View Full Version : Israel/Palestine/Hamas
Emo Emu
02-11-2006, 01:59 AM
Very intersting to me lately. I am applaud Russia for standing up and taking the stance that they do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization. While terrible things have happened, I am not one to quickly label them quickly as terrorists, but I am not going to label them as "Freedom Fighters" right away either. What I do know is that there is more indepth information out there.
Basically, I'm just going to ask some of our more politically minded posters to point me in the right direction towards a balanced book about Israel and Palestine, one that favors Palestine, and one that favors Israel. I want to be more educated on this before I make a solid 100% opinion. Thanks.
Sean of the Thread
02-11-2006, 08:27 AM
You'll have to start back to at least the roman empire days to go deep enough.
Parkbandit
02-11-2006, 09:11 AM
A freedom fighter doesn't strap himself with explosives and go onto a bus with women and children in it and detonate himself.
That's a terrorist. That is what Hamas not only supports.. but rewards and trains people to do.
Warriorbird
02-11-2006, 09:13 AM
Err, actually, some of the folks we've called "freedom fighters" have done precisely that. :coughs: Afghanistan ring any bells?
The japanese had kamakazis. We used guerilla warfare on the English. Hamas may have dubious origins but it has passed the test of democracy. So you pro-democracy in the middle-east people really need to sit down and shut the fuck up on this one.
Sean of the Thread
02-11-2006, 11:52 AM
Uhm.. guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.. its a battlefield tactic. Yes Hamas "passed" the test of democracy if that's what you want to call it. If you remember Hussein "passed" the test of democracy when he was "re-elected" each and every term.. stfu.
Uhm.. guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.. its a battlefield tactic. Yes Hamas "passed" the test of democracy if that's what you want to call it. If you remember Hussein "passed" the test of democracy when he was "re-elected" each and every term.. stfu.
But guerilla war was probably considered a terrorist kind of tactic. It came from the indigenous people. What do you think the Brits called it when they were getting slaughtered in ambushes?
There is so much hypocrisy today its making my head spin.
They werent ambushing woman and children, they ambushed Royal armies moron! Hamas, LOL... they kill innocent people, thats not fucking war, thats well, there isnt a word for it, other then bullshit, religion = BULLSHIT from every front! The English killed woman and children on our land, we stood up and fought a country, not abunch of kids killing kids and woman, ask me they are abunch of pussies!!
---THOU SHALL NOT KILL, UNLESS YE WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD OTHER THEN MINE--
Sean of the Thread
02-11-2006, 05:09 PM
They werent ambushing woman and children, they ambushed Royal armies moron! Hamas, LOL... they kill innocent people, thats not fucking war, thats well, there isnt a word for it, other then bullshit, religion = BULLSHIT from every front! The English killed woman and children on our land, we stood up and fought a country, not abunch of kids killing kids and woman, ask me they are abunch of pussies!!
---THOU SHALL NOT KILL, UNLESS YE WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD OTHER THEN MINE--
Wow you beat me to the that response. Bravo! ROFL "what do you think the brits thought whilst being slaughtered in ambush???" rofl ROFL ROFL
Blacklash = Le Douche..
And you wonder why nobody can take you liberals seriously with statements like that?
They werent ambushing woman and children, they ambushed Royal armies moron! Hamas, LOL... they kill innocent people, thats not fucking war, thats well, there isnt a word for it, other then bullshit, religion = BULLSHIT from every front! The English killed woman and children on our land, we stood up and fought a country, not abunch of kids killing kids and woman, ask me they are abunch of pussies!!
---THOU SHALL NOT KILL, UNLESS YE WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD OTHER THEN MINE--
So I suppose the deaths of innocent Iraqi women and children from our bombardment is ok because its war?
Look, Im not condoning any of this shit. I think its all fucked up. Even someone like me has to come to terms with the fact that sometimes violence is necessary. I certainly wish it were not the case.
Wow you beat me to the that response. Bravo! ROFL "what do you think the brits thought whilst being slaughtered in ambush???" rofl ROFL ROFL
Blacklash = Le Douche..
And you wonder why nobody can take you liberals seriously with statements like that?
I doubt anyone here takes me seriously at all. As for liberals... Im not sure what that even means anymore because you use the word as a catch-all for anyone who disagrees with the administration or the party in power.
Ebondale
02-11-2006, 07:24 PM
As for liberals... Im not sure what that even means anymore because you use the word as a catch-all for anyone who disagrees with the administration or the party in power.
Its surprising how quickly the term 'Liberal' is being turned into some sort of a negative thing, isn't it. :(
So I suppose the deaths of innocent Iraqi women and children from our bombardment is ok because its war?
Look, Im not condoning any of this shit. I think its all fucked up. Even someone like me has to come to terms with the fact that sometimes violence is necessary. I certainly wish it were not the case.
No! but once again it is because the PUSSIES hide with family and friends, buncha PUSSIES!
I mean if I was doing something like this and knew what could happen the last fucking place I would be is near my child or children!!
Sean of the Thread
02-11-2006, 08:55 PM
I doubt anyone here takes me seriously at all. As for liberals... Im not sure what that even means .....
At least you realize it.
I'm not using it as a catch all for anyone who disagrees.. I use it to to describe.. get this.. LIBERALS. It's funny you think you have to defend yourself and your political party. It is also funny you havn't got anything else but red herrings because your previous statements were pwnt.
It's also funny how you assume my party affiliation.
Sean of the Thread
02-11-2006, 09:00 PM
So I suppose the deaths of innocent Iraqi women and children from our bombardment is ok because its war?
Look, Im not condoning any of this shit. I think its all fucked up. Even someone like me has to come to terms with the fact that sometimes violence is necessary. I certainly wish it were not the case.
>>So I suppose the deaths of innocent Iraqi women and children from our bombardment is ok because its war?<<
I'd say it's very unfortunate but yes.. it is/was OKAY during the war. If you ask me the boming we put on the germans was 3000% worse..perhaps the world would have been different if we didn't.
I also think its all fucked up and personally can't wait for a better world where peace is possible. (crown me capt' planet please)
At least you realize it.
I'm not using it as a catch all for anyone who disagrees.. I use it to to describe.. get this.. LIBERALS. It's funny you think you have to defend yourself and your political party. It is also funny you havn't got anything else but red herrings because your previous statements were pwnt.
It's also funny how you assume my party affiliation.
We've talked about it before and I know you are a closet liberal. That must be what causes your lib-a-phobia.
Ebondale
02-11-2006, 09:09 PM
The Law of Armed Conflict prevents unneccessary suffering. Sadly, it doesn't eliminate all suffering. War is a terrible thing and there are always ALWAYS innocent victims and I feel bad for those that lose their lives as a result.
