PDA

View Full Version : What if



Blown 472
09-15-2004, 06:08 PM
Iraq is a failure? and we pull out what are you bush lap dogs going to say then, lets hear your best spin on it. :rollside:

Shark In The Pond
09-15-2004, 06:30 PM
Be like CBS and keep saying is wasn't :rollside:

Jeanyus
09-15-2004, 06:42 PM
What if Iraq isn't a failure ? What if we just took out a fascist dictator , and avoided WW III.
What if we are doing something good? What if we are having an affect on world terrorism? What if we are stopping terrorists from killing children?
Liberel- the sky is falling, the glass is half empty, quick leagelize drugs and gay marrige, and then things will be better.
Coservitive-see a problem try to do something about it, the glass is half full.
We are not going to sit here and let you kill us.
If Iraq fails, America tried help the country. But the liberals will keep applauding every time an Americam soldier falls. They should be thrown out of the country as traitors.

steelcomp
09-15-2004, 06:45 PM
who cares about what if...??? Problem is the Kerry lap dogs can't stand the fact that it is! Besides, successful is relative. What would you consider unsuccessful?

HighRoller
09-16-2004, 04:19 AM
Iraq is a failure? and we pull out what are you bush lap dogs going to say then, lets hear your best spin on it. :rollside:
Brilliant point, Blown. Only you could call the liberation of 25 million people from a murderous dictator a "failure". This man killed between 300,000 and a million of his own people, supported worldwide terror, housed and protected Al-Quaeda operatives, and fronted money to them through oil sales under the UN's "oil for food" program.
Why don't you just admit the fact that no outcome will satisfy you or stop you from denegrating Bush's policy. That way we can all get on with our lives and you'll feel better knowing that you told the truth.

lucky
09-16-2004, 05:31 AM
THEM DAM HURRICANS - I KNOW THEY DID - LETS JUST PROVE IT ... :smile:

MagicMtnDan
09-16-2004, 06:53 AM
What if Blown stopped trolling and stirring up shite?
What if the French, Russians, and Germans supported the Iraq war - what would you, John Kerry, and all them other flaming liberals be whining about now?!

Freak
09-16-2004, 08:12 AM
Iraq is a failure? and we pull out what are you bush lap dogs going to say then, lets hear your best spin on it. :rollside:
"Pull out" = Never happen regardless who is in office. We have just begun. Iran is next.
As for who's right and who's wrong in the upcoming election and it's obvious overtones into what happens in Iraq afterwards, I don't know. I do know the Bush crew is a known quantity. I have no idea what Kerry's agenda is, as he's basically running on a "I'm not George Bush" platform. Stupid if you ask me, but for the sheep anything has to be better than the currnet right? So they vote for Kerry, but you have to wonder if he really has a plan for anything...
That said, I think the current regime in the White House is acting so aggressively for the earnest good of the country and of course the betterment of their associates (which will happen regardless of who is in the chair). I have zero problem with the actions taken. Considering the way things appear to be heading, with a possibility of the largest economic correction this country has seen looming not too far off on the horizon, if brute force is required, so be it. We're humans. Sometimes humans have to do "bad" things to survive. Ruthless works. Ruthless has always worked, and it always will work when things begin to get desparate. Both sides of the equation know this.
I'd much rather have us in control of assets that are going to become more and more precious than an entity that would have our worst intentions at heart, let alone simply be looking out for themselves. At this point, I can see where it's worth fighting for. We're doing it for oil? Right. We all should know we're fighting for oil and a military presence near to sect of people that would wish us harm. So what?
We're doing it to protect OUR society- Western society as a whole, not just America. I for one feel that this incarnation of America is worth fighting for. Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest. People point to lessons of the past- History repeats itself. Rome fell. Babylon fell. All the previous empires fell. They collapsed because they tried to defend themselves against whatever issues were upon them. They tried to ward them off. If we sit back and let things happen, it's very possible if not likely the same will eventually happen to us. Maybe 2010, maybe 2050, maybe 2100. Who knows? But just waiting for something bad to happen and hoping there's enough of us left with the skills to forge a neo-America seems silly if it's not a certainty. Learn from history? Ok. Go on the offensive. Rome had problems because they spread themselves too far? True. It's an issue we'd have to consider. On the flipside, if they'd go on the offensive before its enemies had the chance to bolster their strengths, it might have ended differently. Ever hear a football coach repeat the mantra "The best defense is a good offense"? They're right.
I think most people who've opted to inform themselves to some degree about the upcoming economic problems would agree that there's the large potential for a severe downgrade in status of living. Sitting down and taking the economic fallout pending is going to clock us hard on the chin anyways. It stands to reckon that if a show of force buys enough time to change our infrastructure in such a manner to aclimate ourselves to the pending changes, we should be all for it. The US, the UK, Canada, any developed nation allied to us that stands to crash if we run out of petroleum all should be on board. PC sucks. PC doesn't work. We're the western devil, I guess we should continue to act like it.
It -has- been a bit of a cluster **** over there though, but I don't think anyone thought deep down in their heart of hearts that it was going to be easy, regardless of why we entered the Middle East in force again. We're already over there and heavily invested, so why not try to bunker down and steel our resolve? Nobody knows for certain that we're destined to lose.
If we win it will be good for us and all of the good people over there also....

