Please oh please don't get me started on Iraq.
Though I note that WE, the US Taxpayer, are paying for two million barrels of GASOLINE (not crude oil) to be imported into Iraq a day. Where it is being sold for FIVE CENTS A GALLON.
Meanwhile, five cents will buy you enough gas to fill a thimble here in the USA right now.
Oh, and if WE want to solve this situation, WE are going to have to spend $40 billion on revamping and upgrading both the production capacity at the oil fields AND the refineries in Iraq.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:57 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 11, 2005 #
You make good points, anonymouscoward.
I respect free-market Republicans who take issue with our involvement in this debacle. I am saddened, though, at the number of conservatives who jumped on the war bandwagon at any cost, and continue to blindly support the bankrupting policies of our president.
As far as Wolfowitz and the paralyzed soldier, the photo speaks for itself (if this is the one):
http://www.defense.gov/news/Apr2005/screen_20050405121055_wolf_and_thompson_and_rumball.jpg
posted by historymike at 05:33 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 11, 2005 #
Bravo Bush, so what about the photo. Think past it. Life is more than an image. Bush is changing the face of the Middle East, just like he said. Bravo for freedom loving Americans. Bravo to Amercans who buy that freedom via their sacrifice.
posted by taximan205 at 06:26 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 11, 2005 #
Bush is certainly changing the face of the Middle East.
19,740 dead civilians in Iraq from the military intervention:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
1,545 US dead:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
11,664 US wounded in action:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
$128 billion in costs for military actions and reconstruction:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/cost-iraq-war.php
Yes, the face of the Middle East has changed. It has turned bloody, and it does not look like there is an end in sight.
Rather than celebrate, I choose to mourn the dead.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
Ooh, they only answer, more, more, more.
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no military son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one.
"Fortunate Son," John Fogerty and Creedence Clearwater Revival
posted by historymike at 08:31 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 11, 2005 #
No, HM, it's a much more sad looking photo, but I can't find it now. The way conspiracyplanet.com is set up (a kind of net-digest) with main articles that have several related sub-articles, I know it was one of the sub articles, but can't find the main article again. I'll have to search through the site, and when I figure out where the photo is, will try to put in a link, because it's worth a thousand words. I thought David Icke's satire was right on the mark.
I'm seriously considering setting up a blog dedicated to identifying the living wounded from this disaster. I would have to find a way to publicize so that families of wounded could submit the names/conditions of their loved ones. What I have in mind eventually is a site where interested Americans can donate or help individual families directly if desired. So much of this information is hidden, including the pictures of the flag draped coffins, that I think it is incumbent upon ordinary Americans to do something at a grass roots level.
We could stop this carnage fairly easily by voting most if not all current congressmen out of office in 2006. That is the only action that will garner any notice. But that's close to impossible. I DO know that Congress is nervous about the election because of the war. Notice - they are nervous about the election - not specifically about this insane wholesale destruction of so many of our young people (all young people not surnamed Bush).
Also all national polls on this topic are being suppressed. When's the last time you heard poll results for American public opinion on this "war"?
posted by edie at 10:57 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 12, 2005 #
OK - the main article (at conspiracyplanet.com) is at "Humor" (click on alphabetical list to the left). At bottom of main article are listed the "other top stories" - it's the second one down & includes the picture.
Interesting to note, this morning I couldn't get onto the obscure missionary website that holds the e-mail address registered for me here at toledotalk (it's an unused e-mail address available to friends and family for registering at talk and shopping sites, and has no "profile" attached to it). This missionary website was listed as "can't find" repeatedly all morning.
Of course that was just a coincidence, I'm sure. Oh my oh my oni [inside joke].
posted by edie at 01:34 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 12, 2005 #
The Middle East was already bloody, so much so that it carried over to our shore by people who were propagandized to hate America. You cannot buy their freedom with gifts and goodwill. We must allow them to have the opportunity to see truth. They must feel and appreciate freedom. Your right to print your thoughts were paid for by someone else. Let the most honorable nation on Earth take the lead.
posted by taximan205 at 06:12 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 12, 2005 #
1. I do not wish to "buy their freedom with gifts and goodwill." In fact, I do not wish to spend any money on the Middle East. I would rather see us become energy-independent.
