Will the US be lured into the trap where total disaster looms?

[georgebushmoron]

It's no surprise I like talking about politics. But rather than post after post of nothing but grievances about certain presidents, past policies, etc., I prefer to project into the future. Test the mettle of my understanding of world events, so to speak. After all, hindsight is 20/20, even though many who look back fail to interpret history correctly (objectively). Now we look ahead because we're on the brink of disaster.

I like to quote Luckydog, as he is one of my fave Perb personalities because, though I don't agree with his opinions on many things, he's at least prolific and thoughtful. Also, he represents quite a conservative American opinion that is quite popular. Here is a quote from another thread as background:

I know I am going against the collective wisdom of the order of Fellows of PERB, but what else is new.

In spite of the mistakes. In spite of the cost, and it was very high. I still believe Bush did the right thing. The Middle East is a threat to the US. Clinton and Madlady All Dim let it fester and grow for 8 years actually 12 if you count Bush Sr’s poor performance in 91.

Bush came to office with a domestic agenda not a foreign policy agenda and what a surprise he got when he got to look under the covers in the oval office. He sure found more than a few cum stains he expected to find.

Are we better off today than we (the US) were in Jan of 2001? No we are not.

But that is not the question.

The real question is; are we better off today than we would have been had Gore or Kerry been elected. It is my opinion yes we are.

That is history, but what now.

The DEMS forgot they were elected to lead. They use to be the minority (rock throwing) party. But now they hold leadership in both houses of congress and they must take on a leadership role. Hillary says she can’t support the Bush plan. A fine example of Clinton leadership abilities.

Although I think Murtha is wrong at least he states the alternative he supports. Pull out.

Kennedy is an idiot (oh and a murderer) but he too states clearly his position. Which coincidently is very close to his father’s position on WWII. Don’t fight.

The US has been in Iraq for 5 years now and in my opinion, that is long enough. Bush and his advisors think the way out is by increase the troop levels. If they need 50,000 more troops I say give it to him.

This is Bush’s war. He started it and he should be given the opportunity to finish it.

I agree with LD that this is Bush's war, and in a sense that he should be given the opportunity to finish it; or more to the point, I think the US has the moral responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq. Shame on the Dems for thinking of pulling out, irresponsible and cowardly, and politically opportunistic at that; the lowest of the low, when high morals and nobleness are the virtues needed more than ever from Americans.

Senator McCain is more right than Bush on at least one thing: vastly more (than 21k) troops are needed. Yet the eloquent Senator Byrd puts it best: a widening of the war to a regional one would be a mistake. Eloquent but incorrect, because being the American gentleman that he is (and there are ever few left), understated it.

No politican has said it yet as far as I know, and may not say it for some time to come. I'll say it now and give my reasons. Disaster looms for the United States, and indeed the world. That disaster is if the US takes aggressive action by Iran in Iraq ( as reported on American news networks today ) and turns it into war on Iran.

People will say it would be a disaster for many reasons. Some will say that they don't want more bloodshed from Americans. Others say diplomacy can still resolve a prospective conflict. Others believe this will create more terrorists. These reasons and others like them all have elements of truth in them. But there is something of a direct disaster to the United States and the world in this one.

When GWB ventured into war in Iraq, the American economy was on shaky ground. It was recovering, but the recovery was not robust. Worse yet, the dollar cost of the impending war was estimated far too optimistically. As the war progressed in 2003, GWB went to Congress for drastic increases to the war budget. Not much was said about why, but we could only surmise that the war was not going as expected. In fact, I believe GWB went to Congress at least twice for more money. By mid 2004, GWB went to the east Asian nations of Japan and China for a massive bailout. Something was amiss about the war, but nothing was said. The US was exporting its debt out to foreigners. Put another way, it was using China and Japan to finance the war on Iraq.

By mid 2004, China had finished deals with Iran. Iran has become China's main energy supplier for petroleum products. The deal signed was worth trillions of dollars over a period of near 25 years.

The bailout of the US economy has resulted in China holding 600 billion in US reserves.

During most of 2003, 2004 and 2005, the EU played both sides of game with Iran. Iran had been attempting on numerous occasions to attain the right to the full cycle of nuclear refinement. As pledge after pledge to the IAEA through the UN was negotiated, the EU both held back inspections and promoted them. There was a reason for this. The EU was trying to placate the US, who under GWB was determined for regime change in Iran (re: "Axis of Evil" speech naming Iran) via referring Iran to the Security Council for military action based on violation of nuke protocols, and on the other hand was busy trying to get trade deals set up with Iran for their oil.

