarte and occasionally visit the Peak Oil website. Whether or not the world
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM
WTH…
You might be interested in this article about the Fed rate cut, the lowering value of the dollar, inflation, housing bust, etc. which we are now staring at. I suspect you’d not disagree with hardly a word in the article.
http://counterpunch.com/whitney09222007.html
Posted by Jon B on Sep 24, 2007 at 6:49 AM
WTH…
About the water value. I live in Michigan, a state that has had a long drizzle of people leaving the state (mostly due to job loss related to the auto industry). I’ve often thought that the states population will in the next ten years or so reverse and begin to increase due to the availability of good clean water. Large businesses will want to locate here in order to be near those water sources, both for their own needs and for the quality of life for the employees. Say what you want about the bad things about Detroit, but it does have one of the best municipal water supplies in the world. Detroit supplies nearly the whole metro area of about 4 million. Two bottled water companies use the Detroit water system, they filter it one more time. And let’s not forget the state is surrounded by the Great Lakes and has even more inland lakes than Minnesota and a high water table.
The Southwest certainly (and other locations as well) will look jealously at my state in the not too distant future.
The one problem that Michigan and the other Great Lakes states are trying to agree on, is how to make sure other states don’t steal the water. These states know full well that there might be an effort by other states through federal efforts to build pipelines to syphon off the water. These discussions include Canada as well, a country that borders most of the Great Lakes.
Posted by Jon B on Sep 24, 2007 at 7:00 AM
JonB,
I must agree with the sad scene presented in the Counterpunch article you mentioned. I would add that while we are likely to experience deflation in some areas in the U.S., we are at the same time going to see inflation in everything from abroad — especially oil and anything else denominated in dollars. But even if oil is denominated in another currency (as some have started to do) a weak dollar means increased cost for us. Domestic goods and services are likely to deflate (along with wages) while imports will rise.
There is an arrogance to the idea that any agency can “control” the markets. The Fed rate cut is essentially a non event. It is purely psychological. The long bond had not reacted prior to the Fed rate changes, but had continued to fall because the “market” to real people investing their own real money know the economy is in bad shape. It is the Wall St. pros who continue to play the game and react to such artificial action.
There is a lengthy, but interesting article at
htttp//www.paulvaneeden.com/pebble.asp?relid=789
by Frank Veneroso. It is titled The Wondrous Alchemical Structured Finance Sausage Machine. In spite of the title it is a serious analysis of the sub prime lending collapse.
Another article from the Financial Times, 9-13-07,
Capital not liquidity is the problem
says nearly the same thing — there is a big difference in the effect when lenders are just reluctant to loan money and when they simply CANNOT.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
I wonder about the economic statistics of Iraq. What of the American contractors (and other foreign firms) that are paid by the American government (and much of this involves corruption), is that part of Iraq’s economics? In other words, are we pumping the economics for our own gains?
I also wonder at how economic statistics in a war zone could ever be really accurately collected anyway? I imagine the underground economics must be vast. Does Iraq have a tax system and if so does it collect it reliably?
An economy in the midst of a war zone can hardly be expected to thrive.
I doubt that many of us would concern ourselves with getting to work, measuring productivity or even returning phone calls while dodging bullets and IEDs.
This is whole issue absurd.
————-
What most disturbs me is that we are broadcasting every move and disagreement to the world. This idiodic behavior directly endangers our troops and benefits the enemy.
Never in history has such stupidity been carried on to this degree.
Picture Ike during the D-Day planning telling Hitler when where and how many troops would be coming.
We deserve to get creamed!
Casting about desperately for any piece of good news, however uncontextual.
It’s like being grateful that the wind storm has knocked the whole peach crop out of the trees, because now we won’t have to bring ladders to harvest them.
(...“Surely this big f’n dark cloud has a silver lining somewhere… we just gotta find it…”)
Whattheheck,
Iraq is not WWII. This hasn’t been a war where the enemy has lines of tanks, artillery, infantry, etc. That’s what Ike planned against. This is a war of insurgency and the only way these are ever really won is to kill everyone, civilians and foes alike, because it is too hard to tell them apart. And we know that would be an insane way to wage this war considering we are suppose to be liberating the civilians and of course it’s inhumane. And even many of the wars of genocide of the past didn’t work out so well either.
The insanity has always been Bush and his neocons with their insane ideology. Not to mention Bush’s propaganda. I laugh when he claims the surge is working. How can this be so if the pullout plan for next summer only brings the troop level back to before the surge? If the surge was working they’d be able to bring home lots of troops by then.
