or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iraq's WMDs went to Syria. - Page 3

post #81 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I see you have not read the 9/11 commission report.

I have a copy right here: it's not worth the paper its printed on. The 9/11 "Commission" report is a sick joke, a national disgrace. It should be called the 9/11 OMISSION Report, because that is exactly what it is. And with Philip Zelikow as executive director, what more could one expect but a whitewash of criminal proportions.

What a bunch of a$$holes. It's no wonder that so many of the families of the deceased are so furious.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #82 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
*The few major roads between the two nations would have been closely and continuously monitored in the US by spy satellite for suspicious activity, such as truck movements, materials being buried etc. The technology in space is of such high resolution that small text can be deciphered.

Not trying to go too far off topic, but that is a common misconception.
From the Federation of American Scientists(fas.org):
"Imagery intelligence satellites use film and electronic cameras, or radars, to produce high resolution images of objects on the ground at ranges of up to one thousand kilometers. Orbiting at altitudes several hundred kilometers, such satellites can readily identify and distinguish differing types of vehicles and equipment with resolutions better than 10 centimeters. Resolutions of several meters are useful in locating vehicles and characterizing installations, while resolutions on the order of ten meters have some applications for locating facilities, such as airfields and ports."

10cm is good resolution, but not quite enough to read text, and there are only 3 of the modern satellites in orbit at one time that are capable of it.
"Three of the older KH-11s are currently in orbit, as well as three of the more capable Advanced Keyholes, which fly in orbits nearly twice as high as their predecessors."

And during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait(when every asset available was focused on Iraq): "These systems were not infallible, since the US lost track of four Iraqi divisions for a 24 hour period on August 7-8."

During the Cold War, it was quite common for the USSR to time troop/ship movements to times when we had no satellite coverage.

Quote:
*The movement of high level radiological material is extremely tough to conceal without specialized shielding.

I have hands on experience with industrial radiographic sources, it's not that difficult to shield a radiation source. A couple inches of lead or steel would be more than enough to drop readings down below background. And 'inert', ie, not involved in a chain reaction, uranium actually does not emit much radiation compare to other sources(cobalt, irridium, strontium).
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #83 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster And during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait(when every asset available was focused on Iraq): "These systems were not infallible, since the US lost track of four Iraqi divisions for a 24 hour period on August 7-8."

But that was 12-13 years ago. I'm sure we have more satellites that are more sophisticated these days.
Quote:
During the Cold War, it was quite common for the USSR to time troop/ship movements to times when we had no satellite coverage.

Again, that was a long time ago. I find it hard to believe we haven't made the necessary corrections over a decade later.
post #84 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
But that was 12-13 years ago. I'm sure we have more satellites that are more sophisticated these days.
Again, that was a long time ago. I find it hard to believe we haven't made the necessary corrections over a decade later.

But modern satellites must obey the laws of physics. They are not in geostationary orbits, therefore they can only cover certain areas at certain times, leaving windows with no coverage.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #85 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
But modern satellites must obey the laws of physics. They are not in geostationary orbits, therefore they can only cover certain areas at certain times, leaving windows with no coverage.

Are you implying that Iraq and/or Syria could coordinate the transfer of weapons of mass destruction based on when our satellites were not in orbit above the Middle East?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #86 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Are you implying that Iraq and/or Syria could coordinate the transfer of weapons of mass destruction based on when our satellites were not in orbit above the Middle East?

It does look like WMD were not transfered to Syria, but *if* there were transfers, any country with the capability to launch satellites would know the schedules of all known orbiting objects. (so they don't launch into the path of someone else's satellite, or space debris.)

The question would be if their intelligence services may or may not know which of our satellites are 'spy' birds, but it's not hard to figure out the orbit the Space Shuttle is in when it goes on missions with "unidentified" military payloads...just pointing out that it's not outside the realm of possibility, there were plenty of nations with that capability willing to violate the arms embargo, so why not sell intelligence to Iraq/Saddam as well?

And according to FAS.org, they learned a few things about satellite capabilities from the US during the Iran/Iraq war:
Quote:
Iraq used deception "techniques they learned from US military intelligence officials during the eight year war between Iran and Iraq... In the course of receiving the US intelligence assessments, based on information from US spy satellites, the Iraqis 'were able to learn how we did the assessments,' one analyst said. 'They were able to learn how we keep track of what goes on in a war' -- and thus how to mask their military operations."

