This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Instead of Fixing the U.S. Economy or Creating Jobs for AMERICANS, Obama Will Spend The Money in Afghanistan and Iraq
America is in the most severe unemployment crisis since - and perhaps including - the Great Depression.
And
yet Obama, like Bush, has done virtually nothing to create more jobs.
Instead, they both gave trillions to the biggest banks (who are not
loaning it out to the little guy) and for waging wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Obama is apparently escalating - not ending - the wars. And its not cheap.
According to the White House, the cost of deploying new soldiers to Afghanistan could be $1 million per soldier. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.
As I have previously pointed out, protracted war increases unemployment, shrinks the economy, and causes recession. See this, this and this.
But deficits don't matter, right? Wrong.
But We Had No Choice ... We Had to Fight Those Wars
But - you may say - we had no choice, we had to fight those wars because of 9/11.
Well, top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change long before 9/11. In fact, they say that regime change was advocated one month after Bush took office:
The
chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told
investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were
pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11
attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally
announced the Iraq war.
Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at
the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed at the
time that measures against Iraq were failing: "sanctions, an incentive
to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to
return, and the 'no fly' zones over the north and south of the country."
Ricketts
also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in
Iraq, asserting that the British weren't supportive of the idea at the
time.
***
The head of the British Foreign Office's Middle East
department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was
aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration
shortly after they took office in 2001.
"In
February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and
internally we discussed it," Patey said. "Our policy was to stay away
from that."
The Brits previously revealed that intelligence and purported facts of Iraq's weapons programs were "fixed around" the pre-set policy of invading Iraq.
It's not just the Brits.
Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted "crap" in its justifications for invading Iraq.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11.
Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake. For example, the number 2 Democrat in the Senate, who was on the Senate intelligence committee, admitted that the
Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush's
public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. And if the committee
knew, then the White House knew as well.
The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false, and yet the White House made those claims anyway.
Cheney was largely responsible for generating fake intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the war. For example:
- Falsified
documents which were meant to show that Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime
had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney
And see this.
And you may have heard that the Energy Task Force chaired by Cheney prior to 9/11 collected maps of Iraqi oil fields and potential suitors for that oil. But you probably don't know that a secret document
written by the National Security Council on February 3, 2001 directed
the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it
considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy:
“the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as
Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and
gas fields”.
In other words, it is difficult to brush off
Cheney's Energy Task Force's examination of Iraqi oil maps as a
harmless comparison of American energy policy with known oil reserves
because the N.S.C. explicitly linked the Task Force, oil, and
regime change. Indeed, a former senior director for Russian, Ukrainian,
and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. said:
If
this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts
the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry
sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.
(and see this).
Cheney's
role in getting the U.S. into unnecessary military confrontations is
not new. According to former high-level intelligence officer Melvin
Goodman, during the Ford administration, Cheney orchestrated
phony intelligence for the Congress in order to get an endorsement for
covert arms shipments to anti-government forces in Angola.
And in the 1970's, Cheney was instrumental
in generating fake intelligence exaggerating the Soviet threat in order
to undermine coexistence between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which
conveniently justified huge amounts of cold war spending. See also this. This scheme foreshadowed Mr. Cheney's role in generating fake intelligence in Iraq by 30 years.
And Cheney was the guy who directed all counter-terrorism activities in 2001 and who directed the U.S. response on 9/11, accidentally allowing hijacked planes to fly all over the place, and perhaps - as implied by Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta - to slam into the Pentagon (confirmed here). Heck of a job, Dick ...
The government also apparently planned the Afghanistan war before 9/11 (see this and this).
But
you don't even have to even think about all of the complex facts
discussed above. It's really simple: when asked to specify exactly why
we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama cannot really
explain why we are still there.
(It's also simple because the top bipartisan experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this).
The Wars Are Unnecessary and Are Killing the Economy
Bottom
line: The wars are unnecessary, and they are draining resources which
could be used to reduce unemployment and help the economy.
Note: This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, calling for regime change in Iraq. And Obama is escalating wars started by the previous administration.
- advertisements -
Why is it that so many smart people read this blog but refuse to see that there are approx 200 million Wahhbi Muslims (Pew Poll) who want to kill us just for not being Muslim? That is a sizable minority of the Muslim community but all the Ron Paul types here prefer to stick their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes, and scream "na na na I can't hear you" when confronted with this fact. If you believe taking every last soldier from every base in the world back to the USA would solve all the worlds ills I have swamp land in South Georgia I would like to sell you.
