Hutton, Will, "Why Bush is sunk without Europe - Even while George Bush growls out his bellicose message, his country has never been in such an enfeebled state," The Observer, (January 26, 2003)
Islam, Faisal, "When will we buy oil in euros? When it comes to the global oil trade, the dollar reigns supreme. But it has a challenger, writes Faisal Islam," The Observer (February 23, 2003)
Your nzoom link didn't work. The others were what I call make-news.
These types of articles consist of the following...
What if you took a current slow trend and accelerated it...
What if the sky fell...
What if a calamity happened with x, y and z all happening at once...
What if you take a statistic and use it out of context....
Your articles consist of these types of questions. They ignore things the other side of issues and only project the bad. They assume no movement and only current players.
Example:
Negative: Dollar falls against Euro
Positive: (not mentioned) U.S. more easily sells good abroad.
Negative: U.S. trade deficit is at high for % of GDP
Positive: (again not mentioned) Weakened dollars makes imports more expensive and exports give a better yield thus lowering trade deficit
Change happens, and you can point a finger at it and scream that the world is going to end, or you can jump on the change. The U.S. has been through plenty of changes and to say that a change in a variable (Euro's for dollars) is going to suddenly make the U.S. economy lose it's inherit worth, that our infrastructure will be worth nothing, that the U.S. government would needless send troops off to die, and that we would risk the entire economy (because war is a much greater risk for the economy than Euro's for oil) is nothing but nonsense.
As people, even in your articles mentioned, the dollar needed to drop a bit. It was propped up by Reuben in the Clinton administration as an offical policy. To read an article saying, "Hey it fell 15% this year, but now it could drop more... or faster... or whatever I care to write... is just empty speculation.
Also, this post seems strangely familiar to Bush's cmment when he referred to non-existant IEAE reports saying, "What more proof do you need?"
They don't have evidence of "Iraq's dealing with terrorists." They found evidence that there have been terrorist groups with an al Qaeda connection in northern Iraq. That's hardly the same thing as OBL and SH getting together for a round of golf (i.e. evidence of collusion is missing).
Proving him wrong would be pre-supposing that he posting something that could possibly be right. He just posted a conspiracy theory. I could assert that the mafia killed JFK, please prove my conspiracy wrong.
The point stands, his conspiracy doesn't prove anything and he ends up back on the real point which is I made this up so I can say Bush is bad.
Nick
BTW, You are bad too because you supported the Mafia killing of JFK just so the military industrial complex wouldn't collapse and JFK wouldn't end the embargo on Cuba and also give rights to blacks which half the Democratic party was opposed to. I have proof. There was a killing, embargo, and civil rights bills during this time... now if you connect a to b and c to d....
Well if I'm anti war I must be anti Bush. Nick are you for war, your post defiantly shows that. I also liked your linky about how France and Germany are in financial ruins and the US is only going through a little speed bumped when it comes to finances. So the word trillions in debt means nothing to you.
Ah screw it, this is Mac forum. What do I know about politics anyway, in fact I'm for war now. I mean who am I to argue against our governments. I live in a lap of luxury, I have a Mac, cars, 2 houses, great kids, steaks on a regular bases and an Xbox. Without the US invading countries and bombing the crap out of people for oil I might be inconvenience and I would hate that. I just hope that none of you have friends or family in Iraq dying for the glory of the empire.
Again no one favors war, but we don't want the problem dealt with. Since Saddam leaves no other option available, the only option left is to remove him.
As for the trillions in debt. As Groverat mentioned, a large percentage of the money is owed to ourselves. We have borrowed from the Social Security surplus and spent it today. Repaying this surplus is repaying ourselves.
I'll give you a personal anecdote about this. I owe myself $11,500. I used the equity in my rental home to purchase my current home in which I am living. The rental repays the loan against it's own equity by collecting the rents and applying them towards that "debt" against it's own equity. Meanwhile the removed equity from that home has been used a down payment on my house which now has ...10% equity.
It shows as a debt and I can even deduct it. But all I did was move the equity from one house to another. It allowed me to buy a $200,000 home with $1,300 out of my own pocket.
The point stands, his conspiracy doesn't prove anything and he ends up back on the real point which is I made this up so I can say Bush is bad.
