In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
did you read my response jonny? Your point was just 'they hate us, because, you know...' why do you think they care at all about us? We are on the otherside of two big oceans
the great satan is also evil because of the perversities of culture that it has introduced. though something sophisticated like al qaeda is probably not mainly motivated by this
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
Ok, so you know more about the USA's economic interests in the middle East than Greenspan. Hard to believe, but I'll bite. Why do you know US foreign policy better than Kissinger?
"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend." (Henry Kissinger - Herald Tribune, Jan 18th 2007 via link)
trading for oil never lead to war or animosity between U.S. and say, mexico or saudi arabia. iran getting mad at the u.s. is largely because of how iran is.
'going into their region' needs to be better defined and explained if it is to serve as an act of badness or a self evident cause for middle eastern animosity. merely insinuating an oil interest is not enough,
not saying sam is wrong here but you gotta do a better job with your arguments bro
On October 05 2013 06:02 sam!zdat wrote: did you read my response jonny? Your point was just 'they hate us, because, you know...' why do you think they care at all about us? We are on the otherside of two big oceans
What? I did not write anything about them "hating us" whatsoever. My point was that countries can get into wars for reasons other than oil. If the middle east didn't have oil, we could still have had wars there. Conversely, just because a country has oil doesn't mean we are going to invade.
Stating that an oil rich country has oil isn't insightful. The question is to what extent the oil played a role in the conflict. Would we have invaded Iraq if it didn't have oil? Maybe! Once upon a time we nuked Japan, and Japan isn't an oil state.
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
Ok, so you know more about the USA's economic interests in the middle East than Greenspan. Hard to believe, but I'll bite. Why do you know US foreign policy better than Kissinger?
"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend." (Henry Kissinger - Herald Tribune, Jan 18th 2007 via link)
The Kissinger quote implies that oil is a single factor among many.
On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote: there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did
But for oil the region would be vastly different...
yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise
idk... what if they had a big army? Or flew planes into buildings? Or tried to nuke Israel? Or offered missile bases to an enemy? Or assassinated a major power's leader?
the only reason they care about us is because we want to be in the region getting their oil. You think they just do that stuff for fun? Bin laden united islamists in anti-americanism, but most of them before that (and now, after) are really more concerned with regional politics. The only reason they care about us is because we meddle in the region, and the only reason we meddle is because of oil. Anything else is just manichean
somebody who thinks that oil doesn't matter please explain why anybody would give a fuck about them or they would give a fuck about us otherwise.
While oil was certainly a factor, Saddam was also about to set up a local political union (much relating to the very oil you're talking about). The oil of Iraq itself was only a small part of it. The US feared it would lose its political (and by extention economical) power in the region if Saddam was allowed to consolidate political power with his allies in the Middle Eastern region. Looking at it from a purely economical, "The US wanted Iraqi oil" , perspective seems very limited and wrong to me, but looking at it from a political and economical perspective where oil not only in Iraq but in the region was at stake, including potential repercussions for Israel in the future, now that makes a whole lot more sense.
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: The USA are going to be the biggest oil and gas supplier in the very near future and the imports are falling. They're fracking like there is no tomorrow.
I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Look up what the wars are costing, even if you would rob all the countries of their oil(what the US isn't doing) it would not be worth it. People seriously need to get over all this oil nonsense.
Saying oil wasn't a factor is just as daft as saying it was the only factor. The invasion of Iraq was caused by a lot of different issues coming together. Including things like the political philosophy of the neocons (strike first) and the rethorical enabling stemming from 9/11 and "terrorism". I say "terrorism" since it was, and still is, widely overblown as a problem. The actual threat to anyone anywhere in any western country is minimal comparative to the fear being drummed up by media and, more interestingly politicans and the state as a whole. It serves a good purpose to legitimize the state's function in guaranteeing people's security, but to do that you have to put people in a state of mind where they feel that they are threatened to begin with. The fear the US government, in particular, had lost when the Cold War ended was regained with the "threat of terrorism". The negative economic costs of the invasion versus the revenue from the oil is only a very small part of the bigger picture. I think this post is getting long enough but perhaps concider the military-industrial complex aswell. While the state itself might not have an economic interest in wars, powerful lobbying elements within it do.
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
Ok, so you know more about the USA's economic interests in the middle East than Greenspan. Hard to believe, but I'll bite. Why do you know US foreign policy better than Kissinger?
"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend." (Henry Kissinger - Herald Tribune, Jan 18th 2007 via link)
The Kissinger quote implies that oil is a single factor among many.
Of course. Let me try again. This time, let's hear what the military has to say about it.
"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are [...] They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs." (Chuck Hagel) "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." (John Abizaid) (quoted via Wikipedia)
On October 05 2013 06:12 oneofthem wrote: the great satan is also evil because of the perversities of culture that it has introduced. though something sophisticated like al qaeda is probably not mainly motivated by this
this is really overblown. It's not nearly as much of a factor as americans like to think. They don't really care all that much about american culture
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
Ok, so you know more about the USA's economic interests in the middle East than Greenspan. Hard to believe, but I'll bite. Why do you know US foreign policy better than Kissinger?
"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend." (Henry Kissinger - Herald Tribune, Jan 18th 2007 via link)
The Kissinger quote implies that oil is a single factor among many.
Of course. Let me try again. This time, let's hear what the military has to say about it.
"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are [...] They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs." (Chuck Hagel) "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." (John Abizaid) (quoted via Wikipedia)
Does the military have more than one sentence to say? The Wikipedia entry you liked to cites a whole host of factors.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE.
There is a reason it was massive. Can you think of something pretty important that happened in 2008-2009? Here's a hint: it affected the economy.