And you're assuming we were specifically looking for shipments. From space a truck is a truck, it takes HUMINT to determine what is in the truck. And if Saddam offered to give/sell Assad his WMD(if there were any) to add to Syria's arsenal, do you think he would turn it down?
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #87 of 134
Thread Starter 
More news on possible WMD passing into Syria:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...reaking_8.html

The problem is they just don't know, which then leads to the conclusion that it is a definite possibility.
post #88 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem is they just don't know, which then leads to the conclusion that it is a definite possibility.

Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #89 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.


Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.
post #90 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.

By huge, what are we talking about, that the probability of event X>5%?

Get over it Naples. There were no weapons.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #91 of 134
I wonder why it took 12 days to report on this? Doesn't it strike you as odd Naples that a partisan publication(s) is just now commenting on this as "breaking news" some two weeks after the fact? Hmmm. Why don't you read the transcript of the senate hearing if you can find it an quote us the applicible sections with links to the transcript. I dare say you'll find you've bought into more spin.

Here, I did 32 seconds of leg work for ya: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-20041006.html

Naples learn to sort through the spin and lies. Iraq had zero capability to create WMD's so how could they move that which they neither had (per Kay and Duelfur reports) nor had the capacity to make (again re same reports)?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #92 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
By huge, what are we talking about, that the probability of event X>5%?

Get over it Naples. There were no weapons.

That is not what has been said by all of these studies and reports. Talk about letting the media leading people around by the nose-ring.
post #93 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Get real. I am a homo, what's it to you?

Are you saying it is not a definite possibility?

Thing is you can't. Because it is a huge possibility.

Of course it's a possibility. A "huge" possibility. Who knows? Any and everything is a possibility when you don't have any concrete evidence or facts.

George Soros fortune could've come from drug money. We just don't know.

Brittney Spears might have a set of hairy ones. That will always be a possibility unless I go down on her myself, right? Photos? They can be faked. Testimony? Can be perjured. Relentless testimony to the contrary from the accused? Protesting too much.

This silly probability game can be applied to pretty much anything.

But let's so you're right. Let's say Syria has the weapons. I would far more concerned about these weapons in the hands of Syrians than I would be Iraqis.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #94 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Straight out of the playbook by Dennis Hastert.

Naples might be a homosexual. The problem is we just don't know for sure. Which leads to the conclusion that it's definitely possible. We just don't know.




In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #95 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Of course it's a possibility. A "huge" possibility. Who knows? Any and everything is a possibility when you don't have any concrete evidence or facts.

George Soros fortune could've come from drug money. We just don't know.

Brittney Spears might have a set of hairy ones. That will always be a possibility unless I go down on her myself, right? Photos? They can be faked. Testimony? Can be perjured. Relentless testimony to the contrary from the accused? Protesting too much.

This silly probability game can be applied to pretty much anything.

But let's so you're right. Let's say Syria has the weapons. I would far more concerned about these weapons in the hands of Syrians than I would be Iraqis.

BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....
post #96 of 134
Who wudda thunk that this thread could become an even bigger pile of crap than it was in the first place?
post #97 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....

Naples do you understand that northgate is undermining your idea that nonexistent weapons were transfered?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #98 of 134
It is a ZERO possibility as anyone with any knowledge of this area will already know:

1) Iraqi WMD did not exist - let it go (that's even a reason for the zero possibility though btw)

2) The Syrian Ba'ath are a completely different party and ideology from the Iraqi - they hated each other.

3) Asad is not a fool. He knows that Syria is next on the warheads list and has known it for a long time: he has two choices and two only:

a) arm to the teeth and prepare to fight rearguard (the Saddam route)
b) cozy to the US (as far as possible with the maniacs in power at the moment)

He has chosen b) and he chose it a long time ago. Before the war even.

So b) excludes taking the WMD which would be part of a).

Further evidence for b) is the concessions Asad is constantly making to the US - none of which you will hear about because the war machine is cranking up for when Bush wins and they don't want the sheep getting the wrong (right) impression. Murder is always so difficult to justify....

These concessions include:

Turning over the suspects for the Istanbul bombing to the Turks.

Extraditing Islamists to the US (and the 'disappeared' list a la Latin America no doubt).