Why is it that so many smart people turn a blind eye to the permanent and irrevocable debt enslavement projected onto the American people which our founders vehemently warned us against in the precise manner in which they have been wraught upon us. Our founders warned against the welfare entitlement state, the powers of the central government and the hellish costs associated with foreign interventionism. Only now are we witnessing the true costs of our lack of Jefferson's vigilance. We have spent $944 billion [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf] in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.
See http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081215.Cost_of_the_Wars_i/R.20081215.Cost_of_the_Wars_i.pdf
This is before the effects of the $515 billion defense budget to fund over 130 bases around the world. Spending $2.5 trillion for your protection is one thing when you have the money but we don't have any money. How much security would $2.5 trillion purchase here in America to secure our borders and strengthen our national security? Jefferson and Washington were both right. We should have stayed the hell out of the world's affairs.
A few observations:
1) Terrorism to me is, and always will be, an intelligence matter. You can never win a war against ideology.
2) War is a senseless waste of money and men. Wise men abhor war.
3) Protracted war squanders the wealth of the nation. A nation that squanders its wealth is seen as a fool.
The President has a choice. Peace or war. His fate is bound by the choices he makes. This is the test.
Mark Beck
My apologies. I was posting here thinking this was on the level. Then I went over to GWB and found out it's really a collection of crackpot conspiracy rants.
Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid the administration and media outlets are pumping.
I'm sure our government would never lie to us.
the war in afghanistan, iraq, and pakistan are the bush crime syndicate's legacy to amerika.....the oligarchs gave barry soetoro the presidency under the stipulation that he retain murderer gage and escalate the wars of imperial aggression......
the war in the middle east is in part an oil war but also a world domination war. it was predicated on the cia-fabricated al qaeda fantasy whose leader osama bin laden aka tim osman was a former business partner of baby bush. the entrails of enron lead to the wtc, carlyle group, bin laden, and the bushes....
the wtc was destroyed in a controlled demolition using military grade nanothermite invented at skandia labs c. 2000.....
www.ae911truth.org
the continued fighting proves that the kenyan born barry soetoro is a murderer and a blood sucking pig. that war serves absolutely no purpose but to kill americans and feed the blood and oil lust of the oligarchs....
the only terrorism in the world is created by the cia....look-up interviews about confessions of an economic hit man on youtube
In economics this post is tops, but in geo-politcal arguments you are way off base. Iraq is Vichy France is 42, you fight there becasue it is easy to resupply, and it takes the fight to the enemy where they are on our terms. Morally this is a questionable argument, but innocent people are going to die in a war, would you rather it be here or there? In bang for the buck, you killed a lot of terroist, for acceptable cost. Its war, and everyone who died is a tragedy, but how many where saved by the deaths of1000s of Jihadis? And if we do not police the world, who will? What amount of money would you be willing to spend to stop another Rhawanda, Serbia, or holocaust anywhere else in the world? Can you see dead bodies by the thousands and say, it cost to much to help them? The idea that we cannot engage militant Islam is false, they hate us for our books, movies, freedoms, dress, for who we are, and unless we are willing to change dramtically, they are driven by a religious imperative to force our change.
we're in afghanistan because the biggest threat on the globe right now is those nutjobs grabbing the 80-100 mobile nukes floating around Pakistan. Paki's government is weak and unstable at best. the military is calling the shots and half of them support the tali/al q complex and the other half are corrupt.
frankly, i am shocked that the taliban/al q crew haven't gotten a nuke or two yet. this is one of the greatest fears the obama foreign policy crew has. just think about it: what the fuck does the world look like if we wake up some morning and those guys are standing around a captured nuke?
Perhaps, but that situation could have been addressed years ago and "nurtured" with the proper amount of well placed support. But the US chose not to intervene with so much at stake. Why?
Because it would have fucked up the grand plan of an Afghanistan, Iran & Iraq transport & control corridor.
Is there any evidence at all, that us being in Afghanistan will prevent "them" from "getting a nuke?"
What exactly is our objective over there, and how will we know when we've reached said objective? Is it to drive out the Taliban? Stop them from getting a nuke? Or something else?
I want answers dammit.
The plan was all right.
The plan would've worked.
Boy, what is it
with you people?
You think not getting caught in a lie
is the same thing as telling the truth?
No. It's simple economics.
Today it's oil, right?