HCS
09-16-2004, 03:18 PM
Iraq is a failure. You can't free the rug heads, they need to be under
Comunistic rule. Everyone and their brother over there thinks their
a ruler. You have to completely disarm the country first. Guns, launchers,
bombs, etc. they would have to reduce the country to throwing rocks at
each other, and that wouldn't work. They are always going to fight and
bomb each other. Always! Somehow they need a police force over there
that can clean the place up. Good Luck! :rolleyes:

Schiada76
09-16-2004, 04:15 PM
The only way to fail in Iraq is to pull out. If we have to stay there for fifty fng years fighting it's still not a failure, not if we're fighting them there and not here. How long do think it took Germany and Japan to modernize and become our Allies?? One fng goddamned year????????????????? Two??
Wake the fk UP!! This is going to be long and ugly, we're fighting people willing to blow themselves up. If you think we're not killing thousands of terrorists in Iraq you're clueless. :hammerhea

MagicMtnDan
09-16-2004, 05:33 PM
You guys talking about Iraq being a failure, OK, you're right. Let's pull out of there and see how long it takes for
(a) the US to get attacked again,
(b) Iran to move in and take control of Iraq through their puppet Mullahs,
(c) watch the Kurds get slaughtered (while listening to the liberals whine about why'd we let them get killed!), and
(d) France to move in and make deals with the new Islamo-fascists running the country to get oil for some serious weapons (you do realize that France had deals with Saddam and were supplying his regime with weapons, right?).
Yeah, you guys whining about the war in Iraq really have what it takes to understand global dynamics and what the war on terror is all about (one of the things it's about is Iraq is a terrorist magnet drawing all them scumbags in there so we can killem over there instead of fighting them here).