It is a different kind of warfare that we fight today than it was many years back. Enemy 'commanders' are sheltered by civilians and blend in amonst them. Intelligence helps, but sometimes innocent people die. I hate it, but I can't change it.
Emo Emu
02-11-2006, 10:21 PM
What I hate when an arguement is made (expecially a valid one) is when someone just slings mud at the opposite side.
Atrocities are atrocities. I mean, the Germans terror bombed the British to Hell and back. Towards the end of the war the Allies firebombed a city to obliteration, which had a VERY doubtful military improtance (Dresden, and I challenge anyone to debate this with me :-P). Did that make it okay?
Well, I'll put it on the table. Where it stands right now, I disagree with Hamas's attack on innocent civilians, but I do understand their reason for doing what they do and how Palestians might feel desperate. Doesn't justify it, but I sure as hell would like to know more... So, I'm still looking for those three credible sources!
Numbers
02-11-2006, 10:25 PM
We've talked about it before and I know you are a closet liberal. That must be what causes your lib-a-phobia.
Completely off-topic, but for a second I thought you said labia-phobia.
It made me laugh.
Ebondale
02-11-2006, 10:27 PM
labia-phobia.
Don't be skerred... lol
Nothing to be afraid of there. It takes a little warming up to, but once you are in, its golden.
Warriorbird
02-12-2006, 01:07 AM
Schlachtov Inv.
Sean of the Thread
02-12-2006, 03:18 AM
We've talked about it before and I know you are a closet liberal. That must be what causes your lib-a-phobia.
Another red herring reply. You lose Donnie..you're out of your element.
ON a side note.. mmmm labia.
Emo Emu
02-12-2006, 04:49 AM
I've noticed just how liberal I've gotten lately. I blame college. I also blame myself for being silly enough to think that "any mount of liberalism" = "communism"
No books still :(
- Luke
Another red herring reply. You lose Donnie..you're out of your element.
ON a side note.. mmmm labia.
I could post 2 + 2 = 4 and you would still reply to it with the same old same old. Anyway...
Does anyone know if Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or any of the middle-eastern countries were in the United Nations when it decided to create Israel? Its a little too late now to take it back but it explains a few things.
Emo Emu
02-12-2006, 08:23 AM
I believe most of that part of the world (middle east) had just recently gotten independance from France, Britain, ect., so even if they were part of the UN, they really didn't have that much of a say in anything.
- Luke
PS: I hate doing this, but at the risk of being called an anti-semite, I do believe that the Jewish people should have their own state and Israel does have the right to exist.. Gah.. I wish people would understand that.. I hate disclaimers.
Sean of the Thread
02-12-2006, 09:27 AM
I could post 2 + 2 = 4 and you would still reply to it with the same old same old. Anyway...
.
Well since you posting 2+2 =4 = herring again I'll post it again.
Alfster
02-12-2006, 08:07 PM
Nothing to be afraid of there. It takes a little warming up to, but once you are in, its golden.
where'd that piggy smiley go?
Sean of the Thread
02-12-2006, 10:01 PM
where'd that piggy smiley go?
I bet GS4.net/forum has that feature.
Hulkein
02-12-2006, 10:06 PM
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/AC/42/emoticons/8/889.jpg
They werent ambushing woman and children, they ambushed Royal armies moron! Hamas, LOL... they kill innocent people, thats not fucking war, thats well, there isnt a word for it, other then bullshit, religion = BULLSHIT from every front! The English killed woman and children on our land, we stood up and fought a country, not abunch of kids killing kids and woman, ask me they are abunch of pussies!!
---THOU SHALL NOT KILL, UNLESS YE WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD OTHER THEN MINE--
I am sure the early Americans would have killed the loyalist's woman and children if they had a chance. At the time it wasn't our land it was the property of England.
Latrinsorm
02-13-2006, 12:12 PM
I am sure the early Americans would have killed the loyalist's woman and children if they had a chance.The Rape of Fair Belgium indicates otherwise.
The Rape of Fair Belgium indicates otherwise.
Hardly you're comparing apples and oranges. By 1914 America was one of the top nations in the world and in league with the Allies. The whole point of terrorism or guerilla warfare is that because of the small size of the combatant, it is the only platform it can fight on with a hope of winning, because it is battling a much larger enemy.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 12:29 PM
I am sure the early Americans would have killed the loyalist's woman and children if they had a chance. At the time it wasn't our land it was the property of England.
I am not sure they would've, and since neither one of us knows what they would do, we have to go with what they did do. It wasn't kill innocent children.
Warriorbird
02-13-2006, 12:31 PM
Of course...in bombing Iraq, we NEVER kill innocent children.
Jorddyn
02-13-2006, 12:32 PM
Its surprising how quickly the term 'Liberal' is being turned into some sort of a negative thing, isn't it. :(
Make sure to get the appropriate sneer on your face and loathing in your voice every time you say it. Eventually, people will make the same sneer when they simply hear the word.
However, I don't find it insulting. I'm damn proud to be open minded and compassionate enough to be a liberal.
Jorddyn
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 12:33 PM
Of course...in bombing Iraq, we NEVER kill innocent children.
Not that your comment was directed to me (I don't think, at least), but there is a difference between purposely targetting civilians and civilians dying while attacking military installations.
Warriorbird
02-13-2006, 12:35 PM
They're still dead. We've also attacked quite a fair number of non military targets.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 12:37 PM
Not with the intent to kill innocent children...........
I am not sure they would've, and since neither one of us knows what they would do, we have to go with what they did do. It wasn't kill innocent children.
They used tactics that today we would classify as terrorism or guerilla warfare. They ambushed and killed members of the army that owned America, clearly terrorism by today's standard's. It isn't much of a stretch to say they would have done the same to the Loyalist Army's families had they come to America. In many ways Hamas have much in common with the early Americans.
Not with the intent to kill innocent children...........
We know cluster bombs kill innocent children and our Army is ok with that. We deem it acceptable collateral damage, so if we do it knowingly than it is with intent.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 12:40 PM
<< They ambushed and killed members of the army that owned America >>
Attacking members of an army during war is considered terrorism nowadays? Interesting... I'm assuming you mean before the formal declaration of war... Ok, you're right, they did. If a Hamas-led Palestine wants a declaration of war with Israel, let them have it. I'm sure they'll decline and stick to what they're good at, butchering innocent kids and women.
<< It isn't much of a stretch to say they would have done the same to the Loyalist Army's families had they come to America >>
I disagree. They didn't, you can't say 'well they would've' to justify your argument.
<< We know cluster bombs kill innocent children and our Army is ok with that. We deem it acceptable collateral damage, so if we do it knowingly than it is with intent. >>
No, the intent is to destroy/kill what the cluster bombs are being dropped to hit. Collateral damage isn't intent.
