http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?...StoryID=1451813

>>
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's chief economic adviser [Lawrence Lindsey] estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion to wage an Iraq war, but doubts hostilities would push the nation into recession or sustained inflation, _The Wall Street Journal_ reported Monday.

....
In an interview in his White House office, Lindsey dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying it would not have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion, the _Journal_ reported.
....
<<

Like I said before, we do not have this kind of money to be spending chasing Saddam down.The U.S. Government is setting a bad example to Americans now regarding living within your means. Why instead can't we offer intelligence, and monetary support to any Iraqi people who want to do in Saddam, and let them do our dirty work????

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
Like I said before, we do not have this kind of money to be spending chasing Saddam down.The U.S. Government is setting a bad example to Americans now regarding living within your means. Why instead can't we offer intelligence, and monetary support to any Iraqi people who want to do in Saddam, and let them do our dirty work????

---

The U.S. can't afford to fight Adolph Hitler. Don't they know there's a Depression on? Can't we just lend-lease a few ships to Britain? When we can balance our budget, then we'll save Europe. Besides, we don't have any proof that there's an actual holocaust going on. Maybe we should just have a debate, instead.

$200 billion on Iraq??
Maybe its time for another tax cut too!!

This is not WWI. Europe is not threatened. A better analogy would be the many African nations which are regularly killing their own nationals who are of different ethnic origin, or Indonesia where murder of political foes is a campaign technique.

We are not going to war against either of them because we have insufficient economic and political interests there. Both Sudan and Indonesia have been sited as potential havens for fundamentalists as well.

Obviously there is more needed to explain the animosity toward Iraq at this time. One radio commentator on NPR this morning has finally said openly what many have been thinking:

The only plausible explanation for the sudden billigerence toward Iraq now is the upcoming elections here (USA) in November. If the issue subsides after the election and recurs before the presidential election, the theory may be proven. Of course by then it may not matter.

[quote] The U.S. can't afford to fight Adolph Hitler. Don't they know there's a Depression on? Can't we just lend-lease a few ships to Britain? When we can balance our budget, then we'll save Europe. Besides, we don't have any proof that there's an actual holocaust going on. Maybe we should just have a debate, instead.

---

I have heard it said that whatever the subject, the debate is over when one side or the other "plays the Nazi card". Usually the side that first evokes Hitler is the loser in the debate.

This line of thought is of course being expressed throughout the mainstream media right now. And it's utterly preposterous. Saddam Hussein is far too weak to threaten his neighbors, and has no means of acquiring the weapons to become a threat. Whatever weapons of mass destruction he does possess, he doesn't have the means to attack the U.S. or Britain with them. It appears that none of Iraq's neighbors feel particularly threatened either: even Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have expressed opposition to another Persian Gulf war. And certainly he is no more of a threat today than he was 13 months ago. There has been hardly a peep out of Saddam in the past year, which would seem to suggest that the strategy of containment is working.

It is wrong to categorize those who oppose another war on Iraq as spineless appeasers. It shouldn't surprise me, considering his record, but I still have a hard time believing that George W. Bush could be this reckless.

Bush needs to make a better case for this war. $ 200 billion is no small tab,and it should be an endeavour of tremendous proportion.

I think they are motivated to do this now for three reasons: (1) midterm elections are coming up and defense is only issue where the GOP has a clear edge (2) 43 is trying to clen up the mess 41 left behind (3) there is an advantage to running up federal deficits in that the powerful and wealthy are less affected and can retain their wealth. The Bushes are the guardians of the upper classes.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I have heard it said that whatever the subject, the debate is over when one side or the other "plays the Nazi card". Usually the side that first evokes Hitler is the loser in the debate.

---

"Godwin's Law"

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/ent...dwin's-Law.html

>>
Godwin's Law prov.

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
<<

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Bush needs to make a better case for this war. $ 200 billion is no small tab,and it should be an endeavour of tremendous proportion.

I think they are motivated to do this now for three reasons:

---

(1) Oil
(2) Oil
(3) Oil

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Sep14.html

>>
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum

By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
....
<<

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:


The U.S. can't afford to fight Adolph Hitler. Don't they know there's a Depression on? Can't we just lend-lease a few ships to Britain? When we can balance our budget, then we'll save Europe. Besides, we don't have any proof that there's an actual holocaust going on. Maybe we should just have a debate, instead.