2. Have you ever considered - just for a moment - that the reason 9/11 happened was because of our actions in the Middle East? That we have had troops stationed there since 1990? That our embargo of Iraq- with its horrible effects on Iraqi children - might just have pissed off the Arab world? Remember, Osama bin Laden was once our ally.
3. My right to print my thoughts is paid for by me. I use Buckeye Express. How about you?
4. Let some other nation take the lead. I don't want my children to die in the desert. Better yet, how about if no one takes the lead, and we work on cooperation for a change?
posted by historymike at 06:58 P.M. EST on Tue Apr 12, 2005 #
Personally I wish the American people could convey to those who keep kidnapping people over there that we will eventually convince our government to get out of Iraq, for our sakes and for the sake of peace in the Middle East. But it takes time, and the kidnappings accomplish nothing.
Americans were duped into supporting this action, but support fell off immediately when it was apparent (according to Treasurer Paul O'Neill's truthful testimony) that this "war" was planned from the outset by this administration and the neocons, long before 911 - and it was a massive bait-and-switch deception perpetrated on the populace of this country (not "homeland" by the way - COUNTRY). There is a war/administration defender on every message board because someone is paid to do that - but the majority of Americans hate this war and hate the deception that led to it. We do not hate Arab countries.
It seems now that every time the administration find themselves on the defensive here in the U.S., and the opposition to the war grows louder, as it has recently - EVERY SINGLE TIME - yet another unprotected contract worker over there is kidnapped. The citizens (owners) of this COUNTRY have to find a way to communicate that hurting these aid and contract workers only helps the hawks in the administration here in the U.S., and in effect prolongs the war.
It makes one wonder how it is that there are no safeguards in place for these contract and aid workers (let alone our own soldiers) - every single time, yet another one is seemingly left unprotected, right when Congress and the populace increasingly raise their voices in opposition to this lunacy. This happening again and again and again... it just doesn't compute, something is seriously wrong here.
The American people do not consider themselves to be enemies of Iraq, and would have lifted Colin Powell/Bush I's disastrous embargo years ago. You know... that embargo that strengthened Saddam's brutal hand against his own people. But we have lost control of our own government. It's no longer of the people, by the people and for the people - it's of, by and for the globalists. Low level workers should not have to pay the price for decades after decade of NWO screw-ups. The war planners are rich (as Icke points out so well) and our soldiers are poor and dying and losing limbs. Residents of the Middle East should be patient. Eventually our government is going to cave to pressure from their own citizens. It takes time is all.
posted by edie at 02:47 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 13, 2005 #
1. I don't wish to spend my money there either, the fact is we do and that will not change. We will never become energy indepedent without:
a. exploring for more domestic oil
b. develop alternate and economically sound alternatives
We are prevented by the enviromentalists on the first and the market will eventually drive the second.
We could produce more though by importing a refined product or building more refineries.
2. Our actions? It seemed to me to be a U.N. effort lead by the U.S.. It is the propaganda coupled with poverty that creates the hate. Give the people the economic freedom to develop and the hate dissipates. How many terrorists do you you find from the Arab states that share the wealth with their citizens? Almost none.
3. The internet provides you with the forum. The technology enables you. The freedom to express yourself comes from the Founding Fathers with the sacrifice from those who fought to preserve this government. The Chinese do not have this freedom even though they have the same technology and forum.
4. I don't want my children to die either. I honor those that do. Like Patton said "Let the other poor bastard die for his country". We can't reason with pathological hatred. We must stop their aggressive hurtful actions first, then help THEM lay the groundwork for a workable free future. Thankfully Bush understands this. Nothing worth gaining doesn't come without considerable pain and sacrifice.
I do not feel duped in the slightest.
posted by taximan205 at 05:42 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 13, 2005 #
1. We should not have to wait for the market to provide solutions. Also, this is pre-supposing that players in the market (oil companies, automakers, etc.) are playing fairly. If you believe that the oil industry is not dragging its collective feet on new technologies, then you, sir, are naive.
2. "Propaganda coupled with poverty that creates hate." - Dead Iraqi children are not propaganda. They are fuel for hatred. As far as giving the Iraqi people economic freedom, it was the US-led embargo that took it away from them. Regardless of Sadaam's dictatorial reign, Iraq once had a fairly healthy economy.