By mid 2005, it was recognized that the Euro put the US dollar in danger, so much so that Arabic countries loyal to the US made public their intention to switch some of their central reserves to the Euro. The US dollar has been king of currencies only for the reason that the world's economy is based on oil, and the transaction for oil is based on the US dollar. But this was under threat beginning in 2005.

Now to sum it up: a US war on Iran, if serious enough, will choke China. With its future oil supplies and a trillion dollar deal at risk, China will threaten to dump the US dollar for the Euro if it anticipates that the US will not attain total victory over Iraq and Iran. Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets. An evacuation of Iraq and a loss to Iran will put those assets out of the reach of the United States. Once the dollar is completely devalued by its dumping for the Euro out of central reserves, the US will be forced to reckon for its debt. This is bankruptcy.

 

[MissingOne]

Can't we have a happy ending please George?

Sadly, though one might argue details, I think it's correct that the US is in serious trouble. And, much as the world loves to hate the US, I don't think that the world will be a better place for we complacent Westerners when China becomes the dominant power.

 

[Smother]

It's no surprise I like talking about politics. But rather than post after post of nothing but grievances about certain presidents, past policies, etc., I prefer to project into the future. Test the mettle of my understanding of world events, so to speak. After all, hindsight is 20/20, even though many who look back fail to interpret history correctly (objectively). Now we look ahead because we're on the brink of disaster.

I like to quote Luckydog, as he is one of my fave Perb personalities because, though I don't agree with his opinions on many things, he's at least prolific and thoughtful. Also, he represents quite a conservative American opinion that is quite popular. Here is a quote from another thread as background:



I agree with LD that this is Bush's war, and in a sense that he should be given the opportunity to finish it; or more to the point, I think the US has the moral responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq. Shame on the Dems for thinking of pulling out, irresponsible and cowardly, and politically opportunistic at that; the lowest of the low, when high morals and nobleness are the virtues needed more than ever from Americans.

Senator McCain is more right than Bush on at least one thing: vastly more (than 21k) troops are needed. Yet the eloquent Senator Byrd puts it best: a widening of the war to a regional one would be a mistake. Eloquent but incorrect, because being the American gentleman that he is (and there are ever few left), understated it.

No politican has said it yet as far as I know, and may not say it for some time to come. I'll say it now and give my reasons. Disaster looms for the United States, and indeed the world. That disaster is if the US takes aggressive action by Iran in Iraq ( as reported on American news networks today ) and turns it into war on Iran.

People will say it would be a disaster for many reasons. Some will say that they don't want more bloodshed from Americans. Others say diplomacy can still resolve a prospective conflict. Others believe this will create more terrorists. These reasons and others like them all have elements of truth in them. But there is something of a direct disaster to the United States and the world in this one.

When GWB ventured into war in Iraq, the American economy was on shaky ground. It was recovering, but the recovery was not robust. Worse yet, the dollar cost of the impending war was estimated far too optimistically. As the war progressed in 2003, GWB went to Congress for drastic increases to the war budget. Not much was said about why, but we could only surmise that the war was not going as expected. In fact, I believe GWB went to Congress at least twice for more money. By mid 2004, GWB went to the east Asian nations of Japan and China for a massive bailout. Something was amiss about the war, but nothing was said. The US was exporting its debt out to foreigners. Put another way, it was using China and Japan to finance the war on Iraq.

By mid 2004, China had finished deals with Iran. Iran has become China's main energy supplier for petroleum products. The deal signed was worth trillions of dollars over a period of near 25 years.

The bailout of the US economy has resulted in China holding 600 billion in US reserves.

During most of 2003, 2004 and 2005, the EU played both sides of game with Iran. Iran had been attempting on numerous occasions to attain the right to the full cycle of nuclear refinement. As pledge after pledge to the IAEA through the UN was negotiated, the EU both held back inspections and promoted them. There was a reason for this. The EU was trying to placate the US, who under GWB was determined for regime change in Iran (re: "Axis of Evil" speech naming Iran) via referring Iran to the Security Council for military action based on violation of nuke protocols, and on the other hand was busy trying to get trade deals set up with Iran for their oil.

By mid 2005, it was recognized that the Euro put the US dollar in danger, so much so that Arabic countries loyal to the US made public their intention to switch some of their central reserves to the Euro. The US dollar has been king of currencies only for the reason that the world's economy is based on oil, and the transaction for oil is based on the US dollar. But this was under threat beginning in 2005.

