Obama oval office address
Obama's oval office address last night received a lot of criticism. Some on the left felt that Obama should have talked about the reasons why we went to Iraq, while others say that Obama did not "thank" his predecessor enough. It is impossible to talk about Obama's speech without discussing the reasons for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We went to war in Iraq because the Bush administration invention of an impressive bogeyman. On 935 different occasions, the administration mislead the American people about Iraq's capabilities of destruction and terror. Claims that Iraq had UAVs capable of gassing large swaths of land, nuclear weapons or the ability to produce them, links to Al Qaeda and a role in 9/11 were proven salient lies that were readily soaked up by an American public was more than willing to listen and respond. These lies would have been mitigated by a successful occupation and competent war leadership; this did not happen as it was quickly revealed that administration did very little planning prior to the invasion. Iraq slid into a insurgency that rapidly became a civil war which killed several 100 thousand Iraqi civilians and displaced millions (2.5 - 4.4 million).
So what are your thoughts about our invasion and occupation. Do you think we won? Do you think it was successful?
What do you think about Obama's speech?
We invaded based on either lies or dubious information. This was something that should have been done a long time ago. The country is in the right direction. I saw an article talking about how the USA has been in Korea for 50 years in order to keep the peace. If we could make Iraq into South Korea I think a 50 year presence would be worth it.
The USA for far to long has propped up dictators and strong men simply to keep the oil flowing. I find it refreshing that we finally stood up against this crap.
Also, if this is going to be debated, the side that is against the war should not be able to use displacement or innocent Iraqi deaths as a arguing point. Saddam killed and displaced his own people and would have kept starving, killing and intimidating people had we looked the other way. Using their death as an attack against the American invasion is bullshit.
In before the CPH/ EOK war begins.
my thoughts: good riddance.
sooooo after 7 yrs of war, 7 yrs worth of wasted resources, ~1 trillion in costs, ~4000 service members dead, and who knows how many iraqi innocents dead...what exactly was accomplished?
the only reason i can think for justifying the invasion and occupation of iraq was that the US lacked strategic partners in the middle east. i think the plan was to topple saddam and install a pro-western/pro-US democracy. the US has implemented that strategy a couple times before. its funny how history repeats itself.
I've been pretty apathetic to the whole thing for a while now. I didn't really pick a side back in '03, assuming that the government was keeping any real intelligence under the rug for fear of Iraq getting the jump on them (the pics and chalk they showed at the UN were clearly BS, even back then). When it came out that we had no intelligence whatsoever, I wrote off the conflict as a huge mistake and George W. as the worst/dumbest president of all time.
I used to feel that we had a responsibility to sort things out in Iraq since we invaded, but the IRR we're getting for our efforts is just not worth it. The whole thing is all the more unfortunate because being a trillion dollars less in the hole before Sep. '08 would have been kind of nice.
As far as winning and the thing being successful, that's a joke. Nobody won anything, we just made one of the worst trades ever and cut our losses way too late.
dont be apathetic. there are too many apathetic americans.
When I say I'm apathetic, I don't mean that I don't vote or don't have an opinion. I just haven't lost any sleep over Iraq or any political issue for that matter in a while.
As for people disliking the US' "real politik," the neocons were the perfect antithesis to a realist view of foreign policy. And that's what people hate, most European countries would have joined in if Iraq had been a legitimate threat to the world's safety.
Anthony, I am not for the American servicemen's presence in South Korea. South Korea is a first world country, with a GDP per capita that dwarfs the North's. They can protect themselves. Our presence their just increases the chance of entanglement in another conflagration on the Korean peninsula. What will we get out of 50 years in Iraq? If I were to propose a new entitlement program or an increase in the duration that someone can receive unemployment benefits, you and people like you, would go crazy. Complaints about the effect on the deficit and wasted government revenues would abound. But this thought process does not relate to the same expenditures for war. We have spent 728 billion dollars in Iraq as of yesterday. The unfunded liability of this war are going to be over a TRILLION dollars per decade. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Invariably, our presence will decrease the possibility of an inevitable military coup that will displace the legislative body we put in power.