In 10 or 15 years-- food, plutonium,
and maybe even sooner.
What do you think the people
are going to want us to do then?
Ask them.
Now now. Then. Ask them
when they're running out.
Ask them when there's no heat
and they're cold.
Ask them when
their engines stop.
Ask them when people who have never
known hunger start going hungry.
Want to know something?
They won't want us to ask them.
They'll want us
to get it for them.
Last Act: "Three Days of the Condor"
Yet another reason to end the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan post haste is the potential threat they pose to Third Amendment rights in the event of, say, a collapsed economy and disintegrating society. But then, if I have correctly evaluated all of the information available to me, that would be one of the key points in continuing both conflicts.
Funny that all the pro war posts are "anonymous" today.
Better head over to GWB and see what they have over there.
Take a shot at this one too.
We're in the process of withdrawing from Iraq. And although it may seem expensive, there are a lot of discretionary expenses that are greater than the war effort in Afghanistan. I personally think that it's better to kill our adversaries overseas than have the killing go on here at home. And there is no doubt that Bin Laden&Co. will have a much freer hand to operate if we bug out of Afghanistan before nullifying the Taliban, and replacing the warlord/feudal system with one that is at least more republican (not the party) in nature; one where lawless operators can't flourish like before.
Now I respect the opinion of many folks here who believe that it's not worth it, in blood or treasure; but we've tried the domestic law enforcement approach and that failed miserably on 9/11/01...
We desperately need to reduce federal spending so that we can start paying the debt down, instead of racking it up. I would suggest the corporate welfare, discretionary spending, and the entitlements are a good place to start.
I rarely disagree with you George Washington, but Isolationism is not an option when our assymetric adversaries may overthrow Pakistan and get nuclear weapons of we emulate the national posture of the 20's and 30's. In an age of nuclear weapons there will simply not be the time to build up again like at the beginning of WWII.
With all due respect, I respectfully disagree.
Has anybody even SEEN Bin Laden in the last five or so years?
I bet he died, and they'd rather not tell us. It's better to keep the public wanting to chase shadows.
With all due respect, the top BIPARTISAN experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this.
Experts they may be, George. But your rhetoric doesn't match your actions with the Indians or with the Whiskey rebellion.
I agree GW. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan create an environment that encourages recruitment of trainee's and fosters more splinter groups.
Great post. You must read all the right publications.
I thought wars will get us out of Depression -- I mean recession.
A special thanks to the Long Legged Mack Daddy. Thank you for all this hope and change.
What is that URL for impeach Obama?
Gee I wonder why they planned to attack Al Qaeda before 9/11! That seems neeeefarious...!
Oh, wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing : p
That said, there's a whole lot of incompetent/corrupt bureaucrats opaquing WTF is going on in our government, and a military industrial complex that obviously prefers long, drawn out wars vs. short decisive ones.
But it doesn't help your case to exaggerate things. Things are bad enough presented factually, and slanting or spinning just provides wiggle room for the die-hard partisans.
Yes, perhaps. But Saddam HATED Al Qaeda and ALL Muslims! And speaking of 1993 ... hmmm ... interesting!
Bush's third term.
Why are we in Afghanistan?
Here's your clue:
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1487
Been under construction for over 15 years. Blackwater hired to guard it.
This project would be an auditor's dream no doubt.
34,000 more. I wonder what the composition will be? (Regular Army, Reservists, National Guardsman)
This is total bullshit. I support our service people everywhere they serve and pray for their safety. But this is a manufactured conflict created in the interest of the oil "cartel" and NEEDS TO END NOW.
And how do you suggest it be ended?
The "strategic unwinding" is a bullshit story spun to prolong the fighting.
If you want to debate, let's talk about the "rebuilding efforts" in Iraq. Let's talk about the amount of money spent and what has been accomplished. Very little. I was unfortunate enough to witness a small part of the corruption and theft that took place and continues to take place. It made me ill.
An incredible amount of waste. Let's clean it up, get the strategy right (we've got it for now in Iraq) and get it done.
If lining the pockets of contractors and military leaders with taxpayer money that was meant to be used for rebuilding infrastructure is what you refer to as "waste" lets put a stop to it.
Where in Iraq is the "strategy right"??????????
Don't get that one at all.
Pack up and leave
and go back someday. to face a smarter and more emboldened enemy.
Why go back? As long as they don't come here it's not our business how they live or what they think.
