Thursday, February 19, 2009

The 100-Year Long Con

If you can get past the excessive partisan language you might enjoy this blog entry over at The Opinion Mill. It turns out that the way the Iraq war was sold to Americans isn't all that dissimilar to the classic spanish prisoner con. It goes like this: we need a little investment from you now to free X (usually X is a foreign potentate or a huge sum of money in a bank) and you'll reap the benefits down the line.

In this case, if we invade Iraq and wrestle it from Saddam Hussein, it will result in cheaper oil and a democratized middle east free from terrorist despots.

Of course this was the story they fed us after the "they can kill us all in 45 minutes and we have to kill them first" story didn't pan out, when we discovered that they couldn't kill us under any circumstances. I don't know if there's a corresponding con for that - sounds like mob protection money to me. "You got a nice nation here... it'd be a shame if someone roughed it up."

6 comments:

wamk said...

Is it kind of like "We need this $730 billion RIGHT NOW, or the economy will cease to exist", yet we won't spend the bulk of the money until 2 years from now?

And by the way, most of the money will go into entitlemaent and Government projects, so after we pay for them with this large sum, their upkeep will be in the Federal and State budgets forever.

Is it like that?

Danielk said...

Yes, but without the loss of life and global destabilizing potential. Oh, and about a trillion dollars less.

wamk said...

Really? A "trillion less"? Aren't most economists saying The Obama Stimulus will wind up costing over $3 trillion?

How stable is the global economy right now?

And there never any loss of life when the uber-rich and in power lose wealth and power, is there?

Danielk said...

1. Economists are saying it'll be that much? We should fire them or call them traitors.

2. Pretty unstable, which is why everyone decided we need a stimulus package.

3. This last one is fascinating me on many levels. Assuming you're referring to various revolutions over history, you know how these deaths occurred? The poor, fed up with neglect and being taken advantage of, killed a handful of privileged rich folk. So the loss of life was much smaller than a typical war; but more importantly the best way to bring something like that about in this country is to cut social services and insist that the poor take care of themselves.

If they could take care of themselves, they probably wouldn't choose to be poor.

wamk said...

1. Merely pointing out that in your comparison to the Iraq war, The Obama Stimulus will cost much more in the long run.

2. You stated that the Iraq war has potentially destabilized the World, since The Obama Stimulus and the Obama Administration begin working on the US economy, global markets have tanked.

3. Really? Is that how Cuba got Castro? Those Cubans are sure better off under fidel than they were before, aren't they?

3A. How were the poor "handled" before welfare came about?

Danielk said...

I'm not so sure the war will cost less than the stimulus package. We're still at war after all. And conservatives are still lobbying to keep us there.

Thanks for bringing up Cuba - that's exactly the situation I'm trying to prove. Those poor people were so fed up with Batista's treatment that they rose up and picked their own despot. Keep telling the desperate that having nothing is enough, and your stuff starts to look awful good to 'em.

As for question 3A, depends. Cuba or France or America in the thirties? Seriously, you don't get those kinds of problems as long as the rich aren't TOO rich or if they are are they're willing to share the wealth. But if you don't reach out to the underclass, the underclass just punches up at you.