bigq
09-16-2004, 09:44 PM
"Pull out" = Never happen regardless who is in office. We have just begun. Iran is next.
As for who's right and who's wrong in the upcoming election and it's obvious overtones into what happens in Iraq afterwards, I don't know. I do know the Bush crew is a known quantity. I have no idea what Kerry's agenda is, as he's basically running on a "I'm not George Bush" platform. Stupid if you ask me, but for the sheep anything has to be better than the currnet right? So they vote for Kerry, but you have to wonder if he really has a plan for anything...
That said, I think the current regime in the White House is acting so aggressively for the earnest good of the country and of course the betterment of their associates (which will happen regardless of who is in the chair). I have zero problem with the actions taken. Considering the way things appear to be heading, with a possibility of the largest economic correction this country has seen looming not too far off on the horizon, if brute force is required, so be it. We're humans. Sometimes humans have to do "bad" things to survive. Ruthless works. Ruthless has always worked, and it always will work when things begin to get desparate. Both sides of the equation know this.
I'd much rather have us in control of assets that are going to become more and more precious than an entity that would have our worst intentions at heart, let alone simply be looking out for themselves. At this point, I can see where it's worth fighting for. We're doing it for oil? Right. We all should know we're fighting for oil and a military presence near to sect of people that would wish us harm. So what?
We're doing it to protect OUR society- Western society as a whole, not just America. I for one feel that this incarnation of America is worth fighting for. Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest. People point to lessons of the past- History repeats itself. Rome fell. Babylon fell. All the previous empires fell. They collapsed because they tried to defend themselves against whatever issues were upon them. They tried to ward them off. If we sit back and let things happen, it's very possible if not likely the same will eventually happen to us. Maybe 2010, maybe 2050, maybe 2100. Who knows? But just waiting for something bad to happen and hoping there's enough of us left with the skills to forge a neo-America seems silly if it's not a certainty. Learn from history? Ok. Go on the offensive. Rome had problems because they spread themselves too far? True. It's an issue we'd have to consider. On the flipside, if they'd go on the offensive before its enemies had the chance to bolster their strengths, it might have ended differently. Ever hear a football coach repeat the mantra "The best defense is a good offense"? They're right.
I think most people who've opted to inform themselves to some degree about the upcoming economic problems would agree that there's the large potential for a severe downgrade in status of living. Sitting down and taking the economic fallout pending is going to clock us hard on the chin anyways. It stands to reckon that if a show of force buys enough time to change our infrastructure in such a manner to aclimate ourselves to the pending changes, we should be all for it. The US, the UK, Canada, any developed nation allied to us that stands to crash if we run out of petroleum all should be on board. PC sucks. PC doesn't work. We're the western devil, I guess we should continue to act like it.
It -has- been a bit of a cluster **** over there though, but I don't think anyone thought deep down in their heart of hearts that it was going to be easy, regardless of why we entered the Middle East in force again. We're already over there and heavily invested, so why not try to bunker down and steel our resolve? Nobody knows for certain that we're destined to lose.
If we win it will be good for us and all of the good people over there also....
Good God Freak...why not just shoot yourself in the head now :supp:

HCS
09-18-2004, 01:46 PM
Iraq was a failure before we even went in there. Now were stuck with the
mess.
We should have kept bombing that country until there was nothing left.
Literally nothing. Should have made them get on their knees and beg for
US to stop. It's extreme but the nuke bomb would have straighten their
asses out. Then you go in and clean up all the towels.
Failed country or not we can't pull out now. Never suggested we should.
I just wander what police force in going to go after the resistance.
Apparently were not going to do it. Someone needs to weed out Abu Musab
al-Zarqawin and his head choppin renagades.

Dave C
09-19-2004, 09:00 AM
its not going to be a failure so this discussion is either moot or just an academic experiment in wishful thinking on your part....... :rollside: :rollside: :notam:

Jungle Boy
09-20-2004, 05:23 AM
Iraq IS a failure, but it was a failure before the USA stepped in to "liberate" those idiots. They are in civil war now and things will never get any better for them. You can't help people that don't want helped. The muslims have been hating for generations and it can't be changed with opening up a few schools and hospitals. They will hate the western people for ever, because they don't understand it, as we don't understand them. Nuke to whole works and start over.

eliminatedsprinter
09-21-2004, 04:02 PM
One of the dumbest things I have consistantly heard from both sides (left and right) is the term "re-building Iraq". We are BUILDING Iraq. They already have more food, clean water, hospitals, schools, and electricity etc than they had under Saddam. Why do the people who are on the right side of this, allow the push overs on the left get away this semantic falsehood? :confused:
The hawks know how to win the war of bombs and bullets over there, but they seem to suck at the war of words over here. Bush should be holding "fire side chats", or some such thing, as often as possible, just like FDR did. It may seem frivilous, but not doing it and risking having the U.S. be led by a leftist hack like John Kerry is by far the most irresponsible thing this administration has done. :yuk:

