| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2011 12:49:08 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
We need to leave the world policeman position to the new world
leader: China. I suspect they will have much more respect than we had. |
They are doing a great job in Tibet. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 02:21:04 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by David Ey:
20 mil waste
sesame street going to Pakistan courtesy of you and I. |
You really think teaching tolerance in Pakistan is a bad investment? |
Elmo says "no, not at all"
 |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 07:01:11 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by FireBird:
We need to leave the world policeman position to the new world
leader: China. I suspect they will have much more respect than we had. |
They are doing a great job in Tibet. |
Just maybe we have no right to police others if we can not even manage our own. Let the world be sovereign again, free. For heaven sake, if a leader wants to kill 4 million like in Africa (where were we then?) let them do it. Looking after number one is more important. ;_( Not true? |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 08:41:04 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Take away the war in Iraq and you have a balanced budget. |
Perhaps not. One thing the war in Iraq achieved ... |
 |
Indeed. But the casualty count (both civilian and military) appears to be incidental to the administration(s) - An inconvenience to be smoothed over by PR exercises, and used as a method to whip up patriotic support.
The return-on-investment of a modern war is measured purely in economic terms (short-term and long-term)
|
|
|
|
04/11/2011 10:12:52 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Take away the war in Iraq and you have a balanced budget. |
Perhaps not. One thing the war in Iraq achieved ... |
|
Indeed. But the casualty count (both civilian and military) appears to be incidental to the administration(s) - An inconvenience to be smoothed over by PR exercises, and used as a method to whip up patriotic support.
The return-on-investment of a modern war is measured purely in economic terms (short-term and long-term) |
Then, with the exception of Halliburton, it was a total failure on all fronts. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 10:43:13 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Take away the war in Iraq and you have a balanced budget. |
Perhaps not. One thing the war in Iraq achieved ... |
|
Indeed. But the casualty count (both civilian and military) appears to be incidental to the administration(s) - An inconvenience to be smoothed over by PR exercises, and used as a method to whip up patriotic support.
The return-on-investment of a modern war is measured purely in economic terms (short-term and long-term) |
Then, with the exception of Halliburton, it was a total failure on all fronts. |
Nah, they only made billions. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 12:23:26 PM · #32 |
You really think Haliburton's contracts were what this was about? - That's like loose change compared to the economics we're talking.
First, let's eliminate the things the Iraq war was NOT about; It wasn't about WMDs, it wasn't about 9/11, and it wasn't about 'freeing' the Iraqis.
It was about eliminating Saddam Hussein, and installing a US-friendly government. Saddam had to be removed. The UN sanctions up until that point just about kept him in line, but then he did some things the US didn't like, starting with changing the currency for the 'oil for food' programme from dollars to euros.
There are two things critical to the economy of the US; the strength of the dollar, and the continued uninterrupted and guaranteed supply of cheap oil.
Saddam threatened both of these. By making moves to change from petro-dollars to petro-euros he raised the danger of other OPEC countries following suit (and the damage to the dollar would have been irreparable) and by sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) he had too much control over oil supplies for someone who was rapidly making enemies with the US.
The media ridicule the 'it's about the oil' comments. It is about oil - but not just putting a few tankers in the gulf and filling them with Iraqi (or Iranian, or Libyan) oil. It's about securing the dollar as the oil currency, and ensuring the US has some control over the supply of oil from the major oil-producing countries (both in terms of output and cost)
So no, this isn't about the billions that Haliburton are making in the Middle East. It's about the trillions that the US could lose in the Middle East.
Message edited by author 2011-04-11 12:28:54. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 12:58:24 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JH:
There are two things critical to the economy of the US; the strength of the dollar, and the continued uninterrupted and guaranteed supply of cheap oil. |
Has the billions spent there, or the thousands of American youth maimed and killed, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives ruined or ended done anything to move us towards those goals? Is the dollar stronger or oil cheaper? |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 01:02:04 PM · #34 |
| We will be paying for these wars for decades to come, in medical support for thousands of maimed veterans, financial support for their survivors and dependents, and the lost productivity those people could have given the private sector economy. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 01:17:54 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JH:
You really think Haliburton's contracts were what this was about? - That's like loose change compared to the economics we're talking.
First, let's eliminate the things the Iraq war was NOT about; It wasn't about WMDs, it wasn't about 9/11, and it wasn't about 'freeing' the Iraqis.
It was about eliminating Saddam Hussein, and installing a US-friendly government. Saddam had to be removed. The UN sanctions up until that point just about kept him in line, but then he did some things the US didn't like, starting with changing the currency for the 'oil for food' programme from dollars to euros.
There are two things critical to the economy of the US; the strength of the dollar, and the continued uninterrupted and guaranteed supply of cheap oil.