Now to sum it up: a US war on Iran, if serious enough, will choke China. With its future oil supplies and a trillion dollar deal at risk, China will threaten to dump the US dollar for the Euro if it anticipates that the US will not attain total victory over Iraq and Iran. Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets. An evacuation of Iraq and a loss to Iran will put those assets out of the reach of the United States. Once the dollar is completely devalued by its dumping for the Euro out of central reserves, the US will be forced to reckon for its debt. This is bankruptcy.

Hey George...I don't follow politics or know politics as much as you.....and by the sound of things you seem pretty intelligent in this. But I do follow and invest in the canadian stock market for years. IN fact I have no money invested in the states except for what I have through my company plan which I have no Control of.
Anyway.....Your comments about the dollar and the economy are bang on!!
I too have been saying this about foreign money bailing eventually.
That is why Gold has surged and Canada has looked great along with our dollar and OIL.
U.S. is on thin ice and the only 2 things I have to say on this is....

1 ...I feel real sorry for the next President that comes in due to the mess and KAO's they have to sort out and make the world a more peaceful play! I still wanna believe in that!!!


2nd... I think is sad....tragic and stupid for Bush to send in more troops !! BIG MISTAKE!!

 

[chilli]

"Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets."

I disagree, certain EU powers would NOT let this happen, not in a million years.

They have no interest in China becoming a world power.

The facts are that it's in our best interests (and many other countries) that the US remains as the defacto superpower.

You can say whatever you want about the US, but the fact remains it is fairly benovolent and it is a republic with suffrage.

What people from China, Cuba, Asia, India, the Middle East etc.... fail to realize is that they are coming over here by the boatloads, were not going over there.

If things are so good in their "system" of gov't/religion and economy why is that?

Kind of ironic don't you think?

Down with the US, they scream but heh, give me a green card or a Visa I got to get out of here - I want your education, freedom and your money.

 

[georgebushmoron]

"Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets."

I disagree, certain EU powers would NOT let this happen, not in a million years.

They would most certainly, for the very obvious reason that dumping the US dollar for the Euro will make the EU the world power.

 

[Sonny]

They would most certainly, for the very obvious reason that dumping the US dollar for the Euro will make the EU the world power.

The EU is not a single entity, but rather a collection of individual states which are finding increasing differences amongst themselves in many areas. If it were one nationalistic country then perhaps it would be a world power; but there are some many differences that go beyond culture, language and regional economies.

 

[georgebushmoron]

The EU is not a single entity, but rather a collection of individual states which are finding increasing differences amongst themselves in many areas. If it were one nationalistic country then perhaps it would be a world power; but there are some many differences that go beyond culture, language and regional economies.

That the EU may be made up of countries that bicker at each other is true. But that does not keep them from being motivated to having the Euro as the defacto world currency because with that comes power, especially as the defacto currency means you have significant influence in the financial affairs of the world and the commerce of oil.

You perhaps cannot imagine a world power that is anything but monolithic, like the US, China, or Russia. However, the world will probably abandon monolithic power centers to multi-polar regional based ones like the EU (where you have one or two very strong countries and the rest of the smaller ones forming a common bloc). Other such multi-polar power centers are also developing in East Asia (ASEAN), South America (CSN), and possibly even the Arabic countries in the Middle East as a block.

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

I'm not much into politics either but one thing we always see is nations
come and nations go, over time.
The US in my books in their arrogance over time has finally come to the
crossroads of saving face and in their inherant or otherwise called
arrogance they are still doing the same thing time and time again.

A mistake made in the middle east by Bush and the only way they can
save face, as that seems that is all that is left now with the failure he
announced in Iraq is to send in more troops? That's going to remediate
the situation? I shake my head at the dismal foresight this leader of the
US has had and continues to use even in his political deathrows.

Cuz to me pulling out of Iraq is a two edged sword.
It's been a failure, so to deal with it they send in more troops.
Second, to pull out would make them look like they admit to a more deep
seeded failure and would certainly be looked down upon in many different
ways. (You choose here which way that is)

I say, that by having gone into Iraq they have bit off more than they
can chew, economically, politically and most awkwardly how obvious it is
to the world that this type of war does not look like it can be won.

Is the end of the US as a democratic world power coming to an end?
Possibly, by an economic one that they are so in debt because of this
war that they may never recover.