QuickJet
09-21-2004, 06:56 PM
"Pull out" = Never happen regardless who is in office. We have just begun. Iran is next.
As for who's right and who's wrong in the upcoming election and it's obvious overtones into what happens in Iraq afterwards, I don't know. I do know the Bush crew is a known quantity. I have no idea what Kerry's agenda is, as he's basically running on a "I'm not George Bush" platform. Stupid if you ask me, but for the sheep anything has to be better than the currnet right? So they vote for Kerry, but you have to wonder if he really has a plan for anything...
That said, I think the current regime in the White House is acting so aggressively for the earnest good of the country and of course the betterment of their associates (which will happen regardless of who is in the chair). I have zero problem with the actions taken. Considering the way things appear to be heading, with a possibility of the largest economic correction this country has seen looming not too far off on the horizon, if brute force is required, so be it. We're humans. Sometimes humans have to do "bad" things to survive. Ruthless works. Ruthless has always worked, and it always will work when things begin to get desparate. Both sides of the equation know this.
I'd much rather have us in control of assets that are going to become more and more precious than an entity that would have our worst intentions at heart, let alone simply be looking out for themselves. At this point, I can see where it's worth fighting for. We're doing it for oil? Right. We all should know we're fighting for oil and a military presence near to sect of people that would wish us harm. So what?
We're doing it to protect OUR society- Western society as a whole, not just America. I for one feel that this incarnation of America is worth fighting for. Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest. People point to lessons of the past- History repeats itself. Rome fell. Babylon fell. All the previous empires fell. They collapsed because they tried to defend themselves against whatever issues were upon them. They tried to ward them off. If we sit back and let things happen, it's very possible if not likely the same will eventually happen to us. Maybe 2010, maybe 2050, maybe 2100. Who knows? But just waiting for something bad to happen and hoping there's enough of us left with the skills to forge a neo-America seems silly if it's not a certainty. Learn from history? Ok. Go on the offensive. Rome had problems because they spread themselves too far? True. It's an issue we'd have to consider. On the flipside, if they'd go on the offensive before its enemies had the chance to bolster their strengths, it might have ended differently. Ever hear a football coach repeat the mantra "The best defense is a good offense"? They're right.
I think most people who've opted to inform themselves to some degree about the upcoming economic problems would agree that there's the large potential for a severe downgrade in status of living. Sitting down and taking the economic fallout pending is going to clock us hard on the chin anyways. It stands to reckon that if a show of force buys enough time to change our infrastructure in such a manner to aclimate ourselves to the pending changes, we should be all for it. The US, the UK, Canada, any developed nation allied to us that stands to crash if we run out of petroleum all should be on board. PC sucks. PC doesn't work. We're the western devil, I guess we should continue to act like it.
It -has- been a bit of a cluster **** over there though, but I don't think anyone thought deep down in their heart of hearts that it was going to be easy, regardless of why we entered the Middle East in force again. We're already over there and heavily invested, so why not try to bunker down and steel our resolve? Nobody knows for certain that we're destined to lose.
If we win it will be good for us and all of the good people over there also....http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=126400

pops1
09-22-2004, 09:24 AM
Iraq is a failure? and we pull out what are you bush lap dogs going to say then, lets hear your best spin on it. :rollside:
If J.K.F.(KERRY) GETS IN IT WILL HAPPEN! and guess what the #2 man at the UN was on C-Span and again stated we were wrong as we did not give inspections a proper time frame. Old Dog's don't bark they just LIE!
#2 When we become the second choice of Dollar Value in the world "Should LA- KERRY get in. The EURO will become the choice of held Money & you won't go boating again due to lack of funds.
35 Years Ago, a Book "They Dare Call It Conspiracy" Documented a long term plan on how to DUMMY out the U.S. The Euro Plan was to regain control over the US thru foundations aimed at distroying Our School Systems on a long term goal, The IMF on our Money, Tri Lateral Commission and other methods of attack. Its biggest method was to conquer and divide thru school teaching.
It has done that NOW. You ask any Conservative Student in any Major University if he dare speak out on his values in class today. NO WAY!
Now if you do Care, go check out your past presidents, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton & George Bush Sr. All were in support of these plans & Bill A Rhodes
Scholar hopes one day to be Head of the UN. The same one who Bombed the Christians to try to get the Muslems to back off. Bush JR for some reason broke the mold on that line of thinking (so far).The book was distr. by the John Birch Society and handed out free. I thought it was a little far out @ the time. Today I have lived long enough to see it come true.
PS- Your School Systems have Dumbed your Children Out in the past.
unless you stop it by staying on top of your kids school programs and demanding accountability.
The Bush testing program has put the Teachers Union up the wall. It make them accountable! and they don't like it. WHY!