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
DanMacMan from Michigan, so that gives the right to the US to invade another country? Plus the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve means nothing? What about North Korea, no wait we can't do that all they have is snow! Come on, you got to stop watching CNN, I haven't seen a dog and pony show like this since Bush won in Florida. I'm not saying my theory is right but we are not in their because they have weapons of mass destruction. Well if they do I'm 100% sure the US is holding the bill of sale.
Take your claim; where is your proof that the U.S. is in Iraq for the purpose of oil? You are just shoveling the same liberal rhetoric that everyone else is. And another thing, I do not watch CNN.
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
*The reference IS to Bush, and it's because of an article I read today.
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
Don't even bother with him. The guy actual was rediculous enough to link to rush limbaugh's !!! website and thinks that arabs entering Iraq to defend it means there is a Saddam/Al Qaeda link (or was he referring to the neo-con hearsay part of the article?)
Move along, DanMacMan, until you learn what the words evidence and documentation mean.
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
Except the checks he sends to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. But they don't count as terrorists so.....
Except the checks he sends to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. But they don't count as terrorists so.....
No, they don't count as threats to the US.
Any argument that says we should invade and occupy an entire nation because of those checks is not going to fly with many sane people. In fact, you will get just about nowhere with that. THat's why the Admin focuses on making Iraq a threat to the US through WMD and Al Qaeda, since saying Saddam sending checks to palestinian families is a threat to my safety here in Chicago is moronic. The admin officials are a bit more sophisticated than the folks that use that as their central argument for killing thousands of Iraqis.
And if Israeli/Palestinian violence is a threat to the US in the big picture, we should deal with it at the source.
Your right, saying the US government killed 3000 of their own people and blaming it on a guy we trained and supplied is indeed conspiracy silliness. ...
I assume you mean that the US funded and trained bin Laden? Which of course is false. Just part of the many lies that the anti-american left never cares to correct and repeats until "true".
I assume you mean that the US funded and trained bin Laden? Which of course is false. Just part of the many lies that the anti-american left never cares to correct and repeats until "true".
Like when they said aluminum tubes were for an Iraqi nuclear program. Except that was the anti-american right.
Like when they said aluminum tubes were for an Iraqi nuclear program. Except that was the anti-american right.
No no no. It's the anti-American right that likes to see the boys put in harm's way. It likes to see the boys being shot at. Some elements of it may even like to see the boys killed.
That's why it's not out screaming for their immediate return.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
The United States has no legal authority to enforce its own versions of U.N. Resolutions without U.N. backing.
Uh-huh!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by DanMacMan
That and the fact that our administration has evidence of Iraq's dealings with terrorists ... What more reason do you need?
What evidence is that?
Also, this post seems strangely familiar to Bush's cmment when he referred to non-existant IEAE reports saying, "What more proof do you need?"
Originally posted by Relic
Linky's
Associated Press, "US Dollar on Shaky Ground," nzoom.com (January 24, 2003)
http://onebusiness.nzoom.com/cda/pri...163754,00.html
McCarthy, Grainne "Dollar's Decline Starting To Accelerate, Rattling Nerves," Dow Jones, (January 25, 2003)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/...dollarDec.html
Hutton, Will, "Why Bush is sunk without Europe - Even while George Bush growls out his bellicose message, his country has never been in such an enfeebled state," The Observer, (January 26, 2003)
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4591686,00.html
Nunan, CoÃ*lÃ*n, "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq," (January 2003)
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.pdf
"Behind the Iraq Invasion," Aspects of India's Economy, Nos. 33 & 34 (December 2002)
http://www.rupe-india.org/34/behind.html
Makhijani, Arjun, "Saddam's Last Laugh: The Dollar Could be Headed for Hard Times if OPEC Switches to the Euro." TomPaine.com (May 9, 2001)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm?ID=4110%20
Islam, Faisal, "When will we buy oil in euros? When it comes to the global oil trade, the dollar reigns supreme. But it has a challenger, writes Faisal Islam," The Observer (February 23, 2003)
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/s...900867,00.html
Beams, Nick, "Iraq, Oil, Dollars, Euros, and Dead Iraqis," Information Clearing House (February 2003)
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1554.htm
Your nzoom link didn't work. The others were what I call make-news.
