Posted on 04/12/2006 1:08:31 PM PDT by dmanLA
Naive? I am mearly pointing out that the strawman arguement, promoted by the left, that Bush made his entire reason for war as a full arsenal of WMD's ready as an emminent danger, is a shallow and undetailed vision of the recent history. They like that arguement as Saddam had buried, squirreled away, dispursed and played shell games with the UN so that only modest amounts of items were found post-invasion. Therefore, it can be knocked down and all sorts of hidden agenda issues can be trumped up and offered in its place with little proof.
I actually like the sincerity of a later statement to the point in his next State of the Union Speech:
Some have said that we must not act until the threat is imminent…. If this threat is permitted to full and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.— George Bush, 2003 State of the Union speech
I left out a whole lot more than that. The list is endless. What is truth is that we lost the will to kick a$$ and take names. GB has the will to do what it takes. Time will tell if that will leaves with him or remains behind in the next POTUS.
"Peak oil" theory ... sort of the liberal version of Y2K.
It could serve as a major reason to take out a leftist government in Mexico just as easily.
"Protecting the US dollar could be a major reason to take out Iraq. Currently, the dollar is backed by a 9 trillion dollar indebted government. Sounds pretty flimsy to me."
____________________________________________________________
here's the fix....
http://www.nesara.us/pages/history.html
But Iraq is a better strategic place in the War on Terror to liberate people.
I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but, IMO, the best way to evaluate whether or not the U.S. is over-leveraged is to look at how the market prices our currency and debt (public and private) in general. Considering that interest rates are still quite low by historical comparison, I would suggest that the investing public has quite a lot of confidence in the U.S. economies ability to grow and pay off that debt (and do so without creating a surge in inflation).
I would further suggest that going to war for complex economic reasons in today's interconnected world would be difficult to support because it would difficult to have predict the outcome. If anything, a war could scare the heck out of investors and cause a steep decline in the DJIA et al and cause an outflow of international investment.
Long story short, I think this article advances a naive POV...but I still think is interesting because it makes us think.
I think Missler may be reading more into this than he needs to. If the United States if fulfilling some prophecy in regard to our presence in Iraq, then I think it is silly to presume that there are any sinister motives involved by our government. If this is the will of God (as it would be if this is a fulfillment of prophecy) then the motives of the players are irrelevant. The only motive that would matter would be the motive of God in setting these events into motion.
If this is prophecy fulfillment, then whether or not Bush is trying to do something wonderful or sinister, the course of events is being directed by God, so our involvment in Iraq was going to take place whether it was because of a search for WMD's or an attempt to control the oil of the world. I would be more than willing to give Bush and company the benefit of the doubt. If we wanted to control all of the oil in the Middle East, all we had to do back in 1990 was to put out the oil fires in Kuwait and tell the Kuwaitis to pound sand. We didn't. We bailed them out and fixed their wells and allowed them to sell us their oil at market prices.
Sorry for the garbled syntax in my last post to you...I am bleary-eyed from a long day at work. Sloppy rewrite on my part!
http://www.nesara.us/pages/history.html
That didn't really turn out that well, did it?
It's this kind of thing from guys like Missler that really trouble me. He should know better. He has bought into the a conspiracy theory on the flimsiest of reasons.
Who says the US will flop if the Euro supplants the dollar?
How does a trade deficit bankrupt a nation? Where do all those European oil companies get oil if the US won't let them have any, and Europe doesn't have any? How do they stay in business?
The whole thing is ignorant.
And it ignores the most obvious fact of all.....and for this I have to question Missler's motives.
What about the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11? Was that a figment of my imagination? Is Missler going the route of Moore who had to conclude that America was responsible for that, too, as part of some great conspiracy?
Isn't there someone someplace who can tell that we attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor because of the attack at Pearl Harbor?
If so, shouldn't it make sense that we attacked world terrorists and their supporters after 9/11?
Missler needs to take a vacation and get his head back on straight.
I was hoping it would be recognized for sarcasm. LOL.
If you read the whole article it is clear that Missler is merely speculating on the reasons. He is attaching a motive to the consequences which would be a logical fallacy. The fact of the matter is that the stated reasons for going into Iraq were sufficient in and of themselves for military action and any any suggestion that the ancillary benefits to the US or coalition forces (such as oil contracts or the strengthening of currency) were a critical part of the equation is simply speculation. I think Missler harms his own reputation when he ascribes sinister motives to our entry into the war.
Missler has harmed his reputation with this political claptrap.
I'm seriously disappointed in him.
It's like running into a man who formerly had great abilities, who has suddenly succumbed to senility. You feel sorry for him and wonder where all those great abilities disappeared to.
He sounds like all of those Dallas Seminary guys that were predicting the end during the first Gulf War. Their search for elusive relevance in all the wrong places like Pat Robinson and Falwell in politics just makes it harder to warn about preparedness for the end times. Missler becomes the straw that breaks Ice's back in the debate with DeMar.
My prediction is that the end will come when everyone has pretty much given up the idea that the end is near.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.