Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama snubs soldiers? Only if you believe what you read (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Obama snubs soldiers? Only if you believe what you read
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stray.

you are talking about accounts from the oil revenues which Bush is asking the leasors to share with the people in a way Bush would never do himself. (I find it amusing that Bush is a capitalist at home and a communist abroad)

I am talking about the HUGE ASTROMICALLY ENORMOUS cash that is pouring into Iraq's account in New York as assignments of proceeds on previous transactions that Bush is WITHHOLDING from the people, which Bush et al should have made available from DAY ONE.

[ August 14, 2008, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Straygaldwyr:
If you cannot put your trust in your chain of command, you do not soldier. You suffer from a failure to adapt...and go home. As for looking out for the rights of the locals, they are clearly spelled out to us and scrupulously followed, enforced by the full weight of the UCMJ.

Then why are you in their country on their land where they don't want you, if they have rights?

[ August 14, 2008, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"we are Hollywood action stars and an exotic animal show wrapped around a customer wrapped around Santa Claus"

until there are enough of them, and then they surround you, kill you, and eat your flesh, to prove how much they control you.

The whole Santa Claus phenomenon might be great for recruiting, its the moment things go wrong that I think of, and those boys are just as much my Americans as my own family. When this plan goes bad, it goes VERY bad, and as a stupid plan in the first place, I don't support it.

[ August 14, 2008, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have never lost a single fight in Afghanistan, so when your catastrophe finally takes place, then you can jump up and feel justified in your lack of faith. For my sake I hope you just continue to have nothing to back your opinion but animosity.
quote:
Then why are you in their country on their land where they don't want you, if they have rights?
Because kicking us out is not one of them...I would think that was obvious. (in fact it is, I am afraid you are trying to be lofty but without any grounding in basic practical politics you merely seem as TomDavidson so recently accused me, of being naive)
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if the Afghan parliament and government demand we leave tomorrow, we simply say "forget it"?

Not saying they will. The majority of Afghans want us there till further notice, I believe, far more than most Iraqis do.

But are you saying that even if they wanted us out, it wouldn't matter?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would make our job harder, I am glad it it not the case.
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stray,

I don't have a lack of faith in military power.

I am certain, with sitting on those peoples, we will prevail.

The question is, was it worth it to do so at the cost of American blood, using the stupidest strategy available when our own government is the author of better systems and knows fully well how to implement them, in a way that cost the people of America nothing at all?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Soon you will have a current events base for comparison about how stupid a strategy can be since you have neglected your historical context development. Watch Russia in Georgia...
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stray.

Historical context development-

Dubai and UAE are reasonably good models. Why not replicate those?

Why not outsource the matter entirely to such countries, for their development or for the people of Iraq, depending on whichever groups can properly achieve the goals?

[ August 14, 2008, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A real man shoots his own dog when the day comes.
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A real man who recognizes that the dog would be just fine with another owner, gives him away.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Being sovereign over a re-building project is a Marshall Plan and few have done it and know how to repeat it."

See, munga, that's where the comparison falls apart. WE paid for the Marshall Plan and had every right to say how OUR money got spent.

When a country is forced to put it's revenue into an account under our complete control, that country is not soveriegn.

Having control of local affairs means that they have some degree of autonomy. Some degree of autonomy is not soveriegnty.

Maybe they shouldn't have soveriegnty. It's a valid enough argument. The fact is, they currently do not.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, Jesse,

We sure did. Now, if Germany had had a nest egg, wouldn't we have used it for all of Europe?

The Marshall plan wasn't about "taking money from America and building Europe" it was about "Building Europe via secured finance mechanisms, that happened to be funded via America" (I didn't say the Marshall plan was perfect, just that they knew how to conduct repurchase agreements and non-constructive sales).

I think they should have sovereignty, but not control over funds because they haven't proven ability to do anything. As it is, the Americans haven't proven efficient at spending money effectively to build infrastructure and peaceful wealth-building either. I say, let the UAE and DUBAI manage the plan together, financing them with their nestegg, and let Iraqi's know that anything left over (which is what happens in successful finance- the successful operation that brings in revenue can be "taken out" via the capital markets, a triple repo procedure in which they could even "use" their assets, build, and Take Out and get their assets back again) and be super-rich. Or, they can fight the process of becoming a wealthy and influential nation, in which case their assets and then their property itself can drift into receivership of Dubai or UAE, which I actually don't have any problem with. I don't have the idea the borders are magical. I want people to live under effective governments and both of those have proven if not ideal, a heck of a lot better than certain neighbors.

I just can't see the evil in management. When the people are under Saddam or their current leaders, do you really call that sovereignty or is it a "democratically elected" thug? Are Hugo Chavez's people sovereign, even though they rule themselves without outside influence? What about China?