We'll go back because they'll come here. Again.
On magic carpets? Take a look at the Taliban, they are cave dwellers for the most part. But here is the thing that most chicken hawks don't get, the terrorists have already won. They have struck enough fear in the collective imagination to alter our way of life for many decades to come and we keep on handing them victory day after day by expending lives and treasure in their back yard.
You are incredibly ill-informed. "They" never came here to begin with. 911 was an inside job. Recent evidence shows that all dust samples from the WTC contains thermate, a military grade of thermite used to purposely implode buildings, and only in the possession of the US Military. You have bought into the scam hook, line and sinker. Your's is the ignorance that those in power manipulate.
Because all these anonymous Hawks still think it is our job to go around policing the world. Especially if it is in our best economic interest.
This strategy is arrogant, has not worked and will not work in the future. It is no longer affordable. Defecit spending to run wars is losing strategy.
Why?
Yes, in his December 1st telecast, Obama is reported to be ready to announce a 34,000 troop escalation for the aggression in Afghanistan/Pakistan. This is an outrage, of course, and finds its origins - as did the aggression in Iraq - in multiple cesspools, namely the natural gas interests, the munitions industries and - you guessed it - our AIPAC friends, always willing to see American blood spilled so as to make the world safe for Israel.
Obama is just a disaster as president. I mean it isn't that you didn't know it would happen this way, we were forewarned. But really, is there any promise he's made that he hasn't gone back on, any Bush policy he hasn't either followed-up or intensified? At this point, the man is just as transparent as window glass, and just as vacuous. All the paper mache decorating his public presentation has come off and he appears nothing more than a willing vessel for filling-up by every weasel and snake in Washington, D.C. He's simply the Charlie McCarthy to the ruling clique's Edgar Bergen.
One day, hopefully soon, Washington, D.C will be awash in a sea of angry faces. And there will be nationwide strikes that will bring the economy to a standstill. Then an army of the unemployed and the foreclosed upon - the little people whose interests have always been hijacked so as to benefit the vermin that run this country - will see to the definition of the word "change".
Why is it that so many smart people read this blog but refuse to see that there are approx 200 million Wahhbi Muslims (Pew Poll) who want to kill us just for not being Muslim? That is a sizable minority of the Muslim community but all the Ron Paul types here prefer to stick their fingers in their ears, cover their eyes, and scream "na na na I can't hear you" when confronted with this fact. If you believe taking every last soldier from every base in the world back to the USA would solve all the worlds ills I have swamp land in South Georgia I would like to sell you.
1. I used to have that picture on my wall when I was like 19.
2. Do you think that they could ride their camels across the ocean to attack us if they wanted to?
9/11 was committed by 20 guys with BOXCUTTERS.
It's not like we're fighting somebody who even has a real ability to attack us in the first place.
I'm with you, and I have a solution.
If there's a US military base on foreign soil, then don't just need their permission to stay there: They need to PAY US for our protection.
And if they don't, and we have to go back in because they have a problem, then they have to pay DOUBLE.
Think of it like a privatised fire department. If you don't pay them, they don't put your house out when it catches fire.
I have a better question: What is the basis and fact supporting your post??
Clearly increasing security domestically in the US would cost less and create jobs here. We do not need to be in Afghanistan.
The oil pigs want to control both the supply and means of transport in the middle east and they need Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran to do it.
They learned the hard way with Vietnam. The draft brought out the protestors. This time no draft, minimal or no protestors. The Govy's were scared in '68. They need to be scared again.
"Clearly increasing security domestically in the US would cost less and create jobs here. We do not need to be in Afghanistan."
Huh? Someone brutally murdered lots of innocent Americans. Your solution is... increasing security domestically?
"Someone brutally murdered lots of innocent Americans"
Which particular brutal murder are you refering to JW?
A group of 7 individuals comes to your house heavily armed intent on killing you and your family. You are somewhat prepared and you wound 2 of them, 5 run away.
Do you chase the 5 down the road intent on killing as many as possible? Or do you secure your premesis and call for reinforcements?
Easy answer to that. Button up the house. Call for reinforcements.
Keep the reinforcements in your house forever. Don't go out anymore. Pity your poor neighbors who are still vulnerable to the 5 that ran away.
Or just come over to your house. What are you having on Thursday?
Right, what I thought. Some cream of celery soup followed by some cherry antacids. Perfect for gutless pukes.
Your hypothetical is all wrong because it does not include zombies.