US preparing for war with China?

[Rupert_Baehr]

By the 'worlds policeman' you mean the funds it takes to keep the UN going? America wouldn't pretend to such a crown - they've fought with the middle east tooth and nail over oil - how awful is that? Just so they can keep their cars going? Scary! No point pretending it was anything else... We had a fool for a PM who followed a US simpleton into a war the likes the world hadn't seen since vietnam... And the only thing at stake was oil... Disgusting!

 

 

"...they've fought with the middle east tooth and nail over oil...Just so they can keep their cars going..."

 

Well, I've heard that claim before and as usual it's unsubstantiated.

 

'Fought with the middle east' Does that mean; US on one side, middle east on the other? When was that war? (I must've missed it.)

 

There was a war over oil between one middle eastern country (Iraq) which had invaded another middle eastern country (Kuwait) to grab its oil. The Americans (along with a lot of people) were involved in that war and that was indeed a war over oil.

 

I don't know what all the reasons for the present (it's still not really over) war in Iraq were, but it certainly wasn't 'a war over oil.' Had the Americans (and the rest of the Western world) wanted Iraqi oil all they had to do was to say to Saddam Hussein: "It's your country, you run it whatever way you like, but send us some oil. We'll buy whatever you've got." (As we did in the 1980's) Would Iraq have refused to sell its oil? Iraq was still suffering financially from the limitations imposed on it after Desert Storm; it's hardly likely they would have refused to export oil.

 

Perhaps - at some future date - an honest investigative historian will discover and publish the true reasons for the war; I expect they may well turn out to be very complex, but it certainly wasn't a fight to obtain Iraq's oil.

 

Iraq is a major producer - but so is Kuwait, so is Saudi Arabia and so are a number of other countries.

 

The US imports a significant amount of oil - but it could manage without. If the American Oil Company hadn't screwed up so badly in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of years ago, the oilfields there would be producing far more than they are doing and there are significant (as in vast) reserves in the US and in Canada - a country which is quite happy to export oil to the US.

 

The Americans can also produce a significant amount of their fuel from biomass. when they do that, there is an outcry, however! - People don't say "Of, what a good thing! The US is being 'green'! They are growing low-carbon fuel and not being so reliant on fossil fuels!"

 

Not at all. They say things like: "The US is growing crops and converting them into fuel instead of growing crops and giving them to starving people in other countries who can't grow enough food to support themselves."

 

The US could develop its own oilfields further and produce enough biofuels to meet its own demands and enough crops to feed its own people.

 

They don't have to import oil ... but they probably wouldn't be able to export much in the way of grain if they went down that route.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Some time ago a Committee of 12 was formed (6 Democrats and 6 Republicans) who were tasked with finding solutions to the deficit. It was doomed to failure from the start. The Republicans steadfastly refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy 2 percent and that was one of the main stumbling blocks. The deadline to reach an agreement has passed and now this means that drastic cuts across the board will automatically take effect in Januray 2013.

 

Not quite - those automatic cuts will come into effect if Congress doesn't come to some sort of agreement before Jan 2013.

 

"This is your very final last warning and if you don't do something I won't give you another! ... Well, I might give you one more, but there probably won't be another after that!"

 

The articles I've read suggest that the committee was deliberately chosen to comprise a closely balanced group of people, none of whom would be prepared to stick their necks out (and to even consider voting for the other side.)

 

I was a bit surprised that Obama handed over the decision on what may well be the most important issue in his presidency to other people - and then went elsewhere while they were making the decision.

 

'The great leader forms a committee to make leadership decisions and then goes elsewhere while they decide.' I wonder what that will do to his (probably slim) chances of re-election?

 

 

...This could affect everything from Medicare to defence spending which will greatly impact the armed forces.

The Republicans yesterday attempted to bypass these spending cuts by exempting the military but Obama stated he would automatically veto any attempt to do so and this sticks the Repulicans in the corner as large defence budgets are one of their pet agendas...

 

Like it or not, a large defence budget is good for the economy. Give a soldier a rifle, a rifle range and a handful of bullets and he will fire them off and need some more. Give him a pair of boots and he will wear them out and want a new pair.