If you can make the case the sovereignty is more important than infrastructure, peaceful wealth-building and education, etc..... in a sort of "give me liberty or death" I will respect it but I really can't agree.

[ August 16, 2008, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, Munga, that's not soveriegnty. Not even partial.

That's like saying your kid ought to have full control of their affairs because they're legally competent...but you're going to get a judge to grant you power of attorney because they're not legally competent to manage their finances.

Untill there's a lot more juice for charges of corruption in Chavez's Election, and we don't see his proposals voted down by the people and him accepting it...yeah, Venezulia sovereign.

However, Soveriegnty and Self-Determination are not the same thing at all.

I'm not arguing that soveriegnty is or is not more important, I'm just arguing that nation hasn't got it if they can't get their own incoming revenue and at least vote on who they're gonna give it too:)

We're holding the cash to try to black-mail them into bending over for the transnational oil corporations. This is a leverage game to try to force complete de-nationalization.

Don't kid yourself that this has been done for some noble motive.

[ August 16, 2008, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's like saying your kid ought to have full control of their affairs because they're legally competent...but you're going to get a judge to grant you power of attorney because they're not legally competent to manage their finances."

Jesse, where do you get that they are competant to manage their people into infrastructure and wealth-building? Or are you saying, we should just let the incompetant leaders binge and eat the piggy bank because "sovereignty" is more important tha anything else?

And I'm 100% certain the war in Iraq is being continued and was started for the worst reasons, and to me, the proof is that we have the mechanisms to have done it well, without even so much as a single man's life lost, but it really was about sucking BTUs away from certain parties.... I fully understand that even if Stray is completely confused.

My thesis is that IF we are ready to stop murdering people generally, we already know how to build the nation back up through the mechanisms we currently use in Ex Im Finance. Which is why I seem to come down hard on Stray- he's about the glorious battle and I'm about telling him he's a mis-programmed tool which he doesn't see because he has no moral compass anymore and uses a code of ethics that involved passing moral questions up the chain of command he knows has no safety systems.

I don't see how giving an imcompetant leader control over the money would help anyone at all- it would bankrupt the vault and result in poor performance, but if you really think that sovereignty in the re-building of the nation we wrecked is number one, please tell me who you think we ought to give the keys to their piggy bank to, and what you think will happen considering their known lack of ability to do anything but eat their seed corn?

The one thing I'm sure of, their piggy bank shouldn't be in New York, doing nothing at all for them and being used as our borrowed asset, while the EU is walking into the starved country and "investing."

[ August 16, 2008, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Jesse, where do you get that they are competant to manage their people into infrastructure and wealth-building?"

He's not even debating whether they are or aren't. What he's saying is, you can't call them sovereign if they don't have that. Once again, you need to use words the way the rest of us use them. If someone else controls your countries resources and finances, your country is NOT sovereign. That's part of what being sovereign means.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do I care if they are sovereign, at this point? Whoever thought that was a good idea?

They're the ones who had a murderous dictator that they didn't take proper steps to assassinate (and I know some tried, but it didn't get done). So, after such twisting and abuse (dictator leading by thugery and removing competance) insisting on sovereignty is like telling a man with 20 broken bones that he HAS to stand on his very own for the sake of high ideals.

I vote for a real recovery plan via Ex Im financing of infrastructure and wealth-building ventures probably under the eye of mature and capable neighboring countries, not additional stupidity of replacing one thug (Saddam) with another (American conquest) and perpetual poverty and violence, excessive loss of life by American soldiers and the people, while draining our liquidity because the only American dollars printed today are released directly to contractors for the war effort, putting America into receivership as there is too little liquidity here for ourselves to match our ever-growing products.

In our current plan, we all shoot each other.

[ August 16, 2008, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah,

I think I see what people are talking about.

I do not conceive of ALL control (sovereignty) ONE basket. One entity might have control over education. Another over utilities and infrastructure, another over criminal law, another over civil law, another over trading contracts, another over border patrol, infant mortality, home retro-fitting for electricifaction, food and resource management.... If any entity can't get the job done to 1st world standards, the "soverignty" passes to another bidder.

When I said give them sovereignty on some things, I meant, let them determine who their local representatives to these counsels (the Ex Im conferences) which would give them participation because inevitably all the action goes down on their soil. So, who IN Iraq needs to be party to the re-building in order for it to be successful? The Iraqis would know, and bring them into the conference. Nothing positive happens without local control so, if (let's say) the UAE has taken the Ex Im contract against the Iraq funds in New York, monetizes the transaction, they have to find the ground crew to make it entirely successful, which Iraqi crew would also know that if it is unsuccessful even though the currency of Dubai is moving around today, they will take it out of IRAQ's money in New York if it fails, will be more motivated to help.