These types of articles consist of the following...
What if you took a current slow trend and accelerated it...
What if the sky fell...
What if a calamity happened with x, y and z all happening at once...
What if you take a statistic and use it out of context....
Your articles consist of these types of questions. They ignore things the other side of issues and only project the bad. They assume no movement and only current players.
Example:
Negative: Dollar falls against Euro
Positive: (not mentioned) U.S. more easily sells good abroad.
Negative: U.S. trade deficit is at high for % of GDP
Positive: (again not mentioned) Weakened dollars makes imports more expensive and exports give a better yield thus lowering trade deficit
Change happens, and you can point a finger at it and scream that the world is going to end, or you can jump on the change. The U.S. has been through plenty of changes and to say that a change in a variable (Euro's for dollars) is going to suddenly make the U.S. economy lose it's inherit worth, that our infrastructure will be worth nothing, that the U.S. government would needless send troops off to die, and that we would risk the entire economy (because war is a much greater risk for the economy than Euro's for oil) is nothing but nonsense.
As people, even in your articles mentioned, the dollar needed to drop a bit. It was propped up by Reuben in the Clinton administration as an offical policy. To read an article saying, "Hey it fell 15% this year, but now it could drop more... or faster... or whatever I care to write... is just empty speculation.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
What evidence is that?
Also, this post seems strangely familiar to Bush's cmment when he referred to non-existant IEAE reports saying, "What more proof do you need?"
They don't have evidence of "Iraq's dealing with terrorists." They found evidence that there have been terrorist groups with an al Qaeda connection in northern Iraq. That's hardly the same thing as OBL and SH getting together for a round of golf (i.e. evidence of collusion is missing).
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
I suppose that proves him wrong?
Proving him wrong would be pre-supposing that he posting something that could possibly be right. He just posted a conspiracy theory. I could assert that the mafia killed JFK, please prove my conspiracy wrong.
The point stands, his conspiracy doesn't prove anything and he ends up back on the real point which is I made this up so I can say Bush is bad.
Nick
BTW, You are bad too because you supported the Mafia killing of JFK just so the military industrial complex wouldn't collapse and JFK wouldn't end the embargo on Cuba and also give rights to blacks which half the Democratic party was opposed to. I have proof. There was a killing, embargo, and civil rights bills during this time... now if you connect a to b and c to d....
Originally posted by Relic
Well if I'm anti war I must be anti Bush. Nick are you for war, your post defiantly shows that. I also liked your linky about how France and Germany are in financial ruins and the US is only going through a little speed bumped when it comes to finances. So the word trillions in debt means nothing to you.
Ah screw it, this is Mac forum. What do I know about politics anyway, in fact I'm for war now. I mean who am I to argue against our governments. I live in a lap of luxury, I have a Mac, cars, 2 houses, great kids, steaks on a regular bases and an Xbox. Without the US invading countries and bombing the crap out of people for oil I might be inconvenience and I would hate that. I just hope that none of you have friends or family in Iraq dying for the glory of the empire.
Again no one favors war, but we don't want the problem dealt with. Since Saddam leaves no other option available, the only option left is to remove him.
As for the trillions in debt. As Groverat mentioned, a large percentage of the money is owed to ourselves. We have borrowed from the Social Security surplus and spent it today. Repaying this surplus is repaying ourselves.
I'll give you a personal anecdote about this. I owe myself $11,500. I used the equity in my rental home to purchase my current home in which I am living. The rental repays the loan against it's own equity by collecting the rents and applying them towards that "debt" against it's own equity. Meanwhile the removed equity from that home has been used a down payment on my house which now has ...10% equity.
It shows as a debt and I can even deduct it. But all I did was move the equity from one house to another. It allowed me to buy a $200,000 home with $1,300 out of my own pocket.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The point stands, his conspiracy doesn't prove anything and he ends up back on the real point which is I made this up so I can say Bush is bad.
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
Sure... at a substancial cost and payback rate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure... at a substancial cost and payback rate.
Damn...I was hoping I fostered enough good will with you to have earned a free gift!