Initiating negotiations with the US - these unfortunately always founder because the Bush admin's middle east policy is written by Israel.

Which is why Syrian civilians can expect to be dying in large numbers shortly after Bush is re-elected.

Nice.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #99 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Which is why Syrian civilians can expect to be dying in large numbers shortly after Bush is re-elected.

You may be more right than you know.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #100 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Who wudda thunk that this thread could become an even bigger pile of crap than it was in the first place?

Why are you shocked that Sisyphus is still pushing his rock forever uphill?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #101 of 134
I just wanted to inject Brittney Spear's genitalila into a conversation. That's all.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #102 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
BINGO!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....


The horse is dead already!



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 134
NaplesX, I think what they are trying to say is that Syria hated Iraq SO MUCH that they bought all that oil under the table.


Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That of all the traffic that was going across the Iraq/Syria border was stuff not related to how much Syria hated Iraq.



Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That none of the stuff that Syria and Iraq were trading out of hatred, was WMD related, since there was not on shred of that sort of material in Iraq -- that the UN weapons inspectors were searching through Iraq simply because they had nothing else to do.



Now some might sit down and think about the odd situtation in Iraq, of abilities and weapons programs, lots of low-level enriched uranium, and great deal of history dealing with WMD and ask:

How did ding dong get rid of ALL THAT STUFF?!! Did he flush it down the potty? Did he hide it in the desert? Did he let some of it go stale and dump it in the desert? Hmmmmmmmm........


But since we have vairous poster's personal guarantee that not one uranium atom ever ended up in Syria, so I guess it's just impossible for SH to go that route.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #104 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
NaplesX, I think what they are trying to say is that Syria hated Iraq SO MUCH that they bought all that oil under the table.


Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That of all the traffic that was going across the Iraq/Syria border was stuff not related to how much Syria hated Iraq.



Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd


That none of the stuff that Syria and Iraq were trading out of hatred, was WMD related, since there was not on shred of that sort of material in Iraq -- that the UN weapons inspectors were searching through Iraq simply because they had nothing else to do.



Now some might sit down and think about the odd situtation in Iraq, of abilities and weapons programs, lots of low-level enriched uranium, and great deal of history dealing with WMD and ask:

How did ding dong get rid of ALL THAT STUFF?!! Did he flush it down the potty? Did he hide it in the desert? Did he let some of it go stale and dump it in the desert? Hmmmmmmmm........


But since we have vairous poster's personal guarantee that not one uranium atom ever ended up in Syria, so I guess it's just impossible for SH to go that route.

And since they firmly believe the liberal spin, it must be true.

There are no more WMD in the region to worry about. Pack it up and go home. Give it to the UN to handle now.
post #105 of 134
Excuse me for being ignorant,

The first I knew of low-level enriched uranium was about a week ago, when the news started reporting that it has gone missing and that whole buildings have been dismantled and shipped at randon across the globe, right under the Americans noses.

I ask, If we knew the Iraqi's had such stuff, why were we not guarding it and cataloging it? Why had it not been produced as evidence of WMD programs, and how is it possible to ship out and dismantle known buildings right under our noses?

It stinks of Farce.
post #106 of 134
Actually if I remember right, the US quietly removed the stuff in June.


USA Filleted

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #107 of 134
He's talking about equipment and buildings, not the Tuwaitha uranium. And it wasn't quiet. Everyone had a story on it, including, obviously, USA Today.
post #108 of 134
Quote:
2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items


That seems like more than enought to get someone into trouble.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #109 of 134
What does the Tuwaitha uranium have to do with anything? Are you just for the first time, a year and a half after 'major combat operations,' learning about the history of Iraq WMD?

You remind me of the nuts that shit their pants when the marines secured it during the invasion, broke the IAEA seals and claimed it was plutonium.
post #110 of 134
I think the point was that there was nothing at all left to transferr to Syria.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #111 of 134
It's rather easy: Off course Iraq didn't have any usable WMD's, and Bush knew that! Otherwise he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, too risky. Bush and his administration knew quite clearly that Saddam's usable WMD's were destroyed by the UN-inspectors and Saddam himself.

In the no-fly-zones in Iraq the US and Britain flew daily bombardments, ensuring that any defense of Iraq gets destroyed, be it anti-plane-rockets or radars or anything else military usable. Even companies producing ammunition or weapons were destroyed, the nuclear reactors were destroyed already by Israel.