 

Makes lots of jobs for brass founders, explosives makers, bullet makers and boot making factories. - I remember that in 1989 (after the first big post Cold-War cutbacks) a prominent (and influential) politician in Illinois (A state with which I'm sure Mr Obama is familiar ) managed to force the Army (which was operating on a reduced budget) to buy 4 million additional pairs of boots they didn't need for soldiers they didn't have. Illinois didn't have large numbers of military bases, but it did have a very large boot-making company which made a lot of money out of selling boots to the Army.

 

Routine military expenditure (not just on weapons and ammunition) funds a large part of the US economy. Reduce the size of the military dramatically and not only do you create a 'hollow force' (A few people at the top, rather more at the bottom and nobody in the middle) - which doesn't do much for ability and efficiency - but you also decrease dramatically the money turnover in local economies.

 

As you said, Medicare is likely to take a hit - so those on fixed incomes (often not very large fixed incomes) - will be hit hard. Social security will also be hit hard

 

...Obama may go down in 2012 but I think he'll take the likes of Republican House Speaker John Boehner and a lot of Republican members of Congress with him and quite a few Democrats as well.

 

You're an optimist Harleyman - and I hope you're right - but I won't hold my breath.

 

In the US (as in the UK and probably in a lot of other countries too) we hear "Those rogues in Congress/Parliament [insert your name of choice] should all be fired and replaced with competent people. Everybody, that is, apart from my Congressman/MP who is actually a good bloke who does a really good job."

 

For some strange reason, when it comes to re-election time, a lot of people suddenly find that their Representative is a good bloke!

 

I've heard a couple of commentators (talking about the failure of the 'super committee' to reach a decision) say that perhaps there's a better chance of getting a deal after the next round of Congressional elections (when the income-bents know they are unlikely to lose their jobs as an immediate result of their decisions.) That - IMO - is a poor state of affairs. Given that the Administration (The President) the Super Committee and Congress itself have proven to be incapable of reaching a decision, it's a pity that their demonstration of incompetence can't be used to trigger elections immediately - with further elections in a year's time if the next lot can't do the job either.

 

I dont say that all the failure of government leadership lies with the Republicans but they've played the obstructionist game with the White House ever since members of the Tea Party gained seats in Congress.

 

Sarah Palin openly stated the Tea Party agenda "to make sure Obama was a one term president". That agenda obviously eliminated any prospect of both parties and the administration of working together on anything.

 

"I dont say that all the failure of government leadership lies with the Republicans". Really? I must've missed something. I thought that the Commander in Chief, the Supreme Boss, The Head Honcho, (or whatever you want to call him) was a Democrat. How can the Republicans be held responsible for the failings of a weak Democrat leader?

 

Obama took over from a president who was very unpopular. He took over a nation which had an economy which was in a mess. (He didn't do so from the back of the bleachers, however - he had been a politician for some years ... what had he done during those years to 'flag up' or reduce the problem? - Not a lot (unless Dick Dastardly [or Sarah Palin] destroyed all the records of his valiant attempts.)

 

Nobody forced Obama to take the job. He knew what the problems were (Well, I hope he did, anyway), fought like hell to get the job, made lots of promises to get votes, got elected, forgot about most of the promises and nearly brought the government to a standstill. (Remember how it nearly ran out of money a couple of months ago? - Obama joined Clinton and Carter on the short list of presidents who've managed to run the government out of operating money.)

 

The US - like the UK - has an 'adversarial' system of government. It wasn't always that way (Indeed, up until about 35 years ago, the US had a 'Tweedledum and Tweeedledee' system of government. Each party built its election platform out of policy 'planks' that were chosen because they appealed to the majority of the electorate. At times, there was little to choose between the policies of the two parties. That has changed and the two parties seem to have moved a long way apart.

 

Even so, I'm surprised to read that you are surprised that the Tea Party are determined to ensure that Obama is a one-term president. I thought that it was the goal of whichever party did not form the Administration (the party in opposition) to try to ensure that the other side's president was a 'one term' president.

 

I didn't vote in the last US Presidential elections - I don't have a vote (but my wife had two, so I suppose I could've used one of hers .)

 

If I had voted, I would've voted for Obama. If I had a vote this time, there's no way I would vote for another Obamanation.

 

If I had a vote, I probably wouldn't want to vote Republican, either.

 

It's probably as well I don't have a vote, because the chances of finding a candidate I would want to vote for are slim.

 

... The only consolation I think the voters will have is voting on a giant political spring cleaning in Washington next year

 

Don't hold your breath! Didn't Obama say that if he was elected it would be the end to 'business as usual' in Washington?