Freak
09-22-2004, 04:42 PM
I read reciently Russia is considering accepting euros in payment for its oil deliveries.....Not good.
Current countries using the Euro.
Member States as of May 1, 2004: EU25:
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Candiadates:
Bulgaria
Croatia
Romania
Turkey
Application Pending:
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Ever wonder why Great Britian does not use the euro???
Question: what is the name of biggest oil company within the US itself?
Answer: BP (British Petroleum, until 1953 known as the Iraq Petroleum Company, has 40% of its employees in the USA).
Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest oil companies in the world?
Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the biggest). BP has major interests in Colombia along with Shell, it has large operations in central Asia. Across the world.
Question: which country is second only to the USA in the size of its empire of wealth in other peoples’ countries?
Answer: …you’ve guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain’s overseas direct investments amounted to $902,000,000,000, or 14.4% of the world total. This compared to 21.1% owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans, and 4.6% owned by Japanese. In both 1999 and 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, Britain was the largest foreign direct investor in the world, contributing around 21% of world FDI outflows, compared with the US and France (13%), and Germany (7%)
Now with that said I still think it will happen within this decade.
Starting from historically low federal funds rate (you have to ask yourself: 1%.....that's free money and then some!...with "inflation" as selectively measuerd at about 3%.) And THIS is all the economy could muster?
The dollar against the Euro goes from about $0.80 to $1.23 in three years, and no one sees a trend? I look for the dollar to fall even more by the begiinnig of next year. I don't think the FED can stimulate the economy any more. If all this deficit spending, tax cuts, and unheard of interst rates won't jump it, nothing will I fear.
We are starting to feel the backlash of Reganomics. Reganonmics turned the U.S. into a debt based economy.
Warren Buffett has a plan that could save the day. If the right people would just listen. http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle_20031026_03.html

eliminatedsprinter
09-23-2004, 08:58 AM
It seems that the nations with historically strong currencies, ie the dollar, the pound, and the swiss frank are the main western nations, who are avoiding going over to the euro.

Kurtis500
09-23-2004, 09:23 AM
Theres always a counterpoint.
We are used to thinking of the USA as the economic superpower of the world, and the dollar as the strongest currency. Yet the dollar has weakened against the rupee in the last six months, and weakened even more (by 15 per cent) against the Euro in the last year.
Is this a temporary blip or a new trend?
"It's not only a new trend, the dollar is in danger of major collapse," says Martin Wolf of The Financial Times . At a workshop this week at the National Council of Applied Economic Research, he gave reasons why the US economy, for all its apparent strength, is in danger of stagnation or collapse, and could take the dollar down with it.
US consumers have for years stopped saving and gone on an unprecedented consumption spree, gobbling up imported goods.
In consequence the US is running a current account deficit of 5 per cent of GDP, a rate of over-spending no country has sustained for long in history.
At around $550 billion, the US current account deficit is as large as India 's entire GDP! Gargantuan deficits have transformed the US from the world's biggest creditor country to the biggest debtor.
The rest of the world (including India ) has become a massive creditor to the US . Investors in Asia and Europe have invested trillions of dollars in US stock market and securities.
But US stock markets have taken such a beating in the last three years that foreign investors have lost a veritable fortune. Dollar bonds look safer, but now they carry very low interest rates. So the dollar is slipping.
This is a sign, says Wolf, that the rest of the world is no longer willing to finance American over-consumption. He fears that the dollar might have to depreciate by 30-50 per cent in real terms to end this over-consumption.
That will wreak havoc of another kind. Other countries (including India ) hold maybe three-quarters of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars, and may find the real value of these eroding fast.
Panicky investors may move out of dollars, pushing down that currency even further. Asian countries found what self-reinforcing havoc could be wreaked on their economies by panic. Could something similar happen to the US ?
I doubt it. Yes, countries that habitually live beyond their means do come to a sticky end, and their currencies do collapse. Yet I think the US is exempt from this rule, at least in the foreseeable future.
Most countries have to export goods or services to earn foreign exchange. If they run large trade deficits for years, they run short of dollars and suffer a crisis. But the USA can never run short of dollars: it can always print more. In effect, the US can pay for its imports by exporting its own currency. No other country can.
"The world, says monetary guru Ronald Mckinnon, is today effectively on a dollar standard." In the old days the world was on the gold standard, which meant gold exporters (like South Africa ) could finance their imports by selling gold.
In the gold standard, countries tied their currencies rigidly to gold, whereas today they float. Yet a huge monetary demand exists for dollars, analogous to the old demand for monetary gold.
India cannot finance its imports by exporting rupees. Japan cannot finance its imports by exporting yen. But the US can literally export dollars, because the world has decided that this is the world's monetary anchor.
Just as an oversupply of gold could lower its price, so too can an oversupply of dollars lower its price (exchange rate). This is at the heart of Wolf's fears. But unlike other commodities, the dollar is used not for consumption, but for building up foreign exchange reserves.
Even if the dollar looks dicey, what other currencies could countries switch to? Japan has been in economic stagnation for a decade, so the yen looks dodgy. Germany too has been stagnating since it merged with East Germany , and is currently in recession.
Neither France nor Britain look remotely like global economic leaders. So, in the foreseeable future, there seems no alternative to the dollar, warts and all.
I am reminded of an old story about two villagers who encounter a bear in the forest and began to run for their lives. One villager says, "It's no use, we can't run faster than the bear."
The other replies, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you."
Something similar, I suspect, will happen in the currency market. If the world economy goes into a tailspin, nemesis will catch up first with the yen and Euro, giving the dollar a break. The dollar looks unattractive, but other currencies look even more so.