It's pretty easy to discern what the intent is. If bombs are being dropped to take out an arms warehouse adjacent to civilian homes, ask this: If the warehouse wasn't there, would the bomb be dropped?
If the answer is no, then the innocent civilians aren't the intent of the attack.
Collateral damage doesn't equal intent.
Sean of the Thread
02-13-2006, 01:28 PM
>>Hardly you're comparing apples and oranges. By 1914 America was one of the top nations in the world and in league with the Allies. The whole point of terrorism or guerilla warfare is that because of the small size of the combatant, it is the only platform it can fight on with a hope of winning, because it is battling a much larger enemy.<<
>>The used tactics that today we would classify as terrorism or guerilla warfare. They ambushed and killed members of the army that owned America, clearly terrorism by today's standard's<<
HAHAH terrorism.. we were gonna terrorize the English right out of North America!..more like clearly a superior tactical form of conventional warfare between two parties at war.
That is quite possibly the most retarded babble you've posted here yet. (I know that is a stretch). I don't try to talk about your drug culture or Candian poltics (if that is what you are this week) as I know little about either and it is probally in your best interest not to talk about your definitions of warfare to save you any future humiliation.
Also by your definition the Vietcong and NVA were terrorists now? I thought they were victims according to left wingers back in the 60's.. the same ones that shunned the soldiers when they returned from fighting these "terrorists". The same soldiers that the trendy lefty stance supports now. The same troops you say are killing innocent Iraqi's.. the same troops you say are fighting an unjust war. "support our troops.. but not the war they fight." ??
Not with the intent to kill innocent children...........There should never be intent on the side of good, in times of war, to kill innocent women and children if it can be absolutely prevented. However, that's not to say that collateral damage is never used to describe intended damage, as a way of denying that it was predeterminded. I'm not saying this is something we do, but it is definitely something that could be taken advantage of.
<< They ambushed and killed members of the army that owned America >>
[quote]Attacking members of an army during war is considered terrorism nowadays? Interesting... I'm assuming you mean before the formal declaration of war... Ok, you're right, they did. If a Hamas-led Palestine wants a declaration of war with Israel, let them have it. I'm sure they'll decline and stick to what they're good at, butchering innocent kids and women.
I doubt the English considered it war. America wasn't a nation, it was a rag, tag group of citizens who were attacking their Government. England probably viewed it as treason. If what your objecting to, in Palestine and Israel, is that the Palestinians haven't issued a Declaration of Independence, they have in 1988.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-235416
<< It isn't much of a stretch to say they would have done the same to the Loyalist Army's families had they come to America >>
I disagree. They didn't, you can't say 'well they would've' to justify your argument.
They didn't have the chance to but by today's standards they would have been considered terrorists.
<< We know cluster bombs kill innocent children and our Army is ok with that. We deem it acceptable collateral damage, so if we do it knowingly than it is with intent. >>
No, the intent is to destroy/kill what the cluster bombs are being dropped to hit. Collateral damage isn't intent.
If you use a cluster bomb knowing it will kill more women and children rather than using other methods, than it is your intent.
It's pretty easy to discern what the intent is. If bombs are being dropped to take out an arms warehouse adjacent to civilian homes, ask this: If the warehouse wasn't there, would the bomb be dropped
You mean like if the Weapons of Mass destruction weren't there would we invade a nation? I guess on our track record I would have to say yes.
If the answer is no, then the innocent civilians aren't the intent of the attack.
First off, you have to know the warehouse is housing arms and since you aren't using other methods, you are ok with the killing of innocent children.
Collateral damage doesn't equal intent.
If you don't want to kill the women and children, don't use the cluster bomb. If you know the cluster bomb will kill them than it must be your intent or you find their deaths acceptable, which in my book is pretty much the same thing.
>>Hardly you're comparing apples and oranges. By 1914 America was one of the top nations in the world and in league with the Allies. The whole point of terrorism or guerilla warfare is that because of the small size of the combatant, it is the only platform it can fight on with a hope of winning, because it is battling a much larger enemy.<<
>>The used tactics that today we would classify as terrorism or guerilla warfare. They ambushed and killed members of the army that owned America, clearly terrorism by today's standard's<<
[quote]HAHAH terrorism.. we were gonna terrorize the English right out of North America!..more like clearly a superior tactical form of conventional warfare between two parties at war.
By today's standards a group of people that aren't a nation can't engage in war they engage in terrorism and in the case of the early Americans treason, at least that is how the British saw it.
I don't think the Americans used superior tactical forms of conventional warfare. Certainly they used guerilla warfare which was met with success. The reason they won is that the English wouldn't send more troops.
That is quite possibly the most retarded babble you've posted here yet. (I know that is a stretch). I don't try to talk about your drug culture or Candian poltics (if that is what you are this week) as I know little about either and it is probally in your best interest not to talk about your definitions of warfare to to save you any future humiliation.
I used a particular tactic to prove a point. You and others here use definitions of terrorism selectively. When I apply the Bush administration definition of terrorism on the early Americans things those guys don't look so good.
If you want to comment on Canadian topics feel free but based on your knowledge of American events I don't hold high hopes. I am a dual citizen so I am interested in both.
I feel no humiliation, opposition from you is validation.
Also by your definition the Vietcong and NVA were terrorists now? I thought they were victims according to left wingers back in the 60's.. the same ones that shunned the soldiers when they returned from fighting these "terrorists". The same soldiers that the trendy lefty stance supports now. The same troops you say are killing innocent Iraqi's.. the same troops you say are fighting an unjust war. "support our troops.. but not the war they fight." ??
Vietnam is very complicated but actually I was using the Bush Administration and American definition of terrorism. Vietnam was under Chinese domination for much of its history, than it was taken over by the French, than during WW2 Japan controlled much of it, than the French tried to gain control again or settle things as some people see it. Than the North and South formed two separate Governments. Same ethnic people two nations, Vietcong were unhappy with the south so they waged a campaign. I am sure the South Vietnamese considered their actions treasonous.
I wasn't old enough to protest or support the Vietnam war. Yes support our troops but not the war they fight, you are correct. Like Johnny Cash did with Vietnam, I support the troops but not the war. They didn't choose to invade, Congress did, both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 02:51 PM
<< If you use a cluster bomb knowing it will kill more women and children rather than using other methods, than it is your intent. >>
No, it isn't. You need to brush up on your vocabulary.
in·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tnt)
n.
Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
The aim is not to kill innocent people, the aim is to destroy the warehouse. The purpose is not to kill innocent people, it is to destroy the warehouse.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 02:52 PM
<< If you use a cluster bomb knowing it will kill more women and children rather than using other methods, than it is your intent. >>
No, it isn't. You need to brush up on your vocabulary.
in·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tnt)
n.
Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
The aim is not to kill innocent people, the aim is to destroy the warehouse. The purpose is not to kill innocent people, it is to destroy the warehouse.
The killing of innocent people is an unfortunate thing that happens while achieving the INTENDED goal.
<< If you use a cluster bomb knowing it will kill more women and children rather than using other methods, than it is your intent. >>
No, it isn't. You need to brush up on your vocabulary.
The aim is not to kill innocent people, the aim is to destroy the warehouse. The purpose is not to kill innocent people, it is to destroy the warehouse.
The killing of innocent people is an unfortunate thing that happens while achieving the INTENDED goal.
I did say this:
"If you know the cluster bomb will kill them than it must be your intent or you find their deaths acceptable, which in my book is pretty much the same thing."
I think my vocabulary is pretty good. The definitive guide to the English language is the Oxford dictionary which says:
"intent
• noun intention or purpose.
• adjective 1 (intent on/upon) determined to do. 2 (intent on/upon) attentively occupied with. 3 showing earnest and eager attention.
I would say if you are determined to use a cluster bomb which you know will kill children than by definition it is your intent, see above intent on = determined to do.
Warriorbird
02-13-2006, 03:33 PM
If you think our military hasn't intended to kill innocent civilians in its history, Hulkein, you are crazy.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 04:00 PM
If you think our military hasn't intended to kill innocent civilians in its history, Hulkein, you are crazy.
What is the point of this statement in this discussion? What is the point of half of what you post in these types of threads? All I see, for the most part, is you pulling out exceptions and arguing as if they were the rule.
Do I think our military has never been guilty of purposely killing innocent people? No… I don’t. I’m not saying anyone is perfect, and I’m not saying it’s never been done, but what I am saying is that it has never been widespread policy for the U.S. to achieve its goals by continually targeting innocent civilians as Hamas has.
The discussion started with me disagreeing with xtc about his contention that “I am sure the early Americans would have killed the loyalist's woman and children if they had a chance.”
I said “I am not sure they would've, and since neither one of us knows what they would do, we have to go with what they did do. It wasn't kill innocent children.” This, to you, meant 'Oh great! A chance to bring up the fact that America kills innocent people in Iraq!'
That comment you made was really irrelevant to that specific conversation about what the colonists would do, but unfortunately I took the bait…
Sean of the Thread
02-13-2006, 04:06 PM
Hulkein when their political posts are getting pwnt with logic they tend to pull a bait and switch if you havn't noticed in the past.
Hulkein when their political posts are getting pwnt with logic they tend to pull a bait and switch if you havn't noticed in the past.
I think I have pwned any post of yours I have disagreed with. I do give you props this time round for actually attempting to form an argument, wrong as it may be.
Sean of the Thread
02-13-2006, 04:38 PM
I think I have pwned any post of yours I have disagreed with. I do give you props this time round for actually attempting to form an argument, wrong as it may be.
That's your opinion (minority). I grew tired of discussing anything in your delusional threads along time ago and came up with teh "you're dumb" as a direct result to your inconsistent and retarded arguments. Since your ignorant know it all ass who refuses to discuss anything rationally hasn't changed...I return to my previous "you're dumb" stance.
The only likely thing you've pwned in recent memory is what little cred or respect people gave your posts.
That's your opinion (minority). I grew tired of discussing anything in your delusional threads along time ago and came up with teh "you're dumb" as a direct result to your inconsistent and retarded arguments. Since your ignorant know it all ass who refuses to discuss anything rationally hasn't changed...I return to my previous "you're dumb" stance.
The only likely thing you've pwned in recent memory is what little cred or respect people gave your posts.
lol, not including this thread I can't remember you ever even trying to form a rational argument. I form an argument and use examples and articles to back it up. I know we are worlds apart on most political issues but you never attempt to form an argument. It makes one believe you are incapable of doing it. "You're dumb" is for 6 year olds. I am more than willing to discuss any subject rationally, I just take a wider perspective than you on most issues. You deem any opinion that disagrees with you as liberal.
I am not seeking credibility in cyberspace for my opinions but I receive it none the less.
Sean of the Thread
02-13-2006, 05:09 PM
I quit discussing politics with any seriousness on these boards back in 04' during the election. That is when my 6 year old answers emerged. (michael moore is fat and you're dumb) and were so much more satisfying then discussing politics with conspirist's and brick walls.
Latrinsorm
02-13-2006, 05:10 PM
Hardly you're comparing apples and oranges.Actually you missed the point entirely. The Rape of Fair Belgium shows that even in the early 1900s it was still considered unbelievably brutal to target civilians, therefore the American rebels would not have killed women and children when given the chance over 100 years earlier. The historical evidence that they didn't should speak for itself, but I'll get to that a little later on.
The whole point of terrorism or guerilla warfare is that because of the small size of the combatant, it is the only platform it can fight on with a hope of winning, because it is battling a much larger enemy.That's not the point of terrorism at all, but good try. Hint: there's a reason it's called TERRORism. Repeatedly saying "GUERRILA = TERROR" isn't proof, btw.
Tangentially, you've had way too much revisionist history when it comes to the American Revolution.
it must be your intent or you find their deaths acceptable, which in my book is pretty much the same thing.Your book is astoundingly irrational. In your book everyone who has ever compromised on anything intended to do what they didn't want to do all along. The psychological ramifications of your absurd statements are mind-bogglingly impossible.
p.s: if-then, not if-than.
Warriorbird
02-13-2006, 07:39 PM
Do I think our military has never been guilty of purposely killing innocent people? No… I don’t. I’m not saying anyone is perfect, and I’m not saying it’s never been done, but what I am saying is that it has never been widespread policy for the U.S. to achieve its goals by continually targeting innocent civilians as Hamas has.
How did we end World War 2? Not that I was against that choice, just the constant hypocrisy of your statements.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 10:16 PM
We sent in Chuck Norris.... Right?
In regards to the A-bomb, we warned them several times that a weapon of ubelievable power would be dropped on their cities and cause amazing destruction if they did not surrender.
Yes, Hamas has made demands in order for them to stop, except they aren't so much 'surrender and keep your sovereignty' as they are 'stop believing what you believe in, Jews!'
We sent in Chuck Norris.... Right?
In regards to the A-bomb, we warned them several times that a weapon of ubelievable power would be dropped on their cities and cause amazing destruction if they did not surrender.
Yes, Hamas has made demands in order for them to stop, except they aren't so much 'surrender and keep your sovereignty' as they are 'stop believing what you believe in, Jews!'
A complex issue. From a secular standpoint its all about land. I think the Israelis are more secular than we all think. Certainly, their traditions could be considered religious, but Israelis for the most part are not orthodox. Or even casually religious for that matter.