---

Excellent post! Let's hold that debate at the new "Peace Studies Institute" to be built on the ruins of WTC. Professor Neville Chamberlain will conduct the Inaugural Lecture. What a profoundly moving experience it will be!

Ah, echoing the words of Poppy Bush! "He's worse than Hitler."

How the US Made Saddam (Newsweek): \"The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983...\"


Reagan hagiographer Peggy Noonan (a stopped clock showing the correct time):

\"'Saddam is evil' is not enough. A number of people are evil, and some are even our friends. 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' is not enough. A number of countries do...\"


The only madman who's used nukes so far was one who was invulnerable: Harry Truman.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

The Full Noonan, so to speak:

This is the year when the president and his advisors will or will not make the case, as they say, on Iraq. The president thinks a key part of the war on terror will be moving against Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq from his heavy hand. But if Mr. Bush is to make the case it will not be with emotional rhetoric, with singing phrases, with high oratory. It will not, in this coming cooler time, be made with references to evil ones. All of that was good, excellent and Bushian the past passionate year. But now Mr. Bush should think in terms of Sgt. Joe Friday. "Just the facts, ma'am."

"Saddam is evil" is not enough. A number of people are evil, and some are even our friends. "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" is not enough. A number of countries do. What the people need now is hard data that demonstrate conclusively that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which he is readying to use on the people of the U.S. or the people of the West.

If Mr. Bush has a good case, he will make it and the people will back him. If he does not, he will not convince the American people that blood and treasure must go to this endeavor. The people must believe, as Mr. Bush does, that their children are endangered. There was a time--I think it was Sept. 10, 2001--that Americans may not have been able to accept such an assertion. That time has passed.

Ms. Noonan, I believe, is not saying that Saddam's evil and his collection of weapons of mass destruction are not ample reasons to overthrow his sorry ass. What's she's saying is that Bush needs to move beyond these platitudes and lay out a factual case offering specific instances of evil and specific examples of Saddam's acquired weapons, with specific examples of how these weapons might be used to harm us or our fellow citizens. Whether or not he did that is up for debate, but let's not misunderstand or misrepresent what Peggy Noonan is saying here.

I wonder if this $200 billion was part of the "marketing" plan Andrew Card spoke about

[quote]The people must believe, as Mr. Bush does, that their children are endangered. There was a
time--I think it was Sept. 10, 2001--that Americans may not have been able to accept such
an assertion. That time has passed.

---

That is a critical point. Many leaders have accomplished agressive acts by convincing their followers that they are in imminent danger, regardless of whether they are.

The decision is truly up to us, and the integrity of the process we use to communicate our desires to our leaders - whether electoral, through the media, personal, etc.

I'm sure much of the world was relieved to learn that Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors. But now the U.S. is saying that this won't do. Despite his half-hearted gesture of making at least a pretense of working through the U.N., it is obvious that Bush wants war, not weapons inspections. In other words, he won't take "yes" for an answer. It seems that W. is pulling the same bait-&-switch on the U.N. that he pulled on the American people. First it's "war on terror & the hunt for Osama", then it's "weapons of mass destruction", then it's "regime change", then we're going to pick another country to "put a boot in their ass".

Is there anyone who can talk some sense into this moron?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
let's not misunderstand or misrepresent what Peggy Noonan is saying here.

---

And I didn't remotely do that. But the Front Man for the Oil Industry is like a parrot: "Evil evil evil evil evil..." This "dialogue" or alleged "making of the case" is purely for show.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I'm sure much of the world was relieved to learn that Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors. But now the U.S. is saying that this won't do.

---

To be fair, Iraq has agreed to this many times. But every time when it comes to actual enforcement, suddenly they have issues and conditions.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


And I didn't remotely do that. But the Front Man for the Oil Industry is like a parrot: "Evil evil evil evil evil..." This "dialogue" or alleged "making of the case" is purely for show.

---

Bill, you put up this quote . . .

"'Saddam is evil' is not enough. A number of people are evil, and some are even our friends. 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' is not enough. A number of countries do..."