What Bush won’t say is that he hopes that Iraqis will continue to flee the country (over 2 million from a country of 25 million pre-war), continue to die in sectarian violence, continue to die from terrorism from Al Qaeda-like groups, continue to die for health reasons, continue to move into neighborhoods of one religious sect…until the Iraqi population has been so decimated and segregated that our troop level can finally deal with the lower numbers of Iraqis. It’s a war of attrition against the Iraqi civilians.
Iraq economic numbers probably are full of crap. What interests me is Iraqi birth rates. I’ve not heard whether anyone has looked into those numbers. I can’t imagine they are populating at even zero population growth. Who would want to bring an infant into that mess? But it’s probably another aspect of the war of attrition on the population. Less births, less Iraqis.
JonB,
My alluding to Ike and WW2 had to do with the secrecy then and the blabbing now. Telling every move or even the debating of such is the most idiotic behavior ever, regardless of who is the enemy.
A better comparison is Custer at the Little Big Horn
WTH…
I understand your point about secrecy, but the point is mute. It doesn’t matter that we tell the world (and the Iraqi insurgency) how many troops we deploy now or later, they will oppose the occupation no matter what. You also aren’t thinking that much of what is said publicly is disinformation, purposely to both fool the opposition and the American public. That was earlier in the war, these days no amount of disinformation would help. Remember that most moves the military makes is usually made known to the Maliki government which probably has informants for the insurgency and Maliki is sure to make it known to Shi’ites.
I don’t think Bush is completely diabolical. His psychology is tough to understand. He does have this ego about being “heroic” and he is uninformed about things he doesn’t care about. He also has this religious viewpoint that I think leans toward being a Revelationist. He won’t admit mistakes and takes credit for things he doesn’t do. He has this vision thing that when all information tells him it’s wrong, he still pursues the vision. He is manipulative of other people, consider how he condescendingly nicknames reporters and people around him (Karl Rove, Turd Blossom). He is politically intelligent, that is in how to get people to vote for him.
Consider how he purchased his Texas ranch in 1999, not long before his presidential run, he was preparing for that homespun image, not to mention where to hang out for presidential vacations. Consider his campaign theme in 2000, compassionate conservative. A shot across the bow of all the other Republican candidates redefining them as conservative but not compassionate unless they supported him. Yes, these might have been Rove ideas, but Bush does what he believes will benefit himself. He and Rove thought alike, that’s why they made such a pair, but Bush probably passed on plenty of Rove ideas. In other words Bush isn’t a complete idiot and Rove was not his complete brain.
I believe Bush has low regard for the masses, that he thinks he is above them. He speaks to the masses when he needs them in his fake homespun way, such as campaigning or pushing a political issue. He doesn’t care about most people unless he needs them, and then it’s only temporary. He trusts only a few people who become his inner circle. His low regard for humanity certainly includes Iraqis. And a war of attrition on the Iraqi population has become the strategy by default and no one from the White House would ever say so publicly.
Bush has no trouble with telling lies, but part of that is because he believes what he says..he lies to himself, believes it, then tells us the lie. But in other cases he knows he’s fibbing but comes up with some sort of reason it’s OK. He justifies the lie, probably along the lines of “means to an end” or “people don’t need the whole truth.” I remember an interview with Bush about 6 months ago. He answered a question about whether he was thinking of his legacy, Bush said “He leaves that to others.” I was incredulous. Does anybody really believe that? That he doesn’t think about how history will judge him? It was a lie.
JonB,
Bush appears to have a very limited range of interests and knowledge. It’s too bad we can’t draw up a job description requiring Pres. candidates to have a comprehensive view of history. If only being aware of the Middle East 20th century events no one in his right mind would set democratization as any kind of goal. Viet Nam should have taught the lessons of guerilla war with unidentifiable enemies and ideological conflicts.
I remember Reagan telling how he faked a ball game he was reporting on radio back in the 1930s
If I was some sort of election dictator and could change the system anyway I wanted, it would be drastically different.
Sure, a filled out job application would be required, and it would be extensive. Complete list of past occupations, a series of questions designed to pinpoint ideology, college degrees with grade points, among the items to be answered. I would have a sit down test on many subjects, economics, history, world affairs, math, science, etc. The application and test results would be made available to the public in every way possible. Further all candidates running would be subjected to periodic alcohol and drug testing (many Americans are subjected to this, how come politicians aren’t?).
Beyond that, major reforms. Presidential races would be by popular vote eliminating the Electoral College. I would institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to give third parties and independents a fighting chance. I would institute Clean Campaigns which is federal and state funded elections, no private donations to candidates, this could also include blind donations where a donation from citizens are put in a pool and a person can’t know which candidate receives the money.
Somehow we have to make the actual voting process (the first step in democracy) accurate. I don’t trust my vote is counted correctly, does anybody? A person should be able to review their vote after an election has been counted. I should be able to go down to city hall and check to see if my paper receipt matches to a master list, a number could be assigned to me on my paper trail and then listed on the master list along with my choices.
