<strong>They weren't a match for the US in 1991 either, but that didn't mean they weren't dangerous. I don't think that's a proper measurement of danger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If his army is not a threat , in what Iraq is dangerous ? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, no, things have to happen in the right order. Iraq first, then Iran is next...
I think the US are struggeling with so many problems internally and externally, that things are going to be radically different in the coming years.
Its not like US world domination was invented with this administration. Its been the game for over a century. Its time things changed, like they always do. But thats a topic for a whole new thread. (And I'm not starting one right now, just to be labeled a US-hating-enemy-of-freedom-and-the-american-way once again). </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're overestimating these problems. (I see you are a cynic and a pessimist by nature). Anyway, once the ME situation sorts itself out, it will be largely smooth sailing afterwards.
No it?s not. Its creditors might be. i.e. Mainly the Chinese.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, they are. The petrodollar enables the US Treasury to -- literally -- print money. It means that where any other country on the world would be looking at a dead economy with such a huge deficit, the US can *print more money* to cover it. If the dollar != oil this magic trick is not possible.
The economy would collapse overnight if all oil was suddenly priced in euros (or yuan).
Yes, they are. The petrodollar enables the US Treasury to -- literally -- print money. It means that where any other country on the world would be looking at a dead economy with such a huge deficit, the US can *print more money* to cover it. If the dollar != oil this magic trick is not possible.
The economy would collapse overnight if all oil was suddenly priced in euros (or yuan).</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your point is?
How many Aircraft carriers do the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Europeans have? And don?t talk to me about the French hunk of junk that masquerades as an Aircraft carrier.
How many Aircraft carriers do the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Europeans have? And don?t talk to me about the French hunk of junk that masquerades as an Aircraft carrier.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The de Gaulle is a modern, and very capable, carrier. I doubt its early setbacks will be trademarks of its career.
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.</strong><hr></blockquote>Can you explain this futher - I really don't understand what you're saying. If the US went nuclear power rather than oil, are you saying the treasury couldn't print money?
The US has a budget deficit because the economy has been in recession and Bush has poor economic policies, both of which are easily reversible. It happened under Clinton - we were in a worse situation under the last Bush, but then a nice economy and a sane fiscal policy brought things back into line. It can and will happen again.
I just don't understand what any of that has to do with the type of energy that is used. Please explain.
<strong>... The US has a budget deficit because the economy has been in recession and Bush has poor economic policies, both of which are easily reversible. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't follow Currency much do you.
The flood of Dollars has made its value go way down. The value of the Dollar has slowed nationaly but is not yet reflecting the international lose of value that is seen by many international companys. This devaluation will take many years to balance out.
As for the Clinton smoke and mirrors Economic policy, it was the mass amounts of money thrown at the Internet startups that kept it growing.
<strong>You don't follow Currency much do you.</strong><hr></blockquote>Heh, no I don't follow currency very closely, I'm not at all ashamed to admit.
But I'm afraid I don't understand your point either. Are you really suggesting that Bush's policies play no role in the current fiscal situation? According to <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-03bud.htm"; target="_blank">this analysis</a> using CBO data, about 1/3 of the budget shortfall is due to Bush's tax policies. Even using Bush's own Council of Economic Advisor's data which argues that the tax cuts improved the economy substantially and therefore indirectly reduced the deficit, his tax cuts contributed to 30% of the budgetary shortfall.
So I stand by may statement 100%, that the recession along with Bush's boneheaded policies played a large role in our current fiscal situation. If you'd care to lucidly refute that, please do.
But I'm really more interested in Harald's response about the oil.
He has 100+ long-range missiles (as far as we know) and 1000 tons of unaccounted-for chemical agents.
I don't know your definition of dangerous, but that fits the bill for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is short range missiles, even if they are not allowed by the UN resolution. Long range missiles are able to go farther than 10 000 km, the iraq missiles are limited to less than 200 km.
For the chemical agents, can you be more precise ?
Blix calls them long-range missiles. Take that up with him.
