Countdown to War

[melon]

It is March. We all know it is coming.

Recent tactical move: The "weeks not months" comment has turned into "days not weeks." That means, I guess, that war is likely to break out in the coming week. The "shock and awe" tactic was brought up again (the tactic involving the barrage of cruise missiles).

Considering we have no choice in the matter, let's just hope it goes quickly.

Melon

 

[verte76]

Since we have no choice I hope they hurry up, fight the thing and get it over quick. I expect to be traveling during wartime next week when I go to New Orleans.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm listening to a replay of Rummie's press conference. There is nothing left to do. I'll still be at the march in DC the 15th regardless.

 

[anitram]

There is nothing left to do.

Vote Bush out. Vote for the communist party of america, or the cannabis party or anybody other than him. Regime change begins at home.

 

[meegannie]

I'm listening to a replay of Rummie's press conference. There is nothing left to do. I'll still be at the march in DC the 15th regardless.

I can only imagine what would happen at work if I went and someone found out Maybe I'll convienently be on the Mall that day and get swept up by the crowd....

 

[verte76]

Vote Bush out. Vote for the communist party of america, or the cannabis party or anybody other than him. Regime change begins at home.

Gladly. Unfortunately he has time to fight this war before Election Day.

 

[deep]

parody

SECRETARY FLEISCHER DELIVERS FORCEFUL REBUTTAL TO CHARGES OF SENSELESSLY DOOMING INNOCENT AMERICAN GI'S PURELY FOR CRAVEN POLITICAL GAIN
Statement by the Press Secretary to the Christian Coalition
Mr. Fleischer: Good morning. On behalf of the Bush Administration, I am honored to appear here today at the Christian Coalition of America's Annual Shareholder's Meeting.
(Applause.)
Yesterday, with inaccurate liberal polls showing President Bush's approval rating at a new low, and less than half of Americans indicating they will support his reelection, the President was both shocked and dismayed to be confronted with the utterly preposterous charge that his plans to senselessly doom American GI's in chemical and biological warfare with Iraq is inspired by wholly craven and purely political motives. Today, I am here to publicly vocalize without smirking the White House's assertion that this is untrue.
Last night, the President called an emergency meeting of his top advisers in the Presidential Prayer Squad to discuss the Administration's overarching concern and principal goal for America's future: his reelection in 2004. Working feverishly until dawn with PPS leaders Deacon Fred and Brother Harry Hardwick, the President arrived at a plan of action which will ensure that his political future does not mimic that of his vaguely effeminate father. Let the record state that the Prayer Squad's painstakingly objective analysis involved reviewing opinion polls of NRA members, Heritage Foundation economic forecasts, back episodes of the Greatest American Hero and, most importantly, the Holy Bible.
This morning, it falls to me to announce the inescapable conclusion of that Godly session: while the spilling of small oceans of American blood into Iraqi sand will most certainly spur the public to rally around the President, our Christ-appointed leader's domestic policies (or lack thereof) will unfortunately ensure his political demise unless the public can once again be terrified into supporting him, no matter what the cost. Nevertheless, rest assured that these radical fringe charges that our Commander in Chief is knowingly marching a quarter million innocent GI's to the sacrificial altar of political expediency are patently false!
True, the President's cries to the public that tax cuts for "We the Wildly Affluent People" are the key to economic recovery have fallen on mostly deaf ears. For some reason, most of you Joe Sixpacks just won't believe that giving the rich more stock dividends is going to kickstart your Wal-Mart impulse-buying engine. That means we're left with a plan that gives money to the rich while slashing virtually all social programs for the middle class and poor while raising deficits to their highest levels ever. That's an agenda even Herbert Hoover couldn't have dreamed up. In other words, our President's only hope for reelection is a public so terrified of unseen Arabiac bogeymen, they will actively embrace an agenda of militaristically ruthless, quasi-fascistic Christian empire-building.
(Applause.)
Going forward, it is important that people recognize that the upcoming War on Iraq, replete with inevitable death for untold numbers of Americans and sand negroes alike, was in NO WAY conceived as the key to victory in 2004 that it is. No, this war is a purely high-minded endeavor, which will play out in one of two scenarios:
Scenario 1: A Prolonged and Dirty War.