Also, people are just money-motivated in general. The shieks who are approached on the goal to increase girl's test scores will be looking at a money pot to suddenly remember that the prophet supported education.

If UAE has taken upon itself the management of the streets in X city, which members in the city must be part of the effort (stand to make money) by "reminding" all their neighbors that Islam means peace? As milestones are met (no bombs or attacks) what does the city get, and what do the important citizens gain (UAE would have to negotiate some good deals that can't appear too self-serving because it is Iraq's money). So, Citizen A might want to have a farming equipment. Citizen B might want to have a satellite internet communications resource center, Citizen C might want to have a local meeting hall (like a community center).... and all these Citizens will recognize that as "directors" they will be making money and employing the people and making products or providing services. Citizen D might want to be in charge of the local utilities when they are constructed and, as such, will have to learn what is entailed so his promise might involve learning the trade out-of-country in the Dubai City Utility. And if these are the rewards of year 1 of "peacing" the people, what are the rewards of year two? I say, let the "responsibilities" of all parties be divided so that "peacers of year one" can take on a different task, but not the same task, because the purpose of the methodology is to teach nation-building and not personal monopolies on "responsibilities" and their attendent rewards.

The Ex Im conference attendees would also have the job of seeing that the resourceful and creative and charismatic people in their jurisdictions were given the hardest jobs, and had mentorship periods as well, to bring along the next leaders. Tell em their goal is to make a BETTER country than America, with the MOST educated population with more community power than communist China. Play to their strengths and who cares, really, WHO ****ING cares HOW the goals are achieved or what ideas were taught to get the goals???

All the rewards have to have the need for management (they all do) and community value (it's Iraq's money for Iraq's people).

It's not about "control" so much as it is about responsiblity and reward. Spreadsheets should be posted in public.

[ August 16, 2008, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I do not conceive of ALL control (sovereignty) ONE basket. One entity might have control over education. Another over utilities and infrastructure, another over criminal law, another over civil law, another over trading contracts, another over border patrol, infant mortality, home retro-fitting for electricifaction, food and resource management.... If any entity can't get the job done to 1st world standards, the "soverignty" passes to another bidder."

Again you invent your own definition. Authority and jurisdiction are not the same as sovereignty. Different agencies within the same political unit is not the same as one country controlling the money and assets of another. Jurisdiction can move between different administrative units within the Iraqi administration without sovereignty being compromised one bit. If the USA controls the finances of Iraq, Iraq is not sovereign.

If the government does not control the country's assets, it is not sovereign. End. Stop. Period. Words have definitions. They mean what they mean and do not mean the opposite of what they mean.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So wait, you want us to undertake the rebuilding? But not have soldiers there?

As for mature and capable neighbors... Not much there. Jordan and Turkey are more or less mature. Neither is capable if running point on such a project.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who cares if Iraq is "sovereign" if it is recovering and the people are being served, and the reins are held by those who hand them over when the milestones are achieved? In finance, they say "the name doesn't matter, only the term-sheet." I've seen term-sheets with 7 changes of "command" (project management) so who would you say had "sovereignty"? Is common finance ****ed up or do we maybe know how to get things done? What is the difference then, if we called it temporarily out-sourced control in order to meet milestones in the broken entity called Iraq, convertable upon completion to full sovereignty? In this sense, the US did not break Iraq, Saddam did. The people-infrastructure was completely corrupted.

For a lot of money, people will take on the management of almost anything.

Soldiers- Sure. Whose? How many? If the people are engaged in nation-building, they are much less likely to be engaged in nation-destroying. Maybe the soldiers from one region, swapped with the soldiers from a different region.

Men like employment and feel valuable as protectors, and remember, what do they get for it? What, in particular, can they imagine might be a valuable thing for their family and their town?

[ August 16, 2008, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Munga, the question is do you want to run this. Also, it's very difficult after invading a country, then making a huge deal about how you're transferring power and it's free and sovereign, to then turn around and say "oh sorry, turns out y'all aren't ready for that, so we're gonna control your money."

They ain't gonna stand for it.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. Put me in charge.

The very worst that would happen is that a neighboring country would own Iraq, their nest-egg would be gone. I doubt Bush is really truly going to hand it back, anyway, in as-was condition.

Better than having our boys dying, our OWN treasury depleted, the people of Iraq starving, while Bush et al shine their assets in New York.

[ August 16, 2008, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You'd get shot in a week. You can't explain yourself to your compatriots, you want to run people from another culture?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would anyone ever know it was me, personally, evaluating the Repo's?
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must have misunderstood what you're applying for. In any case, a Marshall-Plan type endeavor is far from a mere exercise in finance.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's an exercise in peaceful nation-building using tools of finance, rather than weapons.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not just finance, is the point. Nation-building is a whole lot more than that. Finance is not really the problem.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Finance is the solution that, rewarding performance for milestones, is the best answer we've got to get real results.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Munga, the question is do you want to run this. Also, it's very difficult after invading a country, then making a huge deal about how you're transferring power and it's free and sovereign, to then turn around and say "oh sorry, turns out y'all aren't ready for that, so we're gonna control your money."