You are correct, Saddam killed and maimed his own people. But you can not say that those people who died or displaced are better off now than they were the day before we invaded. Iraq poses a far greater threat to its neighbors and to us now than it ever did under Saddam. As troops leave and with the continuation of the political stalemate, Iraq will become a haven for terrorists who will take advantage of the natural rage and mayhem.
I am not trying to start a debate. I just want to hear some thoughts on the Obama's speech and Iraq's future. It is a little late to complain about the WMD lies.
Then you shouldn't have titled the thread "Iraq War: Thoughts". It should have been "Obama's speech: Thoughts" or "Iraq's future: Thoughts", but instead you open up the thread by pointing fingers and playing the blame game.
It is also worth pointing out that YOU are the one that mentioned/complained about the "WMD lies" first...as a matter of fact, you mentioned it in the opening post...and you used "WMDs" as a tag for the thread.
Am I missing something here?
Anthony, other than what I just pointed out, I am not even going to get involved in this one. I have learned my lesson and don't feel like wasting my time. I just thought it was funny how the OP doesn't want to talk about what his (nearly) entire thread was based on.
Regards
Obama made a safe speech. We are still in Iraq, just under a different name. The draw down has been off loaded to Afghanistan, which will provide even less returns.
What should happen? Keep 50K troops in Iraq to train and prop up the govt. Require the Iraq govt to pay us for our services and keep a force of 50K in Afghanistan to conduct recon and random, focused strikes. The goal in Afghanistan should be to secure the major cities and let the country side do what it wants.
Problem with the USA is we do all this crap to help other countries and get nothing in return. How many billions have been spent in Iraq to build power plants and schools yet no money is repaid to us. They have ample funds from their oil, I think we should get reimbursed.
How about the US military patrol the shipping lanes to protect countries from pirates. Charge all shipping nations a security fee. Win win.
that's kind of an asshole thing to say. so what you are saying is: after we invade a sovereign country that poses no risk to our security, topple its rag-tag gov, kill/displace a bunch of innocent civilians along the way, and attempt to install a pro-US democracy (and fail to do so), THEN charge its new gov for security services.
and youre right. the US expends a lot of resources when we topple govs, install new govs, invade sovereign countries, displace and accidentally kill innocents etc etc. that is exactly why the US should stop invading countries. ...UNLESS there was no doubt that a US-back war would result in a balance-positive outcome for the american taxpayer.
not trying to call you out. but i dont why you said what you just said.
Yeah, I am pretty much an asshole. We liberated a country from a dictator that abused the oil for medicine program, who gassed kurds and who invaded two countries. We established a Democracy now pay up.
Honestly, the USA is an asshole no matter what they do. I say get paid. You think the Romans invaded shit for free. To the victor goes the spoils. You think the rest of the world would hates us less because we tried to do something good and took it up the ass? Freedom is only free when you don't have to fuel the jets to ensure your freedom.
Maybe if the USA started charging for the security having a world power brings people would stop crying for our help. How much did our little peace keeping mission in Haiti cost? How much did Bosnia cost? It's cool for the American people to pay, but not Iraq?
My solution ensures a balance outcome. I don't want all the oil, just enough to repay us for out gracious service.
Oh, another thing, the USA killed very few "innocent" people. It was Iraqi's blowing themselves up in crowded markets that killed all those people. The US military bends over backwards to not kill anyone who isn't an actual combatant. Suicide bombers don't really give a shit about that. Didn't Saddam used to stick Scuds in mosques and hospitals because he knew we wouldn't attack them? Yeah, exactly.