. . . with absolutely no context from the orginal article. You insinuate through this quote that Peggy Noonan believes these are invalid arguments, and is therefore "a stopped clock showing the correct time." What she was saying is these are valid arguments that are still to simplistic and must be expanded upon, which Bush did at the UN. To take her writing out of context this way is at best a misunderstanding of what she was saying and at worst a misrepresentation in order to further the myth that Bush's plans for Iraq face significant opposition from the right. Why didn't you just trash Bush without bringing a nice lady like Peggy Noonan into it?
(Her Reagan book is fabulous, by the way.)

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
You insinuate through this quote that Peggy Noonan believes these are invalid arguments... What she was saying is these are valid arguments that are still to [sic] simplistic and must be expanded upon...

---

No, that simply is not what she says. Learn to read. This is my last reply to you, because life is too frigging short.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


No, that simply is not what she says.

---

Is too.

$200 billion seems to be close to the amount Fortune 500 CEO's have bilked out of investors the last few years.
What say Dubya hits his golf buddies up for the sum to pay for his personal vendetta that Pappa couldn't deliver?

And leave me out of his illiterate schemes!

Perhaps you've already seen this site?

A bit off-topic, but I love The Onion:

Bush Sends Troops to West Nile -- Operation Deep Desert Off! "... Bush maintains that the time to strike is now.

"We will hunt down and capture those who bring sickness and death to our shores," said Bush during a visit to the St. Louis home of Robyn Crist, 35, whose husband Dan was one of the first West Nile casualties. "Nothing can deter us from bringing down these bloodsucking anti-American parasites."

Bingo, DCBucky!!

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:


The U.S. can't afford to fight Adolph Hitler. Don't they know there's a Depression on? Can't we just lend-lease a few ships to Britain? When we can balance our budget, then we'll save Europe. Besides, we don't have any proof that there's an actual holocaust going on. Maybe we should just have a debate, instead.

---

Now Charlie, please tell me: what nation or nations is Iraq occupying or annexing or invading or conquering, as Hitler was when the U.S entered the war in 1941? Before 1939, Hitler had already sent German troops into the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936), marched into Austria (the Anschluss in 1938), and seized the Sudetenland of sovereign Czechoslovakia (also in 1938). AFTER 1939 he marched into Poland, and then declared war on and invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the western front of Russia.

Saddam has annexed ____? He has seized land from ____? He has launched an attack on _____? We have proof that he is planning to attack _____? Please fill in the blanks. When Saddam Hussein launched his war against IRAN, we helped to arm and support him. When in 1991 he INVADED KUWAIT, we promptly launched a successful counterattack that liberated that country and protected the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and other nearby nations.

If you and others are going to keep making these comparisons to Adolf (not Adolph, ADOLF) Hitler's actions from his assumption of the Chancellory through his defeat in 1945, please back them up with facts.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

We should send in UN-sanctioned inspectors, following an unconditional search and inspection script. They should be accompanied by a military component comprising UN-sanctioned troops. The inspectors would scour the country. IF Iraq makes ANY false moves, THEN send full-scale U.S./British troops in.

Hey fantomas, I actually agree with your plan; it's quite reasonable. But to expect reasonable behavior from someone as deranged and paranoid as Saddam Hussein is rather naive. Saddam has already imposed limits on the weapons inspectors, that they must limit their inspection to military installations. So now what?

BoSoxRudy, I hear you. We tell him that the UN inspectors w/ military forces have free reign for inspections or else. Make it that clear. Either you allow inspections of every facility, every underground tunnel, everything, or else you face the consequences. Much of the rest of the world would go along.

At the same time, we should also be sending far more troops to western Afghanistan, near its border with Iran. I have read in at least 4 different publications of Al Qaeda troops regrouping in eastern Iran, and they have the protection of the mullahs there. Moreover, the warlords in western Afghanistan are not cooperating with the government. Our troops are based primarily in the Kabul, Kandahar and northeastern area, near Pakistan, but we need to secure the entire country to allow Hamid Karzai a real chance to rule. The recent assassination attempt on his life should make clear to the U.S. that we have to do a better job of cleaning up Afghanistan and ensuring its development as something other than an extremist haven.