What was it then that motivated Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, if it were not WMDs, was it the oil? Or was it the human rights situation? Or was it the will to remodel an islamic country into a modern democracy with a modern capitalistic economy that hails freedom?

The truth is it's all that mixed together and a bit more. It's the strategy to control the middle-east-oil more closely than before in order to prevent that oil is traded in euros instead of dollars. If ever a vital ressource were to be traded in euros instead of dollars it would create a domino-effect, that could render the dollar useless as THE world-trade-currency, which could seriously hamper the US-economy, and which could lead to a much stronger EU-econmy and consequentially also a much stronger EU as before.

Perhaps not everyone knows it, but the greatest fear of the neocons is that the US-empire could collapse and that the US-western-hemisphere would shrink back to the state it was in 19th-century, when it only dominated north- and southamerica.

The neocons fear it that much not only because of the loss of power, influence, wealth, etc..., but also because they think that a world without a dominating US would return to the devastating wars the european mights led in the 18th/19th-century and in the two worldwars.

The neocons are educated people, they have read a lot of historical books about the old empires of the roman and greek and other empires, in order to somewhat find out the formula of how to prevent the collapse of the american empire.

They found out that to prevent that it is necessary to prevent the upcoming of another competing empire and for that it is necessary to closely control vital ressources and to have military bases near the possible new empires.

The neocons-thinktanks came up with four possible new empires: The chinese empire, the russian empire (yes, eventhough the Soviet-Union collapsed a new russian empire could come out of it), the european empire, and even though more remote an islamic empire.

The neocons truly think that as long as they prevent the creation of these empires, the american empire will last. Personally I think that exactly the strategy to prevent the creation of other empires forces the end of the american empire, but that's just me.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #112 of 134
When Rome fell it fell from within.
post #113 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
If ever a vital ressource were to be traded in euros instead of dollars it would create a domino-effect, that could render the dollar useless as THE world-trade-currency, which could seriously hamper the US-economy, and which could lead to a much stronger EU-econmy and consequentially also a much stronger EU as before.

We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #114 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

Exactly. So Clinton's way of avoiding such an effect should this transition take place was to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt. Bush's way is to not give a fuck about debt reduction and fight like hell to make sure such a transition never occurs.
post #115 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

This is a primary argument against the 'terrorists want to destroy our way of life' school of thought and proof it is a crock.

If terrorists really wanted to cause the downfall of the US then they would do it economically. They haven't.

All it would take is to do the one thing no capitalist would ever do: make large scale insane bets on the stock market. Possibly in relation to 'terrorist' events.

Just like those guys who bet on the put options pre-911 - except those obviously weren't terrorists as they have made millions and got away with it while the story got killed off.

If and when 'real' terrorists decide to end the US way of life then it will be over in weeks - it wouldn't take much: $500, 000 M selectively squandered and panic and greed take over - then there's the budget deficit in tandem.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #116 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.


Herald, that was just silly, and so was the comment you quoted. The inrticacies of fiat currency are a bit more complicated than that. You can't willy-nilly shunt that much capital out of the World markets without effecting (okay destroying) those same world markets.

Honestly you guys -- this starting to sound like a bad séance.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #117 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Herald, that was just silly, and so was the comment you quoted. The inrticacies of fiat currency are a bit more complicated than that. You can't willy-nilly shunt that much capital out of the World markets without effecting (okay destroying) those same world markets.

Honestly you guys -- this starting to sound like a bad séance.

Uh, hello?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you may have missed something very basic.

Imagine I have a business. I am trading at a massive loss, MASSIVE loss. Every day I owe more and more and more to other companies. At the same time, I am spending MASSIVE amounts on pension schemes, security and administration inside the company.

Imagine these losses and spending are the largest of any company in the history of the world by an extremely large margin. Like, the largest of any company. In the history of the world. By an extremely large margin.

What would possess anyone in their right mind to buy shares in my company or lend me money?

1) Security of the loan
2) Promise of growth of the company.

There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that makes this sane.

So what keeps people secure in their loans to the US? What keeps the dollar from collapsing under what is in 100% of other situations ludicrous overvaluation? Why do people still buy 'shares' in the US (use the dollar as a reserve currency)?

