It seems that too many folks like you have drunk the Trump Kool-Aid. As Trump proudly declared he could murder people on the street and wouldn't lose a single follower.
Who the hell advised Trum to bomb Syria?
- Thread starter sculptor
- Start date
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The funny thing: The first thing done by Trump which is really criminal, really violates American law (what are the constitutional ways the POTUS has to follow before he starts a war? And an attack with 59 cruise missiles against a foreign airbase is clearly an act of war), and all the Trump enemies become friends of Trump, nobody talks about impeachment.
Trump is smart enough to hire, breed, or ally himself with - and listen to - people who are smart enough to figure something "like that" out,
whatever it was, regardless of what actually happened. And he didn't know anything about cruise missiles, airport assault, nerve gas, military contingencies, etc. He didn't have to.
He hires well, to his purpose. This was obvious during his campaign - his campaign staff was an entire level better than Clinton's in almost every respect, from polling to presentation, from budgeting to bullshitting. He put it together himself - without Party or other such professional help. And he was a complete rookie - he had never campaigned for any political office in his life.
So the prediction is that he's going to get "lucky" like this consistently, as long as he is in office.
As far as his likelihood of "using military solutions" in this fashion - it was 100% a year ago, will be for the duration. He and his Party are fascists, this is how they roll. If he starts expanding into paramilitary, especially domestic and/or mercenary, watch out.
Everyone who was talking about impeachment before still is - and even more stridently. The enemies of Trump are still enemies of Trump. He merely has once again - and once again with Putin's apparent cooperation - won a PR battle with them.
You must be talking about the Republican Party "enemies" of Trump - the "enemies" who supported him over Clinton, back his Party initiatives in Congress, confirm his Court appointments, etc.
It probably wasn't illegal - or not clearly. Trump was probably allowed to launch those missiles, under the 1973 War Powers Act (what Clinton used to bomb Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution).
Trump has more clearly broken many more Laws than that - beginning with the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which he violated at the moment he was sworn in (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/).
Military industrial complex, military, neocons, neoliberals, take your pick.
Post impulsive decision justification more like.
He makes an outrageous and impulsive decision to bomb Syria and then justifies his actions, post event, as deliberate and planned. Trying to hide his compulsions post event... IMO
or alternatively others do it for him...
Last edited:
Can imagine it's like a video game...
He starts up his xbox and goes to the page that offers military options available at any given time...
"ooh, I like that one" and click.... Syria gets a 59'a
or worse:
"ok, I wonder what this does?" ... click and well.. the rest is history...
He starts up his xbox and goes to the page that offers military options available at any given time...
"ooh, I like that one" and click.... Syria gets a 59'a
or worse:
"ok, I wonder what this does?" ... click and well.. the rest is history...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Er, how about the following: "There seems to be some evidence that Trump may have been forced to start listening to the people in US government who know what they are talking about."?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I would need a reputable reference before taking seriously a claim that who Saddam chose to sell to would have a market-moving effect sufficient to be worth starting a war for.
As I would for this hysterical-sounding notion of Saddam becoming an Ottoman Shah and "gutting half" of "Western Oil's profits in one step". How would he do that? Iraq always sold its oil on world markets, for years - until the West stopped or reduced his sales via sanctions (which didn't cause howls from "Western Oil" that I can recall). What exactly would he have done differently, and with what neighbours, in order to bring about this astonishing effect? Do you have a reputable reference supporting some scenario having this effect?
Last edited:
To repeat: with his quality, abundance, and low cost production, he could have undercut anyone's price, and thereby chosen the currency of trade. In this matter he was in a position to bully or rob Kuwait, and Iran was already on board. Both of those possibilities threatened the profits of the oil companies listed above, and the petrodollar.
To repeat: Sold his abundant high quality oil for a third less than what the deep drillers needed to make a profit, and in Euros or basket currency - in de facto cooperation with Iran, and full cooperation with Russia. To anyone. Like, say, China. Japan. France.
This is some kind of arcane, difficult, hypothetical concept? It's what he publicly and explicitly threatened to do, as soon as the sanctions broke down - which was happening.
Saddam's oil off the market was (and is) fine for the bottom line of Exxon, Chevron, et al - the next best thing to Saddam's oil under their control, which was ideal and much desired.
The oil companies had at least a hundred billion dollars on the line, as the sanctions broke down and Saddam ramped up the rhetoric. And they had the US government staffed with friendlies. This is "inexplicable"?