Now with that thought in mind, what was Bush thinking by committing those
astronomical sums? To irradicate terrorism and their fundamental radical
thinking? Sorry, once you stir a hornets nest you will reap the whirlwind
of even more radical fundamental terrorism. It just won't go away that
easily once it has been disturbed. It's one thing to fight an invading army
who has taken over a land that doesn't belong to them but it surely is
a completely different thing to irradicate a people and their religious
radical beliefs.


...........QM'r

 

[JV1]

I agree with LD that this is Bush's war, and in a sense that he should be given the opportunity to finish it; or more to the point, I think the US has the moral responsibility to clean up the mess in Iraq. Shame on the Dems for thinking of pulling out, irresponsible and cowardly, and politically opportunistic at that; the lowest of the low, when high morals and nobleness are the virtues needed more than ever from Americans.

I agree that the Democrats are being politically opportunistic (it is their nature, Rebublicans too), however does that necessarily mean they are also being irresposible and cowardly? If the war was a mistake in the first place, does that not also mean the continued was is equally so? Also war predicated upon a falsehood hardly seems encompassing of high morals and nobleness.

I believe that doing the reverse in fact would more acccurately portray those ideals, that not only withdrawal from Iraq (a controled one) but an apology to it's people would be more appropriate. Some may call it naive, however I truly do believe that the U.S. would gain some needed international credibility if it owned up to it's mistake(s) and did the right thing here. Ironically it may even have an unintended consequence of bringing down some of the middle eastern animosity towards them, contributing to increased stability in the region.

China would not be a benevolent super power, especially sole super power and a future with that as a scenario should be avoided. However on that same vein, China is closer geographically to the middle east and greatly more repressive of nearly everything, especially religion. Why not let them take the heat and a more active part in that region? because of the strategic importance of the oil reserves there? why not use all effectively wasted overseas expenditures on developing alternative energy sources and E-85 conversion, etc.?

Just some random thoughts, be interested in your opinion on them.

 

[threepeat]

China as the world superpower

In the immortal words of Vince McMahon, good people are generally not as good as they seem, and bad people are generally not as bad as they seem. I don't think we'd really notice much of a difference in our daily lives if China does become the world's pre-eminent superpower.

On a different note, I fail to see the logic behind the argument that since GWB started the war on Iraq, that he should be the one to finish it. What difference does it make that he started the war? I can only think of two reasons: (1) that he has a master plan to the war that only he can carry out. This is unlikely, given all the evidence we've seen so far; or (2) that he should be allowed to save face, in which case I say who cares? Saving face isn't worth anyone's innocent life, on either the American or the Iraqi side.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I agree that the Democrats are being politically opportunistic (it is their nature, Rebublicans too), however does that necessarily mean they are also being irresposible and cowardly? If the war was a mistake in the first place, does that not also mean the continued was is equally so? Also war predicated upon a falsehood hardly seems encompassing of high morals and nobleness.

It's irresponsible because by pulling out, stability won't be achieved. Stability can only be achieved in the short term by what is essentially martial law. This is because of the sectarian in-fighting, lack of institutions, lack of laws, lack of police force, corruption, etc. There is no civil society to speak of. So to pull out the troops would engulf the country in total chaos and leave a power vacuum for which only a brutal regime can win because only a brutal regime can otherwise create a stable situation. To right the mistake would first and foremost be to restore peace and create a civil society seeing as the war started by the US dismantled that civil society (albeit under a repressive regime). Then should they talk about a pullout.

China would not be a benevolent super power, especially sole super power and a future with that as a scenario should be avoided. However on that same vein, China is closer geographically to the middle east and greatly more repressive of nearly everything, especially religion. Why not let them take the heat and a more active part in that region? because of the strategic importance of the oil reserves there? why not use all effectively wasted overseas expenditures on developing alternative energy sources and E-85 conversion, etc.?

I don't know why people are jumping all over this saying that China would become a super power. That wasn't my point. My point was that a war with Iran would cause China to start dumping US dollars and other countries would follow suit, which would bankrupt the United States. It would be the real beginning of the end of the US as a superpower - much as the former Soviet Union was driven to bankruptcy as the military adventure in Afghanistan was the last straw when it was already on very shaky financial ground.