Say it with me, DMZ: "petrodollars." The fact that for energy is fundamental to capitalist growth, and to get it we all have to have dollars. And the security is that all those dollars under Saudi and Iraq that will one day be pumped out and which economies will have to get hold of and keep or they get no energy and fall to pieces.

What would happen to the US economy if oil was sold in euros? When people realised that the dollar was no longer the primary reserve currency? That they should ask for their debts to be paid? That oil pumped out of the ground no longer meant that America Inc. could trade at a MASSIVE loss and have a MASSIVE budget deficit?

This is simple, unimpeachable economics. You cannot debunk it. It cannot be debunked.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #118 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
We're not talking 'hamper the US economy.' The size of the budget and balance of trade deficit is so large -- like, fucking massive -- that the US would collapse. It would be bankrupt. It would not be able to feed its citizens.

The entire 'American Way of Life®' would be over.

The US government feeds it's citizens?

Where do I get on that gravy train?
post #119 of 134
Herald, honestly -- foreign investment, for example, comes to America because of it's abilibty to produce and consume. Suggesting that any contry in the world could walk away from the U.S. economy, or in any way attempt to harm the U.S. economy, is bizzare.


I'm out of time, so you'll have to setlle for a quote:

Quote:
Another unfounded worry about the trade deficit is that it will saddle future generations with an unsustainable "foreign debt." It is true that foreign investors own about $1.5 trillion more in U.S.-based assets than Americans own in foreign assets abroad. But about half of foreign-owned assets in the United States are not debt but equity--direct investment in factories and real estate and portfolio investment in corporate stock. And the $1.5 trillion in net foreign investment in the United States is only about 16 percent of Gross Domestic Product, and 4 percent of the net wealth of all U.S. households and non-profit organizations. Net payments to finance our foreign "debt" were less than $20 billion in 1999, about one-fifth of one percent of GDP.


Yet another worry is that chronic trade deficits will spook foreign investors and undermine the foreign-exchange value of the U.S. dollar -- sending stock and bond markets and the real economy into a tailspin. The problem with that scenario is that it ignores the fact that trade deficits are linked to a strong, not a weak, dollar. The trade deficit increases the supply of dollars in the global economy, as foreign producers accept more dollars in payment for imports. But in times of economic expansion, the demand for those dollars by foreign investors seeking to buy U.S. assets is even greater. As long as foreign demand for U.S. assets remains strong, the dollar will remain high, and so will the trade deficit.


The best policy is to ignore the trade deficit, however large it may now seem, and concentrate on maintaining a strong and open domestic economy that welcomes foreign investment. As long as investors world-wide see the United States as a safe and profitable haven for their savings, the trade deficit will persist, and Americans will be better off because of it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Uh, hello?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you may have missed something very basic.

Imagine I have a business. I am trading at a massive loss, MASSIVE loss. Every day I owe more and more and more to other companies. At the same time, I am spending MASSIVE amounts on pension schemes, security and administration inside the company.

Imagine these losses and spending are the largest of any company in the history of the world by an extremely large margin. Like, the largest of any company. In the history of the world. By an extremely large margin.

What would possess anyone in their right mind to buy shares in my company or lend me money?

1) Security of the loan
2) Promise of growth of the company.

There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that makes this sane.

So what keeps people secure in their loans to the US? What keeps the dollar from collapsing under what is in 100% of other situations ludicrous overvaluation? Why do people still buy 'shares' in the US (use the dollar as a reserve currency)?

Say it with me, DMZ: "petrodollars." The fact that for energy is fundamental to capitalist growth, and to get it we all have to have dollars. And the security is that all those dollars under Saudi and Iraq that will one day be pumped out and which economies will have to get hold of and keep or they get no energy and fall to pieces.

What would happen to the US economy if oil was sold in euros? When people realised that the dollar was no longer the primary reserve currency? That they should ask for their debts to be paid? That oil pumped out of the ground no longer meant that America Inc. could trade at a MASSIVE loss and have a MASSIVE budget deficit?

This is simple, unimpeachable economics. You cannot debunk it. It cannot be debunked.

I believe I already debunked this in another thread.

Running a trade deficit drags down the growth of the economy. The reason they do not trade in petroeuro's is because Europe cannot engage in trade deficits because they have no excessive growth. Europe barely has any growth at all and often is stagnant.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.