I think the Israelis, as much as the Palestinians, are as responsible for finding a solution.
In fact, the onus may be on the Israelis considering their state was made without the inclusion of the peoples it was made in.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 10:26 PM
<< I think the Israelis, as much as the Palestinians, are as responsible for finding a solution. >>
So do I. If xtc compared the colonists to a rogue Jewish terrorist group that has a history similar to Hamas, I would've said the same thing.
<< I think the Israelis, as much as the Palestinians, are as responsible for finding a solution. >>
So do I. If xtc compared the colonists to a rogue Jewish terrorist group that has a history similar to Hamas, I would've said the same thing.
Actually I am the one that started that comparison in this thread. The only reason is because Hamas has been democratically elected to represent the Palestinians. With so much hoopla over democrazy in the middle-east, one wonders if thats bullshit or just selective democracy.
Sean of the Thread
02-13-2006, 11:16 PM
Actually I am the one that started that comparison in this thread. The only reason is because Hamas has been democratically elected to represent the Palestinians. With so much hoopla over democrazy in the middle-east, one wonders if thats bullshit or just selective democracy.
And I pwnt your "democratically elected" bullshit because them being elected was about as legit as Husseins "re-elections". You "elected" to make about 5 off track posts to avoid the issue.
Well Hussein being elected is news to me. I take it you are claiming that not only was he elected but his election was fixed. Seems to be a trend these days.
And I pwnt your "democratically elected" bullshit because them being elected was about as legit as Husseins "re-elections". You "elected" to make about 5 off track posts to avoid the issue.
And you know what? Pwn this. Rumsfeld shaking his hand, our propping him up. This whole war is a joke, you know it, and there is nothing you can say to pwn it.
Give it up already. Its done.
For the sake of our troops.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 11:27 PM
but his election was fixed. Seems to be a trend these days.
Hahaha... Yes, Bush didn't actually win the 2004 election, either. It was all fixed!
Hahaha... Yes, Bush didn't actually win the 2004 election, either. It was all fixed!
Thanks for taking that out of context and confirming that mr. journalist. You are set for PHUX NEWS.
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 11:41 PM
I didn't take what you said out of context, that was my own thought, I believe that!
Heh, if you didn't mean that, I apologize, that's just the first thing that came to my mind since you were the poster.
I didn't take what you said out of context, that was my own thought, I believe that!
Heh, if you didn't mean that, I apologize, that's just the first thing that came to my mind since you were the poster.
Bias from a future journalist everyone...
You know I'm keeeeeding!
Hulkein
02-13-2006, 11:49 PM
We'll see about the journalism thing, I took the LSATs on the 4th, depending on how I did I might be going in that direction.
Actually, funny you're talking about this tonight though, because for my last reporting class I had to cover the local borough council meeting, specifically a resolution to reject the principles of the Patriot Act. The lady giving the presentation to the council is from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.
My favorite quote from her was, "We hope you keep in mind what we are fighting for, not just what we are fighting against." That was in reference to the Constitutionally guaranteed rights, right after she was talking about terrorism... Pretty good saying if you ask me.
Anyway, the article will be unbiased, I promise.
Oh, and BTW, the council was unanimous in allowing the resolution to go up for vote next meeting.
We all fuck around here, Hulk. I'm sure you will do your job well.
Latrinsorm
02-14-2006, 09:51 AM
Well Hussein being elected is news to me. I take it you are claiming that not only was he elected but his election was fixed. Seems to be a trend these days.http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/
Pwn this. Rumsfeld shaking his hand, our propping him up.The Red Menace.
Actually you missed the point entirely. The Rape of Fair Belgium shows that even in the early 1900s it was still considered unbelievably brutal to target civilians, therefore the American rebels would not have killed women and children when given the chance over 100 years earlier. The historical evidence that they didn't should speak for itself, but I'll get to that a little later on.That's not the point of terrorism at all, but good try. Hint: there's a reason it's called TERRORism. Repeatedly saying "GUERRILA = TERROR" isn't proof, btw.
Oh please, targeting woman and children went on 1000's of years ago.This was true in Ancient China and by the likes of Genghis Khan. By the 1900s America was a large and powerful nation and no longer needing guerrilla warfare. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Rape of Belgium is a horrible example and not in any way applicable, it in no way constitutes "historical evidence" especially since it happened over 100 years after the American Revolution. I am starting to understand Tsa'ah's rants about your irrelevant examples. You don't think the early Americans were trying to strike terror in the hearts of the Loyalist soldiers?
Tangentially, you've had way too much revisionist history when it comes to the American Revolution.Your book is astoundingly irrational. In your book everyone who has ever compromised on anything intended to do what they didn't want to do all along. The psychological ramifications of your absurd statements are mind-bogglingly impossible.
Again I am starting to understand Tsa'ahs frustation with your B.S. You missed the entire point of my cluster bomb argument. Do you really think everything you have learned in your school textbooks about the American revolution is accurate?
Kranar
02-14-2006, 11:13 AM
<< Well Hussein being elected is news to me. I take it you are claiming that not only was he elected but his election was fixed. Seems to be a trend these days. >>
Hussein wasn't elected. He, and the Baath party took power in a rather bloody and well documented coup d'etat in 1963.
Sean of the Thread
02-14-2006, 11:21 AM
<< Well Hussein being elected is news to me. I take it you are claiming that not only was he elected but his election was fixed. Seems to be a trend these days. >>
Hussein wasn't elected. He, and the Baath party took power in a rather bloody and well documented coup d'etat in 1963.
He started having "fixed" elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm
He started having "fixed" elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm
...and America was always willing to deal with him as long as he served our interests. The CIA backed Saddam's coup and helped him achieve power.
Latrinsorm
02-14-2006, 03:21 PM
Oh please, targeting woman and children went on 1000's of years ago.This was true in Ancient China and by the likes of Genghis Khan.Genghis Khan, of course, was not from the West. Germany and America, oddly enough, both are. What was that about apples and oranges?
The Rape of Belgium is a horrible example and not in any way applicable, it in no way constitutes "historical evidence" especially since it happened over 100 years after the American Revolution.My point was that it DID happen over 100 years later. That's why I said "over 100 years earlier" when describing the Americans.
You don't think the early Americans were trying to strike terror in the hearts of the Loyalist soldiers?Nah. I think most of them were hoping/praying they wouldn't get shot.
You missed the entire point of my cluster bomb argument.Your "argument" was that any unintended effect counts as intended if the affect-er knows the effect will happen. I pointed out the logical flaws in that argument (which shouldn't have been necessary, but what's a man to do). It doesn't matter what your intended point was, the argument you used was invalid. Tsa`ah enjoyed accusing me of "taking things out of context" when what actually happened was he failed to consider the ramifications (and failings) of the arguments he proposed.