 

[OTBn]

Now to sum it up: a US war on Iran, if serious enough, will choke China. With its future oil supplies and a trillion dollar deal at risk, China will threaten to dump the US dollar for the Euro if it anticipates that the US will not attain total victory over Iraq and Iran. Once one big player dumps, the others will follow because trade for oil must be facilitated quickly by a currency that is backed by real assets. An evacuation of Iraq and a loss to Iran will put those assets out of the reach of the United States. Once the dollar is completely devalued by its dumping for the Euro out of central reserves, the US will be forced to reckon for its debt. This is bankruptcy.

So … GBM, I believe you imply the U.S. must win the Iraq war… to avoid a war with Iran… to avoid impacting Iranian oil production… to avoid Chinese (economic) retaliation… to avoid U.S. bankruptcy… to avoid the implications to the world of a failed U.S. dollar.

Do we continue to give the U.S. a free pass in its global quest for oil… because the U.S. dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency? A free pass?

It was another war, the Vietnam War, that drained the U.S. of its gold reserves – no longer was the U.S. dollar fixed to an ounce of gold – no longer would the U.S. pay it’s creditors with gold, effectively creating today’s politicization of the U.S. dollar where world currencies floated against the U.S. dollar and the U.S. dollar became the only global reserve currency. Another U.S. war…

Today’s close relations between China and Russia, coupled with their ties to Iran, bring forward a significant triumvirate to challenge the U.S. on all levels. Strictly on an economic level, would a U.S. war with Iran threaten China to the point where it would no longer buy American debt? There have been other crises in the past – even some associated with oil – where countries opted to devalue their own currencies, to inflate their economies, rather than risk creating a U.S. dollar crisis, because those countries held so many U.S. dollars/bonds themselves. Would a U.S.-Iran war cause China to use its economic hammer?… and risk the implications to its own economy?

It’s long overdue for Canada to aggressively court trade/associations with China… to diversify and shift away from our too close ties to a U.S. that includes policies of unilateralism and militarism as key components of its foreign policy.

Bankruptcy… naw, just Chapter 11

 

[sdw]

The reality is that the Americans have lost the Iraq war. Since G W Bush raised the ante by going for a troop surge, the Democrats are going to do the same thing they did to end the Vietnam War.

The consequences are going to be more severe than they were in 1975. There weren't communities of Vietnamese all over the US in 1975, there are communities of Iranians and Iraqis all over the US in 2007.

It an error to think that China will become more powerful if the US becomes weaker. Most nations other than the US are not allowing the level of Chinese imports that is driving the Chinese economy. If the US can't afford the imports, China doesn't get the income.

 

[westwoody]

Iran would be a far more dangerous adversary than Iraq. Any divisions among the populace would disappear if the hated Americans invaded. And the US is straining with Iraq. The same soldiers are doing their third or fourth tours, equipment is in serious disrepair, there are parking lots full of Hummers that have been waiting for repair for months.There are no resources to invade Iran.
The idea of invading Iran is a pathetic joke and an empty threat.

 

[westwoody]

It's irresponsible because by pulling out, stability won't be achieved.

Irresponsible yes,but that is the American way. They cannot see past the end of their own nose.
If they leave, they will leave a devastated country behind them, with a ruined infrastructure, violent armed militias running wild, and a people with a huge hatred of America. When the Americans leave, they will consider it "over", but it is only "over" for them, what about the people who live there, the Iraqis themselves? They cannot leave, they will have to live with the effects of Bush's inflated ego for the next twenty or thirty years.

 

[luckydog71]

GWBM - thank you for your compliment. I do respect your views and many others on here who have a very different opinion than mine. The day that you only listen to people who support you, is the day you stop learning.

I do agree your opening statement “Now we look ahead because we're on the brink of disaster.” I take we to mean the US, because I do believe we (the U.S.A) are heading down a path that leads to disaster.

Before everyone claims LD finally woke up and realizes it is all Bush’s fault that is not my opinion.

US foreign policy has been the same since the mid 50s. We have changed leaders and we have changed control of Congress, but we have not have not changed our foreign policy. On the whole the US is of the opinion we can and should help other people in other nations fight their enemies and if there was internal squabbles we often take sides.

This has been true for decades. If I could think of a single event that caused that think, I would pick Dec 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor.

Since then we have thought of ourselves as the policeman to the world. We inserted ourselves into Korea (and we are still there). Then we decided to enter a civil war in Vietnam. There have been many more Grenada, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq ……….

Why have we done that…. Depends on who you ask.... Some say …To prevent the spread of communism, to protect our oil supplies, to make us safer…. Those are politicians talking not ordinary Americans.