I would want a more direct democracy approach. I would rather vote on issues than vote for politicians. I think the people should have more say on policies. I doubt “bridges to nowhere” at the federal level would pass a national vote. If Alaskans (nowhere bridge) wants something, those citizens can vote on it and pay for it themselves.
Finally, I would find someway to reduce the influence of lobbyists. I understand the right to redress the government, but corporate-paid lobbying was probably not what the founding fathers had in mind.
On a theoretical level. What if we made political parties illegal? Not a two party system or one party system (communism, fascism), but a no party system. Every candidate would have to stand on their own. Certainly like-minded candidates would vote together on aligned issues, but they wouldn’t need to vote together for party reasons. But Clean Campaigns would have to be instituted with a no party system to keep party machines from rising up.
And the media would be required to cover all debates, I’m thinking TV most of all. Consider if all TV stations (air and cable) had to broadcast debates as well as blocks of individual candidate time (say 15 min. blocks of equal time). Sure we might be bored, but the voters who cared would view it, others would read a book or something else. Campaigns wouldn’t have to be so long given the availability of a place to get out their message.
Jon B,
A lot of good reform ideas there.
I
Hello whattheheck,
I think our military personnel have been set up for a fall since it was decided to invade Iraq in the first place. So hopelessly unrealistic! They were in the midst of the challenge of Afghanistan, nowhere near the finish of that confrontation, and then the course was taken that divided human and material resources, leaving both venues lacking. Militant medievalism ends up with a shot in the arm and a growing constituency, the US ends up looking either idiotic or evil, depending on the week, with those in uniform being let down, used up and having to take it in the face all these years. Logistically foolish, tactically unsound, strategically insane.
I realize the milk can’t be unspilled, but I do believe going into Iraq freaked the whole deal, if dealing with the jihadist menace was truly the agenda (I would also point to political evangelism in the US as a menace, but that’s a topic for another thread). But we know that the faction who promoted Bush into power had a prior agenda for Iraq, and therefore our soldiers and marines are mired in it, using 9/11 as the pretext and falsehoods about battle-ready WMDs as the supposedly clear and present danger.
I truly wonder how in the hell we’re going to get out of this mess without further bolstering the jihadist enemy and fostering an Iraqi regime that ends up being as oppressive as Saddam’s, if only to contain the chaos the invasion triggered. I read recently that the troop surge has led to the lowest levels of violence since 2006. As if 2006’s violence was in any way a benchmark of success! That sure sounds like cold comfort to me, both for the people of Iraq and for anyone in an American uniform. That the troops have had more successes than anyone thought they could is laudable in the context of the insanity, but they should have been allowed to complete the more vital mission in Afghanistan, with unequivocal (that is, undivided) material and political support.
I’ll be so glad when that dolt is out of the White House, but I wonder if it will make any practical difference for the men and women in uniform who are bearing the brunt of all this.
And I’d clean-sweep the Congress too, if they worked for me. Bounce their sorry asses straight out the door, both sides of the aisle. They say they work for us, but there’s little I can think of that bears out such platitudes. If I did my job so poorly I’d be panhandling for a living.
WTH..
Term limits is a tricky subject. On the one hand it’s nice to have fresh faces, on the other hand it’s good to have experience. Most Americans would be upset with a job market that forced you to lose your job based on a term limit. I’m not really for term limits, although I would try to find ways for incumbents not to have such a campaign advantage over challengers, clean campaigning would help achieve that.
I also believe in hearings. To me that’s one of Congress’ most important functions, investigating the other branches of government, checks and balances. It may seem like grandstanding on TV, but we’re talking C-Span, not exactly a ratings giant. They do need to take some legal actions against some of the witnesses when they discover misconduct or perjury. When one political party holds Congress and the presidency investigations dwindle to nothing, note the period in Bush’s first six years. A no party system might solve this. But investigations are part of a sunshine policy that enables Americans to know more about our government and society. One thing I’d like to see NOW is open meetings of the House and Senate ethics committees. These are behind closed doors and the two parties basically cut deals to not rock each others boats.
Kuya and Jon B,
It seems as though nearly everyone except those responsible for our invasion of Iraq realizes and is willing to admit it was a bad idea poorly managed. The military performed well under extreme conditions, but there was simply no thought given to the post combat problems.
We are way too dependent on foreign energy sources. We had thirty years after the 1970s oil embargo wakeup call and did essentially nothing more than eyewash.
Al Gore didn
WTH…
You might be interested in a book called The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler.
