Tell me this is all a bad dream...

[Sava]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Feb3.html

In 2003, It's Reagan Revolution Redux
Embracing Big Tax Cuts and Deficits, Bush Moves Away From Compassionate Conservatism

The Reagan Revolution ruining the economy again...

In the face of burgeoning budget deficits, the president has proposed new tax cuts that would cost the Treasury nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years, on top of the $1.35 trillion tax cut passed in 2001. The tax cuts' potential impact on government enterprises has caught many supporters and detractors by surprise.

And if that wasn't bad enough!

U.S. Bombers on Alert to Deploy as Warning to North Koreans
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER


WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put 24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, both to deter "opportunism" at a moment when Washington is focused on Iraq and to give President Bush military options if diplomacy fails to halt North Korea's effort to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/in...ner=ALTAVISTA1

Apparantly one war isn't enough

Wait! There's more!

[David Floyd]

to the taxes.

to the military stuff.

[Sava]

U.S. woos war allies with cash, weapons
Iraq's neighbors swap staging sites for billions in aid
By Stephen J. Hedges and Catherine Collins, Chicago Tribune. National correspondent Stephen J. Hedges reported from Washington and Catherine Collins from Istanbul

February 2, 2003

WASHINGTON -- When U.S. and Turkish officials meet this week to discuss Turkey's potential role in any war with Iraq, they will also review an offer of U.S. aid. The multibillion dollar offer may look like so much diplomacy but is, in fact, a bid--the price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the use of Turkey's military bases, airfields and ports.

The U.S. is offering more than $4 billion in loans and grants, according to a Western diplomat in Istanbul, which represents a "significant step forward" in the Bush administration's efforts to add a critical ally to its "coalition of the willing" against Iraq.

"The United States has presented what we consider to be a credible offer," the diplomat said. "We have tried to design a package to give Turkey as much flexibility as possible."

The package reveals Washington's eagerness to secure the use of Turkey as a vital land bridge into northern Iraq. It also illustrates the powerful economic and diplomatic levers that President Bush wields as he rallies allies against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Who's trading what

In the Persian Gulf region alone over the past two years, the United States has sold, lent or given away an estimated $7.5 billion worth of weaponry, other military equipment and training assistance, according to State Department figures. Recipients have included such vital U.S. allies as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

The deals include advanced fighter jets, radar systems and missiles. Airfields are being expanded. Military bases are being renovated.

In return, the United States has won the right to build bases, house troops and use sovereign airspace if it wages a war against Iraq.

Many of the same countries recently provided vital support, such as airfields, during the U.S. war against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, foreign military assistance--mostly grants to buy U.S. weaponry--has increased $500 million, to more than $4 billion for fiscal 2003, State Department documents show.

Administration officials say the aid has been one of the most effective means of finding and sustaining foreign support for the global war on terrorism.

"We provided money so they could . . . participate in doing what we were asking them to do," said an official involved in the program. "Security assistance . . . is a tool of U.S. national security and foreign policy."

Analysts and critics, however, say the administration's use of arms as a diplomatic carrot has some potentially dangerous downsides, including a lack of control over the military hardware being provided.

`A coalition of the bought off'

The coalition of the willing, said security analyst Loren Thompson, "is really a coalition of the bought off."

"If the Bush administration wants a coalition of the willing, it had better give them a reason to be willing," said Thompson, who directs the Lexington Institute, a public-policy think tank. "But when you have to buy people off to do it, you have to think about the risks."

Others contend that the United States is busy arming nations that had been prohibited from receiving lethal U.S. weapons because of poor human-rights records and abusive militaries. Those countries include Yugoslavia, Uzbekistan and Indonesia.

They also say the U.S. policy of trading arms for support may serve to fuel regional conflicts with a wave of modern and highly effective weaponry.

"Who your friends are today may not be your friends tomorrow," said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

"Look at India and Pakistan. They're hot and cold as U.S. friends. Do we really want to be selling them our hottest weapons?" Stohl asked.

India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed archenemies engaged in an ongoing, low-intensity conflict over the border region of Kashmir. The U.S. restricted military sales to both before Sept. 11, 2001.

After the terrorist attacks in the United States, however, both have become vital American allies. And both have gotten increased U.S. military aid.

Pakistan has received $1.2 billion in arms, including helicopters, radar systems, six used C-130 cargo aircraft, armored personnel carriers and F-16 fighter jets.

The U.S. has given India $78million in air defense and artillery-spotting radar, Sea King helicopters and training aircraft.

Cold War strategy revisited

Swapping guns for favors is one of the oldest games in the diplomatic repertoire. It ran rampant during the Cold War, which for many nations not directly involved was not so much an ideological struggle as it was an opportunity to squeeze arms, financial aid and a convenient alliance out of the United States or the Soviet Union.