And your evidence for all these allegations and conspiracies is where?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You are saying Saddam had a pact with Iran, his sworn enemy, to sell oil at a third off what you say the "deep drillers" needed to make a profit? I presume you mean he and Iran would together flood the market, depress the global crude price and thereby make the deep wells uneconomic. In fact exactly what Saudi Arabia tried recently, to kill off shale oil - and which has been a conspicuous failure.
Do you have any reliable evidence for this theory? I must admit I have never heard of it and it seems highly unlikely to me, given (a) the intense enmity between Iraq and Iran (Why would Iran cooperate, when they could earn more over time from their resources by selling more slowly, at higher prices?) and (b ) the unlikely prospect of success (Did either of them really think that deep wells would just go away, if the price went down for a while? These are 20 year projects.).
What you seem to suggest is that any major oil exporter that lowers the world price of crude, as KSA has recently done, is at risk of a US invasion due to the threat to the interests of Big Oil. In effect you are alleging the US government would go to war to hurt the US economy, by forcing its energy costs up. Do you really believe that?
I really do think you need to offer some reliable evidence to support these theories. Without that, I continue to find them implausible.
To be going on with, here is some analysis made at the time, by a source I would think more or less reliable, on the impact (or lack of it) of Saddam's oil on the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2847905.stm
According to this, Iraq's production was 3% of global production capacity.
Last edited:
No.
Saddam's move to the Euro, recorded event. The weakening of the sanctions on Iraq and prospect of their falling apart - common knowledge. The role of the petrodollar - common knowledge. The domination of the US executive administration by oil and military interests - common knowledge. The nexus of: threat to the petrodollar/PNAC agenda/oil and industry profit motive - observation.
Is that last observation where you locate your doubts? They appear, superficially, to be derived from simple misreadings, so far in this thread.
All of this stuff was just ordinary and recognized and obvious possibility, at the time, in my crowd. It was the standard proposed explanation for W's push for invasion, the WMDs and terrorist links being obvious lies.
They were already, on their own, at the time, talking seriously about moving away from the dollar in concert with Saddam's move to the Euro. They have since done so, on their own - trading in Euros, in Yuan, etc. You can ask them about their motives, if you're puzzled - they don't seem all that mysterious to me.
They were at the time and until very recently subject to severe trade constraints, which limited their income and unilateral options while raising their production costs. That was due to change, to their advantage, if the petrodollar had been severely damaged by Saddam.
We'll see, going forward, now. Iraq's oil industry is under the US thumb still, but Iran's influence and options are increasing year by year.
No. KSA is dependent on the income stream in dollars and the US alliance for security, etc. The PNAC agenda of removing their choice in the matter depended on getting Iran and Iraq under thumb first.
That guy completely ignores the critical currency issue, as well as the production cost differential. And his comments on increases in production somehow overlook the sanctions - he talks as if Saddam were running at capacity as he spoke, with infrastructure in good repair and no constraints on trade, so that major increases in production would require new infrastructure and several years, while Iran, Russia, and China were apparently no factors at all.
That almost reads as deliberate deception - could he honestly have overloooked that kind of stuff?
The US did go to war, and did automatically and as predicted force its energy costs up by doing so - to the enormous profit of Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton, et al. I don't have to "believe" - I can read about in history books.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Oil did get more expensive after we invaded Iraq.
However, some of that gain was part of a 33% decline in the value of the us dollar.
And some of it was pure speculation in the futures markets.
Unilateral military action and the associated costs make investors nervous.
However, some of that gain was part of a 33% decline in the value of the us dollar.
And some of it was pure speculation in the futures markets.
Unilateral military action and the associated costs make investors nervous.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I wasn't addressing Trump per se.
I was interested in the causes and ramifications of his actions as/re the missile attack.
..................
the lesser of two weevils.
This all depends on congress, which is pretty Trump friendly at the moment.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OK, how do you figure this?
Except it didn't violate American law when he ordered the attack on Assad. This isn't your beloved Mother Russia comrade; facts still matter here. The POTUS has the authority to order a military strike anywhere at anytime with or without congressional consultation. He doesn't need a declaration of war from Congress. Congress never declared war during the Vietnam War. It never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. Unfortunately for and your Russian cohorts, facts still matter.
Trump's party controls both houses of Congress. That said, Trump wasn't able to get his healthcare plan through even the House, and it appears they are having trouble getting their tax plans through Congress. By historical standards, Trump shouldn't have any trouble getting his agenda through Congress.
but the POTUS needs congressional support for budgeting for an extended campaign yes?