He sets out the premise that when Peak Oil (the point that the oil producing world can’t supply the oil using world, demand out-paces supply) fully hits, then America will have no choice but to deal with a long recession and a contraction of the auto/suburban lifestyle.
I find this very possible. Peak oil may have already hit as the actual peak can’t be recognized until a few years AFTER the peak. An indication that peak oil has arrived is fluctuating oil prices as well as a upward trend in price. The fluctuating prices we’ve seen in the last few years are due to the various places in the world that have some problem delivering oil at the rate they have in the past. Being dependent on oil from nations such as Nigeria, Chad, Venezuela, the Middle East, Russia, etc. is becoming problematic. Hurricanes disrupting production in our sphere such as this year in Mexico, two years ago for us in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now, let’s be clear. The US doesn’t get its’ oil from everywhere. But what is important is a reasonable price on the world market as well as a predictive price. Right now the price of oil is at an all-time high. But not adjusted for inflation, the late 1970s holds that record which by the way was the peak oil point for US production and because of that we were affected by the oil embargo and OPEC. I don’t see anywhere for the price of oil to go but up (the trend line), the questions are how fast the price rises and what actions are taken to deal with it.
For the suburbanite living an hour drive from work rising prices isn’t good (the average drive time in the US is at a high, nearly an hour). For the price of nearly everything, the oil price will push inflation. For the airlines and its’ customers, a general rise in oil price becomes even more problematic. At some point in time the cost to fly may not be worth the flight due to the rise in ticket costs.
Kunstler in his book doesn’t see a quick alternative to gas automobiles. I tend to agree. Ethanol is a mistake. Even the small amount of increased use has pushed up corn prices and the increased production of biofuels has pushed up soy prices. We can’t grow our way to fuel because it will cause the rise of food costs. The author thinks our efforts to continue a suburban/auto lifestyle is useless. He laments the poor state of our railroad system as this will become much more important to us for both shipping and travel.
His analysis of what the future will be for the US isn’t good. He suspects a breakdown in government in dealing with the problems. He suspects mass movements of people, mostly out of the desert Southwest and the South due to high energy costs to live in those regions. He certainly lays out a future scenario from things that are happening today and he wrote the book a few years ago.
Jon B,
Thanks for the book reference. I am familiar with the subject through articles by Dr. Joe Duarte and occasionally visit the Peak Oil website. Whether or not the world
WTH…
You might be interested in this article about the Fed rate cut, the lowering value of the dollar, inflation, housing bust, etc. which we are now staring at. I suspect you’d not disagree with hardly a word in the article.
http://counterpunch.com/whitney09222007.html
WTH…
About the water value. I live in Michigan, a state that has had a long drizzle of people leaving the state (mostly due to job loss related to the auto industry). I’ve often thought that the states population will in the next ten years or so reverse and begin to increase due to the availability of good clean water. Large businesses will want to locate here in order to be near those water sources, both for their own needs and for the quality of life for the employees. Say what you want about the bad things about Detroit, but it does have one of the best municipal water supplies in the world. Detroit supplies nearly the whole metro area of about 4 million. Two bottled water companies use the Detroit water system, they filter it one more time. And let’s not forget the state is surrounded by the Great Lakes and has even more inland lakes than Minnesota and a high water table.
The Southwest certainly (and other locations as well) will look jealously at my state in the not too distant future.
The one problem that Michigan and the other Great Lakes states are trying to agree on, is how to make sure other states don’t steal the water. These states know full well that there might be an effort by other states through federal efforts to build pipelines to syphon off the water. These discussions include Canada as well, a country that borders most of the Great Lakes.
JonB,
I must agree with the sad scene presented in the Counterpunch article you mentioned. I would add that while we are likely to experience deflation in some areas in the U.S., we are at the same time going to see inflation in everything from abroad — especially oil and anything else denominated in dollars. But even if oil is denominated in another currency (as some have started to do) a weak dollar means increased cost for us. Domestic goods and services are likely to deflate (along with wages) while imports will rise.
There is an arrogance to the idea that any agency can “control” the markets. The Fed rate cut is essentially a non event. It is purely psychological. The long bond had not reacted prior to the Fed rate changes, but had continued to fall because the “market” to real people investing their own real money know the economy is in bad shape. It is the Wall St. pros who continue to play the game and react to such artificial action.
There is a lengthy, but interesting article at
htttp//www.paulvaneeden.com/pebble.asp?relid=789
by Frank Veneroso. It is titled The Wondrous Alchemical Structured Finance Sausage Machine. In spite of the title it is a serious analysis of the sub prime lending collapse.
Another article from the Financial Times, 9-13-07,
Capital not liquidity is the problem
says nearly the same thing — there is a big difference in the effect when lenders are just reluctant to loan money and when they simply CANNOT.
register a new account »Posting Security