One evil dictator dead, one cruel regime in Afghanistan gone, not too bad. Roosevelt took out 3 dictators and we call him a hero. Bush took out 2 and he is the worst president. Oh how the times have changed.
but did you know saddam was put into power with help from the US? in the 50's iraq sided with russia during the cold war and the cia initiated a coup to put saddam and the ba'ath party into power. in exchange, the ba'ath party gave the us russian migs and tanks that they had in possession. the goal of the coup was to make sure iraq's newly installed gov would be a strategic ally.
and did you know that the US gave saddam those chemical weapons he used against the kurds and iranians? did you know that the US supported iraq's invasion of iran? did you know that under reagan, saddam's ba'ath party was the 3rd largest recipient of US assistance? and that hw bush doubled that aid? did you realize that that policy was supported by dick cheney, who was secdef at the time?
did you realize that when saddam invaded kuwiat, he thought he had implied support from the US bc he was supported by the US when he invaded iran?
when bush kept on mentioning 'weapons of mass destruction', could it be possible that the bush administration was really referring to saddam's stock pile of chemical weapons that they gave him? could it be a possibility that what they really feared was that an unpredictable rogue dictator had influence over a region that is strategically significant to US interests (oil)?
did you realize that US foreign policy was this fucking stupid?
Looks, to me, like you just justified the whole entire conflict.
We put him in power and armed him...he stopped playing by the rules/was no longer an asset, so we took him out.
Actually sounds rather reasonable once you point out how responsible the US was for the situation.
The bottom line is this: The United States of America can't win in the eyes of the world. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Of course, it is always easier to Monday morning quarterback a situation than it is to be the guy making the decisions in the heat of the moment.
Also, Saddam was not a rational person...I would think the pain he inflicted and deaths he caused would make that easy to realize, but maybe not.
Please tell me more about this free health care some of you speak of. The only health care proposals I have seen cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars. I think most people would definitely support something that was "free".
Anthony, sorry you've had to endure this practically solo...it's getting way too tiresome for me to continually inject myself into these types of debates. The OP's initial post tells me from the get-go that he has made up his mind and has an agenda for the post. Like most liberals, they love to shoot holes in things but don't offer viable solutions...just "oh, I wouldn't have done it that way".
The irony/hypocrisy contained in their "points" are mind boggling. Often, these are the same people that want to dole out taxpayer dollars to support people who don't work because they are "in need" but piss in moan that the US is overseas establishing stable governments and civil rights for millions of people who have never had them. They scream about how things aren't fair and how they should be and then demand that we equalize things by taking more from a certain demographic...or in the case of the SATs, they give to a certain demographic. They cry for complete observation and compliance of the US Constitution, except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment...then we need to decide if "arms" really meant assault rifles and armor penetrating ammunition and whether or not the term "militia" really meant the National Guard or the general public. They rally for a minority who was "brutally murdered" by the cops, but conveniently forget to mention that he broke into a house, raped and beat a young mother at gun point and then lead the police on a high speed chase through neighborhoods, ramming police cars and jeopardizing the safety of the general public.
It is all about convenience for these people and the list goes on, endlessly.
Good luck dealing with these folks.
Regards
Yup. US always makes short term policy decisions based on its self interest (rarely ever truly in the name of spreading democracy, defeating dictatorships, and humanitarian aid.
We wanted Afghanistan to beat the Soviet Union in the 1980s so we trained a group of the muhajideen partially led by this guy named Osama Bin Laden... and look where we are today...
Maybe Saddam didnt have WMDs, but the dude had already invaded other countries, killed, tortured and displaced his own people, and had an anti-American attitude. How long do people think it would've taken him to start acquiring WMDs? How long before he starts fully supporting Al-Qaeda? Fact of the matter is this--Saddam was an unpredictable, extremist, brutal dictator who would have attacked the U.S. at the drop of a hat given the chance. The actions taken against him not only liberated the people of Iraq, but pre-empted any possible threat to the U.S. It's much harder to plan an attack thousands of miles away when the enemy is at your doorstep. Say what you want, but Bush (and Obama), along with our troops, have prevented any additional attacks on US soil.
I, for one, am very grateful for that.
Ibinitx, Saddam would not have supported Al Qaeda or attacked the USA. Saddam was a rational individual. He wanted to LIVE. For example, American troops did not find him holed up in a palace with a gold AK-47 in each hand; they found him cowering in a hole because he was afraid to of the inevitable fate that would befall his criminal ilk. Had Saddam actually sponsored an attack against America, he would have been obliterated.
