Orange Duce

[old salt]

Wasn’t part of the reason we were there was Cheney’s interest in changing centuries of Arab society?

No. It was to keep the oil flowing & develop a strong ally nation in the GWOT, hosting US military bases in the heart of the ME.
He & the rest of the Vulcans imagined Iraq as the Germany or Japan of the ME.
I don't recall Chaney mentioning Arab society.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wasn’t part of the reason we were there was Cheney’s interest in changing centuries of Arab society?

No. It was to keep the oil flowing & develop a strong ally nation in the GWOT, hosting US military bases in the heart of the ME.
He & the rest of the Vulcans imagined Iraq as the Germany or Japan of the ME.
I don't recall Chaney mentioning Arab society.

But the White House’s uncertainty marks a stark departure from Bush’s confidence in the early stages of the war. In July 2003, Bush stated:

A free Iraq will not destabilize the Middle East. A free Iraq can set a hopeful example to the entire region and lead other nations to choose freedom. And as the pursuits of freedom replace hatred and resentment and terror in the Middle East, the American people will be more secure.

Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton offered a very different take than Snow. “The Middle East is in flames,” Hamilton said. “Everywhere you look, there’s deep trouble — Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians, the peace process, Iran.” Asked whether the instability was linked to the war, Hamilton replied, “Of course they’re linked.”

If I didn't know any better i would say you were telling the truth

[old salt]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

[old salt]

Wasn’t part of the reason we were there was Cheney’s interest in changing centuries of Arab society?

No. It was to keep the oil flowing & develop a strong ally nation in the GWOT, hosting US military bases in the heart of the ME.
He & the rest of the Vulcans imagined Iraq as the Germany or Japan of the ME.
I don't recall Chaney mentioning Arab society.

But the White House’s uncertainty marks a stark departure from Bush’s confidence in the early stages of the war. In July 2003, Bush stated:

A free Iraq will not destabilize the Middle East. A free Iraq can set a hopeful example to the entire region and lead other nations to choose freedom. And as the pursuits of freedom replace hatred and resentment and terror in the Middle East, the American people will be more secure.

Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton offered a very different take than Snow. “The Middle East is in flames,” Hamilton said. “Everywhere you look, there’s deep trouble — Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians, the peace process, Iran.” Asked whether the instability was linked to the war, Hamilton replied, “Of course they’re linked.”

If I didn't know any better i would say you were telling the truth

Bush/Cheney sent > 100k troops to the ME. How many social workers to change Arab societies ? ..

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wasn’t part of the reason we were there was Cheney’s interest in changing centuries of Arab society?

No. It was to keep the oil flowing & develop a strong ally nation in the GWOT, hosting US military bases in the heart of the ME.
He & the rest of the Vulcans imagined Iraq as the Germany or Japan of the ME.
I don't recall Chaney mentioning Arab society.

But the White House’s uncertainty marks a stark departure from Bush’s confidence in the early stages of the war. In July 2003, Bush stated:

A free Iraq will not destabilize the Middle East. A free Iraq can set a hopeful example to the entire region and lead other nations to choose freedom. And as the pursuits of freedom replace hatred and resentment and terror in the Middle East, the American people will be more secure.

Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton offered a very different take than Snow. “The Middle East is in flames,” Hamilton said. “Everywhere you look, there’s deep trouble — Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians, the peace process, Iran.” Asked whether the instability was linked to the war, Hamilton replied, “Of course they’re linked.”

If I didn't know any better i would say you were telling the truth

Bush/Cheney sent > 100k troops to the ME. How many social workers to change Arab societies ? ..

they lied!!!

[foreverlax]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

Regime change....what's our score card say on that?

Your outline of who and why we got there doesn't address how wrong they were in assessing the situation(s). Iran vs Iraq was the thing that kept things stable....the power was balanced - let them fight it out.

Don't you think most of the hatred from the ME is due to our interference, constant presence on their shores and us trying to make them like us.

[old salt]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

Regime change....what's our score card say on that?

Your outline of who and why we got there doesn't address how wrong they were in assessing the situation(s). Iran vs Iraq was the thing that kept things stable....the power was balanced - let them fight it out.

Don't you think most of the hatred from the ME is due to our interference, constant presence on their shores and us trying to make them like us.

Agree. That's why I was not an enthusiastic supporter of going ashore in '91.