They ain't gonna stand for it.

It helps that Bush is a known idiot. We can say he doesn't know how to speak English as well as they do.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The answer is actually really damn simple, and beyond obvious.

They're Arabs.

Hand them 3,000 dollars each (we're holding 80 billion of their cash) and watch how they spend it. You'll learn something.

They do not blow capital if they can avoid it. We are not talking about 25 million American teenagers.

You'll have two million widowed seamtresses set up doing piecework alone. Villages will chip in for their own wells and irrigation systems. The bakers will rebuild their ovens. Thousands of palms will be re-planted.

They'll do a damn sight better with it than any NGO or foreign government, and almost none of it will wind up in the hands of transnationals.

These are not children. They know what they're doing, and how THEY want to live.

Give them back their cash. It was wrong when it was stolen to build third-rate mock-ups of T72s they didn't want, it was wrong when it was stolen to pay bribes in the oil-for-food scandal, and it's wrong to steal it for what The Great Sahib thinks they ought to buy from General Electric.

We talk a lot about micro-lending. No one likes to talk about who first really made it work.

I'll just say it was in Lebanon and leave it at that.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have been saying it for years now, and so has W, lets get money in the hands of the people. Let them build thier economy from the ground up with normal economic activity.
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Kuwiatis building 6 line super-highways for the 35% of their population who own cars, or the UAE putting cash into artificial island resorts where the GDP was 38,000 per person in 2006 and yet 50% of the population lived on less than 1,000 dollars a year.

Great economic models. Really, the folks we should entrust Iraqs economic future too.

I wish Bush had the sense to say it from the start, Stray, and actually had done it. He didn't. Doofus listened to Rummy instead of Powell.

Holding out the cash of people who can barely afford to eat in order to pressure them into signing contracts with corporations that aren't even American doesn't serve our interests or theirs.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

Well said- and it jives with what Arabs I have known do in real life.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's partly the tradition of conserving resources in a harsh enviornment, and it's partly Islam.

Islam commands that a man increase his wealth for his kids, his cousins, and his tribe - not for his own benefit. Granted, the Emirs tend to think they don't need to observe any of that all that closely, but the average guy takes it fairly seriously most of the time.

My friends old man (a Palestinian Refugee) built himself a three-store carpeting "empire" in thirty years, after he came here with a hundred hundred bucks in his pocket, a wife, and five kids (old goat fathered his last son, my friend, when he was 67 years old).

The "commoners" are all about making that wealth grow if they can just get their hands on the start-up capital.

[ August 17, 2008, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't really think 'Bush' had the option, Jesse. It would have taken a philosophical sea change in the whole Washington power structure - NOT just in the current admin - not to feed the corporate beast
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he did, Donald, if he'd had the will.

If Powell had been in charge of reconstruction in 2003 when he was still massively respected and had made the case to congress in the glow of a rapid and total victory over Saddam with minimal loses that the best aid was direct aid?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I am saying is George Bush did not make that decision, any more than he has made any decision in his presidency in a vacuum.

And if Powell had been allowed - which he couldn't have - to make that case, it wouldn't have survived in any recognizable way its implementation.

Do you remember Powell at the UN? How easily was he manipulated there?

Was Bush prepared to be a one-term (or less) president in order to put in place policies for the possible benefit of the Iraqi populace and to the certain detriment of the boys who brung him and all of his advisors to the dance?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the end of the day, what was the difference to MOST of the boys that brung him?

Iraq would still need hefty contracts with them to get the oil infrastructure up and running. They still would have been paying out a mighty hefty cut for those services.

Sure, there would have been a lot fewer humvees replaced, but Haliburton and their ilk still could have gotten themselves fistfulls for getting the oil flowing again.

I really want to know who has the use of that 80 billion dollars. It's obviously not just sitting there, but is probably being "invested".

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Straygaldwyr:
I have been saying it for years now, and so has W, lets get money in the hands of the people. Let them build thier economy from the ground up with normal economic activity.

Then why is their money sitting in New York, Stray? FIVE BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY, which the US uses as a borrowed asset? He doesn't have to walk up and "give" it to every citizen to have it all spent to create a nirvana. Hell, put me in charge and I'll use it as IRAQ's own leveraged asset and finance nirvana's heaven.

Bush is a lying piece of crap, that's why. He is an oil man, he knows all about dNPV and collateral substitution and MOST of all, he knows all about Ex Im finance because the Oil industry uses it constantly.

But not for Iraq.

And that's why he's evil.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1