Ibinxt,
Also no way Saddam would have supported Al queda or extremist fundamentalists. These organizations existed for far longer than his regime, and he had snubbed them for quite so time. In fact, in comparison with the rest of the middle east under him Iraq was very secular. Many of his policies were far from the religious right, ie. giving woman many added freedoms, western style legal system, and abolishment of the Sharia. In comparison with the rest of the middle east this was a very religiously liberal regime.
Now don't get the wrong idea, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am defending his actions or the sort, but to say that he was close to teaming up with AL-Queda or fundamentalist terrorists is far from the truth. His politics certainly did not represent anything close to what the fundamentalists so rigidly believe in.
Here is my huge beef. America gets called out for our real politik all the time. We are always doing shit that makes us look like hypocrites in the eyes of the world. Yes, things would of been better for us had Saddam stayed in power. It is in America's best interests to see the people of the Middle East enslaved and ruled with an iron fist. Problem is we are supposed to be the bright, beacon of light when it comes to freedom and Democracy. We stood up for the people of Iraq. This was never an occupation, we wanted out as soon as possible. All we wanted was to make things fair, to have free elections, to have these people live like us. End of the day we gave this great gift to a nation of ingrates. They fight over century old feuds, kill anyone who helps us, indiscriminately blow people up and cause us to be there longer than we wanted.
I truly think the ME is not ready for Democracy. I don't like Obama, but I accept that he is my President. That wouldn't happen in the ME. If a gay man was elected people would be dying. Suicide bombers, all kinds of shit. God, we cannot even make fun of Mohammed in this country without fear of death. It is so sad when the day comes where people wish for a cruel dictator over their own freedom.
Even if he wasn't a direct threat, he was still a threat to stability in the Middle East, which considering the circumstances, was very important at the time. It's not like Bush suddenly said, "This guy seems dangerous." The guy was a problem ever since the Gulf War. Anyone remember Operation Desert Fox? Clinton bombed him. Regarding Al-Qaeda, he may not agree with them, but do you really think there is "no way" he would give them help attacking the U.S. should they ask for some money under the table or something? Maybe not, who knows, but you certainly can't rule it out. He was secular for the region, but nothing compared to the West. Once the US comes into play, an enemy could easily become a friend.
Look, I'm no expert on what went on, and probably nobody (or at least only a select few highly classified individuals) knows all the true details. But every president since 1990 has considered him a serious threat, and so did a decent portion of the world when they joined the war. All I know is he's gone, and the Middle East is a better place for it.
And I feel you Anthony, but you gotta start somewhere. It will have to be a very long process no doubt. Gotta get rid of the corruption so the govt can do its job. Obviously a huge task too, but supposedly it runs rampant in Iraq and Afg.
The speech was..... useless and informative. It seemed like addressing the whole "wartime president duty" thing is really cramping his style. The Iraq war should've never happened, I agree. Cool, we get it op, you don't like GW, gold star for your data mining from the Daily Show. You made John Stewart proud. That rant about the Bush thing was a complete and utter fucking red herring. Yeah Bush and crew fucked up, now it's Obama's mess. I am sick to fucking death of all this "Oh it wasn't his fault, don't blame him blah blah....." shut the fuck up, go cry to moveon.org. Obama needs to learn to fucking deal, this is the job he paid so much for. Obama OPENLY & WILLING signed on to the wars in the ME. If he didn't realize that, he's 10x the dumbass Bush ever was. IT WAS HIS PROBLEM THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE & AS A GOOD PRESIDENT HE SHOULD'VE BEEN READY.
I think both parties blow, and almost voted for obamy, but I think he has been a shit president. YTD deaths have in Afghanistan contributed 36.8% of the total deaths in the wars. I think he has absolutely no fucking clue what's going on or doing, even more so I don't think he gives two shits about the troops much less winning the war; maybe even America. What's to gain in Afgan? Nothing. They could fight this war for another 100 yrs they way they are, and won't gain a thing. Why are we there then? Simple, because losing wars is giant kick in the dick to a election campaign which is THE ONLY THING OBAMA CARES ABOUT, getting re-elected (just like any other politician).
