Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[Uncensored2008]

You know what does not make sense to me?
you improve the supply the price goes down
the price goes down, profit goes down

What kind of idiot would believe that?

An idiot without a semblance of understanding of market economics.

I have my students study what is called "The Taco Bell Case."

To summarize, In 1988, Pepsi Cola was about to close the Taco Bell franchise as unprofitable. At the time, Pepsi was charging $0.89 for a regular taco and the same for a regular, bean burrito.

In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.

What happened was nothing short of astounding. Not only did the plan work, but Taco Bell was actually making a profit on the $.29 items. See, there biggest issue was overhead absorption, not food cost. By moving more product, they cut scrap (bad food) to almost nothing and cut overhead from 419% to 60%. Taco Bell then restructured their entire menu at sharply reduced prices and the chain was profitable within a year. Three years later, Pepsi was able to sell the chain (Along with KFC and Pizza Hut) to Yum foods at a huge profit.

The key to being profitable was lowering prices, VOLUME rather than margin was the key.

Price goes down, profit goes up - basic economics.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really?
this is your OPINION
And mine without the name calling follows


Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism: Iraq and Beyond
Published on October 2, 2002 by Jack Spencer BACKGROUNDER #1600
Print PDF
Download PDF
SHARE
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority. Congress must now make its voice heard on a key issue of national security and bring to a vote support for President George W. Bush's strategy for pursuing the war on terrorism in the way that he, as commander in chief, deems necessary.
As the nature of the threats to the United States changes, so must the nation's approach to its defense. To fulfill his constitutional responsibility, the President must have the flexibility to address these threats as they emerge; and, given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nations hostile to America, in an increasing number of cases, this may require applying military power before the United States or its interests are struck. In situations where the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that behavioral trends, capability, and motives all point to imminent threat, it may be necessary for the President to attack preemptively.
While there has been little argument over the use of armed force in Afghanistan to retaliate against an act of aggression, preemptive action is also clearly justifiable because the following principles apply:
PRINCIPLE #1: The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The most basic expression of a nation's sovereignty is action taken in self-defense. Traditional international law recognizes that right,1 and the United Nations Charter is wholly consistent with it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
PRINCIPLE #2: The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. 2 The right to self-defense incorporates the principle of anticipatory self-defense, which is particularly salient in the war on terrorism. The reality of international life in the 21st century is that nations or organizations that wish to challenge America or Western powers increasingly are seeking weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political objectives. The only effective response may be to destroy those capabilities before they are used. The tenet of traditional, customary international law that allows for this preventive or preemptive action is "anticipatory self-defense."
An oft-cited incident that validates the practice of anticipatory self-defense as part of international law occurred in 1837. That year, British forces crossed into American territory to destroy a Canadian ship, anticipating that the ship would be used to support an anti-British insurrection. The British government claimed its actions were necessary for self-defense, and the United States accepted that explanation.3
While there is debate as to whether or not this principle of international law survived the adoption of the U.N. Charter, the fact is that neither the charter nor the actions of member states since the charter came into force outlaw the principle.4 Israel has invoked the right of anticipatory self-defense numerous times throughout its history, including incidents in 1956 when it preemptively struck Egypt and in 1967 when it struck Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as those nations were preparing an attack.
The United States has also asserted its right to anticipatory self-defense. A classic example occurred in 1962 when President John Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba--a clear act of aggression--during the Cuban missile crisis. Although no shots had been fired, President Kennedy's preemptive action was imperative for the protection of American security. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked this right at least twice: first, in 1983, when he ordered an invasion of Grenada to protect U.S. nationals from potential harm, and again in 1986, when he ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya.
When any nation that is overtly hostile to America or its allies is developing weapons of mass destruction, has ties to international terrorist, and intelligence data give reason to believe that there is an intent to attack, the threshold of the United States' right to invoke a response based on anticipatory self-defense has clearly been passed.
PRINCIPLE #3: The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization veto power over U.S. actions that would otherwise be lawful and fully in accord with the Constitution.5
PRINCIPLE # 4: The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense." The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President commander in chief. Since the birth of the nation, this division of power has given rise to tension between the executive and legislative branches of government regarding who can authorize the use of force.6
Debate regarding this matter gave rise to the War Powers Resolution,7 which states that the President can use force to protect the nation without congressional authorization for 60 to 90 days. Many, including every President since this resolution came into force in 1973, have regarded the document as unconstitutional. Most, however, agree that the President has the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization.8 It should be noted that if Congress is truly opposed to any military action authorized by the President, it has the power to defund that mission, making it impossible to carry out.