Do you really think everything you have learned in your school textbooks about the American revolution is accurate?Having not been there myself, I can only take the accountability of sources and reason into account. The published material I've read strikes me as more accountable and making a whole lot more sense than your elementary school "hide behind trees and ambush" nonsense. I concede that there is a possibility that I have been misinformed, but the burden of proof falls on the unrealistic account.
and America was always willing to deal with him as long as he served our interests.I don't understand why people bring this up. Of *course* we'd use Saddam as a buttress against the Soviets. It's exactly analogous to using a gun to shoot a terrorist with hostages. Shooting people is bad, but letting someone blow up a schoolbus of children is worse. Once there are no more terrorists with hostages (Soviet threat), still shooting people (supporting Saddam) would be unacceptable.
Warriorbird
02-14-2006, 03:45 PM
Just like Pinochet, Latrin? Get off your high horse.
Genghis Khan, of course, was not from the West. Germany and America, oddly enough, both are. What was that about apples and oranges?My point was that it DID happen over 100 years later. That's why I said "over 100 years earlier" when describing the Americans.
Belgium isn't exactly from the west either. Here is what you said "shows that even in the early 1900s it was still considered unbelievably brutal to target civilians". Your statement infers that "even" back then it was considered brutal to target woman and children. I pointed out it has being going on for 1000's of years.
Nah. I think most of them were hoping/praying they wouldn't get shot.
That certain isn't the rosey picture American history text books teach us about the soldiers of yore. Hard to believe they would win if they were so afraid of being shot. The strategy/point of any war in to inflict fear into the enemy.
Your "argument" was that any unintended effect counts as intended if the affect-er knows the effect will happen.
Partially but not quite. My point was that if you choose to use a cluster bomb, for example, to attack an area rather than using another type of bomb that would kill fewer civilians you must intend to kill those civilians.
I pointed out the logical flaws in that argument (which shouldn't have been necessary, but what's a man to do). It doesn't matter what your intended point was, the argument you used was invalid.
I don't think you fully understand my argument as your above posts shows so it would be impossible to point out any "flaws" as you perceive them.
Tsa`ah enjoyed accusing me of "taking things out of context" when what actually happened was he failed to consider the ramifications (and failings) of the arguments he proposed.
I remember on a few occasions that he said your examples were invalid and not applicable.
Having not been there myself, I can only take the accountability of sources and reason into account. The published material I've read strikes me as more accountable and making a whole lot more sense than your elementary school "hide behind trees and ambush" nonsense. I concede that there is a possibility that I have been misinformed, but the burden of proof falls on the unrealistic account.
I think most historians are aware that the Americans used guerilla warfare during the American revolution against the British. But if you insist on denying it:
"Patriots used guerrilla warfare to weaken British forces"
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569964_4/American_Revolution.html
"Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics "
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858518.html
I don't understand why people bring this up. Of *course* we'd use Saddam as a buttress against the Soviets. It's exactly analogous to using a gun to shoot a terrorist with hostages. Shooting people is bad, but letting someone blow up a schoolbus of children is worse. Once there are no more terrorists with hostages (Soviet threat), still shooting people (supporting Saddam) would be unacceptable.
LOL another invalid example. I understand Tsa'ah more with each passing post of yours.
I think what you are thinking of is how we used Osama bin Laden as a "buttress" against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saddam signed an aid pact with the Soviets in 1972, then 10 years later Saddam looked to the west for trade, as he fell out with the Soviets, but that isn't exactly a buttress.
The CIA helped Saddam take power in the coup of 1968. We happily had him as an ally during the 80's even though we were aware of human rights abuses. It served our interests at the time. This is totally different from your example.
Latrinsorm
02-14-2006, 05:02 PM
Belgium isn't exactly from the west either....
Here is what you said "shows that even in the early 1900s it was still considered unbelievably brutal to target civilians". Your statement infers that "even" back then it was considered brutal to target woman and children. I pointed out it has being going on for 1000's of years. You pointed out that an Eastern fella laid waste to everyone. There's a reason a distinction is made between East and West.
That certain isn't the rosey picture American history text books teach us about the soldiers of yore. Hard to believe they would win if they were so afraid of being shot.Hope and fear aren't the same emotions, but good try.
The strategy/point of any war in to inflict fear into the enemy.There's no possible reading of that statement that can be remotely correct.
Partially but not quite. My point was that if you choose to use a cluster bomb, for example, to attack an area rather than using another type of bomb that would kill fewer civilians you must intend to kill those civilians.In that case you've only taken the cons into account. Vaccinations sound really stupid if you take only the cons into account too.
I don't think you fully understand my argumentI assumed that the various things you said stood together as a coherent stream of thought. Mea culpa.
It's mind-boggling how far you missed the mark on the American revolution thing. It's comical how you take shots at me for allegedly resorting to school textbooks and cite a web-based encyclopedia that has honest-to-God edit links on it.
...You pointed out that an Eastern fella laid waste to everyone. There's a reason a distinction is made between East and West.
Belgium is east of America. I used Genghis Khan as one example. He wasn't the only one who used such tactics. I noticed you had no comment on the early Americans and Guerilla warfare. I assume you are finally conceding the point.
<<That certain isn't the rosy picture American history text books teach us about the soldiers of yore. Hard to believe they would win if they were so afraid of being shot.>>
Hope and fear aren't the same emotions, but good try.
I didn't say they were. You were the one who originally contended that the early Americans were operating out of fear.
<<The strategy/point of any war is to inflict fear into the enemy. >>
There's no possible reading of that statement that can be remotely correct.
So what is the strategy/point of war? To inflict happiness and joy into your enemy? There was a Chinese fellow called Sun Tzu who wrote a book called The Art of War. There was also a Japanese fellow called Miyamoto Musashi who wrote a book called The Book of Five Rings. I am pretty sure both of them would say that striking fear into the heart of the enemy in war or in a sword fight is pretty much a key strategy.
<<Partially but not quite. My point was that if you choose to use a cluster bomb, for example, to attack an area rather than using another type of bomb that would kill fewer civilians you must intend to kill those civilians. >>
In that case you've only taken the cons into account. Vaccinations sound really stupid if you take only the cons into account too. I assumed that the various things you said stood together as a coherent stream of thought. Mea culpa.
Another erroneous example. I wasn't arguing the upside, I was arguing the intent but please outline the upside of the use of cluster bombs? If you do a good job I will recommend you for Bush's P.R. campaign.
It's mind-boggling how far you missed the mark on the American revolution thing. It's comical how you take shots at me for allegedly resorting to school textbooks and cite a web-based encyclopedia that has honest-to-God edit links on it.