This is a likely scenario inasmuch as the Administration has done its best to push Saddam Hussein into a nothing-to-lose corner. The President has said war will not stop until Saddam is removed from power to be tried for war crimes. This means there is no disincentive to Saddam using every chemical and biological agent at his disposal while launching missiles at Israel, Turkey and anyone else hungrily suckling at the U.S. cash teat. This may result in thousands of American casualties, thereby easily prolonging the war until well after the 2004 elections. The public historically supports the Commander-in-Chief in times of war, regardless of whether or not the depression has already begun.
Scenario 2: A Quick Victory Followed by Terrorism.
Overthrowing Saddam and establishing a U.S. territorial government in Iraq is certain to motivate Osama bin Laden and his cohorts to strike again at American targets with a vengeance that rivals 9/11. The result will be thousands of American casualties and a renewed call for yet another lengthy military engagement wherein the United States bombs back to the stone age any Middle Eastern armpit country in which terrorists are alleged to have once slept. Again, we will still be at war for the 2004 election season.
Under either scenario, a second term is ensured. The panel concluded that, because a third term is not allowed by the Constitution, the long-term implications of either scenario are irrelevant and need not be evaluated. But once again, I want to take pains to assure you gentlemen, along with the rest of the predominantly already-red-voting-states, that these militaristically humanitarian calculations have NOTHING to do with callously disregarding the so-called worth of enlisted soldier life in the name of a thousand-year GOP reign. No sir. They just don't. It's appalling to even suggest such a thing.
(Applause.)
Thank you. I've appreciated your hospitality this morning. As a hell-bound Jew, I'm still adjusting to you folks having found a use for my people, but in the end, I'll take what I can get - even this all-ham breakfast platter.
(Laughter.)
Thank you.

 

[diamond]

do the weak of heart-
i sing to you-
"Stand Or Fall"-The Fixx

DB9

 

[hiphop]

I like Countdowns to Columbias take-offs.

I dislike Countdowns to War. Some veterans may be quite offended, don?t you think so, with the that happened to them in the last war they had to fight. Therefore, I would go as far as saying it is nearly politically incorrect to speak of a Countdown to War - in my opinion

 

[DrTeeth]

They'll probably wait until they get access to Turkey or until they've swung the waiting troops through the Suez and into Kuwait. I vote for the 18th of march.

 

[Dreadsox]

13th of March air war....17th of March Ground War

 

[Scarletwine]

Dreadsox is probably closer. They'd want it before the next multination peace rallies.

An interesting view:
Yesterday Katie Curak asked our new Treasury Secretary how the war would affect the average American's pocketbook. He answered That War historically is good for the American Economy so we shouldn't worry. (Don't have exact quote).

That is another incentive for Bush's war. I was surprised he was so outspoken. He also praised Bush's economic policy. Of course that is why O'Neil was replaced, he didn't favor tax cuts and said so publicly.

 

[Zooropa]

Dreadsox is probably closer. They'd want it before the next multination peace rallies.

An interesting view:
Yesterday Katie Curak asked our new Treasury Secretary how the war would affect the average American's pocketbook. He answered That War historically is good for the American Economy so we shouldn't worry. (Don't have exact quote).

That is another incentive for Bush's war. I was surprised he was so outspoken. He also praised Bush's economic policy. Of course that is why O'Neil was replaced, he didn't favor tax cuts and said so publicly.

This war, in particular, is having an enormous affect on our economy. The uncertainty has been handicapping Wall Street for months. I firmly believe that when this war gets going and is successful, Wall Street will rally, consumer confidence will rise, etc.... I wouldn't say that Bush is going to war for the economy, that has little more merit than the "war for oil" mantra.

 

[Danospano]

I don't need to listen to Ari Fleischer or Donnie "Dumb-Dumb: Rumsfeld to know this is the beginning of the end. I should be scared to death at what this action will bring to the Westernized world (specifically the USA), but I'm not. I could die tomorrow and I'd be content.

Now, as they used to say at mass....."let us sing..."....It's the end of the world as we know it.....It's the end of the world as we know it.....IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT....and I feel fiiiiiiinnnnnnneeeeeeee.

