3rd Anniversary of The US Invasion of Iraq: Do We Use US Military to Save the Dollar? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-16-2006, 03:02 AM

This week, we observe the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.
As a nation, are we more "war like" or less "war like" than 3 years ago.
Will the tone of the media be less "gung ho", because of the Iraq experience?

It is easy to look back and observe the comments....the gloating....the confidence in the tones of those who "got it right"! In hindsight, did the press "overdue it"?

This 3 year old collection of comments by media pundits and members of the press, in response to a war "of choice", launched on dubious and ever changing justifications, illustrate the enthusiasm for projection of US military power.

Now....I believe that we have a "real" crisis looming. The US dollar buys half as much oil as it did five years ago. The second quote box in this OP describes the economic decline of the US vs. China. The third quote box highlights the forward risks to the spending power of the dollar.

Is it time to use US military power to seize control of ocean and seacoast shipping lanes, foreign oil fields, and other raw material deposits, while the dollar is still strong enough to finance our military strength, or do we wait to do this as a "last resort", when we are weaker and those countries who would resist, are economically and militarily stronger?

Will the cheerleaders, quoted below, having been "burned" once, be less enthusiastic about a "War to Save the Dollar"? Does the US follow the Soviet example of sitting on it's military assets while it's economy collapses and the Naval ships rust, tied up at their piers, or does it make sense to use the military to seize "plunder" to preserve our "way of life"?

Increasingly, I would find it difficult to withhold support from a candidate for POTUS who, after making a sincere speech like Rep. Ron Paul's (below) laid out a candid plan to use our military in an attempt to destroy the offensive military assets of all other countries who are not strongly aligned with the US.

I believe that the risks to the stability of the dollar are now high enough to seriously discuss whether to use our military in an "all out" offensive, now, later, when we know more, but risks have increased, or not at all.

I suspect that the secrecy practiced by VP Cheney was influenced by a similar set of deliberations, and that the 2003 attempt at an experiment in US imperialism, backfired, due to planning errors and a failure to be candid with the American people. Hasn't the "outcome" in Iraq, reduced non-imperialistic
alternatives and narrowed the will and the window of opportunity for imperialistic projection of military power?

Quote:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

"The Final Word Is Hooray!"

3/15/06

Weeks after the invasion of Iraq began, Fox News Channel host Brit Hume delivered a scathing speech critiquing the media's supposedly pessimistic assessment of the Iraq War.

"The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong," Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/25/04). "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

Hume was perhaps correct--but almost entirely in the opposite sense. Days or weeks into the war, commentators and reporters made premature declarations of victory, offered predictions about lasting political effects and called on the critics of the war to apologize. Three years later, the Iraq War grinds on at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Around the same time as Hume's speech, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking."

Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War.

Declaring Victory

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)

"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking."
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation [stunt]--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)

Mission Accomplished?

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)

Neutralizing the Opposition

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)

"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

Nagging the "Naysayers"

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, "The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated." Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Shouldn't the [Canadian] prime minister and all of us who thought the war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the Americans, isn't it clear that President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair were right all along? If we believe it's a good thing that Hussein's regime has been dismantled, aren't we hypocritical not to acknowledge Bush's superior judgment?... Why can't those of us who thought the war was a bad idea (or, at any rate, a premature one) let it go now and just join in celebrating the victory wrought by our magnificent military forces?"
(Washington Post's William Raspberry, 4/14/03)

"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

Cakewalk?

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...

Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of "the green mushroom" over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)

"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)

A highlight from my post here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...28#post2026728
.......

Quote:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analys...id=28&nid=4097

......“They’re both mad,” said a colleague yesterday. One spends money it hasn’t got. The other sells to people who cannot pay. Maybe China and the U.S. represent equal and opposite delusions: One over-spends. The other over-saves. But while the delusions are opposite, they are not equal. There is a great Exodus of power and money from West to East. There is a big difference between being on the prospering end of that passage as opposed to the losing end. China’s working class is getting richer; America’s is not. China’s treasury piles up credits; America’s piles up debits. China’s consumers have savings that they could spend, if they wanted to. America’s consumers have only credit...made available to them at present rates only so long as it accords with the whim of the market and the will of lenders. The Chinese are owners...Americans are becoming renters. The Chinese are free from debt; Americans are chained to it...........