Blix refers to the 1000 tons of unaccounted for chemical agents in his report to the Security Council on 2/15/03.
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for."
...
I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside." The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
Pertinent documents (inspector reports and the UN resolutions) are very informative reads. I think they are required reading for anyone who wants to debate or consider this issue with any degree of honesty.
[quote]<strong>For the uncontered chemical weapons, since this declaration, the inspectors discovered some and destroy some BTW still a long job to find them all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did they?
Are you talking about the bomb "with liquid in it"? Blix said that was nothing of concern.
[quote]<strong>Saddam must disarm, but there is other choice for this limited threat than a war. Under giant pressure (the US one) the inspectors can disarm Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The inspectors couldn't have even gotten this far without the threat of force. Now Iraq is pulling their old game of stalling and denying and lying.
Remember when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Madeilene Albright said "Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."?
1998.
5 years ago.
I really don't know what else to say to the anti-war folks. Selective memories are tough to deal with.
Comments
<strong>They weren't a match for the US in 1991 either, but that didn't mean they weren't dangerous. I don't think that's a proper measurement of danger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If his army is not a threat , in what Iraq is dangerous ? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, no, things have to happen in the right order. Iraq first, then Iran is next...
<strong>
I think the US are struggeling with so many problems internally and externally, that things are going to be radically different in the coming years.
Its not like US world domination was invented with this administration. Its been the game for over a century. Its time things changed, like they always do. But thats a topic for a whole new thread. (And I'm not starting one right now, just to be labeled a US-hating-enemy-of-freedom-and-the-american-way once again).
You're overestimating these problems. (I see you are a cynic and a pessimist by nature). Anyway, once the ME situation sorts itself out, it will be largely smooth sailing afterwards.
<strong>
[italics are mine]
No it?s not. Its creditors might be. i.e. Mainly the Chinese.
Yes, they are. The petrodollar enables the US Treasury to -- literally -- print money. It means that where any other country on the world would be looking at a dead economy with such a huge deficit, the US can *print more money* to cover it. If the dollar != oil this magic trick is not possible.
The economy would collapse overnight if all oil was suddenly priced in euros (or yuan).
<strong>
Yes, they are. The petrodollar enables the US Treasury to -- literally -- print money. It means that where any other country on the world would be looking at a dead economy with such a huge deficit, the US can *print more money* to cover it. If the dollar != oil this magic trick is not possible.
The economy would collapse overnight if all oil was suddenly priced in euros (or yuan).</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your point is?
How many Aircraft carriers do the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Europeans have? And don?t talk to me about the French hunk of junk that masquerades as an Aircraft carrier.
<strong>
If his army is not a threat , in what [way is] Iraq dangerous ?
Hawk wannabies don't think about things like this. That's what makes them what they are.
<strong>
And your point is?
How many Aircraft carriers do the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Europeans have? And don?t talk to me about the French hunk of junk that masquerades as an Aircraft carrier.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The de Gaulle is a modern, and very capable, carrier. I doubt its early setbacks will be trademarks of its career.
Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Petrodollars.
Petroeuros.
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.</strong><hr></blockquote>Can you explain this futher - I really don't understand what you're saying. If the US went nuclear power rather than oil, are you saying the treasury couldn't print money?
The US has a budget deficit because the economy has been in recession and Bush has poor economic policies, both of which are easily reversible. It happened under Clinton - we were in a worse situation under the last Bush, but then a nice economy and a sane fiscal policy brought things back into line. It can and will happen again.
I just don't understand what any of that has to do with the type of energy that is used. Please explain.
<strong>... The US has a budget deficit because the economy has been in recession and Bush has poor economic policies, both of which are easily reversible. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't follow Currency much do you.
The flood of Dollars has made its value go way down. The value of the Dollar has slowed nationaly but is not yet reflecting the international lose of value that is seen by many international companys. This devaluation will take many years to balance out.
As for the Clinton smoke and mirrors Economic policy, it was the mass amounts of money thrown at the Internet startups that kept it growing.