I didn't take shots at you. You claimed the American soldiers operated out of a place of fear. I said that wasn't the rosy picture that was outlined in American school book texts. I don't ever remember learning that most of the Revolutionary Soldiers were just praying/trying not to get shot. Now I did take American history in Canada, but my teacher was an American, and we used an American textbook. Since you seemed incredulous about my claim that the Revolutionary soldiers engaged in Guerrilla warfare I cited examples from online texts, neither of which I used in school. I hope that unboggles your mind.
Ebondale
02-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Hamas: "We drink Jews' blood."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/682921.html
A Hamas Web site recently published the videotape wills of two suicide bombers, with two main messages: One is directed to the Jews whose blood Hamas pledges to drink until they flee from the land of the Muslims, and the other is devoted to a mother who helps her son plan a suicide attack, according to Palestinian Media Watch, which presents the video shown on the Hamas site after its victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.
Yay for Democracy! YAY!
"My message to the hated Jews: There is no God but Allah," Majala says. "We will hunt you everywhere, when you wake and when you sleep. We are a blood-drinking people and we know that there is no better blood than Jewish blood. We will not leave you alone until we quench ourselves with your blood and we will quench the thirst of our children with your blood. We will not rest until you leave the lands of the Muslims."
I'm so glad that Palestine can enjoy the pleasures of a Democratically elected government. :rolleyes:
Hulkein
02-15-2006, 06:22 PM
The colonists drank the blood of English soldiers with their mutton.
Ebondale
02-15-2006, 06:29 PM
The colonists drank the blood of English soldiers with their mutton.
Then I'll just be happy that my grandparents came to New York on a boat from Italy. ;)
I don't know if anyone has been keeping up with this story but Hamas has been making overtures to the Fatah party in Palestine. The Fatah party was the party last in power under Mahmood Abbas. Hamas is seeking a coalition with Fatah to rule Palestine. Hamas doesn't need to make a coalition to rule, they have enough seats.
The other interesting story here has been how Russia recognises Hamas as the new Government of Palestine and how the EU is continuing its aid to Palestine.
President Bush has been talking about how he wants to "export democracy" to the Middle East. Forgetting for a moment the arrogance of the concept, when a democracy chooses a Government shouldn't Bush as the "Champion of exporting democracy" be the first to recognise it?
I personally am not a fan of Hammas or what they stand for, but if I claim to be a believer in democracy, do I not have to respect another countries democratic choice for leadership?
Daniel
02-27-2006, 05:03 PM
Seems fitting, but here's the ROUGH draft of an essay I'm writing on the subject for a fellowship I'm applying for:
Daniel Rogers
IIPP Essay
On (date), Hamas, to the surprise (and chagrin) of many, pulled off a stunning landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections effectively taking control from the more secular Fatah Party. Fearing the implications of a Palestine ruled by a group that is well known for it's violent activities against the state of Israel, the west, in particular the United States called for a cancellation of aid and other means of support for the Palestinian government, which receives roughly 1.1 billion per year in foreign aid. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Middle East American soldiers continue to conduct operations in the plains of Mesopotamia and the mounts of Bactria to instill a democratic presence in the region.
Obviously, there is a clear contradiction between these two American foreign policy positions. I too, am immensely concerned about the position that Hamas will take in its leadership of Palestine, but the United States should not, or rather, can not, afford to invalidate its ambitious foreign policy initiatives in the middle east because it is too petulant to accept the fact that democracy doesn't always entail a government that subscribes to the same basic tenants as oneself. I believe in the power of democracy, and I believe that the United States has the ability and the obligation to ensure that people around the world have at least a modicum amount of freedom if for no other reason than our own national security.
There is no question that the United States is a nation at war. However, contrary to popular belief we are not at war with just a few jealous madmen hellbent on our destruction for no particular reason other than their own innate evilness. We are fighting against a belief that will persist long after Osama Bin Laden is dead and his closest lieutenants are bombed into oblivion and the war isn't just against our government, but against our way of life. This war is not about who has the most guns, or who can kill the most people, its about who can win the most hearts and who can embrace the most minds. The impetuous of this entire conflict is the persistent believe that the west has no aim but the selfish utilization of Mideast resources and the imposition of our way of life in lieu of the traditional Islamic societies in place today and history is not exactly on our side in regards to the former.
How then can we pretend that we are not promoting our own selfish Agenda when we don't even give an organization that has the wide spread support of its people a chance? How can anyone take us seriously when we try to convince them of the merits of democratization while at the same time threatening a democratically elected government because they do not have the same stance as us? You can not, and for lack of a better term the United States finds itself in foreign policy Chinese finger trap; We're in a situation where we know where we need to go, but the harder we pull in that direction the farther we get from our goal. Unfortunately, things are a little more complicated and the stakes are more than a few minutes of humiliation and frustration at the hands of a children's toy.
So, now maybe we should push and give Hamas a chance. To do so wouldn't be without precedence in American history. After World War II it was the U.S. that pushed for the re-industrialization of Western Germany over the protests of its allies who would be the first to experience any negative ramifications of this decision and it was the U.S that insisted on forgoing wartime reparations and earmarked billions of its own dollars to the re-development of Japan and Western Germany, its wartime foes. There is no reason why we should not at least give Hamas time to prove itself to the global community as it has proved itself to its own people. Then, when and If Hamas proves that it can not be worked with towards the goal of peace we should adopt an antagonistic stance and not before.
The fact is: the region is no more stable than it was before, we are no safer than we were on September 10th, 2001, and neither does the average Iraqi or Afghani civilian enjoy a level of security better than they did before. To accomplish these things we need time, and we will quickly find ourselves running out of time if we continue to shoot ourselves in the diplomatic foot. Hamas may not have a pristine tract record, but then again neither did we in 1776 and we definitely don't have one now. We need to learn to accept the fact that people around the world have their own interests that may not coincide with our own and if we truly value peace we will have to come to terms with this reality. If we truly can not co-exist with an Islamic government than we are wasting our time in Iraq and Afghanistan and I'd personally hate to think that the year I spent in Iraq fighting for democracy was a waste and that the lives that my friends lost were in vain.
Interesting essay. I never thought we were fighting in Iraq for "freedom" just the dominance of the US dollar. I also don't think we can impose our ideals through war in foreign lands. To try and do so is arrogant and doomed to failure. I personally am a believer in democracy however not all people believe in democracy nor perhaps should they. If they history, customs and traditions are different from ours, we shouldn't try and superimpose our history and our ideals in place of theirs.
I am guessing you are 10 plus years younger than I am. I think your essay holds promise and asks good questions.