Quote:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...6/cr021506.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006

The End of Dollar Hegemony

.....During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.........

....The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill...........

.........Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

Ustwo · 03-16-2006, 06:12 AM

Pointless ... and adds nothing to the discussion.

roachboy · 03-16-2006, 08:05 AM

i have no time at the moment, not really: i post this mostly to bookend the fine contribution to informed debate that ustwo once again has provided us. i feel there should be a frame around, so folk can really look at it.

dksuddeth · 03-16-2006, 08:16 AM

Host, would you rather see the US degenerate in to a 3rd world country because the american people refused to compete with other nations or would you support military intervention to keep the US economically sound?

Ustwo · 03-16-2006, 08:39 AM

Pointless ... and adds nothing to the discussion.

Every poll needs a 'none of the above'.

Charlatan · 03-16-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Host, would you rather see the US degenerate in to a 3rd world country because the american people refused to compete with other nations or would you support military intervention to keep the US economically sound?

Are you actually suggesting that the US use its military as a bludgeon to provide an unfair advantage on the global marketplace?

While there is certainly precident for this (America using its military to "protect" its interests) the actions and wars are usually couched in terms that make them palatable to the US populace (i.e. Freedom, Spreading Democracy, stopping Communism, etc.).

What seems to be happening here is a little too blatant for the majority to swallow. Has America so weakened itself with its "war on terror" that it has to resort to these sort of actions?

Please correct me if I am misreading Host's intent with this thread.

dksuddeth · 03-16-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Are you actually suggesting that the US use its military as a bludgeon to provide an unfair advantage on the global marketplace?

Nations have done this very thing throughout the history of the world. If it came down to the US dying a slow and agonizing death with the start of the economy or survival by military action, what do you choose?

Aladdin Sane · 03-16-2006, 08:51 AM

I don't know how to be civil.

Aladdin Sane · 03-16-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Nations have done this very thing throughout the history of the world. If it came down to the US dying a slow and agonizing death with the start of the economy or survival by military action, what do you choose?

NO. History didn't begin until the U.S. became a powerful nation. Before that all nations lived in harmony.

Charlatan · 03-16-2006, 09:02 AM

**MOD NOTE**

Either the tone changes in this thread or some vaction time will be handed out.

Thanks.

Ustwo · 03-16-2006, 09:03 AM

The entire premise of this discussion is flawed from the start. We have the usual disjointed quotes. Yea China is rising as a industrial power, woopie, its still a craptastic place to live, it has no where to go but up and good for them, proof of the power of capitalism. Yea oil is more expensive, in large part because of the speculation in the market, not production, so we buy less oil with the dollar, bfd everyone else is buying less with their currency too.

I see nothing that implies that the US will NEED to use military force in order to maintain economic dominance.

Charlatan · 03-16-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Nations have done this very thing throughout the history of the world. If it came down to the US dying a slow and agonizing death with the start of the economy or survival by military action, what do you choose?

History has little to do with it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In the end, the US cannot talk from both sides of it's mouth at once. It's just ridiculous to go around preaching "free market" and "democracy" while at the same time setting an example to the opposite...

Using your superior military to secure a shipping lane is one thing, using it to force sovreign nation's to continue using your currency to trade in oil is an entirely different matter.

So if I am reading this correctly, the US could force those who don't want to play by their rules to do so... What's to stop the world from taking it's ball and finding someone else to play with... like that nice Chinese boy who just moved in down the block? The US may be able to bully it's way to the top for a while but most bullies get what coming to them.

Seaver · 03-16-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

In the end, the US cannot talk from both sides of it's mouth at once. It's just ridiculous to go around preaching "free market" and "democracy" while at the same time setting an example to the opposite...

Using your superior military to secure a shipping lane is one thing, using it to force sovreign nation's to continue using your currency to trade in oil is an entirely different matter.

This doesn't work. The US did not get oil from Iraq because they did not want to buy it from Iraq. If we were simply after the oil and not attempting to create a democratic beacon of hope in the region we'd just become friends with Saddam again.

And host, you need to add another part to your poll.