You won't see that again any time soon.
<strong>If his army is not a threat , in what Iraq is dangerous ?
He has 100+ long-range missiles (as far as we know) and 1000 tons of unaccounted-for chemical agents.
I don't know your definition of dangerous, but that fits the bill for me.
<strong>You don't follow Currency much do you.</strong><hr></blockquote>Heh, no I don't follow currency very closely, I'm not at all ashamed to admit.
But I'm afraid I don't understand your point either. Are you really suggesting that Bush's policies play no role in the current fiscal situation? According to <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-03bud.htm"; target="_blank">this analysis</a> using CBO data, about 1/3 of the budget shortfall is due to Bush's tax policies. Even using Bush's own Council of Economic Advisor's data which argues that the tax cuts improved the economy substantially and therefore indirectly reduced the deficit, his tax cuts contributed to 30% of the budgetary shortfall.
So I stand by may statement 100%, that the recession along with Bush's boneheaded policies played a large role in our current fiscal situation. If you'd care to lucidly refute that, please do.
But I'm really more interested in Harald's response about the oil.
<strong>...
Are you really suggesting that Bush's policies play no role in the current fiscal situation?
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but digging the current fiscal pit a few feet deeper isn't a big deal either.
The devaluation of the dollar to keep up with the import of oil is making the pit grow reguardless of Bush economic policies.
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ximpim.nr0.htm"; target="_blank">Related data</a>
And for a bit of irony, the US can thank the French for having giving us fiscal policy. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
The de Gaulle is a modern, and very capable, carrier. I doubt its early setbacks will be trademarks of its career.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Type this: "problems de Gaulle carrier" into a google search. Enjoy.
<strong>
He has 100+ long-range missiles (as far as we know) and 1000 tons of unaccounted-for chemical agents.
I don't know your definition of dangerous, but that fits the bill for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is short range missiles, even if they are not allowed by the UN resolution. Long range missiles are able to go farther than 10 000 km, the iraq missiles are limited to less than 200 km.
For the chemical agents, can you be more precise ?
Blix refers to the 1000 tons of unaccounted for chemical agents in his report to the Security Council on 2/15/03.
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for."
...
I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside." The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
Pertinent documents (inspector reports and the UN resolutions) are very informative reads. I think they are required reading for anyone who wants to debate or consider this issue with any degree of honesty.
<strong>Blix calls them long-range missiles. Take that up with him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well at your advice is 200 km is long compared to 10 000 km ?
10 000 km will be an immediate threat for US.
Skuds where mid range missiles and a threat for his neighboors like Israel.
For the uncontered chemical weapons, since this declaration, the inspectors discovered some and destroy some BTW still a long job to find them all.
Saddam must disarm, but there is other choice for this limited threat than a war. Under giant pressure (the US one) the inspectors can disarm Iraq.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>Well at your advice is 200 km is long compared to 10 000 km ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know, it's semantic. I just used the term that's in the official documents.
[quote]10 000 km will be an immediate threat for US. Skuds where mid range missiles and a threat for his neighboors like Israel.<hr></blockquote>
Well these particular ones are wider than allowed, they may be able to fit a second engine and reach Israel now that you mention it.
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-591643,00.html"; target="_blank">link</a>
[quote]<strong>For the uncontered chemical weapons, since this declaration, the inspectors discovered some and destroy some BTW still a long job to find them all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did they?
Are you talking about the bomb "with liquid in it"? Blix said that was nothing of concern.
[quote]<strong>Saddam must disarm, but there is other choice for this limited threat than a war. Under giant pressure (the US one) the inspectors can disarm Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if Blix <a href="http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1994&dept_id=339133&newsid=7195422&PA G=461&rfi=9" target="_blank">shares your confidence</a>.
The inspectors couldn't have even gotten this far without the threat of force. Now Iraq is pulling their old game of stalling and denying and lying.
Remember when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and Madeilene Albright said "Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."?
1998.
5 years ago.
I really don't know what else to say to the anti-war folks. Selective memories are tough to deal with.