What is motivating Bush ?

[fable]

@Gaxx, the economy doesn't always benefit in wartime--that's a myth I've heard often, and seems to date from post-WWII, when the depressed economies of Western Europe and the US benefited greatly from the war. But that was a special case: the whole cycle of production/consumption was threatened because inflation was sky high and so many people were out of work. As nobody could afford to buy, inventories were huge, capital was stuck, and no one could afford to employ. The war forced nations into employment, and the bill was footed by governments getting heavily involved in the public and private sectors. End result: jumpstarted economies. By be it noted governments, whom we are being told (by the latest clique of minimal government ideologues) shouldn't get involved in such matters.

But that's not the way it usually works. History shows that wars are usually bad for healthy economies. All the supplies necessary to wage a war, from missiles (priced at more than one million dollars per) to uniforms to fuel to salaries to sonar equipment to guns, all of it costs an enormous amount. It diverts tax revenues that are usually for everything else, and generally requires either huge levies of additional taxes to continue the war effort (such as the US did in WWI) or the devaluation of specie through over-printing money (as the Germans did during WWII). In the end, war exhausts economies. It drives investment overseas and underground, with expectations of better times to come--except, of course, that better times are postponed precisely because money is now overseas or sitting in accounts.

Mind you, our president may think that Iraq will somehow solve all the econmic woes his thoroughly inadequate and chaotic policies have wished upon the US, but if so, I think he's in for a bout of unpleasant enlightenment.

[Maharlika]

@fable:

...question is, must a significant number of people suffer for his "unenlightened" decisions?

I would really like to know, if possible: Is there really a clear and present danger as far as Iraq is concerned?

Here in Bangkok, a number of us foreigners think that Dubyah is just diverting the attention since it hasn't been confirmed that OSB is truly down and out.

That, plus the news we're hearing that the US economy is not feeling good of late.

[Ambiorix]

Fable,
I have no inclination to seek excuses for the foul-smelling anachronism, heavy on the "I-love-the-great-leader"stuff, that is N-Korea. But Iraq has waged agressive war against two of its neighbours and even fired Scuds into Israel, a nation with which it was not at war. It furthermore not only possesses weapons of mass-destruction but has already used them. On Saddam's own people for one. This makes for a strong case.
There are many reasons to hope that the political system ruling N-Korea and, for that matter, China will one day will be removed. I believe that if North-Korea were ever to pull a "Kuwait" on S-Korea, the US would not sit idle.
Saddam may or may not be less dangerous than N-Korea. The fact is he crossed a line which makes him fair game IMO. His removal would send a strong signal to other dictatorships.

Anyway, this wasn't my original point. I meant that we shouldn't be assuming that war is inevitable. My point was that there are times when the threat of war should be made and it should be made credible and real. At some times in history this has averted threatening danger (like the Cuba missile crisis). At other times the threat of war wasn't there or wasn't credible enough when it should have been (like at the occasion of Hitler's early acts of agression). It's a difficult excercise to use the threat of war. But as the Romans knew: si vis pacem, parra bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. If Bush succeeds in making Iraq comply with all the UN-demands on inspections and removal of weapons, without actually having to go to war, he will have scored a point in my book.
And if war still comes and the result is the removal of Saddam this will be good for us, for the US, for the world and, let's not forget, the Iraqi people (Saddam killed far more Iraqi civilians than the Gulf War). N-Korea can wait a bit.

[CM]

Daddy Bush should have done it right the first time.....

Just a quick pov of the islamic world. From what all i have read and heard, the Islamic world would love to see Saddam gone. But dont want the US to do it. A simple Paradox. I want saddam gone and if Bush does it....good for all of us. His father didnt do the job properly the first time it is time for the son to clean up after his father.

Just a quick summary of the US and Iraqi relations. Saddam took power in the late 60's and 70s and quickly is hailed a leader. When he is fighting Iran, he is supplied with innumerable weapons, including WMD. In 1983 Rusmfeld was in Iraq for weapons and other deals. The UK media have pictures of the Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and a detailed listing of what he did there and such. The leftist Guardian and Independent newspapers have extremely good articles IMO on the issue. Till the 1990's Saddam was the Number 1 ally of the US for his policies in Iran.

Then you have the gulf war, which historically has some basis. As Kuwait is an artifical entity. Under the ottoman empire Kuwait was a sub province of Iraq. Then the Brits made it a seperate trading and naval post. But Saddam was wrong in all that he did and he should be punished for it all. I say get the low life and put him six feet under.