At the moment it resembles:

A) I'm naming my first born George Walker
B) I support Bush fully
C) I support Bush on most things, but not everything
D) I support Bush because of his military leadership
E) I support Bush because of his economic leadership

You wouldnt vote on this poll just like I'm not voting on yours.

dksuddeth · 03-16-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

History has little to do with it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Right or homeless and starving (weighing in each hand) which would you rather be?

host · 03-16-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Are you actually suggesting that the US use its military as a bludgeon to provide an unfair advantage on the global marketplace?

While there is certainly precident for this (America using its military to "protect" its interests) the actions and wars are usually couched in terms that make them palatable to the US populace (i.e. Freedom, Spreading Democracy, stopping Communism, etc.).

What seems to be happening here is a little too blatant for the majority to swallow. Has America so weakened itself with its "war on terror" that it has to resort to these sort of actions?

Please correct me if I am misreading Host's intent with this thread.

You're reading "it" right, Charaltan...and I've voted in the poll.
Doesn't it follow, that if I earnestly attempt to keep informed, that I would follow the information that I gather, to conclusions that may contradict personal principles, if reason and common sense require it?

Stick a fork in the dollar...it's done! We should at least talk about what options remain to avoid waking up some morning in the near future to find the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped in half....again....or as Ron Paul put it, "when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars....." (At the end of his speech, linked above..)

Let me make clear that I am approaching this from a practical standpoint. I'm putting aside my moral beliefs in order to initiate discussion about (what I see as...) the greatest and most impending threat to our national security. I have become convinced that the US will do what I am advocating either now or later, because......compared to your country, Canada or, for example, Norway...the threat to the early evaporation of the purchasing power of our U.S. currency is CERTAIN! We have gone past the point of no return. If you conclude that our course cannot be mitigated in time to save the dollar, what remains is only to decide when to act in a way similar to the way all empires have reacted in history. Do we use the military before it is compromised by a lack of purchasing power, and we have the best chance to shore ourselves up....preserve our standard of living and thus, our national security, or do we decline to the point where we use a weakened military that we cannot finance...against... by then....a stronger set of adversaries.

I believe that it will happen anyway...at some point. I think that the way the press responded in 2003 is an indicator that all we lack is honest leadership that can level with us, the way Texas Rep. Ron Paul does....

I laid out the "ground work" for what might comes "next" for the U.S. in this thread last year, where my focus was on a contrasting comparison of how Norway had planned for the end of "cheap oil" vs. the lack of U.S. planning, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ay#post1797804

The future soundness of the Canadian currency is detailed in my post a few days ago, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...70&postcount=9

Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0105-08.htm
Published on Monday, January 5, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

How Will Bush Deal With the Deficits? Connecting the Dots to Iraq
by Robert Freeman

How does a nation deal with debts that so greatly outrun its ability to pay? There are basically only five strategies. All are unappealing. Most are calamitous.

The most difficult strategy is, not surprisingly, the honest one: raise taxes and pay your bills. This is what King George III did following the Seven Years War with France in 1763. England had quadrupled its national debt in fighting the War and needed money to pay it off. It turned to the richest people in the realm, the Colonists, and began taxing paper, glass, paint, lead, and, of course, tea. The result, as we know, was the American Revolution......

....Finally, there is plunder. When a nation's debt load becomes so huge it cannot plausibly reassure creditors regarding repayment, it must seek some source of wealth, any source, to keep the borrowed money flowing. This, naked predation, is what kept the Roman Empire alive for the last two hundred years of its existence. It is the strategy adopted by the Spanish Empire-silver and gold from America-and which eventually destroyed the vitality of its own merchant and civil servant classes.

Government economists are not unawares of these imperatives. So, which of the five above strategies has the U.S. adopted to deal with its exploding debt problem?.........

.......So what to do?.........

Consider that the following article was written when the U.S. was $2 trillion less in debt, the results of the invasion and occupation of Iraq weren't known, and the U.S. dollar purchased twice the amount of oil that it can today!

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...0923&s=greider
The End of Empire

by WILLIAM GREIDER

[from the September 23, 2002 issue]

......For their own reasons, the major trading partners are reluctant to disrupt the status quo. The current arrangement allows them to have it both ways--gaining a greater share of markets under the shadow of US hegemony. Privately, they recognize that the US economic position is steadily ebbing. But it seems wiser to let the Americans keep their delusions for now. The space for self-interested maneuvering is much greater if the United States carries the burdens and costs alone. Despite occasional whining, Japan and Germany are not eager to claim a prominent share in global leadership (both once had a go at running the world and it ended badly). Far better to prop up the United States financially without forcing awareness of the shifting power.