Our key strategic failure was to not recognize that Saddam intended to invade Kuwait in '91, & to deter it.
We should have threatened him enough to deter his invasion, while coercing the Kuwaitis & the other Gulf states to bail him out of his Iran war debt.

I don't agree that we're trying to make Arab societies like us. We still buy their oil, sell them arms & defend them from Iran, without effective conditions that alter their societies.

Except for the brief "tanker war", before '91, our "constant" presence was usually a single, outgunned USN Frigate, steaming in circles on Camel Station in the Persian Gulf, for 6 mos at a time.

[CU88]

Back on topic:

r hero claims that he gave greatest speech in Europe by a POTUS =

"I can say it but I don’t want to say it but some people said it was the best speech every made by a president in Europe. But I did not say that, I’m just quoting other people." - o d

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/sta ... 2472982528

DEPLORABLE

[MDlaxfan76]

Back on topic:

r hero claims that he gave greatest speech in Europe by a POTUS =

"I can say it but I don’t want to say it but some people said it was the best speech every made by a president in Europe. But I did not say that, I’m just quoting other people." - o d

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/sta ... 2472982528

DEPLORABLE

Yes, but on this one also quite the idiot.

[MDlaxfan76]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

I don't think I dodged in the slightest. You asked if I supported it.
I did. I was wrong.

But that's with the benefit of hindsight.

In hindsight, I quite disagree that we could not have/should not have taken longer to either muster full allied support or stay the heck out.

Why? Because we now know that we exaggerated the risk to be far more imminent than what we actually knew was the truth. It was not imminent.

And a war of aggression, billed dishonestly as a war of prevention, and built on a set of falsehoods, is a disastrous precedent. All sorts of predictable consequences.

Again, this is in hindsight.

The challenge for decision makers is that the zeitgeist of the moment all too often clouds judgments. Happens again and again in history, both in taking precipitous action and in ignoring very real threats.

As I said, I don't think these guys were 'evil', I think Bush was actually scared about the risk and Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were arrogant about outcomes.

There's really no question now that the planning and execution of the post 'shock and awe' phase was horrible. Again, arrogance.

So, in hindsight, what would have been the better course?

Well' you state a number of assumptions I can neither prove nor disprove, though one seems pretty clear to be misleading as to "Saddam was getting stronger". His military capabilities had been deeply decimated and Desert Storm had shown the folly, to him and everyone else in the ME, of thinking that an invasion of a neighbor with conventional forces would not be again decimated swiftly. Sure, he was gaining some relative military capacity relative to the nadir post Desert Storm, but no question that they were not a threat conventionally to the US or their neighbors, albeit they had capabilities versus an invasion by a neighbor.

Enter the WMD claim. Yup, WMD's would be a very serious issue.

But we knew they didn't actually have them, or at least had serious doubts just like our allies had such doubts, yet chose to mislead the public and our allies of high confidence level intelligence suggesting otherwise.

It was wrong to do. Regardless of zeitgeist, regardless of the 'opportunity' to reshape the ME, it was an illegitimate act.

And that's the fundamental test. That alone should have been the trip wire, which had it been tripped would have prevented all the arrogance and blowback that followed.

Instead we created a morass in which asymmetric warfare became widespread rather than limited to a relative few. And we set the US up to be hated by Sunni and Shia alike, and to be considered impotent around the world.

I also don't buy for a moment that Afghanistan was remotely in hand.
Again, gross arrogance in thinking so.

[CU77]

Your questions were direction to Md77, but I will provide my answers.

how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

Deterrence of state actors (including Iraq), while maximizing (to whatever extent possible) intelligence for GWOT.

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

We should have declared victory and left the ME before 911. Failing that, we should have declared victory (on states like Iraq) and left afterward, justifying it as the need to concentrate on homeland security and nonstate actors.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ?

Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?

How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq.

What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat".

(& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Deterrence.

Yes.

No time at all.

Already answered.

(Don't understand the question.)

[old salt]

We did not need to take the action when we did, we could have waited and gathered consensus, and we should have thoroughly planned for the ramifications of military action.

The longer we waited, the less the sense of urgency & the harder to gain consensus.
Bush/Cheney knew they had a limited window of opportunity.
9-11 was still a recent memory. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had been quickly routed & AQ decimated, with remnants run to ground or driven into Pakistan. In '03, Afghanistan had not yet become a protracted stalemate.