[fable]

But as the Romans knew: si vis pacem, parra bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.

The Roman Empire made war a part of external fiscal policy: create trumped up excuses, conquer your neighbor, install friendly puppet governments and establish tarriff-free markets while gaining supplies of cheap foreign goods. But this is Ancient Rome we're discussing, right? Not 14th century Venice, 19th century Britain, or the modern US?

[Ambiorix]

Sure. But I can see the difference. Can't you ? If the US were ancient Rome, I wouldn't want to be European at this moment.

BTW Odd that a European is defending US foreign policy while a Yank is criticising it. But then again, I'm not really representative of the Euros.

[fable]

Originally posted by Ambiorix
Sure. But I can see the difference. Can't you ? If the US were ancient Rome, I wouldn't want to be European at this moment.

Who said the two were identical? But if the US were nothing like Ancient Rome, I don't think Guatamela, Nicarauga, El Salvador, Chile, or Argentina would have had to worry about propped-up, US-funded dictatorships and the overthrow of elected rulers by American-trained militias. (And in case anyone wonders, no, I loathe Castro.) With respect, you brought up Ancient Rome; I merely pointed out what I cnsider a remarkable similarity--and not just between the Roman Empire and the 20th/21st century US, but with 19th century Britain and 14th century Venice.

The element of common identity that all four share is, IMO, a policy of military and diplomatic imperialism driven by the given country being the most powerful economic machine of the day, with a philosophy of national triumphalism. Reading Livy on Rome is at times strikingly similar to reading Norwich on Venice, Macaulay on Britain, or the likes of Kissinger or the current administration on the US. I find that fascinating. Of course, the US hasn't fallen from primal economic grace yet, so that last history hasn't been written; it's still being lived.

[BaronTx]

That's not ad hominem. It's simply a measure of my disrespect for a man who has (for example--I don't want to get into a great deal of detail, here) messed up both the American economy and all our international relations in an extraordinarily rapid and thorough fashion. He is nowhere near the president that his father was, nor the leader, IMO. Hence, he is not a Bush; he is merely a small Shrub.

You speak as if all this was derived from fact. On the other hand I have heard several references to the fact that the economy was already in the first stages of a recession just before the 2000 election. AND that the Clinton administration had taken steps to "cook the books" so to speak. From my point of view, seeing what occured in Florida and is now occuring in New Jersey, I find no reason NOT to doubt what I've heard.

BUT, I think we all need to take a step back and realize that a lot of things we hear from our party of choice must be taken with a grain of salt. They are, all of them, after all politicians and most probably very good liars.

[fable]

Originally posted by BaronTx
You speak as if all this was derived from fact. On the other hand I have heard several references to the fact that the economy was already in the first stages of a recession just before the 2000 election.

No offense, but that isn't what Greenspan has said, and as a weathervane for the economy, I think he's unsurpassed. Clinton, for whom I have not the slightest personal respect--and who deserved to be impeached, IMO--nonetheless was the most effective economic head of state the US has had since WWII. His endless junkets with dozens of heads of industry overseas to stir up business for the US; his pursuit of anti-monopolistic policies in an attempt to foster the quicker distribution of both liquid and fixed capital; his advocacy of the North American Free Trade Zone: all these were elements in a policy that showed Clinton actually did learn "It's the Economy, Stupid." By contrast, Bush placed a 30% tarriff on European steel imports and Canadian wood imports, drawing down the condemnation of the WTC, and a promise of European tarriffs amounting to 30% on a broad spectrum of products. So much for Mr. Free Trade. He hasn't got one-tenth the inate personal savvy of his dad.

AND that the Clinton administration had taken steps to "cook the books" so to speak.

Heard it, and heard those remarks discredited over and over. The proof lies in the books: Clinton drove down the enormous national debt to a point where the end was in sight: a national debt that was originally over a hundred billion dollars, and getting worse. Clinton solved this. It can't be faked. It was accomplished. And it was an outstanding accomplishment, whatever one may say, accurately, about the man's incredible sleaze.

BUT, I think we all need to take a step back and realize that a lot of things we hear from our party of choice must be taken with a grain of salt. They are, all of them, after all politicians and most probably very good liars.

I don't have a party of choice. IMO, the Democrats haven't got an idea among 'em. The Republicans have one idea--and it's wrong. The current inhabitant of the White House seems to have his zipper closed, to put it vulgarly, but he also has no brains to do the job, IMO. Just my POV.