"Section Eight gives to the Congress certain broad enumerated powers. Among these are the power to lay and collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce; to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court; to establish uniform naturalization and bankruptcy laws; to declare war; to "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and provide for their regulation; coin money and regulate the value; administer the postal service; "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors; and various other powers. The section also gives to Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I underlined the important parts of what you cut and pasted and included section 8 of the US Constitution.

The stuff you sent over could be twisted and lawyered into a short term attack of Iraq being acceptable, not a war.

My friend at anytime congress could have DE funded it
Unlike the way BHO has these slush funds for the UAW, GM, Chrysler and GMAC. The war needed funding from congress

At least you're taking a better tactic now, pointing fingers rather than trying to twist an obviously unconstitutional war into being constitutional.

Funding and not funding isn't the same as declaring war.

Personally I don't know why they didn't declare war, the idiots in Congress would've approved of it, but the fact is that they didn't.

 

[shintao]

1) many of bin-ladens top chiefs where killed in iraq
2) how does any-one know that? Saddam was told what to do after 1991 and he ignored it . How does anyone know what was shipped out of iraq from 9-01-3-03? And to add there was numerous wmds found (over 500) munitions found in iraq meet wmd criteria, official says
3) i agree
4) no we did not, a handful of drunks did and they went to prison for it
5) no saddam did, that violence had 18 months to be prevented

iraq was one of the largest strategic blunders in us history. Poor intelligence, poor execution, no valid rationale for invading. While we pulled needed forces out of afghanistan, we needlessly killed 4000 americans in an unnecessary conflict

unsubstantiated and subjective... Typical for you and your ilk...

fail!!

 

[JRK]

You know what does not make sense to me?
you improve the supply the price goes down
the price goes down, profit goes down

What kind of idiot would believe that?

An idiot without a semblance of understanding of market economics.

I have my students study what is called "The Taco Bell Case."

To summarize, In 1988, Pepsi Cola was about to close the Taco Bell franchise as unprofitable. At the time, Pepsi was charging $0.89 for a regular taco and the same for a regular, bean burrito.

In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.

What happened was nothing short of astounding. Not only did the plan work, but Taco Bell was actually making a profit on the $.29 items. See, there biggest issue was overhead absorption, not food cost. By moving more product, they cut scrap (bad food) to almost nothing and cut overhead from 419% to 60%. Taco Bell then restructured their entire menu at sharply reduced prices and the chain was profitable within a year. Three years later, Pepsi was able to sell the chain (Along with KFC and Pizza Hut) to Yum foods at a huge profit.

The key to being profitable was lowering prices, VOLUME rather than margin was the key.

Price goes down, profit goes up - basic economics.

So the reason gas is 3.50 a gallon is because taco bell did this?
Seriously
I have heard it all now
Try and explain that to me as it relates to oil prices as well as supply

Iraqi oil was being sold on the black market, and yes that was part of the problem that needed resolve
Do you know what this war was really about?
Look at a map of Iraq and see where it sits in the middle east

Saddam had been told and told and told and told to do the right thing
9-11 comes along and he acted foolishly
he paid for it
his people paid for it as well as 1000s of brave American troops

 

[BlindBoo]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

1. By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

2. Not stable. Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011

3. After all is said and done, when we leave it will still be a miserable shit hole.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was sold as a security threat because of the WMD. Not to remove Saddam from office. Not to nation build. Not to spread a Republic form of governemnt.