 

He was elected and 'government of the people, by the government for the government' (and their masters) is still the norm.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts deleted for criticising moderation, if you have any queries, comments or complaints regarding moderation, please direct them to the Helpdesk.

[Lady Star]

Middle east oil doesn't keep US cars going. Domestic, Canadian and Venezuelan oil do that. Total imports of middle east oil into the US is currently at around 15 to 2o percent in contrast to Europe where the percentage of imported middle east oil is around 85 percent or more

 

I follow the school of thought that after 9/11 Bush believed that Saddam might be tempted to sell WMDs to Al Qaeda but of course later on it was found that WMDs didn't exist after all.

The middle east is a vipers nest anyway. The Saudis and the Emirates fear the Iranians, Israel is to the point of perhaps carrying out an attack of suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, Egypt and Libya face uncertain futures and Syria is in turmoil. Europe with it's heavy reliiance on middle east oil should be far more concerned than the US as to what the outcome of all this will be.

 

Reports from the UK government show that neither the US nor the UK believed there were WMDs in Iraq... The public were duped, and the public in the UK didn't support the war in the first place as it seemed we were being stupid and drawn into another countries fight - The UK was livid when it became apparent the war was for oil, and yet UK kids had died for someone elses oil! Outrageous! As you claim your own oil fills your cars, why were your government so keen on fighting for it? The UK as you no doubt know has it's North Sea oil, and we don't have the same consumption per head as those in the US... It wasn't to benefit the UK that a fake war was waged - It's divided the US and the UK and that's that - It's unlikely we'll be getting into bed with them again...

[Harleyman]

Not quite - those automatic cuts will come into effect if Congress doesn't come to some sort of agreement before Jan 2013.

 

"This is your very final last warning and if you don't do something I won't give you another! ... Well, I might give you one more, but there probably won't be another after that!"

 

The articles I've read suggest that the committee was deliberately chosen to comprise a closely balanced group of people, none of whom would be prepared to stick their necks out (and to even consider voting for the other side.)

 

I was a bit surprised that Obama handed over the decision on what may well be the most important issue in his presidency to other people - and then went elsewhere while they were making the decision.

 

'The great leader forms a committee to make leadership decisions and then goes elsewhere while they decide.' I wonder what that will do to his (probably slim) chances of re-election?

 

 

 

 

Like it or not, a large defence budget is good for the economy. Give a soldier a rifle, a rifle range and a handful of bullets and he will fire them off and need some more. Give him a pair of boots and he will wear them out and want a new pair.

 

Makes lots of jobs for brass founders, explosives makers, bullet makers and boot making factories. - I remember that in 1989 (after the first big post Cold-War cutbacks) a prominent (and influential) politician in Illinois (A state with which I'm sure Mr Obama is familiar ) managed to force the Army (which was operating on a reduced budget) to buy 4 million additional pairs of boots they didn't need for soldiers they didn't have. Illinois didn't have large numbers of military bases, but it did have a very large boot-making company which made a lot of money out of selling boots to the Army.

 

Routine military expenditure (not just on weapons and ammunition) funds a large part of the US economy. Reduce the size of the military dramatically and not only do you create a 'hollow force' (A few people at the top, rather more at the bottom and nobody in the middle) - which doesn't do much for ability and efficiency - but you also decrease dramatically the money turnover in local economies.

 

As you said, Medicare is likely to take a hit - so those on fixed incomes (often not very large fixed incomes) - will be hit hard. Social security will also be hit hard

 

 

 

You're an optimist Harleyman - and I hope you're right - but I won't hold my breath.

 

In the US (as in the UK and probably in a lot of other countries too) we hear "Those rogues in Congress/Parliament [insert your name of choice] should all be fired and replaced with competent people. Everybody, that is, apart from my Congressman/MP who is actually a good bloke who does a really good job."

 

For some strange reason, when it comes to re-election time, a lot of people suddenly find that their Representative is a good bloke!

 

I've heard a couple of commentators (talking about the failure of the 'super committee' to reach a decision) say that perhaps there's a better chance of getting a deal after the next round of Congressional elections (when the income-bents know they are unlikely to lose their jobs as an immediate result of their decisions.) That - IMO - is a poor state of affairs. Given that the Administration (The President) the Super Committee and Congress itself have proven to be incapable of reaching a decision, it's a pity that their demonstration of incompetence can't be used to trigger elections immediately - with further elections in a year's time if the next lot can't do the job either.