I absolutely detest the way Obama's acted and carried himself as the president. I don't have a problem with his social plans. I'd love to see everyone get health care for free, inner city schools have books that don't turn to dust when to turn the page, gays to throw a rainbow sticker on the back of their tank, and all that other flowery shit (sincerely). But this isn't 1999. We don't have a surplus, people can't get loans, and are guys are coming back from some dirt shithole in body bags left and right.
First, Obama actually campaigned on increasing the scope of the war in Afghanistan. You can get pissed at the decision, but Obama announced his plans for Afghanistan at multiple rallies. He was in between a rock and a hard place. The previous administration had no Afghanistan strategy; they did not fix the infrastructure, train the police, train the army or even respond to the resurgence of the Taliban. To some degree, the war in Afghanistan is America's war. If he leaves immediately, the political establishment give him so much shit when the Taliban takes over Kabul, kills everyone we worked with and commits human rights abuses. It would have become an even bigger haven for terrorists than it was before.
I am not making excuses for him, and I know that Obama's desicion was the apex of cowardice, but you have to recognize that the costs to American prestige and safety would have been huge.
How is it going to be any different in a year, 5 yrs, 2000 when they leave? Alexander the great didn't call Afghanistan the "burial ground of empire's," for nothing. There's nothing to be won there. The Taliban are going to be there n+1 to the US. So only thing that's going to be different is the amount of dead Americans. Guys are literally dying for Obama's campaign.
It's like a bad credence song coming to life.
No doubt that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who gassed the Kurds back in the 80s and mistreated his own citizens who disagreed with him.
Yet what is it that causes us to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people there but ignore other dictators who do the same to their people (think Bao Dai of Vietnam, Idi Amin of Uganda, Pinnochet of Chile)
The Al-Qaeda WMD sharing theory can't work because it's a well known fact that Osama Bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein to be an "apostate" and that their basic ideologies greatly differed from one another. This is also overlooking the fact that at least under Hussein's rule, no terrorist organizations were going to be running around his country.
But Saddam Hussein potentially had WMDs.... Ok. But how would he deliver nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons halfway around the world without possessing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). This is also besides the fact that anyone who's read the declassified assessments could almost see pretty clearly that his "centrifuges" were actually rockets.
And maybe the Middle East is better off without him...... and Iran thanks us for eliminating its neighbor to the west so now it can focus on its own nuclear proliferation...
I like how the OP makes makes inflammatory statements and fingerpoints at the Bush administration yet doesn't want to "start a debate" when others pose a logical rebuttal. What a douchebag.
You obviously have never been to Iraq nor have you heard so many people thank you for giving them freedom. Many of us on this board have. You clearly have no idea about the sentiment of the people so STFU
Ok, I simply cannot take it. Obama is making an even worse decision then Bush did.
Afghanistan is primordial. You aren't talking about nation building, you are talking about being God and starting from scratch. In the year 2010 the majority of afghans are living worse than Native Americans were living when we came and stole their land. You would think osmosis would have happened and they would be sorta developed. Afghanistan is nothing more than a huge training operation. We can use that country as a special forces development zone and once the mineral rights are identified we can fly in US mining companies and start draining them dry, all under the protection of the US military.
Iraq is a wonderful country. It has major cities, power plants, prime location. The place is a mess right now because we finally found a country with more inept politicians than our own. They have BOAT LOADS of cash and can't figure out what to do with it. Iraq could very easily become an amazing nation, very quickly and with minimum effort. Hence why we should be there. Bush realized that Afghanistan was the bait to get Americans involved. Iraq is the real prize.