Saddam threatened both of these. By making moves to change from petro-dollars to petro-euros he raised the danger of other OPEC countries following suit (and the damage to the dollar would have been irreparable) and by sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) he had too much control over oil supplies for someone who was rapidly making enemies with the US.
The media ridicule the 'it's about the oil' comments. It is about oil - but not just putting a few tankers in the gulf and filling them with Iraqi (or Iranian, or Libyan) oil. It's about securing the dollar as the oil currency, and ensuring the US has some control over the supply of oil from the major oil-producing countries (both in terms of output and cost)
So no, this isn't about the billions that Haliburton are making in the Middle East. It's about the trillions that the US could lose in the Middle East. |
If you thought I was disagreeing with you, you're wrong. It's what I've said from the beginning, it's all about the oil. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 01:31:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by JH:
... and by sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (behind Saudi Arabia)... |
Typical American... If you don't acknowledge Canada's stronger dollar, and huge, proven reserves, they won't exist. Oh well, China has already bought up most of the oilsands anyway, so I guess Canada isn't really at number two.
I bring this up because I'm hoping for a US invasion and takeover of Canada so I don't have to wait six weeks for my purchases to cross the damn border. WTF is the US waiting for anyway? Canada's military is from the 1940's. Chickens? .... bock bock bock bock !
Share of World % Country
1 19.00% Saudi Arabia
2 12.58% Canada
3 9.88% Iran
4 8.26% Iraq
5 7.47% Kuwait
6 7.02% United Arab Emirates
7 7.02% Venezuela
8 5.33% Russia
9 3.38% Libya
10 2.69% Nigeria
11 2.15% Kazakhstan
12 1.82% Qatar
13 1.46% China
14 1.37% United States
|
|
|
|
04/11/2011 01:36:32 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I bring this up because I'm hoping for a US invasion and takeover of Canada so I don't have to wait six weeks for my purchases to cross the damn border. WTF is the US waiting for anyway? Canada's military is from the 1940's. Chickens? .... bock bock bock bock ! |
Be careful what you wish for -- the Duchy of Grand Fenwick tried a similar gambit some decades back, and it practically bankrupted them ... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 03:50:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Be careful what you wish for -- the Duchy of Grand Fenwick tried a similar gambit some decades back, and it practically bankrupted them ... ;-) |
Don't you have that backwards? Didn't Grand Fenwick invade US? And win? LOL...
Slippy wants to BE invaded, and LOSE.
R.
Checked the link, refreshed memory. Pretty much, yep. They "landed" during a civil defense drill, streets empty, they took prisoners, and went back to Grand Fenwick. The point of contention? We were counterfeiting their Premier Grand Cru wine, LOL... However, one of their prisoners had the secret to the new superbomb, and the Duchy ended up in a pretty enviable (or not) position...
Message edited by author 2011-04-11 15:54:26. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 04:21:42 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Be careful what you wish for -- the Duchy of Grand Fenwick tried a similar gambit some decades back, and it practically bankrupted them ... ;-) |
Don't you have that backwards? Didn't Grand Fenwick invade US? And win? LOL...
Slippy wants to BE invaded, and LOSE.
R. |
DoGF intended to lose, hence my warning note about being careful what he wished for ... I was also pointing out that Canada may have to initiate hostilities in order to get invaded -- with all the current overseas operations it seems unlikely the US military will take on further responsibilities without at least pro forma provocation.
Message edited by author 2011-04-11 16:22:08. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 04:28:13 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... provocation. |
I'll see what I can do about that. What's Barack's phone number?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2011 04:29:06 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... provocation. |
I'll see what I can do about that. What's Barack's phone number? |
202-456-1414, that's his home number, I don't know his cell.
Message edited by author 2011-04-11 16:29:35. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 05:30:03 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by JH:
... but then he did some things the US didn't like, starting with changing the currency for the 'oil for food' programme from dollars to euros.
There are two things critical to the economy of the US; the strength of the dollar, and the continued uninterrupted and guaranteed supply of cheap oil.
|
I am truly intrigued by this comment. What would happen if a coalition of governments opted to use the Euro for oil payments, would the USA go to war against all of them. Couple this with the fact that the Euro has been more stable than the greenback recently and you can see why some might prefer it as a means of payment.
Lastly, when OPEC decides on a price for a barrel of oil, what difference is there in paying for it in US dollars or Euros?
Ray |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 05:44:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Lastly, when OPEC decides on a price for a barrel of oil, what difference is there in paying for it in US dollars or Euros? |
Two issues:
1: during the transition period dollars will get dumped in favor of Euros, and this will drive the value of the dollar down, and
2: the price we pay, in dollars, for "X euros" of oil will fluctuate depending on the dollars-to-euros exchange rate at the time. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 06:07:48 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by JH:
... but then he did some things the US didn't like, starting with changing the currency for the 'oil for food' programme from dollars to euros.