 

[joyfulgirl]

This war, in particular, is having an enormous affect on our economy. The uncertainty has been handicapping Wall Street for months. I firmly believe that when this war gets going and is successful, Wall Street will rally, consumer confidence will rise, etc.... I wouldn't say that Bush is going to war for the economy, that has little more merit than the "war for oil" mantra.

(I posted this in another thread):
Many economists believe this war could have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, which would of course affect the global economy. Our allies basically paid for the Gulf War whereas guess who has to pay for this one. The cost of a "clean" war is estimated by economists into possibly the trillions of dollars, which would far exceed any benefit incurred from increased production of Iraqi oil. Bush has not spoken much about the budget for this war.

 

[gvox]

It is not the end.

American troops could start thinking for themselves and lay down their weapons en masse and refuse to follow Bush into this completely wrong campaign.

In the end, history will be their judge.

And the Nuremburg defense-like psychology that seems to be popular these days won't cut it.

 

[Zooropa]

(I posted this in another thread):
Many economists believe this war could have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, which would of course affect the global economy. Our allies basically paid for the Gulf War whereas guess who has to pay for this one. The cost of a "clean" war is estimated by economists into possibly the trillions of dollars, which would far exceed any benefit incurred from increased production of Iraqi oil. Bush has not spoken much about the budget for this war.

And many economists have theorized what I wrote earlier, that it will be beneficial. Traditionally, war benefits the economy, at least in the short term.

 

[melon]

And many economists have theorized what I wrote earlier, that it will be beneficial. Traditionally, war benefits the economy, at least in the short term.

And it is bullshit. That "war benefits the economy" paradigm worked during World War II, when much of industry and labor all worked together to make war materials. Yes, that helped the economy and ended the Great Depression.

However, that is no longer the case, with an economy based on market speculation, rather than hard performance figures. War will drain our stock market more, putting our fiscally irresponsible corporations in even more trouble, and it will send oil prices even higher, thanks to oil market speculators, who will see war in Iraq as time to buy.

In addition, while all of industry shifted to war production in WWII, including auto factories, for instance, it won't happen now. War supplies are made by a small group of corporations, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

If anything, this outlines why our economy is a joke, as structured. It is based on legalized gambling. I think it is time for some re-regulation if we wish to change that paradigm back.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I can only imagine what would happen at work if I went and someone found out Maybe I'll convienently be on the Mall that day and get swept up by the crowd....

Good for you Having a job doesn't take away your right to hold political opinions and act in support of them.

 

[meegannie]

Good for you Having a job doesn't take away your right to hold political opinions and act in support of them.

Yeah, the only problem is that when you work on the Hill you're expected to have the same opinions as your boss. I did to start out with, but after about three months of working for the government, I completely changed my views. That's why I spend every day being exceptionally bitter and trying not to snap and start throwing things in response to some of the comments I hear.... Maybe they wouldn't do anything other than hate me if they found out since I'm leaving at the end of May anyway.

Bush's address tonight should be interesting. Especially since Ari Fleisher claims the president hasn't made up his mind about war yet.

 

[Zooropa]

And it is bullshit. That "war benefits the economy" paradigm worked during World War II, when much of industry and labor all worked together to make war materials. Yes, that helped the economy and ended the Great Depression.

However, that is no longer the case, with an economy based on market speculation, rather than hard performance figures. War will drain our stock market more, putting our fiscally irresponsible corporations in even more trouble, and it will send oil prices even higher, thanks to oil market speculators, who will see war in Iraq as time to buy.

If anything, this outlines why our economy is a joke, as structured. It is based on legalized gambling. I think it is time for some re-regulation if we wish to change that paradigm back.

Melon

Melon, to dismiss something as bullshit, is to imply that it has no validity. That isn't the case here. Economists are split on whether the war will benefit the US economy, and there is compelling evidence to support both sides. However, most economists feel that a short will benefit the US economy, not harm it. The concern is over what a long-term war would do for the economy.

 

[melon]

"War" will not benefit the economy. "After the war," especially if it is short, is another story.

Melon

 

[meegannie]

So apparently British troops have been told that an invasion will begin on March 17, with a HUGE bombing campaign four days earlier.