Obama should reduce troops in Afghanistan, center them around the cities and strike at high value targets whenever they want. You cannot put enough boots on the ground to subdue that type of territory and people. Iraq is another story. Why we are ditching a country that has been having elections, has seen violence drop, has a trained military and police to go to caveman time in Afghanistan is simply because it makes Obama look different. In reality it makes him look like a retard.
I am an epic war hawk and I am telling you, we are going to get ass raped in Afghanistan. Zero chance to do shit there. The Russians were as cruel as you can be and they still couldn't subdue those people. Unless we used VX gas on the entire country Afghanistan will never be peaceful or civilized (according to western standards).
Guys -
I have been trying to figure this out for a while...
What happens to these troops when they come home? Are they still employed by the government, or are they going to be looking for jobs too?
They're still employed by whichever branch they enlisted with. Whether Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force. When they're deployed overseas they receive a deployment bonus of up to $40,000. (Seems like a lot but no one does it for the money... risk/reward definitely not there)
For those who decide they've had enough of the military... then yes... they'll be out looking for civilian jobs and will get assistance from Veterans Affairs and other such military alumni orgs out there
Yes, I know Saddam was supported by the USA. Rumsfeld met with him years ago. Saddam did not think the US supported him, he just thought the USA wouldn't get involved. Two wrongs don't make a right. We were wrong in supporting him in the first place.
Why did he have all the pictures of his kids in the background? Lame.
danjay72
When active duty troops get back home they return to their duty stations (places like Ft. Bragg, NC, Ft. Hood, TX, Ft. Drum NY) and resume their stateside duties, training until the next deployment (the training can get pretty intense if budgets permit). Reservists and National Guard guys just go back to their homes and jobs, and resume their one-weekend-a-month training, until the next deployment.
I would argue that A LOT of these guys do it for the money. Enlisted men do great for guys without high school degrees. My friends from the Army are sticking it out for the pension and the good wages (once you factor in allowances for housing and food and free medical care and the pension, which is 50% after 20 years).
Hussein wanted to start peddling his oil in Euro's only and was attempting to motivate the Arab world in general to go that route. We ain't havin' dat. To put it eloquently and succinctly. Funny, how kids still believe in the fairy tales on TV. Geopolitcs ain't about saving people or doing the right thing.
Midas, would it have mattered where he was peddling his oil? Wouldn't it still be dominated in dollars?
You mean "denominated"?. Yes, but life doesn't only occur in the blink of an eye or the span of a lifetime. If you control something you don't allow competitors into the game. Middle Eastern oil is America's blood prize. Not something fine folks want to address or discuss, but we live in liberal idiot times and the essence of issues is ignored while platittudes are thrown forth as logic. America's policy towards the Middle East has been uniform and will stay this way. Thinking party affiliation has anything to do with policy shows a lack of fundamental understanding. This "war" was fought for results to be felt 50/100 years down the road and for America's interests it was the right move and the smart move.
Not exactly. If Saddam established an echange for Iraqi Oil, and decided to accept Euro's only for payment he could. Iraq produces a significant portion of the worlds oil supply. If Sadam did that and was allowed to get away with it, how long before OPEC as a whole decided to do it? It's not like the member countries of OPEC are our best friends. Go back and look at who was saying what back then. America and non EU countries formed the "coalition of the willing". The European old guard, like France and Germany, both leading economies in the EU, were publicly belittling some of the smaller eastern European countries for joining in. Who was one of the biggest benefactors in Iraq's oil for food program? The French were, and how convient that they were one of the loudest detractors.
Seriously, why do you think Iran or Venezuela are a problems now? They are thinking about trading their oil in Euro's. Like Deepthroat told Woodward and Bernstein all those years ago: Follow the money!!!
The USD is the defacto global reserve currency and ANY attempts to change that, especially by some two bit dictator aren't going to go over well.
None of this is about democracy or any of that crap. Sadam got out of line, again, and was trying to to do too much. He could have sat there in Iraq till his death and we wouldn't have have gave two shits about it, see Castro and the Other guy in North Korea. Every now and then we would fire a few crusie missles at him, just to remind him we are still there, but he would be alive now. Sure, he would have been confined to Iraq only, but he would still be running it with an iron fist.