But you're dodging my question -- how should we have dealt with Iraq, post 9-11, as we pursued an unknown GWOT ?

How long could we sustain patrolling the no fly zones, out of bases in SA, that had already been targeted by terrorists, which were destabilizing SA. UN sanctions were expiring, support for renewing them was crumbling. The UN oil for food program was a scam. Saddam was selling black market oil to Syria & Turkey, using the funds rearm & rebuild his air defenses.

How would you have dealt with Saddam & Sons ? Would you have abandoned our bi-partisan national policy of regime change ?
How much longer we you willing to wait & keep our forces engaged in combat with Iraq. It had been 12 years by '03, & Saddam was getting stronger.
What military strategy did you favor in '03, notwithstanding the WMD "threat". (& did you really buy it ? WMD delivered by Iraqi drones, launched from tramp steamers offshore the US).

Bush/Cheney rightly concluded that if we were ever going to achieve the official US policy of regime change in Iraq, we would never have a better opportunity, & they seized it. That's why I maintain that making war on Saddam in '91, falling short of driving him from office, made the second Iraq war inevitable.

In hindsight, I quite disagree that we could not have/should not have taken longer to either muster full allied support or stay the heck out.

So, in hindsight, what would have been the better course?

Well' you state a number of assumptions I can neither prove nor disprove, though one seems pretty clear to be misleading as to "Saddam was getting stronger". ...Sure, he was gaining some relative military capacity relative to the nadir post Desert Storm, but no question that they were not a threat conventionally to the US or their neighbors, albeit they had capabilities versus an invasion by a neighbor.

I also don't buy for a moment that Afghanistan was remotely in hand.

Your assumptions are flawed. The longer we delayed, the more our support dissipated. Bush got those who were "willing".
France said no. Turkey played coy, then said NO after we had an entire Infantry Division waiting in ships outside Turkish ports, denying the ability to open a northern front which would have greatly eased the aftermath.

You discount Saddam's increasing rearmament. Here's what CNN reported* @ '97.
By '03, Saddam had 6 more years of oil for food & black market oil money to rearm. He was installing Chinese fiber optic networking for his air defenses & his missile shots at our no fly zone patrolling aircraft were becoming more frequent & accurate.

Consider what that '97 CNN report predicted for the future after the massive Desert Fox bombing campaign failed to yield regime chamge :

* Iraq has been slowly rebuilding its military forces since 1991. And while it is nowhere near as powerful as it was, Iraq's armed forces still represent a threat to other countries and U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region, military analysts say.

"If they took all of their forces, put them on the border -- Republican Guards, about 100,000 good troops -- they could cause quite a bit of damage," said Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Iraq is boxed in by more than 200 U.S. and allied fighter planes, including U.S. F-15s and F-16s in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, A-10 "tank killers" in Kuwait; and F-18s on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz in the Gulf.

Six of the 17 U.S. ships in the Gulf are equipped with deadly accurate Tomahawk cruise missiles; the type used to punish Saddam twice before -- last year and in 1993.

The United States spends $500-600 million a year to maintain its military stranglehold on Iraq.

The Pentagon believes the strategy against Iraq will likely keep U.S. forces in the Gulf for another 15 years, and will probably require periodic strikes to keep Saddam in line.

...& ^ was @ '07. saddam kept rearming the ensuing 6 years. Look at the massive force level we had to keep tied up there for the previous 12 years, with no end in sight, without regime change. ...compare that to the single Navy Frigate we maintained on Camel Station before we went ashore in '91.

Afghanistan was not "in hand" in '03, but AQ & Taliban had not yet reconstituted & begun their insurgency.

We're both looking back with the benefit of hindsight. I keep circling back to '91 because that's when we first committed ourselves to combat in support of Gulf Arab allies. Was returning Kuwait to the Emir worth all that followed. Would annexing Kiwait satisfy Saddam's hegemonic ambitions. Who knows? It would have prompted us to increase our afloat presence in the Gulf & inspired our Gulf Arab allies to increase their defenses. Would the Arab states have worked out a deal allowing Saddam to retain Kuwait without threatenibg his Arab neigbors. I think that Evans & Novak * column I linked would have been prescient. ...but it's all hypothetical hindsight gaming.
W was stuck with cleaning up Poppy's unfinished business.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... e3f963871b

August 3, 1990
The failure of the world intelligence services, led by the CIA and Israel's Mossad, to foresee Iraq's surprise invasion of Kuwait offers the first clue to the shrewdness of strong man Saddam Hussein's dangerous vision.