 

[DiamondDave]

iraq was one of the largest strategic blunders in us history. Poor intelligence, poor execution, no valid rationale for invading. While we pulled needed forces out of afghanistan, we needlessly killed 4000 americans in an unnecessary conflict

unsubstantiated and subjective... Typical for you and your ilk...

fail!!

Yes... he, and you, fail all the time with such tactics

 

[grunt11b]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

Kinda hard not to when they are harboring terrorists in there homes and around there villages.

 

[BlindBoo]

Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation.

So we must have gotten lots of oil from Iraq, brite boi.

How much, exactly have we imported (Stolen, if you prefer) from post Sadam Iraq?

We've averaged between 300 and 400 thousand barrels a day before and after the invasion and occupation.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

 

[BlindBoo]

What would the charge against Bush or Cheney be? Specifically, using US criminal justice code? The exact law?

See, Sallow is a stupid fuck - he spews shit to smear the opposition and bolster his shameful party.

But others, who are not as shallow as Sallow, should endeavor to actually THINK the problem through.

The mind of Sallow is only capable of "Democrat good - HATE REPUBLICAN."

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

Being one of the rare americans who takes the Constitution seriously I know I sound like a loon, but you either approve of the Iraq War and the other unconstitutional wars or you take the Constitution seriously and want it abided by.

There's no in between.

Not all military actions are wars... we have not had a true war since WWII.... And we are allowed to have military actions, without declarations of war... congress DID approve this military action known as the Iraq conflict, and we were justified in continuing hostilities after the terms of cease fire were violated (as they were NUMEROUS times over the years)

Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime

 

[JRK]

Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation.

So we must have gotten lots of oil from Iraq, brite boi.

How much, exactly have we imported (Stolen, if you prefer) from post Sadam Iraq?

We've averaged between 300 and 400 thousand barrels a day before and after the invasion and occupation.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

I am un sure this was a bad thing nor am I sure it was never part of the reason

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

Nope.

UNSCR 1441 isn't a law and has no legal binding on the sovereign nation of the United States of America.

While it distresses you, the USA is NOT a colony of the UN.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We've averaged between 300 and 400 thousand barrels a day before and after the invasion and occupation.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

So what you're saying is that we didn't gain so much as a drop?

Levels are the same?

Hmm, the oil charge is way off then, spurious and without foundation.

So is KOS stupid, or just lying when they program the drones to bleat the "It's about oil" claim?

 

[grunt11b]

Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation.

If this war was for oil only, then why has the price of oil only gone up since 2003?

You fail again, well, at least your ignorance does.
This war was never about oil. To Bush it was about thumping some tango ass, to the Dems, it was to spend as much money to devalue our currency and collapse the economy. I don;t expect you to understand, you're only a minion.

 

[grunt11b]

1. By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

Then the Democrats share in that illegal behavior. Bush did not take this nation to war on his own, he could not have done it without the support from the congress and senate, and here is what they thought.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc[/ame]


2. Not stable. Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011
Who detonated the bomb that blew the bus up? Us or the terrorists? And if you say our presence brought this about, you are officially a retard because these people have been doing this to each other for about a thousand years.
More stable now then it was in 2003. Have you been there? I didn't think so. The US deaths you hear of now are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, pay attention to the news and not to the Bots running the white house and you will see this for yourself.

 

[shintao]

You know what does not make sense to me?
you improve the supply the price goes down
the price goes down, profit goes down

What kind of idiot would believe that?

An idiot without a semblance of understanding of market economics.

I have my students study what is called "The Taco Bell Case."