Their reluctance resembles the American attitude early in the last century, when it was the ascendant economic power but did not wish to become a "Great Power" itself, with responsibility for maintaining world order. Instead, the United States propped up Britain for many years as the failing empire sank into unsustainable debt. British power was fundamentally eclipsed in 1914, but the United States provided the financial nurture to keep it upright, as a kind of dummy leader in world affairs, until after World War II. Washington decisively pulled the plug in 1956, when Britain (along with France and Israel) invaded Egypt to capture the nationalized Suez Canal. It was the last gasp of British colonialism, and Washington disapproved. By withholding an IMF loan to London, the United States crashed the pound, forced Britain to withdraw from war and its prime minister to resign in disgrace. The Brits were finally relieved of their delusions.

It is most unlikely, of course, that the US drama will play out in a similar way--we are far too big and powerful by comparison--but Britain's humiliation might serve as a cautionary tale for power-drunk American statesmen. Other nations, when they feel their global market power is sufficiently stronger and we have become still weaker, might organize a transition of gradual adjustments that allows the United States to climb down gracefully from its long-held role. This would be very difficult to accomplish, however, without a real blow to the US standard of living, not to mention national pride.

More likely, the United States and the global system are going to encounter harsh bumps and ugly surprises. Japan, which has the most to lose if the United States taps out as "buyer of last resort," suggested privately a few years back that it would accept a discreet ceiling on its trade surpluses with the United States--a "managed trade" deal the free-market Americans rejected on principle. Richard Medley, a global financial consultant with inside connections in Tokyo, told me afterward, "One of the Japanese strategies is to keep us from doing anything rash for the next decade and a half--until they have become self-sufficient in Asia and can go along without us."

The European Union, meanwhile, is patiently assembling the economic girth and institutional confidence to act as the leading counterpoise to Washington. That is the essential idea of the euro--a competing world currency other nations can use for trade and as a reliable storehold of wealth. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider usage, the dollar will no longer be the only option. At that point, it will be easier for Europe or others to exercise their financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole. Europe is not quite there yet, but the euro is rising and so is European anger. The Saudis' financial withdrawals this summer may be a hint of what Americans can expect--episodes of veiled pressure until Washington gets the message.

The Bush warriors' reckless American unilateralism can only hasten the day when the creditors' conclude that they must assert their leverage over us, perhaps in order to defend peace and stability in the world. How will Americans react when they discover that "U-S-A" is a lot less muscular than they were led to believe? Assuming Americans do not really yearn to become latter-day Roman legions, many people may be relieved to learn the truth. Stripped of imperial illusions, this country could concentrate on building a different, more promising society at home. But while we can hope that the transition ahead will be gradual and without national humiliation, it's more plausible that America's brave new imperialists will plunge ahead blindly, until one day they encounter their own intense reckoning with the bookkeepers.

roachboy · 03-16-2006, 04:16 PM

that the present administration entered with and maintains a particular understanding of how milItary action and economic interests are intertwined seems to me fairly evident--they obvious did not invent this intertwining--every administration in recent times has had strategic agendas that were rooted in the same understanding of the relation between these sectors--but none of them (except perhaps reagan, whose administration did not precede the bush people into the annals of the heroically incompetent as a function of the absurd official targets--grenada etc.--and the cold war idicoy behind their unofficial targets--nicaragua in particular---and of the time-frame they took up--and of the choices that were available to them, etc.)

i dont think you can understand the present iraq fiasco in other terms--incapable of imagining ideological orientation in a context of the diminishing centrality of nation-states, the bush folk threw the dice in iraq and attempted to situate the u.s.as military hegemon on top of the networks of multilateral agreements that had been shaping the processes grouped together as "globalizing capitalism." form a conservative viewpoint, this move made sense in political terms at least--given that the whole of conservative ideology relies upon the nation-state, which acts as the premise from which their arguments operate--a defunctionalization of the nation-state would mean, first and before anything else, the collapse of conservative ideology in its present form.
so the bush folk acted from political self-interest, but not for the reasons that they said.
and they fucked it up.
the effects of this fuck up will play out over a longer time-frame than has the iraq war---i am not sure how it will work itself out, but it is clear to me that the "strategy" (in quotes deservedly) of the bush people has failed miserably.