Freak
09-23-2004, 01:34 PM
Theres always a counterpoint.
We are used to thinking of the USA as the economic superpower of the world, and the dollar as the strongest currency. Yet the dollar has weakened against the rupee in the last six months, and weakened even more (by 15 per cent) against the Euro in the last year.
Is this a temporary blip or a new trend?
"It's not only a new trend, the dollar is in danger of major collapse," says Martin Wolf of The Financial Times . At a workshop this week at the National Council of Applied Economic Research, he gave reasons why the US economy, for all its apparent strength, is in danger of stagnation or collapse, and could take the dollar down with it.
US consumers have for years stopped saving and gone on an unprecedented consumption spree, gobbling up imported goods.
In consequence the US is running a current account deficit of 5 per cent of GDP, a rate of over-spending no country has sustained for long in history.
At around $550 billion, the US current account deficit is as large as India 's entire GDP! Gargantuan deficits have transformed the US from the world's biggest creditor country to the biggest debtor.
The rest of the world (including India ) has become a massive creditor to the US . Investors in Asia and Europe have invested trillions of dollars in US stock market and securities.
But US stock markets have taken such a beating in the last three years that foreign investors have lost a veritable fortune. Dollar bonds look safer, but now they carry very low interest rates. So the dollar is slipping.
This is a sign, says Wolf, that the rest of the world is no longer willing to finance American over-consumption. He fears that the dollar might have to depreciate by 30-50 per cent in real terms to end this over-consumption.
That will wreak havoc of another kind. Other countries (including India ) hold maybe three-quarters of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars, and may find the real value of these eroding fast.
Panicky investors may move out of dollars, pushing down that currency even further. Asian countries found what self-reinforcing havoc could be wreaked on their economies by panic. Could something similar happen to the US ?
I doubt it. Yes, countries that habitually live beyond their means do come to a sticky end, and their currencies do collapse. Yet I think the US is exempt from this rule, at least in the foreseeable future.
Most countries have to export goods or services to earn foreign exchange. If they run large trade deficits for years, they run short of dollars and suffer a crisis. But the USA can never run short of dollars: it can always print more. In effect, the US can pay for its imports by exporting its own currency. No other country can.
"The world, says monetary guru Ronald Mckinnon, is today effectively on a dollar standard." In the old days the world was on the gold standard, which meant gold exporters (like South Africa ) could finance their imports by selling gold.
In the gold standard, countries tied their currencies rigidly to gold, whereas today they float. Yet a huge monetary demand exists for dollars, analogous to the old demand for monetary gold.
India cannot finance its imports by exporting rupees. Japan cannot finance its imports by exporting yen. But the US can literally export dollars, because the world has decided that this is the world's monetary anchor.
Just as an oversupply of gold could lower its price, so too can an oversupply of dollars lower its price (exchange rate). This is at the heart of Wolf's fears. But unlike other commodities, the dollar is used not for consumption, but for building up foreign exchange reserves.
Even if the dollar looks dicey, what other currencies could countries switch to? Japan has been in economic stagnation for a decade, so the yen looks dodgy. Germany too has been stagnating since it merged with East Germany , and is currently in recession.
Neither France nor Britain look remotely like global economic leaders. So, in the foreseeable future, there seems no alternative to the dollar, warts and all.
I am reminded of an old story about two villagers who encounter a bear in the forest and began to run for their lives. One villager says, "It's no use, we can't run faster than the bear."
The other replies, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you."
Something similar, I suspect, will happen in the currency market. If the world economy goes into a tailspin, nemesis will catch up first with the yen and Euro, giving the dollar a break. The dollar looks unattractive, but other currencies look even more so.
Good twist.....I like that. Believe me I hope your right.