3. This appeal to patriotism (Your right to print your thoughts were paid for by someone else)is a shallow argument and, frankly, a cheap shot. The assumption is that I am somehow unpatriotic because I question this war. I see intelligence in your writing, so this sort of lazy, deceptive argument takes away from your more reasoned statements elsewhere.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson
"Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.”—Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
4. I am not convinced that Bush understands much in the Middle East, except that there is a lot of oil and natural gas over there. Perhaps time will prove me wrong; I hope that I am! My fear, however, is that Bush's simplistic vision of geopolitics has embroiled us in a fate much worse than Vietnam.
posted by historymike at 06:30 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 13, 2005 #
1. Oil industry is like any other, they like money. Where it comes from matters not. Believe it, they'll be in the forefront of alternative energy sources when the market dictates. This is just logic. The market always provides the solutions, like it or not. We can think ahead in research like hydrogen powered cars, but it is the market that makes them a reality. This is why hybrid cars are just now becoming popular. Try to buy one below sticker price, they are selling like hotcakes.
2. Who said dead Iraqi children is propaganda? I didn't. Who killed those children? The previous regime. Iraq had not invested in it's infrastructure in generations. Don't keep your house up and spend the money and see where your house is in 40 years.
3. Why don't you presume less. You arrive at your thoughts from erroneous conclusions. What's wrong with honoring those who make sacrifice.
4. 9/11 prompted this all. Before that Bush was sitting on his laurels. Bush's reason to war was to change the face of the Middle East. A task long overdue. No one is smart enough to know precisely what to do, but we go forth, act right and adjust when necessary. This simple philosophy almost always prevails as long as we are on the side of right.
posted by taximan205 at 05:26 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 14, 2005 #
1. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I look at the actions of the multinational oil companies, and their actions are not those of corporations looking to our long-term benefit, but rather toward short term profits. Sure, hybrids are selling well, now that gas is approaching a 100% increase in the past 2-1/2 years.
2. YOU brought up propaganda, not me. I suggested that the dead Iraqi children were the most inflammatory propaganda. If you were referring to some other propaganda, then let us know what it was. The death of Iraqi children was a direct result of the US-dominated embargo, which you are technically correct was a UN action. The Iraqi government stopped spending on infrastructure in the late 1980s, which is hardly "generations."
3. YOU stated that my right to post my thoughts was paid for by the blood of dead soldiers, which is simply foolish. The implication, of course, is that I am either not honoring the war dead, or that I am unpatriotic. Don't try to back out and say that you were just making a bland statement about "honoring those who make sacrifice."
4. If you are only going to trace the conflict in Iraq to 9/11, you are sorely misinformed. Also, read your history: the initial reasons we went to war with Iraq involved weapons of mass destruction and/or Sadaam's supposed link to terrorists. Are you that blind, man? Even Bush's most diehard supporters acknowledge that the Administration was misled by informants, or that there was an "intelligence failure." The freedom-and-democracy stuff came about a year ago, just in time for the 2004 elections.
posted by historymike at 07:02 P.M. EST on Thu Apr 14, 2005 #
1. Mike, like any other discussion of free markets here, it is always a chicken and egg situation. Like gravity seeking the ground, the market providers will relentlessly seek to fulfill consumer demand. If the behavior of the market providers does not match an individual's (subjective) opinion of what "our long-term benefit" is, then it is because the consumer demand is not creating that behavior. So, the two obvious solutions are a) legally compel provider behavior to be contrary to consumer demand or b) change consumer demand by changing their perception of value (ie, convince them to want something different).
From the surface appearance of most liberal rhetoric (note, that I am referring to liberal's in general - not you - nor am I referring to you as a liberal) regarding individual "rights" and the same fundamentals that underly freedom of speech, one would think that solution B above would be the hands down preference.
However, what conservatives often refer to as liberal elitism somehow always takes over and gravitates towards solution A because it is felt that a few individuals know better what is good or better for the rest of the consuming public.
As I read it, it is solutions A and B that you and taximan will have to agree to disagree on.
The good news is, as taximan points out, consumers are changing their demand and hybrids are starting to move.
posted by babbleman at 10:08 A.M. EST on Fri Apr 15, 2005 #
I think that free markets work very well - in theory.