Originally posted by Relic
DanMacMan from Michigan, so that gives the right to the US to invade another country? Plus the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve means nothing? What about North Korea, no wait we can't do that all they have is snow! Come on, you got to stop watching CNN, I haven't seen a dog and pony show like this since Bush won in Florida. I'm not saying my theory is right but we are not in their because they have weapons of mass destruction. Well if they do I'm 100% sure the US is holding the bill of sale.
Take your claim; where is your proof that the U.S. is in Iraq for the purpose of oil? You are just shoveling the same liberal rhetoric that everyone else is. And another thing, I do not watch CNN.
Originally posted by bunge
If there was or is evidence of a terrorist connection, show it. If you can't show it, you can't use it as a basis for an argument.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82893,00.html
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...t_2.guest.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.a...E25440,00.html
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/3...ORY%27+IN+IRAQ
Originally posted by DanMacMan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82893,00.html
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...t_2.guest.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.a...E25440,00.html
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/3...ORY%27+IN+IRAQ
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
*The reference IS to Bush, and it's because of an article I read today.
If You're Brown, You're Goin Down
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't
we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing
brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in
your country? Tell 'em to watch the **** out, or we'll goddamn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In
fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That's
it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to
cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.
Bullshit! That's our job. That's our ****in' job.
But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people.
And not because they're cutting in our action; we do it because they're
brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren't really white, are
they? Naaah! They're sort of down near the swarthy end of the white
spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I'm still waiting for the day we bomb
the English. People who really deserve it.
(oops. that's Carlin if you don't know)
Originally posted by Scott
More ant-american ranting from the pro-saddam left. Hey SJO you still think Saddam didn't gas his own people? Maybe Hitler was a good guy too?
Its pretty easy to discount anyone that agrees with you as a Saddam Lover, eh?
saves coming up with an argument.
salute and obey without question, right?
Originally posted by bunge
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
Don't even bother with him. The guy actual was rediculous enough to link to rush limbaugh's !!! website and thinks that arabs entering Iraq to defend it means there is a Saddam/Al Qaeda link (or was he referring to the neo-con hearsay part of the article?)
Move along, DanMacMan, until you learn what the words evidence and documentation mean.
Originally posted by bunge
"The northeastern corner of Iraq, where the camp is located, wasn't under Saddam Hussein's control..."
EDIT: I want to make this clear. Most, if not all of us believe that a link is possible. The point is that the threshold of proof for going to war is (unless you have a religious zealot for President*) very high. You can't go to war based on a hunch. Too many lives are at stake. There is no evidence that Saddam is supporting terrorists.
Except the checks he sends to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. But they don't count as terrorists so.....
Originally posted by NoahJ
Except the checks he sends to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. But they don't count as terrorists so.....
No, they don't count as threats to the US.
Any argument that says we should invade and occupy an entire nation because of those checks is not going to fly with many sane people. In fact, you will get just about nowhere with that. THat's why the Admin focuses on making Iraq a threat to the US through WMD and Al Qaeda, since saying Saddam sending checks to palestinian families is a threat to my safety here in Chicago is moronic. The admin officials are a bit more sophisticated than the folks that use that as their central argument for killing thousands of Iraqis.
And if Israeli/Palestinian violence is a threat to the US in the big picture, we should deal with it at the source.
Originally posted by Relic
Your right, saying the US government killed 3000 of their own people and blaming it on a guy we trained and supplied is indeed conspiracy silliness. ...
I assume you mean that the US funded and trained bin Laden? Which of course is false. Just part of the many lies that the anti-american left never cares to correct and repeats until "true".
Originally posted by Scott
I assume you mean that the US funded and trained bin Laden? Which of course is false. Just part of the many lies that the anti-american left never cares to correct and repeats until "true".
Like when they said aluminum tubes were for an Iraqi nuclear program. Except that was the anti-american right.
Originally posted by giant
Like when they said aluminum tubes were for an Iraqi nuclear program. Except that was the anti-american right.
No no no. It's the anti-American right that likes to see the boys put in harm's way. It likes to see the boys being shot at. Some elements of it may even like to see the boys killed.
That's why it's not out screaming for their immediate return.
Cheers
Scott