Posturing as Rescuers...Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning is At Hand

[Xavier_Onassis]

If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.

________________________________________________________
War is profitable only for a few. The US is already involved in as big a war as could be fought with a volunteer army. Profits for the chosen few are augmented with mercenaries and private contractors to the max.

[Plane]

<<Are these wars not done for profit and controll?

<<If War is profitable it would seem as if we need a big one now.>>

Too late for ya now, your Treasury is empty.  You can't afford to make war, you haven't even paid for the last two, and your credit is being assigned a new rating level: toxic.

So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?

[Amianthus]

Too late for ya now, your Treasury is empty.  You can't afford to make war, you haven't even paid for the last two, and your credit is being assigned a new rating level: toxic.

A number of other countries are loaning the US government money to help with the bailout. One I remember specifically is Australia, they're ponying up $10B. Germany was in for like $30B, IIRC. There are a bunch of others.

[Michael Tee]

<<So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?>>

Well, the Iraq War is obviously for oil, but I don't think they'll be able to wage any more wars like that.  Iran, for example, which has the fourth largest proven reserves in the world, they are going to have to walk away from and leave all that oil in Iranian hands.  The next big war will ruin them in the same way that WWI and WWII ruined the U.K. and France as dominant world powers, to the advantage of their creditors: the U.S.A. in their case, China in the U.S.A.'s case.

Incidentally another major consequence of the failure will be the growing influence of Iran in the region, both politically and militarily.  These guys, in terms of human rights issues, are exponentially worse than the Americans, so I don't regard this as any major benefit.  However, I do believe that the potential for improvement is much better in Iran than it is in the U.S.A.  The U.S. is a prisoner of its own militarism and incipient fascism, which seem to have a solid bipartisan foundation, whereas Iran is in a state of flux and new ideas ("change") have a better chance of establishing themselves.  I also don't count out the Tudeh, the former Communist Party of Iran, once very extensive and now underground, which I think (or hope) has infiltrated a lot of places, including the religious parties.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?
========================================

The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit, because the conquest of Iraq was done in such an incompetent way that it provboed a Shia-Sunni Civil War. This was not part of the Rummy/Cheney Plan. Only now, with oil at five times what it was in 2003, are the Iraqis beginning to get paid for their oil. The amount of graft is immense. The runup in oil prices all the way to an unsustainable $145 a barrel was done by the oligarchy in league with OPEC in order to make Iraq capable of paying for SOM of the huge cost of stabilizing that country. The idea that most events are determined entirely by the markert or are random chance occurrences is largely bogus.

[Plane]

So you no longer think that wars are for Oil or for profit?
========================================

The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit, because the conquest of Iraq was done in such an incompetent way that it provboed a Shia-Sunni Civil War. This was not part of the Rummy/Cheney Plan. Only now, with oil at five times what it was in 2003, are the Iraqis beginning to get paid for their oil. The amount of graft is immense. The runup in oil prices all the way to an unsustainable $145 a barrel was done by the oligarchy in league with OPEC in order to make Iraq capable of paying for SOM of the huge cost of stabilizing that country. The idea that most events are determined entirely by the markert or are random chance occurrences is largely bogus.

I think yuor cart wheels can't leave the ruts.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think your cart wheels can't leave the ruts.

+++++++++++++++++
I suggest that this is not an adequate rebuttal to what I said.

[sirs]

I suggest that it was

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that your response was even less worthwhile. Innocent electrons should not ever be called on to arrange themselves in such a moronic fashion.

[sirs]

I suggest a pot & kettle analogy is in order

[Plane]

I think your cart wheels can't leave the ruts.

+++++++++++++++++
I suggest that this is not an adequate rebuttal to what I said.

Well I don't know how to handle your self rebuttal while remaining steadfast to your preconceived notions .

Did you realise that you actually said this?

========================================

The war was obviously for profit, but there was no profit,

[Michael Tee]

The cart wheels/ruts comment was obviously of no value whatsoever as its only meaning was that XO had stayed with the same opinion on the subject without any change.  But so did plane.  So did Little Sir Echo.  It's meaningless to accuse one participant in a discussion of staying with his original arguments when the other participants have done the same thing themselves.  Even had the other participants NOT stayed constant to their original stated beliefs, it is meaningless to accuse anyone of never wavering - - that is EXACTLY what one would say to one who was in the right at the beginning and understandably never wavered from that position.

plane seems to find some contradiction in XO's claiming that the war was for profit but there was no profit.  WTF?   Every failed business in the world started out with the idea of making a profit and there was no profit.  How does the one negate the other?  It's a measure of the Bush administration's evil, stupidity and incompetence that they not only started a war for profit but were unable to turn a profit on the war they started.  How many ways are there to say "incompetent moronic schmucks?"

[Plane]

The cart wheels/ruts comment was obviously of no value whatsoever as its only meaning was that XO had stayed with the same opinion on the subject without any change.  But so did plane.  So did Little Sir Echo.  It's meaningless to accuse one participant in a discussion of staying with his original arguments when the other participants have done the same thing themselves.  Even had the other participants NOT stayed constant to their original stated beliefs, it is meaningless to accuse anyone of never wavering - - that is EXACTLY what one would say to one who was in the right at the beginning and understandably never wavered from that position.

plane seems to find some contradiction in XO's claiming that the war was for profit but there was no profit.  WTF?   Every failed business in the world started out with the idea of making a profit and there was no profit.  How does the one negate the other?  It's a measure of the Bush administration's evil, stupidity and incompetence that they not only started a war for profit but were unable to turn a profit on the war they started.  How many ways are there to say "incompetent moronic schmucks?"

Bush never said that there was a profit in it , XOs key word there was "obviously " .

Perhaps he ment "odviously"?

Because no one expected it to make money or become a colony except those who were critics of it , their illusions were odvious to no one not so biased.

[Michael Tee]

<<Bush never said that there was a profit in it , XOs key word there was "obviously " .>>

XO claimed the war was for profit or oil and you challenged him on it.  What difference would it make if Bush said there was a profit or not in it?  It was obvious whether or not Bush admitted it.  Obvious to anyone who could think his way through the childish and ridiculous assertions that Saddam Hussein and the tiny nation of 23 million Iraqis in any way posed any kind of threat to the U.S.A. with or without WMD.

<<Perhaps he ment "odviously"?>>

No, obviously he meant "obviously."

<<. . . no one expected it to make money or become a colony except those who were critics of it . . . . >>

But that's ridiculous, given all the circumstances, there was no other credible reason for the war and that was obvious to any thinking person.

<< . . . their illusions were odvious to no one not so biased.>>

They were logical and valid conclusions, not "illusions," and they were obvious to anyone who could think clearly and reason things out from plain, old-fashioned common sense.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'm afraid that the word is still spelled 'obviously'.

Juniorbush would not say that he invaded Iraq for oil, because that is basically theft. So he made up the WMD thing, and Saddam, who did not want Iran to know that he was basically naked and helpless, tried to fake that he did have some.It was a lie. Bush & Co. knew it was a lie, but it worked to their advantage, because he wanted an invasion, and 9-11 gave him the chance.