Joined: 28 Dec 2005
|Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:36 pm Post subject: Iraq War - 2000s Expansion Structure
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were needed. However, “nation building” was an expensive mistake. It was also a mistake not to take ISIL out decisively before it became embedded, recently.
Instead of nation building, the federal government should’ve saved that money, reducing federal deficits (rather than spending on something else), along with raising taxes and housing lending standards, when the 2000s expansion was underway.
And, instead of raising the Fed Funds Rate from 1% in June 2004 to 5 1/4% in June 2006 and maintaining that rate till September 2007, a slower and smaller tightening could’ve taken place, avoiding QEs in the 2010s.
U.S. trade deficits should’ve been smaller as a percentage of GDP in the 2000s, than the 1995-00 boom, boosting U.S. GDP, although oil prices were rising substantially from 1999-08. The structure of the 2001-07 expansion was unsustainable.
Peak Trader – Please explain exactly why the Iraq war was needed.
The first Bush didn’t finish the job, because he appeased Congress.
It was unknown what a madman, and his sons, would do sitting on trillions of dollars of oil, particularly holding a grudge or seeking revenge after the first Gulf war, which you recall took place after the invasion of Kuwait, and massive environmental damage was created by Iraq on purpose.
We also know chemical weapons were used against his own people. So, why wouldn’t WMDs be used someday against the U.S., or a coalition partner, perhaps by his sons? And, credibility is needed to deter other similar episodes.
If Iran refuses to comply with the inspectors and kick them out of the country, is that enough to invade Iran and overthrow the regime?
If not, then when?
Even the UN (which the U.S. made their numerous resolutions credible) and the EU knew Saddam and his two sons deserved to see Allah
The Iraq War was one of the most important, and damaging, episodes in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, the circumstances in Iraq and Iran are different. And smart people may offer smart explanations for why the demand for capitulation that proved so disastrous in America’s dealings with Iraq is well-suited to America’s dealings with the country on Iraq’s eastern border.
It’s hard to pretend that nothing has happened over the last 15 years to throw that worldview into question. It’s only fair, therefore, that when people who championed the Iraq War debate the Iran deal, they be made to face that war’s consequences too. Were that the norm, I suspect the debate over Iran would barely be a debate at all.
The war should’ve been limited to regime change.
A new dictator would’ve likely emerged, and he’d know better, from the prior regime change.
The world community should’ve taken a hard line with Iran. Dismantle your nuclear program or end up like Iraq.
The Middle East is a mess anyway. Nuclear proliferation will make an even bigger mess.
And, there are other sources of power besides nuclear power, like solar and wind, for oil rich Iran.
Moreover, what good is a “red line” on the use of chemical and biological weapons without a swift and severe reaction on their use?
just curious peak,
“If Iran refuses to comply with the inspectors and kick them out of the country, is that enough to invade Iran and overthrow the regime? If not, then when?”
what is your justification for invading another sovereign nation? because they did not obey your orders? if so, then when do we invade russia and china? north korea? and when germany acts against our wishes, there as well?
I haven’t heard anything about invading “Russia, China, North Korea, and Germany” and well over a hundred other countries?
It’s naïve to assume those countries always comply with international laws and treaties.
It seems, invasion of a “sovereign nation” is unacceptable to you, regardless of what that country does.
Joint Plan of Action – Wikipedia
“The nuclear program of Iran has been a matter of contention with the international community since 2002, when an Iranian dissident group revealed the existence of two undeclared nuclear facilities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, charged with monitoring and ensuring peaceful nuclear activities, referred the matter of Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council in February 2006, after finding that Iran had not been in compliance with its duties as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. For what the IAEA judged to be continued non-compliance, the UN Security Council has voted four times since 2006 to impose limited economic sanctions against Iran. In its resolutions, the Council required Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities.”