"They all thought the threat to Kuwait was just a light touch," said a Bush administration insider. "Why would Saddam Hussein invite Western military attaches to come watch his tanks drive down the road to the Kuwaiti border if he was going to actually use them?"

That mistake by Western intelligence ensured Iraq's lightning takeover of the oil kingdom. The conquest might have been derailed before it happened, but cannot now be undone from outside.

Judging from the past, Saddam Hussein is not likely to press his luck by invading other Persian Gulf states any time soon. That is particularly true if President Bush accepts strong advice that the United States guarantee the safety of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. aircraft carrier Independence, sent steaming toward the Straits of Hormuz yesterday, could not reach Kuwait with its warplanes from Hormuz without refueling. But an invasion of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates would expose Iraqi forces to direct, easy carrier attack.

More likely, Saddam Hussein will digest the Kuwaiti conquest, which has always been his special target.

[a fan]

You can't deny that keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing was critical, & still is.

Yes. Yes I can.

This is the sand that US Middle East policy is built upon---and is the foundation for all the mistakes that followed. And, more importantly, all the mistakes we're making right now.

We don't need this oil. Sorry, mate. You think we do. You'd swear that we do. We don't.

Think of all the secondary things that have flowed from this mistake.

-pushed back our nuclear energy program
-all the sprawl that was enabled by super-cheap gas, making it more expensive to move people and goods
-pushed back innovation in energy efficiency
-pushed back innovation in materials used to build cars and truck
-trillions blown on direct and indirect wars (bankrolling Saddam, Afghanis, etc.)
-terrorism hits on US, including 9/11
-all that wasted money on Dept. of Homeland Security
-all the borrowing costs
-all the missed opportunity in domestic fracking etc. that was postponed because gas was so cheap
-same for renewable energies

That's just a quick list. Know which one is the worst? That the idea----just the idea----that our government provide the basic health care and higher education and vocational training that is provided in every single other 1st world nation, elicits laughter from both Republican Voters and their representatives. They think that the mere mention is insane. Why?

Because they think that cheap gas is more important than giving our most vulnerable citizens access to health care. So we have selected----chosen---to be at war for the last 50 years. On purpose. As a policy. And you STILL think that this makes perfect sense.

Sorry mate. You're wrong.

And think of all the stuff that wouldn't have happened. No Shah. No Iranian revolution. No troops anywhere near the ME. No 9/11. No problems with the VA Hospitals. And, after the Cold War expired, we'd have two generations of Americans enjoying an overflowing US Treasury, where we could invest that money wherever we'd like.

And nope, I"m not selling revisionism. I'm selling we do moving forward. Because we're still playing the oil game, like the fools we are.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can't deny that keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing was critical, & still is.

Yes. Yes I can.

This is the sand that US Middle East policy is built upon---and is the foundation for all the mistakes that followed. And, more importantly, all the mistakes we're making right now.

We don't need this oil. Sorry, mate. You think we do. You'd swear that we do. We don't.

Think of all the secondary things that have flowed from this mistake.

-pushed back our nuclear energy program
-all the sprawl that was enabled by super-cheap gas, making it more expensive to move people and goods
-pushed back innovation in energy efficiency
-pushed back innovation in materials used to build cars and truck
-trillions blown on direct and indirect wars (bankrolling Saddam, Afghanis, etc.)
-terrorism hits on US, including 9/11
-all that wasted money on Dept. of Homeland Security
-all the borrowing costs
-all the missed opportunity in domestic fracking etc. that was postponed because gas was so cheap
-same for renewable energies

That's just a quick list. Know which one is the worst? That the idea----just the idea----that our government provide the basic health care and higher education and vocational training that is provided in every single other 1st world nation, elicits laughter from both Republican Voters and their representatives. They think that the mere mention is insane. Why?

Because they think that cheap gas is more important than giving our most vulnerable citizens access to health care. So we have selected----chosen---to be at war for the last 50 years. On purpose. As a policy. And you STILL think that this makes perfect sense.

Sorry mate. You're wrong.

And think of all the stuff that wouldn't have happened. No Shah. No Iranian revolution. No troops anywhere near the ME. No 9/11. No problems with the VA Hospitals. And, after the Cold War expired, we'd have two generations of Americans enjoying an overflowing US Treasury, where we could invest that money wherever we'd like.