 

[Zooropa]

Melon,
I'm curious. Earlier you alluded to more regulation being neccesary in order to protect/reform our economy. If referring to government regulation, how does this sit regarding an earlier debate over the liberal paradigm, in which you use it to defend your belief that the Patriot act is a voilation of our liberties? After all, the liberal paradigm, in its original form, would have equally appalled by the government's intrusion into the economy.

 

[verte76]

So apparently British troops have been told that an invasion will begin on March 17, with a HUGE bombing campaign four days earlier.

Is this official? I have to go to some little joint near New Orleans next week for a teaching assignment and am frantically getting my class stuff together now. It's tough to get newspapers and such in that place. I guess I'll leave the place a week from Sunday and "War in Iraq" is going to be in the first newspaper I see when I get into a city.

 

[melon]

Melon,
I'm curious. Earlier you alluded to more regulation being neccesary in order to protect/reform our economy. If referring to government regulation, how does this sit regarding an earlier debate over the liberal paradigm, in which you use it to defend your belief that the Patriot act is a voilation of our liberties? After all, the liberal paradigm, in its original form, would have equally appalled by the government's intrusion into the economy.

I make no secret of it. I think laissez-faire capitalism is a disaster, and there is a reason why there was regulation put in during the early 20th century. All of this deregulation is rehashing problems that arose in the late 19th century, such as massive wealth stratification, monopolistic behavior, unstable business practices, and labor abuse.

James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, said that it was written assuming that there would always be an implicit set of ethics that people would follow. As you can see, Madison, while being idealistic, was short-sighted, and we all now know that law requires detailing everything to the last letter. "Classical liberalism" and the Founding Fathers, unfortunately, did not survive to see Marxist criticism and Keynesian capitalism. I have a feeling they would have changed their minds.

Ironically, with the rise of the religious right, ethics went out the window, so regulation was all the more important--but they took care of those as well.

We can all agree that greed is the motivator in society for everything; and, with that, regulations need to be put in place to prevent the greedy from doing things that run contrary to the common good.

We talk about "pro-life," but guess what? I value life even after the fetus becomes born. I can't say the same for most "pro-lifers," who abuse the term to legislate their moralistic prejudices.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

The russians have started removing their citizens. I would say watch for when the UN inspectors leave and add about 72 hours to that.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is not the end.

American troops could start thinking for themselves and lay down their weapons en masse and refuse to follow Bush into this completely wrong campaign.

In the end, history will be their judge.

And the Nuremburg defense-like psychology that seems to be popular these days won't cut it.

Wrong in your opinion. In my opinion, it is right, but our President has bungled the situation. That said, his blowing it or not does not change the fact that this situation needs to be resolved.

 

[Zooropa]

I make no secret of it. I think laissez-faire capitalism is a disaster, and there is a reason why there was regulation put in during the early 20th century. All of this deregulation is rehashing problems that arose in the late 19th century, such as massive wealth stratification, monopolistic behavior, unstable business practices, and labor abuse.

James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, said that it was written assuming that there would always be an implicit set of ethics that people would follow. As you can see, Madison, while being idealistic, was short-sighted, and we all now know that law requires detailing everything to the last letter. "Classical liberalism" and the Founding Fathers, unfortunately, did not survive to see Marxist criticism and Keynesian capitalism. I have a feeling they would have changed their minds.

Ironically, with the rise of the religious right, ethics went out the window, so regulation was all the more important--but they took care of those as well.

We can all agree that greed is the motivator in society for everything; and, with that, regulations need to be put in place to prevent the greedy from doing things that run contrary to the common good.

We talk about "pro-life," but guess what? I value life even after the fetus becomes born. I can't say the same for most "pro-lifers," who abuse the term to legislate their moralistic prejudices.

Melon

I agree that regulation is neccesary. But you didn't answer my question. How is govt interference in the economy, different from govt interference in our private lives?

 

[melon]

I agree that regulation is neccesary. But you didn't answer my question. How is govt interference in the economy, different from govt interference in our private lives?

Business is a dead head, and private citizens are living. You can run away from business, but you can't run away from domestic espionage.

FYI...

Conservatism -- business freedom, social control
Liberalism -- business control, social freedom
Libertarianism -- business freedom, social freedom
Totalitarianism -- business control, social control

Melon