Sadam wouldn't have meesed with Al-Qeda either b/c the LAST thing he wanted were religious fundamentalists operating in his country. He was not a believer, just an oppurtunist that had the right connection. The Iraq/Iran war was just another proxy fight between the U.S. and Russia same as Afghanistan in the 80's was. America and the Soviets would never take each other on directly, but neither would miss the chance to piss in the others corn flakes if given the oppurtunity.
Here is a clip from a website that goes a little more indepth about the Oil in Euros thing. Now I would normally vet a site before quoting it, but I didn't in this case. So I am not sure what kind of bat shit crazy they have, but this article makes sense:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
Oil is not just by far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies. If you don't have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars - the US.
If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.
The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily endebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East's main trading partner. And nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart, of course, from oil. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert their dollar assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in Euros, their assets would immediately increase in value, since oil importing countries would be forced to also convert part of their assets, driving the prices up. For OPEC, backing the euro would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. They could then at some later date move to some other currency, perhaps back to the dollar, and again make huge profits.
I dont understand people that say that you can win a war... there are no real true winners in wars as both sides are bound to have casualties and waste tax payer money. To me, project Iraq had a negative NPV, the US lost a lot of money and international credibility.
I personally think the big mess is in Afghanistan if we talk in terms of terrorism eradication in the area (if thats even remotely possible...) Terrorist cells can easily fund their operations with the opium crops. They also have a quite big uneducated population in the country that can easily be recruited.
Correction: the Iraq war has cost the American citizen, 3 TRILLION dollars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR20100…
The benefit is not even close to the costs.
Could you outline what the "benefits" should be that could either, ultimately justify a war/conflict or give us a good enough return on our investment so that you would be less inclined to complain?
Regards
What do you mean? Invariably, when rational people act, the benefits of their actions should exceed the costs. We all do this; deciding to drive into Manhattan or take the Path, eating a snickers bar or to eat an apple and many other simple decisions that we make during the course of our days all are the result of this mental calculus. In regards to the subject of this thread, the benefits of the Iraq war are nonexistent. While I don't expect you to be able quantify to the nearest dollar the benefit of the war in Iraq, I would at least expect you to ATTEMPT to come up with some benefit over the past 7 years that matches the explicit costs of the invasion and occupation. Bush sycophants will just trip over themselves by saying, "they threw roses at our Humvees, we got rid of a bad dictator, blah, blah". It is all garbage and just shows that Republicans have the most unreasonable views of foreign policy. There was no return on investment. This is not very hard to understand.
The only time when Americans should be put in a position where they can be killed or maimed ( and thus force taxpayers to fund their healthcare and families in perpetuity) is when there is a imminent threat to the USA. The Iraq simply did not meet this criteria.
What is this "cost" shit as If the USA simply stacked 3 trillion dollars in a huge pile and burnt the money. That 3 trillion went into US soldiers pockets, defense contractors that employed US citizens, firms that used US produced goods, etc. While I am not debating that the money might have been I'll spent or that it is a huge burden that needs to be repaid I think it is wrong to imply that the money had zero benefit to this country. War is another form of government spending and stimulus.
A ullam maiores aperiam repellendus et quaerat rerum autem. Cum unde soluta ut et eaque perferendis.
Tempora odio excepturi unde quaerat. Repellat sunt et qui consequuntur quibusdam amet. Aut vel neque reprehenderit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quas vitae minima adipisci aut dolor accusamus. Commodi ea aliquid dolore.
Corporis nihil quam eligendi vel architecto. Quia assumenda distinctio dolores inventore quia.
Et eum corrupti nihil quod excepturi. Aliquid praesentium occaecati quo et officia est ab. Earum voluptates et et optio fugit ullam perferendis. Aut perferendis sit eveniet in aut accusamus. Ipsum rerum molestias adipisci repellat. Autem dolores id alias ab voluptatem odio. Molestiae consequatur perspiciatis asperiores non ullam ipsum tempora sapiente.