And nope, I"m not selling revisionism. I'm selling we do moving forward. Because we're still playing the oil game, like the fools we are.

The people are our most valuable asset. We are giving our advantage away.

[a fan]

And a hearty congratulations to my fellow American dumbasses who applauded when Trump's crew met with a Russian spy, looking for dirt on Hillary.

Thanks for waving that through. Trump got your message loud and clear, as did all current and future American politicians. Sweet.

Nice job. I mean, you're really outdoing yourselves with your partisan brilliance.


"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

Who cares, right? You guys are all thrilled about the Steel Dossier, right? So "it's all good, G".



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-excl ... M0boO1LIrU

[Typical Lax Dad]

I look forward to Syria putting their man in the race.

[a fan]

Oh me too. Who will they pick, do you think? Tulsi?

Good thing we're fixing our election laws so this doesn't happen in a few months....and aren't instead, say, trying to throw Hillary Clinton in jail for breaking laws that don't exist.

Trump's on the case. Have no fear.

[old salt]

You can't deny that keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing was critical, & still is.

Yes. Yes I can.

This is the sand that US Middle East policy is built upon---and is the foundation for all the mistakes that followed. And, more importantly, all the mistakes we're making right now.

We don't need this oil. Sorry, mate. You think we do. You'd swear that we do. We don't.

Think of all the secondary things that have flowed from this mistake.

-pushed back our nuclear energy program
-all the sprawl that was enabled by super-cheap gas, making it more expensive to move people and goods
-pushed back innovation in energy efficiency
-pushed back innovation in materials used to build cars and truck
-trillions blown on direct and indirect wars (bankrolling Saddam, Afghanis, etc.)
-terrorism hits on US, including 9/11
-all that wasted money on Dept. of Homeland Security
-all the borrowing costs
-all the missed opportunity in domestic fracking etc. that was postponed because gas was so cheap
-same for renewable energies

That's just a quick list. Know which one is the worst? That the idea----just the idea----that our government provide the basic health care and higher education and vocational training that is provided in every single other 1st world nation, elicits laughter from both Republican Voters and their representatives. They think that the mere mention is insane. Why?

Because they think that cheap gas is more important than giving our most vulnerable citizens access to health care. So we have selected----chosen---to be at war for the last 50 years. On purpose. As a policy. And you STILL think that this makes perfect sense.

Sorry mate. You're wrong.

And think of all the stuff that wouldn't have happened. No Shah. No Iranian revolution. No troops anywhere near the ME. No 9/11. No problems with the VA Hospitals. And, after the Cold War expired, we'd have two generations of Americans enjoying an overflowing US Treasury, where we could invest that money wherever we'd like.

And nope, I"m not selling revisionism. I'm selling we do moving forward. Because we're still playing the oil game, like the fools we are.

That's just nuts. Pie in the sky lunacy. You can't just transform & restructure a sprawling USA, which covers a continent.
We didn't have fracking in '91. We'd stopped building nuc power plants (go watch Jane Fonda in China Syndrome)
We haven't broken ground on a new nuc plant since 1977 & a new one hasn't come on line since 1990.

Sprawl was driven by more influential factors than gas prices.
How much innovation has high gas prices brought to Europe & Japan ?
Even now, Persian Gulf oil still drives the world market price.
Germany & Japan have closed their nuc plants but are still burning coal. Their carbon emissions are rising while ours are going down.
Look how much more energy efficient our vehicles, buildings, heating & AC have become, thanks to better design & innovation.
All that happened in a free society made possible by cheap, plentiful energy.

The gas lines of the '70's disrupted the daily lives of most Americans.
Not sure you could get to work or get food or products on the shelf.
Our economy & our way of life are based on motor vehicle travel & cheap gas.
We're not compact like Europe with dense housing & reliable public transportation.

It's insanity to think you could flip a switch in '91 or '79 & convert our way of life which developed based on motor vehicle transportation.
Restructure our economy & way of life via paternalistic gas rationing.
Pack everyone into cities & towns, with universal public transportation. Empty out the rural areas. That's nuts.
You & ACO need to run off to a hippie commune together or live among the Amish.
Remember what James Baker said was the reason for Desert Storm -- jobs.