Unfortunately, truly free markets are the exception, rather than the norm. In addition to the oft-flogged horse of government intervention, corporations often work against free markets through monopolies, cartels, lobbying, and the like to preserve what they perceive as their market share.
Other outside forces (nationalism, collective labor, natural disasters, wars) distort the equilibrium of free markets to the point where the "laws" of supply and demand don't work the way they should on paper.
I think that the auto companies have slowly awakened from their petro-slumber. However, the oil companies and their lobbyists have skewed the tax code toward their interests, not those of consumers. The nickels and dimes in tax breaks given to alternative energy pale in comparison with the largesse bestowed upon the oil industry from 1981-89 by the Reagan Administration.
Clinton and George W. began to reverse this trend, although Bush's energy proposals still favor oil over alternatives.
Anyways, in the convoluted, muddled energy markets, I am not convinced that simple supply-demand models will work, or that we should put our faith in the unfree markets to answer the world's energy needs in the 21st century and beyond.
PS- thank you for not categorically lumping me into the "liberal" camp. While some of my views might be those traditionally assigned to "leftists," I want to get past the destructive dichotomies of left-right, Dem-Rep, us-them, patriot-traitor, or black-white that seem to stifle intelligent debate on important issues.
posted by historymike at 11:55 A.M. EST on Fri Apr 15, 2005 #
I never said anyone was unpatriotic. The inference is in your head only. Propaganda comes from the state run media in the Middle East or Al Jazeera.
Why are you obsessed with Iraqi children? That was an United Nations embargo. The UN and Saddam ripped off the money meant for the Iraqi people. Blame the UN. The Iraqi infrastructure has been ignored since Saddam gained power.
You accuse me of thoughts I never had. The WMD argument was just the vehicle to go to war. Bush has clearly stated we need to change the face of the Middle East. The WMD argument was theorized by all intelligence agencies and has never been disproven. It may have been hyped but so what. The hype was to try and convince people like yourself. That is Bush's main mistake in trying to appeal to the hard left. Right courses of action don't bleong to either side of the political spectrum. Why don't you balance CNN and the NY Times with a little FNN and Washington Times.
posted by taximan205 at 08:48 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 16, 2005 #
I believe that free markets do work better that centralized planning. The energy problems that we have today are mostly the result of the government trying to do its own centralized planning. The government has tried to pick the winners and the losers in the energy markets in a few ways. One way was to engineer the tax code in such a way as to make a form of energy cost more or less. The other way is to try to manipulate the internal affairs of oil producing countries. In both cases the results are bound to be disastrous in the form of a sudden surge in energy prices or a terrorist attack.
posted by mike2004 at 09:14 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 16, 2005 #
Taximan 205:
1. Here is your original quote:
"Your right to print your thoughts were paid for by someone else." I think it speaks for itself as an example of the "America: love-it-or-leave-it" nationalist mentalité. If you want to back off and claim that this is not an inference about my, or anyone else's patriotism, go right ahead. Our little ToledoTalk audience can make up their own minds.
2. Once again, you cannot see past simple divisions of "left-right." There are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum unhappy with this ugly war, not just your so-called "hard left." Also, don't make assumptions about my political views until you have been around here a while; you might be surprised to find that (GASP) we agree on some issues. Of course, you may not be willing to view the world through non-polarized lenses.
3. As far as my reading, I read all across the spectrum, sir. Words are my love and my livelihood, and I find as much validity in National Review and Reason as I do with Mother Jones and CounterPunch. I suggest that you expand your information resources beyond the sound bites of TV and the op-eds of newspapers, both of which just scratch the surface of intelligent discourse.
4. I have no "obsession" with dead Iraqi children. I referenced them as part of the "propaganda" campaign you claimed. You don't want to adress the issue? Fine. Do you really believe, though, that the US did not pressure the UN into the embargo, or that we were just going along with the rest of the world? I do not hear many people suggesting that the UN is so powerful. Most people recognize that we dominate almost all international bodies, including the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO.
Mike2004:
I agree with you that free markets work better than centralized planning in a capitalist economy. In my opinion, though, free markets are problematic in times of increasing scarcity, since there will be ever-increasing temptation by market players to use non-market devices to affect market outcomes.