Mullet
09-23-2004, 01:52 PM
and avoided WW III.
I have to hear how the us taking over a country in 2 weeks avoided WWIII
But the liberals will keep applauding every time an Americam soldier falls. They should be thrown out of the country as traitors.
link?

Mullet
09-23-2004, 01:53 PM
Brilliant point, Blown. Only you could call the liberation of 25 million people from a murderous dictator a "failure". This man killed between 300,000 and a million of his own people, supported worldwide terror, housed and protected Al-Quaeda operatives, and fronted money to them through oil sales under the UN's "oil for food" program.
Why don't you just admit the fact that no outcome will satisfy you or stop you from denegrating Bush's policy. That way we can all get on with our lives and you'll feel better knowing that you told the truth.
does this mean we should go liberate every country with murderous dictator?

SHAKE-YO-AZZ
09-24-2004, 12:12 AM
what if we just take the oil fields and run

HighRoller
09-24-2004, 02:50 AM
does this mean we should go liberate every country with murderous dictator?
If the dictator is funneling money to terrorists through the UN, and those terror groups are carrying out terror attacks against us, yes. And if the dictator gives sanctuary to a member of the terror cell that was responsible for 9-11, yes. That is what Saddam did. But like Blown, nothing will convince you that we've done anything good in Iraq because Dan Rather probably told you Iraq was a failure..... :confused:

eliminatedsprinter
09-24-2004, 07:37 AM
If the dictator is funneling money to terrorists through the UN, and those terror groups are carrying out terror attacks against us, yes. And if the dictator gives sanctuary to a member of the terror cell that was responsible for 9-11, yes. That is what Saddam did. But like Blown, nothing will convince you that we've done anything good in Iraq because Dan Rather probably told you Iraq was a failure..... :confused:
Yes, plus his troops were shooting at our planes every day. He was thumbing his nose at the treaty, that we made with him to let him keep power, once we beat him back, after he invaded one of our econmic allies. Does anyone think Truman, or Ike would have put up with 10 years of crap like that from Hirohito? The only reason Bush even had to deal with Saddam at all is because his predecessor was such a wuss...

Blown 472
09-27-2004, 08:09 PM
If the dictator is funneling money to terrorists through the UN, and those terror groups are carrying out terror attacks against us, yes. And if the dictator gives sanctuary to a member of the terror cell that was responsible for 9-11, yes. That is what Saddam did. But like Blown, nothing will convince you that we've done anything good in Iraq because Dan Rather probably told you Iraq was a failure..... :confused:
If that is the case then hows come we are not bombing the f uck out of the saudis??? oh yeah thats right the tv didn't tell you that as the saudi pr machine works very well and you cant put 2 and 2 together as your opinion is formed for you by the media.

Jeanyus
09-27-2004, 08:26 PM
If that is the case then hows come we are not bombing the f uck out of the saudis??? oh yeah thats right the tv didn't tell you that as the saudi pr machine works very well and you cant put 2 and 2 together as your opinion is formed for you by the media.
In case you haven't noticed the US has a big military base in Saudi, whenever our Imperialistic country wants to invade a Country, we need military bases.
Have you ever considered, that if Osama wanted to provoke a war between te US and Saudi, it would be best to use Saudi thugs. Osama does want our bases in Saudi out of there. See if you can figure out why Osama wants the US military out of Suadi Arabi. By the way I think the Saudi's should not be considered our allie, but we need them for now.

Squirtin Thunder
09-27-2004, 09:17 PM
My tool for the Jeanyus boat.
Jim