McCain wants more of our troops in Iraq. I think that’s wrong.

We already had over 400,000 troops in Vietnam and we’ve spent 13 years there. And we lost. Iraq is different, but not that different.

What complicates the situation is not only that forces that we fight wear no uniform, do not display arms and do not speak English. The civil war in Iraq is a proxy war between Iran and Al-Qaeda. After the elimination of Saddam and destruction of Iraqi economy Iran remained the most powerful and influential country in the region. But unfortunately Al-Qaeda, which was almost finished after Tora Bora, got a new fresh battleground and resourceful sponsors in Iraq. Initially, when Al-Qaeda was founded by anti-Soviet forces during the war in Afghanistan, they were a pan-Muslim force. The blend of Egyptian and Pakistani fighters with American money and training created a powerful force that eventually won over Soviets. Bin Laden was working with both Sunni and Shia.

But now Bin Laden is dead. Al-Qaeda got new sponsors, Sunni and arab states, to fight against the raise of Iran. From pan-Muslim force they became Sunni and there is no way back. Probably that’s one of the biggest accomplishments of Iraqi war.

What to do? First of all we should not try to stand in between Al-Qaeda and Iran. That’s just stupid. We should pick sides. I understand that U.S. has long history of positive relationships with Al-Qaeda, but after 1998 and especially 9/11 they are no friends to us anymore.

Which leaves us to work with Iran. I think we have good bargaining chips on the table. Iran should stop its nuclear efforts, after all the bomb is no help against Al-Qaeda anyway. And we will help with their fight. After all, we need a stability in the region, and for this to happen one side should win. It’s better that we pick the winner ourselves and get something in exchange for help.

Unfortunately we can’t expect Bush to make anything positive. Not just what I propose – anything. Bush is very un-diplomatic person and also stubborn and “intellectually incurious”.  We should eye the next prez. So far McCain is proving to drifting us the wrong way. He is no good.


CNN called Rumsfeld “an obnoxious jerk” but later apologized.

Let me also call  Rumsfeld an obnoxious jerk and I will not apologize 🙂

US invasion in Iraq, by Christophe Vorlet

Former chief of staff Andrew Card tried but failed to convince Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe he didn’t find the right words? Let me try:

Mister Bush, please do me a favor, I know you can. Just get out of your presidential chair, take your big foot and give Mister Rumsfeld a big nice kick into his stupid fat ass.


Today Bush said that “We’re not leaving so long as I’m president”. At the same time we suggest that the war has to end soon. How to resolve this deadlock? I suppose that:

  1. Either Bush has to admit that he is a stupid loser and get out of Iraq
  2. Or his term in the office has to end before the expected day

Sorry, but I don’t see any other way.

Interesting post in the Minyanville:

It has always nagged at me to understand what Greenspan’s motives might have been when he issued the “educational” oratory on how much better off consumers would be with adjustable rate mortgages. At the same time that I was screaming at my clients to lock in the low fixed rates…it just dawned on me … that encouraging consumers to use ARMs gives the Fed another tool in their toolbox. It imposes risk on the consumer, but since the Fed controls the short end of the curve, they can withdraw liquidity through rising mortgage payments but can also more directly inject liquidity back into the economy by lowering the short term rates that ARMs are linked to. (more details in the link)

So, the idea is that the consumer that can be hung by the neck with adjustable mortgage rate could be easily forced to reduce his consumption to fight inflation when needed. It also helps to shift some risk away from banks toward consumers.

What can I say? It means the Republican party has stupid people from both ends at the same time.

From one side, they make the most brainwashed and redneck part of population, the so-called religious right, to suck in believing in hypocrisy of his wars on terrorists, gays and scientists. They are manipulated through fear and hate that is easy to trigger in simple minds. They are devoted republican voters.

At the same time, Greenspan made those simple minds to take the risk side to the bottom in the economic equilibrium by making them to pay for financial imbalances that trigger inflation. If Bush administration wants to print money for horribly expensive war for oil and have no inflation at the same time, then screwing ARM holders is an easy way to go.

I’m glad I do not participate in this. Or at least I think so.

I will just post the wonderful explanation of Iraq war origins written by Republican congressman Ron Paul.

First, why we can exchange paper for real goods: 

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case thats the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars– due to their depreciation– will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

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 cant last.

Now to the origins of the war: 

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 ONeill, 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 ONeill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

And the happy end:

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned. 

I can't say it better. 

Next Page »