You are also dead on with regard to terrorist attacks. I suspect that attacks on the oil pipelines will only increase the longer we are in Iraq, and that the oil market will continue to both spiral upward and be prone to massive spikes.
The surging Chinese economy will also likely keep increasing upward pressure on prices of crude and gasoline. I have seen some pretty disheartening figures on production, with global petroleum demand exceeeding maximum production in the next ten years or so.
I also suspect that the environmentalists will eventually be drowned out by the choruses of consumers with regard to Alaskan reserves. One month of $3 a gallon gas this summer should be all it takes to send even the most diehard greens to cave in on drilling in Alaskan wilderness regions.
posted by historymike at 10:40 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 16, 2005 #
In my opinion, though, free markets are problematic in times of increasing scarcity, since there will be ever-increasing temptation by market players to use non-market devices to affect market outcomes.
That is true. The problem is that the government has greatly overstepped its bounds. On the other side of that, a completely free market has its problems too. With a completely free market, with no government rules whatsoever, you are going to get things like children working in sweat shops. The government does need to set some ground rules. The government we have today does a lot more than just set ground rules. It tries to pick the winners and the losers in the energy industry with direct subsidies and it’s tax code. The government will even go so far as to fight a war to keep one form of energy flowing. With dubious results I might add.
The surging Chinese economy will also likely keep increasing upward pressure on prices of crude and gasoline. I have seen some pretty disheartening figures on production, with global petroleum demand exceeeding maximum production in the next ten years or so.
That is going to happen, the only debate is when. Some would say that we should maintain the status quo until we get to it. While the United States could do that, in the long term it is bound to be a disaster. The United States might find itself in the position of having to choose between life without oil or a nuclear showdown with China.
posted by mike2004 at 08:49 A.M. EST on Sun Apr 17, 2005 #
It's a double-eded sword, though: corporate oil lobbyists push very hard for these tax breaks, and help keep government focused on distorting the market through tax code machinations.
Chicken-and-egg, to be sure, but the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, and BP don't hesitate to suck up our tax dollars.
posted by historymike at 04:00 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 17, 2005 #
The Tax breaks and the subsidies are part of the problem. The cost of the Iraq war and other meddling in the Middle East probably cost more. The best thing to do at this point is to pull out of the Middle East entirely and let the chips fall. That might cause gas prices to increase a little more. The fact of the matter is that we are already paying $4.00 per gallon + for gas right now. Two dollars at the pump and the rest is withheld from your paycheck.
Some might say that pulling out of the Middle East entirely might be a bad idea. The reason being that the instability over there might cause gas prices to go to $6.00-$7.00 per gallon. It is probably not possible for gasoline to even reach much less maintain such a high price. The simple reason is that there are other alternatives, such as Ethanol (about $2.00 per gallon) and coal liquefaction ( www.ultracleanfuels.com ). In the future, we will probably drive electric cars. The economics in the energy industry already indicate that. One gallon of gas has 114,900 btus in it or about 33-kilowatt hours. 33-kilowatt hours of electricity purchased from Toledo Edison costs $3.96, slightly less than the real price of gasoline. Electric vehicles tend to be more than twice as efficient as gasoline powered cars, so that one could actually be cheaper to operate even with gas at $2.00 per gallon.
posted by mike2004 at 01:43 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 18, 2005 #
I have never thought America love it or leave it in my life. I love the free exchange of ideas.
This is no war. It is an occupation.
I guess I don't understand how dead Iraqi children are a metaphor for propaganda. We are not responsible for dead Iraqi chilren. It makes as much sense as you being responsible for crack dealing on Oakwood.
The whole premise of your argument has been based on assumptions. If I'm polarized for liking Bush's stance on Iraq, what does that make you? All I've done is support the President on this issue. So does Christopher Hitchens, what does that make him? Confused?
I'm glad to hear that are are well read. It's no surprise with how much you like to quote. I balance my news as much as I can. My memory is not good enough to quote accurately. I do digest the news well and think considerably for myself. I very rarely read the op-eds.
The U.N. is not powerful. The U.N. is a joke. There will be a world government one day. I prefer the U.S. to be in the lead. Our government despite our mistakes is still the best in the world.
posted by taximan205 at 05:07 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 18, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