Spending is spending. It hasn't payed off and and is still adding to the debt (that "stimulus"? Yea, we still pay that every year.) Combine that with the fact that Obama does NOT want to cut spending, and you can't blame this all on 2008. We are spending more than we take in with no plan to stop, and it CANNOT continue. Yet Obama wants it to continue. That is my point. It's just Obama spin when he says he cut it by such and such %. He OPPOSED the sequester, which was a (small) cut in increases (most of which came from military spending). It wasn't even a real cut, and it exempted mandatory spending. Obama doesn't give two you-know-whats about the deficit.
On October 05 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: We have a 'strong dollar policy' (whatever that actually is and does, if anything) because it's too hard to explain that a weak dollar can be good in a sound bite.
Oddly enough, it's easy to explain from a pro-business side, but the "pro-business" party is all about hard money.
On October 05 2013 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: We have a 'strong dollar policy' (whatever that actually is and does, if anything) because it's too hard to explain that a weak dollar can be good in a sound bite.
Oddly enough, it's easy to explain from a pro-business side, but the "pro-business" party is all about hard money.
fuck you i got mine-ism needs to be dressed up, what else do you think economics professors at hoover institute or chicago going to do otherwise? they got bills to pay too man
On October 05 2013 07:20 Introvert wrote: Spending is spending. It hasn't payed off and and is still adding to the debt (that "stimulus"? Yea, we still pay that every year.) Combine that with the fact that Obama does NOT want to cut spending, and you can't blame this all on 2008. We are spending more than we take in with no plan to stop, and it CANNOT continue. Yet Obama wants it to continue. That is my point. It's just Obama spin when he says he cut it by such and such %. He OPPOSED the sequester, which was a (small) cut in increases (most of which came from military spending). It wasn't even a real cut, and it exempted mandatory spending. Obama doesn't give two you-know-whats about the deficit.
And for good reason as far as I can tell. Wasn't one of the knocks on Cruz that he supported it? What am I missing here?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that keeping the spending cuts from sequestration in place through fiscal 2014 would cost up to 1.6 million jobs.
Canceling the cuts, on the other hand, would yield between 300,000 to 1.6 million new jobs, with the most likely outcome being the addition of 900,000, the CBO said.
On October 04 2013 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
Clarify (and cite) what you mean. So do you mean a $9 cut in spending?
I'm going to guess you mean a $ in taxes. To which I suppose the reply would be that they already raised taxes recently with no cuts.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE.
There is a reason it was massive. Can you think of something pretty important that happened in 2008-2009? Here's a hint: it affected the economy.
Spending is spending. It hasn't payed off and and is still adding to the debt (that "stimulus"? Yea, we still pay that every year.) Combine that with the fact that Obama does NOT want to cut spending, and you can't blame this all on 2008. We are spending more than we take in with no plan to stop, and it CANNOT continue. Yet Obama wants it to continue. That is my point. It's just Obama spin when he says he cut it by such and such %. He OPPOSED the sequester, which was a (small) cut in increases (most of which came from military spending). It wasn't even a real cut, and it exempted mandatory spending. Obama doesn't give two you-know-whats about the deficit.
Because it's literally stupid to give any measurable attention to the debt or deficit at this time. Do you know what happens when you let the debt/deficit get out of control? You'd be a Nobel prize winning economist if you did.
However, we know what happens with prolonged periods of high unemployment and low inflation. It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
On October 05 2013 07:30 aksfjh wrote: It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
the third option is that you have a revolution, seize the means of production, and expropriate the expropriators!
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
Ok, so you know more about the USA's economic interests in the middle East than Greenspan. Hard to believe, but I'll bite. Why do you know US foreign policy better than Kissinger?
"American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend." (Henry Kissinger - Herald Tribune, Jan 18th 2007 via link)
The Kissinger quote implies that oil is a single factor among many.
Of course. Let me try again. This time, let's hear what the military has to say about it.
"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are [...] They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs." (Chuck Hagel) "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." (John Abizaid) (quoted via Wikipedia)
Does the military have more than one sentence to say? The Wikipedia entry you liked to cites a whole host of factors.
You kind of answered your own question there, didn't you? Anyway, here's the whole talk (the quote comes from min 21:45):
On a side note, I'm not posting a new quote this time because you forgot to explain why Hagel and Abizaid are just as clueless as Kissinger and Greenspan. But since you already took a look at the wikipedia article, you see that I can keep up this stuff for a while - and the longer we keep going at it, the more silly the statement I was contesting ("I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.") will look... so please, continue to help me out here.
On October 05 2013 07:30 aksfjh wrote: It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
the third option is that you have a revolution, seize the means of production, and expropriate the expropriators!
I guess I should have clarified that the only 20th+ century way to get out of it. -_-
On October 05 2013 07:30 aksfjh wrote: It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
the third option is that you have a revolution, seize the means of production, and expropriate the expropriators!
I guess I should have clarified that the only 20th+ century way to get out of it. -_-
Yep. Capitalist accumulation can go on forever because there is no real world, only spreadsheets!
20th century I'll grant you. 21st is a whole nother thing. this motor don't run forever kids
On October 05 2013 07:30 aksfjh wrote: It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
the third option is that you have a revolution, seize the means of production, and expropriate the expropriators!
I guess I should have clarified that the only 20th+ century way to get out of it. -_-
Yep. Capitalist accumulation can go on forever because there is no real world, only spreadsheets!
20th century I'll grant you. 21st is a whole nother thing. this motor don't run forever kids
Sam, you disappoint me. Capitalism isn't the motor. It's the sugar in the tank.
EPT