 

 

 

"I dont say that all the failure of government leadership lies with the Republicans". Really? I must've missed something. I thought that the Commander in Chief, the Supreme Boss, The Head Honcho, (or whatever you want to call him) was a Democrat. How can the Republicans be held responsible for the failings of a weak Democrat leader?

 

Obama took over from a president who was very unpopular. He took over a nation which had an economy which was in a mess. (He didn't do so from the back of the bleachers, however - he had been a politician for some years ... what had he done during those years to 'flag up' or reduce the problem? - Not a lot (unless Dick Dastardly [or Sarah Palin] destroyed all the records of his valiant attempts.)

 

Nobody forced Obama to take the job. He knew what the problems were (Well, I hope he did, anyway), fought like hell to get the job, made lots of promises to get votes, got elected, forgot about most of the promises and nearly brought the government to a standstill. (Remember how it nearly ran out of money a couple of months ago? - Obama joined Clinton and Carter on the short list of presidents who've managed to run the government out of operating money.)

 

The US - like the UK - has an 'adversarial' system of government. It wasn't always that way (Indeed, up until about 35 years ago, the US had a 'Tweedledum and Tweeedledee' system of government. Each party built its election platform out of policy 'planks' that were chosen because they appealed to the majority of the electorate. At times, there was little to choose between the policies of the two parties. That has changed and the two parties seem to have moved a long way apart.

 

Even so, I'm surprised to read that you are surprised that the Tea Party are determined to ensure that Obama is a one-term president. I thought that it was the goal of whichever party did not form the Administration (the party in opposition) to try to ensure that the other side's president was a 'one term' president.

 

I didn't vote in the last US Presidential elections - I don't have a vote (but my wife had two, so I suppose I could've used one of hers .)

 

If I had voted, I would've voted for Obama. If I had a vote this time, there's no way I would vote for another Obamanation.

 

If I had a vote, I probably wouldn't want to vote Republican, either.

 

It's probably as well I don't have a vote, because the chances of finding a candidate I would want to vote for are slim.

 

 

 

Don't hold your breath! Didn't Obama say that if he was elected it would be the end to 'business as usual' in Washington?

 

He was elected and 'government of the people, by the government for the government' (and their masters) is still the norm.

 

 

I have to agree with you on many of your points and you do know what you're talking about.

I've voted in many presidential elections over the decades. I voted for Carter ( ) but I think Carter as an individual was a pretty decent person,

voted for Bush senior, voted for Clinton, would have voted for John McCain if he hadnt signed up Betty Boop as his running mate so voted for Obama although I think Hillary Clinton would have been a far better candidiate in 2008

 

2012 will be a real challenge to me. I'm not thrilled with Obama. He gave way far too easily to the Tea Party-ites. As for the Republicans..... it's flavour of the month time with wishy washy Romney now up there, Cain who doesn't have a clue about what's going on outside the US and Perry the man who suffers from mental blockages.

John Huntsman who seems fairly palatablle doesnt seem to get the support and Newt Gingrich also fairly palatable has a lot of baggage from the past which might torpedo him in 2012.

 

I'm a bit of an isolationist when it comes to getting involved in foreign wars. I think a strong defensive force with the highest technology that modern warfare can produce is more in line with current needs. We cannot afford to be the world's policeman when 40 million US citizens are living at the poverty level. We need to take care of our own,

 

I came back from Vietnam in late 1968 very embittered and disillusioned.

Chubby old Walter Cronkite had just declared the war unwinnable, there was racial tension in the unit over Martin Luther King's assasination, the black soldiers were as mad as hell, morale was at a low ebb, the Smothers Brothers were joking about the Vietnam war while mothers were getting notifications of deaths of sons over there. Two mates of mine had been killed It was all screwed up and I thought seriously about just going back to England and trying to put all that behind me.

 

I reckon we could do better by flogging arms and weapons to other countries. The Chinese army could more than likely use a few million pairs of well made combat boots. If they want to maintain a great big army let them go ahead. They'll never use it unless they feel threatened with invasion. The average Chinese private soldier is a young man with very limited education, peasant background from the provinces and would not be able to qualify for a job demanding much more. It suits the government to employ them as soldiers and avoid mass movement to the big cities where the factory jobs are already filled to capacity and instead wandering around the streets.