To summarize, In 1988, Pepsi Cola was about to close the Taco Bell franchise as unprofitable. At the time, Pepsi was charging $0.89 for a regular taco and the same for a regular, bean burrito.

In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.

What happened was nothing short of astounding. Not only did the plan work, but Taco Bell was actually making a profit on the $.29 items. See, there biggest issue was overhead absorption, not food cost. By moving more product, they cut scrap (bad food) to almost nothing and cut overhead from 419% to 60%. Taco Bell then restructured their entire menu at sharply reduced prices and the chain was profitable within a year. Three years later, Pepsi was able to sell the chain (Along with KFC and Pizza Hut) to Yum foods at a huge profit.

The key to being profitable was lowering prices, VOLUME rather than margin was the key.

Price goes down, profit goes up - basic economics.

Dear Cheveron, take advice from Taco Bell.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dear Cheveron, take advice from Taco Bell.

Chevron doesn't set gas prices.

Speculators seeking something for nothing manipulate futures markets which cause PPB to act independent of supply and demand. We allow looters to corrupt the market.

 

[DiamondDave]

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

Being one of the rare americans who takes the Constitution seriously I know I sound like a loon, but you either approve of the Iraq War and the other unconstitutional wars or you take the Constitution seriously and want it abided by.

There's no in between.

Not all military actions are wars... we have not had a true war since WWII.... And we are allowed to have military actions, without declarations of war... congress DID approve this military action known as the Iraq conflict, and we were justified in continuing hostilities after the terms of cease fire were violated (as they were NUMEROUS times over the years)

Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime

Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??

 

[gekaap]

It also spawned a dozen other nations to seek free, republican rule. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya.....

1) Please list all such 12 nations.

2) Please provide evidence that anything having to do with Iraq had anything to do with what has happened in such nations.

 

[BlindBoo]

1. By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

Nope.

UNSCR 1441 isn't a law and has no legal binding on the sovereign nation of the United States of America.

While it distresses you, the USA is NOT a colony of the UN.

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN. The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore according to the Joint act that gave the President the deciding power:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Online NewsHour: Text of Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq -- October 11, 2002

So considering the ongoing SCR 1441, not only was the President in breach of international law, but of American law as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not all military actions are wars... we have not had a true war since WWII.... And we are allowed to have military actions, without declarations of war... congress DID approve this military action known as the Iraq conflict, and we were justified in continuing hostilities after the terms of cease fire were violated (as they were NUMEROUS times over the years)

Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime

Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??

Need I point out that this was a UN CeaseFire. It stemmed from a UNSCR to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait. Within the ceasefire agreement there is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for violating any provision in the ceasefire agreement. If one side or the other is accused of a violation it was up to the SC to determine what to do about such a violation.

From that same (12th grader) article

Moreover, paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 states the Council's decision "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." That provision makes clear that the Council, not individual states, determines not only whether Iraq has violated Resolution 687 but also whether to take "further steps" for its implementation. The express vesting of this authorization in the Security Council is inconsistent with the view that Resolution 678 continues to allow individual states to decide for themselves whether to use force to implement the cease-fire resolution.

Despite the language and history of Resolution 687, U.S. and UK officials have asserted since 1991 that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force remains in effect, and on several occasions they have deployed forces against Iraq.[107] They argue that the traditional material breach doctrine is applicable to UN cease-fires and that an Iraqi breach of the cease-fire therefore reactivates Resolution 678. However, even if the resolution survived the cease-fire and can be reignited under traditional armistice law to address material breaches, the question remains: who decides when a material breach reactivates the authorization to use force — the Security Council or the United States and its coalition partners? The practice since the cease-fire confirms what is central to Resolution 687: that this authority is held by the Security Council alone. Since the Council made the cease-fire with Iraq, it is the party to determine whether Iraq is in breach. Thus, for Council-imposed cease-fires, retaining the material breach doctrine turns out to lead to the same consequences as the Charter rule propounded above: only the Council can decide to resume hostilities.