[a fan]

That's just nuts. Pie in the sky lunacy. You can't just transform & restructure a sprawling USA, which covers a continent.

What do you think we're going to do when the Middle East oil reserves are gone? Surrender to the French? Give up? Drink Kool Aid?

Adapt. It's the beauty of free market capitalism. Taking oil by force has stunted that mechanism, which is part of my point.

You're assuming so many things here. You're assuming if the US isn't over there, the oil will stop. You're assuming the only energy sources are in the Middle East.

We didn't have fracking in '91.

Actually. We did. Read about it for yourself. Invented in the 40's. And that's my point. Now why weren't we fracking? Is it a complicated tech heavy invention? Nope. It's because gas has been cheap all this time, making the method financially inefficient, and making R&D pointless. War-for-ME-oil ruined that math, my friend. So we shelved the idea.

We'd stopped building nuc power plants (go watch Jane Fonda in China Syndrome)
We haven't broken ground on a new nuc plant since 1977 & a new one hasn't come on line since 1990.

Yep. Why? Because instead, we CHOSE to send our military in to solve our energy problems. It was a CHOICE.

Where do you think these energy policies come from? They just fall from the sky? Santa tells us what to do every Dec 25th?

We CHOSE this path. You are laboring under the illusion that we have no choice in the matter. I have no Earthly idea why. Doubly so as you think that Trump's tariffs are no big thing....yet you want to go to war over one component of our economy.

Sprawl was driven by more influential factors than gas prices.

Double gas prices in America for a decade. Watch where people choose to live. Watch how "magically" interested citizens become in mass transit options.

How much innovation has high gas prices brought to Europe & Japan ?

This serious? Have you been to either? Europass ring a bell anywhere? Or high speed trains that we will never have in the US?

Look how much more energy efficient our vehicles, buildings, heating & AC have become, thanks to better design & innovation.

And government forcing the issue. Mileage standards. Market shortages---the ones you think we need to avoid at all costs--- pushed Japanese and EU makers as well as Americans to work on lighter, stronger materials.

You want to halt natural market shortages with blood and war. And you don't seem to get that's what you're advocating. And don't understand that these prices effect where we live, what we drive, where we focus R&D.......you think these things are random. They're not.

Our economy & our way of life are based on motor vehicle travel & cheap gas.

Yes. That statement makes my point. Thank you.

It can 100% work without it.

We're not compact like Europe with dense housing & reliable public transportation.

Yup. And that's a direct result of cheap gas. One led to the other. Get rid of cheap gas, and that will change. And we'll invest in fracking. And nuclear power. And natural gas. And solar. And wind. And, and, and.

We'll adapt. You think if we lose cheap gas we'll sit in the corner with a blanket over our head, and listen to the Cure's greatest hits on repeat.

It's insanity to think you could flip a switch in '91 or '79 & convert our way of life which developed based on motor vehicle transportation

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

After all these years, you think that the ME would simply not drill if the US wasn't there? What would they do?

That stunt they pulled in the 1970's? Why do you supposed they've never done that again? Did OPEC forget? Or did America cut its ME oil demand in half inside of a decade?

Oil is trade. Something you and Trump don't seem to get. The ME needs customers. If they show the market that supply is erratic..what happens?

That's right. The market reacts. It's why we're no longer driving 8mpg cars.

You & ACO need to run off to a hippie commune together or live among the Amish.

And you need to grow an imagination. If you were in charge, we'd have never made it to the moon.

Innovate. Adapt. It's the most American thing we do.

Ever notice how much time your party spends telling us how many things we can't do as a nation? Can't provide health care. Can't educate our citizens. When did we get so weak and ineffectual? What happened to your party? Weak sauce.

[runrussellrun]

We didn't have fracking in '91. We'd stopped building nuc power plants (go watch Jane Fonda in China Syndrome)
We haven't broken ground on a new nuc plant since 1977 & a new one hasn't come on line since 1990. Absolutely NOT true. TAATS on the HILL have launched HOW many nuke powered boats in the past 30 years?

.
Germany & Japan have closed their nuc plants but are still burning coal. Their carbon emissions are rising while ours are going down.
Look how much more energy efficient our vehicles, buildings, heating & AC have become, thanks to better design & innovation.
All that happened in a free society made possible by cheap, plentiful energy.

ANd yet......we still can't drive human powered bikes on federal highways. Can't even walk them. Don't sound FREE to me.