It is my opinion that I live in the best country in the world. I have more opportunity than I can take advantage of.. with that dangling preposition I should have taken more advantage of school…. I really do have a great life and I belong to middle America, not rich America. I think many Americans (myself included) see themselves as spreading that opportunity to others. Noble but misguided and wrong.


Sorry, I have digressed. So what we (the US) needs now is a national debate on what our foreign policy is going forward.

Should we continue to be the policeman for the world or as others perceive it the aggressors of the world?….. I vote no.

Should we use our military in offensive action…. I vote no.


We need to use our economic strength not our military strength. We have the biggest economic engine in the world….not for long if we continue down this path… We attract more immigrants to this country than any other nation on earth. I vote for turning that to our advantage.

We need an immigration policy that will attract the brightest people, not the neediest people.

We need to carefully control our trade deficit.

We need to have trade policies that are reciprocal not badly slant against us.

We need to let other nations fight their own battles. The cost to the US to provide military support is too high a price in American lives, American treasure, and American influence in the world.

It is time we retire our 50 year old foreign policy and develop a new one for the 21st century. The world has changed, we need to change with it. This may surprise many, but the guy I want to watch closely over the next year is Barack Obama. He is the only candidate so far that is talking policy not bashing his opposition. I don’t know enough about him to say I support him, but I do support his approach to politics and he deserves to be heard.

 

[HankQuinlan]

There is no good way out. They made a bad choice and they lost. It is a total disaster for the US any way it turns out.

The only way out that could achieve anything for Iraq would be to negotiate some sort of regional self-governments, enforced by other countries in the region. The US would also have to give up any claims to the oil. This would also be a total defeat for US policies, so it won't happen soon.

 

[westwoody]

It is my opinion that I live in the best country in the world.

Pure jingoism. You are saying that every other country is wrong/inferior in their way of life and system of government. It is fine to say you like your country, but by saying yours is better than someone else's you are going to put someone's nose out of joint.
America is a great place and Americans are great people. But they share an assumption with the Brits in the Victorian era:that their way is the best way, and anybody different from them is wrong and needs to be corrected. They are unable to grasp that not everyone dreams of eating at McDonald's and driving a Chevy with a gun in the glove compartment. Kipling thought it was the white man's mission to convert people worldwide into Anglophiles. Bush thinks his mission is to convert every country in the world to follow American values. Yet a devout Muslim would consider the American way of life with its total emphasis on materialism, sex and self-indulgence pretty vacuous.
I think most Americans genuinely mean well, but cannot accept that other cultures are different and not necessarily inferior.

 

[BC visitor]

I think the war in Iraq was doomed from the start for one key reason. To replace a totalitarian government with a "democracy" is a very time consuming process and really takes a very long term commitment. I think Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head in his comment about what democracy is "The rule of law, independent judges, the right of free speech, the ability to fire those to whom you loan power and private property -- unless you have all five of those in place, you don't have a viable democracy," Those 5 things take not years but generations and the will of the people to put it in place. There is not a history of democracy in those terms in Iraq. And I have to ask if the Iraqi people really want this at all?

If there is one thing the American people can't stand it is long wars with little perceived progress. This is where we are now. I cannot forgive GWB for not realizing this basic trait of the americian people.

Unfortunately, no one can unscramble this egg now. So why did we scramble it in the first place? But that is another question.

I think US troops will leave before the job is done. The Americian people are tired of this war, right or wrong. I don't see what a "surge" of troops will do. Maybe with more troops it will suppress the violence for a while, but things will be back to business as usual as soon as the troops start to go home. I think untimately Iran will spread it's influence into Iraq and take it over when the US leaves. I don't think the US will go to war with Iran. They have way too much military & economic power. Considering the impact 4 years of war in Iraq has had on the US military - I think the body count would be quite high.

On another note, I don't see China doing anything to hurt the US. Kill our economy and China's economy crashes also. Who do you think buys all those chinese exports?

 

[MissingOne]

They would most certainly, for the very obvious reason that dumping the US dollar for the Euro will make the EU the world power.

I'm no economist, but consider a counter-argument. Maybe one of the biggest weaknesses the US has right now is that so many foreign powers control so many US dollars. If the US had tighter control of its own currency perhaps it would be in stronger position.

Maybe having the national currency as a de-facto world currency actually weakens a nation. I notice that the Chinese are very careful to not let their currency "loose" on world markets.