There are two things critical to the economy of the US; the strength of the dollar, and the continued uninterrupted and guaranteed supply of cheap oil.
|
I am truly intrigued by this comment. What would happen if a coalition of governments opted to use the Euro for oil payments, would the USA go to war against all of them. Couple this with the fact that the Euro has been more stable than the greenback recently and you can see why some might prefer it as a means of payment.
Lastly, when OPEC decides on a price for a barrel of oil, what difference is there in paying for it in US dollars or Euros?
Ray |
Also, I don't see how ousting Saddam had any effect on the dollar/euro policy. It's not like Opec were taking their policy points from Saddam at any point. If anything, the current debt and financial commitment brought on by the war in Iraq, the Euro is probably looking pretty good to Opec these days.
And if you're hanging your justification hat on this, well, using that reasoning to invade another country unprovoked might be a bit more despicable than lying about WMDs as a justification. Close call though.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2011 06:10:07 PM · #45 |
While the strength of the dollar is an important factor in the economy, there are arguments for and against a weaker dollar. A strong dollar lowers the price of imports, such as oil; but it makes American goods more expensive overseas. If you have a great deal of capital, or are in the business of selling imported goods to America, then you benefit by a strong dollar. If you make good that sell in foreign markets then a weak dollar benefits you. both camps are hurt by sudden massive swings in the value of the dollar.
From a purely economic stand point, the case of taking on the expense of going to war to keep the dollar high is not justifiable by most analyses. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 09:01:21 PM · #46 |
| Brennan is correct. You will note nearly every industrialized country is "racing to the bottom" to debase their currency. A weaker dollar is probably a net gain to America, though it does make oil more expensive. |
|
|
|
04/11/2011 11:38:57 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Brennan is correct. You will note nearly every industrialized country is "racing to the bottom" to debase their currency. A weaker dollar is probably a net gain to America, though it does make oil more expensive. |
Probably the spike in oil prices is due to the degree of instability in some of the oil producing countries and the weaker dollar is attributable to the recent financial crisis experienced by the USA.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 07:33:47 AM · #48 |
I'd vote for term limits on all of Congress members, no pensions (for all of them, retroactive to 1940s), no special health care, no air planes for the Speaker of the House, no limos(make them walk or ride the bus/rail), require a balanced budget like states have, eliminate the Department of Education (state will always do better), no government advertising for anything on TV/radio/newspapers, a flat tax so everyone pays their share, drug testing on all welfare/food stamp recipients, .....
just a few ideas |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 08:09:33 AM · #49 |
So, while we're trying to find out how can we clean the air using battery powered cars, others are trying to find a way to crash us very shortly.
Obama will ask more taxes today, and maybe taxing the internet... to pay debt. They NEVER pay dept. When they get more money, they spend more.
You know why Rome was burned? we're going that way fast. We don't need more taxes, we need to drill and refine more oil and gas, we need to cut regulations that are stopping inventors and new businesses, we need to cut taxes for businesses so they can start growing and hiring more people, we need to get rid of budget killing obama-care...
... we need to get rid of damn socialists in United States government... we need to understand, this is unlike other countries all over the world, it's unique and keep it that way. |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 09:28:46 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
So, while we're trying to find out how can we clean the air using battery powered cars, others are trying to find a way to crash us very shortly.
Obama will ask more taxes today, and maybe taxing the internet... to pay debt. They NEVER pay dept. When they get more money, they spend more. |
Calling BS on that one. Under the Clinton administation we had a surplus and were paying down the debt. They even turned off the infamous debt calculator because it was running backwards.
Enter Bush with the "Bush Tax Cuts" then add the Bush $1 trillion unfunded senior drug Medicare program, then the unjustified war in Iraq, then the Bush Wall Street bail out, and you have the current situation.
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
You know why Rome was burned? we're going that way fast. We don't need more taxes, we need to drill and refine more oil and gas, we need to cut regulations that are stopping inventors and new businesses, we need to cut taxes for businesses so they can start growing and hiring more people, we need to get rid of budget killing obama-care...
... we need to get rid of damn socialists in United States government... we need to understand, this is unlike other countries all over the world, it's unique and keep it that way. |
So, privitizing the profit and socializing the loss is the American way? News to me. Shouldn't the people that benifitted the most under those policies that got us in this situation pay a little of the cost to get us out? Or is it just the poor and the working class that have to suffer the consequences?
As I said before, when you ready to get serious about the situation and at least put the Bush tax cuts on the table, let me know. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air. |
|