"Everybody has a shopping list when we want to come in," said Milt Bearden, a former senior CIA official who directed the supply of U.S. Stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden and other Islamic rebels fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s.

"This is the reality of what's going on now, and it's time-honored. But I'm not sure I'm critical of it. You've got to do stuff," Bearden added.

The war on terrorism, and the building standoff with Iraq, have reordered some of the deck chairs that were scattered when the Cold War ended. With the United States racing to find allies, countries again have been willing to go along--for a price.

Potential allies, the administration official said, "are certainly looking to see what the benefits of a relationship with United States are going to be. As we approached countries in Central Asia, where we had no national security relationship before the war [on terrorism], it was one of the things that we did to make sure that we had a security relationship that wasn't just one-way."

Nowhere have those relationships had greater ramification than in the Persian Gulf region, where for more than a decade the United States has been shipping arms and assistance.

$1 billion in aid for Jordan

Jordan's agreement last week to allow some U.S. forces on its soil points up just how effective the promise of such aid can be. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war with Iraq, then-King Hussein remained neutral; his county shared both a border and a brisk trade with Iraq.

This time, however, King Abdullah II, the late monarch's son, apparently has thrown in with the Americans, and he has his reasons. For one, Abdullah's government must wrestle with the uncertainty of Saddam Hussein's presence and threats from Al Qaeda-linked cells in Jordan.

For another, the Bush administration has promised to provide $1 billion in assistance to Jordan in exchange for overflight and troop-basing rights. Before that pledge, Jordan had received $223 million in U.S. military aid in the past two years, according to State Department figures.

As the possibility of war against Iraq has neared, Turkey has remained a holdout. So far, Ankara has officially refused U.S. requests to use its bases and ports, but its reluctance may be part domestic politics, part bargaining chip. And the United States is sweetening the pot.

Turkey has long been a recipient of U.S. military equipment and loans. It has an estimated $5 billion military loan debt with the United States, which might be negotiated away as part of a new aid package, and it has received $65 million in outright military grants from Washington since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terrorist hijackers struck.

Also, Pentagon officials have said they are willing to spend up to $300 million to improve the facilities U.S. forces might use in Turkey. And a $324 million U.S. Export-Import Bank loan may be used to allow Turkey to buy 14 SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, according to the Pentagon.

While Turkish leaders once were adamant against cooperation, they have in recent days softened their stance. The National Security Council said Friday that it would recommend to parliament approval of the limited use of bases by U.S. forces. Turkish law requires such a vote.

Though nothing is certain, it increasingly appears that Turkey will agree to the U.S. requests once the aid package is hammered out.


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

Wait a minute. I saw this one before. It happened in the 80's when the US gave money, arms, and Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq. And we all know what happened there. It's no doubt that Saudi's (among the others listed) directly support terror. And we're giving them fighter jets and billions in "aid"?

[Sava]

http://www.oilandgasinternational.co...03_france.html

France & Russia warned support US war on Iraq or no Iraqi oil


Richard Lugar.
(1/27/2003 - OGI: Cairo) France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want acess to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. According to a report in today's Tehran Times, US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France "must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention" if they want a share of Iraqi oil.
The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country's resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein. It noted that both the Russian Duma and the French parliament have both expressed opposition to a US military attack on Iraq.

And we threaten our "allies" if they don't happen to agree with us.


PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A DREAM

[Sava]

David, it's one thing to be against taxes. It's another to give free money (that doesn't exist yet... i.e. deficits) to a bunch of rich corporations. Although I don't agree with your beliefs on taxes, I can at least understand the reasoning. But Bush is cutting welfare programs for the poor, and increasing welfare programs for the rich.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
to the taxes.

to the military stuff.

DF - in order to support the tax cut wouldn't there have to be a corresponding fall in spending. I would not have thought a libetarian would want massive borrowing.

[TheStinger]

Won't the new Iraqi government determine who gets oil contracts rather than a US senator?

[CerberusIV]

It's really quite a neat system. The US government spends billions to ensure its citizens have access to cheap oil and then taxes them to pay for it. (A deficit means pay later rather than pay now, that's all)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It is a dream:

It's a dream-come-true for the Republicans, who finally get to enact their fiscally wacky agenda again while ignoring the lessens of history.

It's a dream-come-true for the Democrats, who will come back into power when the sh!t inevitably hits the fan, and will do so without having bothered to exercise leadership, soul-search, redefine themselves, or just generally give voters any reason to vote for them except that they're not Republicans.

And it's a nightmare for the rest of us.

So, yes, it's definitely a dream.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
David, it's one thing to be against taxes. It's another to give free money (that doesn't exist yet... i.e. deficits) to a bunch of rich corporations. Although I don't agree with your beliefs on taxes, I can at least understand the reasoning. But Bush is cutting welfare programs for the poor, and increasing welfare programs for the rich.