this was not a matter of principle, nor was it a function of any Big Dynamic that determines how history plays out--it was a function of incompetence and nothing else.

given that currency values are functions of currency trading (a transnational game, but shh...dont tell conservatives that--they prefer to pretend that nation-states run the show...) is among the effects generated by this incompetence. i would expect that if the americans were to wake up and toss the present conservative ideology and its representatives back into the ash-heap that currency markets would respond in kind. i dont see the u.s.as the Business Too Big to be Allowed to Fail at this point.

particular choices engender larger effects--for convenience, the patterns formed by these effects, around and by them, within and against them, at some point get labelled processes and so it goes. historians like to talk about processes--in doing that they eliminate contingency, accident, etc. and make the results of wobbly trajectories plotted out by actual human beings in real time into causal patterns. they like to link patterns and talk about cycles. they seem to like the idea of cycles. they imagine cycles are explanatory. there are many many conceptual problems with this--but no matter, really, not in a message board format.

the reason i mention this is the recurrent recourse to an arbitrarily cast "history" in the threads above--the claims rooted in this "history"--nations have always done x--mean nothing whatsoever--they are little more than reassuring fables folk adopt for themselves in order to enable them to pretend that there is Order in the social-historical, forces that elude individual comprehension that play out across time and which can be invoked--meaninglessly outside of a therapeutic narrative--to justify or explain a particular way of seeing political options that would be unjustifiable ethically, politically, rationally any other way.

i think the last paragraph of the greider article worth isolating:

Quote:

The Bush warriors' reckless American unilateralism can only hasten the day when the creditors' conclude that they must assert their leverage over us, perhaps in order to defend peace and stability in the world. How will Americans react when they discover that "U-S-A" is a lot less muscular than they were led to believe? Assuming Americans do not really yearn to become latter-day Roman legions, many people may be relieved to learn the truth. Stripped of imperial illusions, this country could concentrate on building a different, more promising society at home. But while we can hope that the transition ahead will be gradual and without national humiliation, it's more plausible that America's brave new imperialists will plunge ahead blindly, until one day they encounter their own intense reckoning with the bookkeepers.

View Poll Results: Is it OK for U.S. to Wage Pre-Emptive War to Save the Dollar?
Never attack other countries just to support US Dollar.	8	88.89%
Maybe Use Pre-Emptive Military Force only After Dollar Collapse.	0	0%
To Save Dollar, I'd consider Attacks on Rivals' Offensive Assets.	0	0%
I'd OK Candid Plan of Attacks B4 Dollar Decline Weakens US Military	1	11.11%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

03-16-2006, 06:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Pointless ... and adds nothing to the discussion. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by amonkie; 03-16-2006 at 08:12 AM..

03-16-2006, 08:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have no time at the moment, not really: i post this mostly to bookend the fine contribution to informed debate that ustwo once again has provided us. i feel there should be a frame around, so folk can really look at it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-16-2006, 08:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Host, would you rather see the US degenerate in to a 3rd world country because the american people refused to compete with other nations or would you support military intervention to keep the US economically sound? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-16-2006, 08:39 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Pointless ... and adds nothing to the discussion. Every poll needs a 'none of the above'. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 03-16-2006 at 08:42 AM..

03-16-2006, 08:51 AM	#8 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	I don't know how to be civil. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Last edited by Charlatan; 03-16-2006 at 09:01 AM..

03-16-2006, 09:02 AM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	MOD NOTE Either the tone changes in this thread or some vaction time will be handed out. Thanks. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-16-2006, 09:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The entire premise of this discussion is flawed from the start. We have the usual disjointed quotes. Yea China is rising as a industrial power, woopie, its still a craptastic place to live, it has no where to go but up and good for them, proof of the power of capitalism. Yea oil is more expensive, in large part because of the speculation in the market, not production, so we buy less oil with the dollar, bfd everyone else is buying less with their currency too. I see nothing that implies that the US will NEED to use military force in order to maintain economic dominance. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.