What a conundrum. David vs. Sava. I vote both crazy.

[Sava]

What a conundrum. David vs. Sava. I vote both crazy.

Yeah, I must be crazy. I don't want our government to murder people for the current admininstrations' own agenda.
Yeah, I must be crazy. I don't think its fair that the lower and middle classes are taxed only to see that tax money handed to rich people and corporations.
Yeah, I must be crazy. I'm looking at the effect that Bush is having on our country and I'm seeing him for what he really is.

[SlowwHand]

No, you're crazy because you didn't spend one minute of time reading your History book.

[Alex]

care to enlighten us, sloww?

[DuncanK]

It's the military spending that kept the economy going during those years, not the tax cuts.

[SlowwHand]

I'm talking about Iraq. They have history books where you are, I'm sure.

[Arrian]

Yeah, Sava, it's just a dream. Go back to sleep.

-Arrian

[Alex]

ooh, now you have insulted me. I demand a financial help, otherwise I won't be screaming "USA! USA!" in front of a TV camera to show how I support this lovely war.

[SlowwHand]

[Sava]

History book... in regards to Iraq? Oh... do you mean how the Reagan adminstration sold them all their WMD's? And then sold weapons to Iran... and then sold weapons to Iraq again? Or how about how Iraq invaded Kuwait with US weapons? My history's quite good. I could recite all the US sponsored dictatorships and their estimated casualty rates, but it would be a broken record because you approve of the US and it's murdering of peoples.

[David Floyd]

David, it's one thing to be against taxes. It's another to give free money (that doesn't exist yet... i.e. deficits) to a bunch of rich corporations.

I oppose taxes in general, and just because only one group is getting tax cuts doesn't mean I oppose those tax cuts. Granted, we all should be getting them, but I'm not gonna oppose any tax cut, no matter where it is or if it directly affects me or not.

But Bush is cutting welfare programs for the poor, and increasing welfare programs for the rich.

I strongly oppose both social and corporate welfare. I don't oppose social or corporate tax cuts.

[Sava]

Then don't cheer for these cuts David. Sure, I like tax cuts. I pay a sh!tload of taxes on a lot of my investments. But this is simply wealth distribution and that the type of non-taxation that would make your nipples hard.

[SlowwHand]

Check messages, Sava.

[David Floyd]

Then don't cheer for these cuts David. Sure, I like tax cuts. I pay a sh!tload of taxes on a lot of my investments. But this is simply wealth distribution and that the type of non-taxation that would make your nipples hard.

No, wealth distribution would be a welfare program. Granted, those exist, and should be abolished.

What this is, is a tax cut, at least according to your post. I can't be bothered to check the article, of course, so I'll take your word that it's a tax cut. And a tax cut is never, ever a negative thing, regardless of what other wrongs are being committed.

If the government steals more from me to make up for lost revenue for other tax cuts, that act is wrong, but that act doesn't make those other tax cuts wrong.

[Sava]

If I call a cow a "rabbit"... it's still a cow David. Bush only disguises his pork-barrel gifts to corporations and the rich "tax cuts".

Sloww: ?? none

[David Floyd]

If I call a cow a "rabbit"... it's still a cow David. Bush only disguises his pork-barrel gifts to corporations and the rich "tax cuts".

Again, if it's corporate welfare, which means keeping tax rates the same and giving my money to corporations, I oppose it. If it is simply lowering taxes for a certain group, I am for it, no matter who that group is. If my taxes are correspondingly raised to cover the difference, that is wrong, but the two are separate and distinct actions - the tax cut is good, the tax increase is bad.

[SlowwHand]

:Hmmm:

It was about an organization I saw called "Patriots For Peace".
David may have an interest, too.
I saw it on the television when my mother was watching Oprah. The show about differing viewpoints on Iraq.

[Sava]

Well that's the thing David. The taxes are collected. And instead of just giving back taxes to the rich from the pool that they contributed. Bush is just giving them money and calling it a tax cut. Most of the corporate tax cuts go to corporations that move to their "official address" to Bermuda and pay no taxes in the first place.

That's why I get so pissed off. Not because I'm against tax cuts. But because this is corporate welfare.

[David Floyd]

Quoting from the article:

If enacted, they would end for the vast majority of Americans the taxation of inheritances and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends. Those are tax changes Ronald Reagan could only dream of.

So it sounds like the tax cuts are an elimination of the death tax, capital gain taxes, and interest taxes. All of those things are methods of double taxation, and all of them have the potential to affect people of every income. Granted, richer people tend to invest more, and receive more money in inheritance and interest, but so what?

I didn't want to go in and read the article, much less quote from it - I just wanted to make a quick comment about how I support any and every tax cut. But I guess I had to, and quoting directly from the article shows that this is not corporate welfare, but rather a virtual elimination of a system of double taxation.