Sean of the Thread
02-27-2006, 09:48 PM
Interesting essay. I never thought we were fighting in Iraq for "freedom" just the dominance of the US dollar. I also don't think we can impose our ideals through war in foreign lands. To try and do so is arrogant and doomed to failure. I personally am a believer in democracy however not all people believe in democracy nor perhaps should they. If they history, customs and traditions are different from ours, we shouldn't try and superimpose our history and our ideals in place of theirs.
I am guessing you are 10 plus years younger than I am. I think your essay holds promise and asks good questions.
When you say you never thought "we" were fighting in... which nationality are you today?
One could argue that defending our "freedom" and the US dollar are one in the same.
When you say you never thought "we" were fighting in... which nationality are you today?
The concept of dual citizenship is rather a simple one. We live in a global village there are many people like me. But maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_nationality
One could argue that defending our "freedom" and the US dollar are one in the same.
.....and they do mostly in Repub blogs and Cheney hunting trips.
Sean of the Thread
02-27-2006, 10:08 PM
The concept of dual citizenship is rather a simple one. We live in a global village there are many people like me. But maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_nationality
.....and they do mostly in Repub blogs and Cheney hunting trips.
Wasn't a question about your fence riding and a flimsy "pedia" written by internet fruits (which I didn't bother to click on) won't justify anything anyways.
Was just pointing out that you use "we" an awful lot.
Wasn't a question about your fence riding and a flimsy "pedia" written by internet fruits (which I didn't bother to click on) won't justify anything anyways.
Was just pointing out that you use "we" an awful lot.
Ok perhaps I can approach it another way. Are you 100% of one ethnicity? If you were to trace your ancestral tree would you find Scotland, England, Native Indian, maybe some Mexican? If a person has one Spanish parent and one English parent they are both Spanish and English. They would identify with both groups and consider themself a member of both groups.
Daniel
02-27-2006, 10:41 PM
Interesting essay. I never thought we were fighting in Iraq for "freedom" just the dominance of the US dollar. I also don't think we can impose our ideals through war in foreign lands. To try and do so is arrogant and doomed to failure. I personally am a believer in democracy however not all people believe in democracy nor perhaps should they. If they history, customs and traditions are different from ours, we shouldn't try and superimpose our history and our ideals in place of theirs.
I am guessing you are 10 plus years younger than I am. I think your essay holds promise and asks good questions.
1. Economically speaking there was no advantage to invading Iraq and there would have been alot more politically safe (relatively speaking) avenues to support massive energy consumption. I.e. You could have gutted Alaska and not raised as much as a shit storm as in Iraq.
2. Why is it doomed to failure? Military means has been the number one method of inducing change in the history of the world. While I'll conceede that it is not the end all be all of political change, it definately isn't irrelevent and is quite neccesary in many cases.
3. How can you seriously justify allowing people to be oppressed and unrepresented because of customs? Do you honestly believe that it should be okay for any person to be stomped upon because the region he happens to live in doesn't "believe" in freedom? Which is basicly what the ability to pick the leaders of your nation is.
4. In regards to the above, how is it arrogant to extend the basic tenets of freedom to other societies? I think if Iran wants to have an islamic republic then they should have that choice, but they shouldn't have it thrust upon them by people intent on exploiting the masses and if there comes a time that the majority of the people of Iran don't want an islamic republic than they should have recourse to shape their nation to their current desires.
Adherence to the past is no excuse for tyranny of the present.
Also, you are wrong about identifying social groups and I have no idea how old you are but I fail to see how that is relevent.
1. Economically speaking there was no advantage to invading Iraq and there would have been alot more politically safe (relatively speaking) avenues to support massive energy consumption. I.e. You could have gutted Alaska and not raised as much as a shit storm as in Iraq.
[quote]
The US risked oil being traded in Euros this would have sent the US dollar into a tail spin. This was the real reason for the war.
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm
and Iraq has the world's 3rd largest oil reserves. Alaska couldn't make a dent into that.
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm
[quote] Why is it doomed to failure? Military means has been the number one method of inducing change in the history of the world. While I'll conceede that it is not the end all be all of political change, it definately isn't irrelevent and is quite neccesary in many cases.
I have written oodles on this in the past but short version Religion/history/alliances. Sunni/Shiite conflict. Sunni minority ruled majority Shiites now Shiites are in charge, remember Rwanda? similiar. Sunnis and Shiites have long standing differences relating to the who holds the true power of Islam. There are other problems with the Kurds and there claims for Indepence. Iran is a Shi'ite nation, Syria is a Sunni nation. Iraq will fall into a civil war between Sunni and Shiite, if they bring their neighbours into the conflict the whole region could destabilise,
How can you seriously justify allowing people to be oppressed and unrepresented because of customs? Do you honestly believe that it should be okay for any person to be stomped upon because the region he happens to live in doesn't "believe" in freedom? Which is basicly what the ability to pick the leaders of your nation is.
Your western idea of oppressed and freedom. America has a huge number of African Americans in jail, 40 million people without health care, people being killed daily and young women being raped. An Arab Muslim women may tell you she is free because her husband provides for the family and protects them, and that they live in nation free from western corruption and crime. Her goal may be that her nation follows Muslim law not that they have elections.
In regards to the above, how is it arrogant to extend the basic tenets of freedom to other societies? I think if Iran wants to have an islamic republic then they should have that choice, but they shouldn't have it thrust upon them by people intent on exploiting the masses and if there comes a time that the majority of the people of Iran don't want an islamic republic than they should have recourse to shape their nation to their current desires.
Iran has free elections to pick a President and Parliament. They have a court system and a council which shares power with religious leaders. It isn't up to us to try and shape their nation. The current President believes that western media, suggested by the US government, claimed he was a hostage taker in the late 70s, early 80s and that it was only after the election that the CIA said he wasn't one of the hostage takers. He believes this was done to sway voters from him, he thinks the American Government was trying to influence the election and stop him from taking power. He has made some crazy statements since being elected but maybe we helped piss him off.
Adherence to the past is no excuse for tyranny of the present.
Tyranny where, like in Iraq? We knew Saddam was a monster but the CIA still helped him take power in the 60's. We knew in the 70's and 80s that he was a monster killing 1000s of innocent people but that didn't stop us from supporting him. We have a history of tolerating and even supporting tyranny if it is in our best interests.
Also, you are wrong about identifying social groups and I have no idea how old you are but I fail to see how that is relevent.
I was guessing your age based on the fact you are trying to side step your schools network restrictions. I am in my 30's. In some people with age comes wisdom not everyone certainly some people on this board can testify to that. I think it is great that you are asking questions and searching for answers.
Daniel
02-27-2006, 11:58 PM
The US risked oil being traded in Euros this would have sent the US dollar into a tail spin. This was the real reason for the war.
I disagree, but why bother wasting my time when I can point you to several nobel prize winning economists who disagree with you. I can't get the article posted here because I have to access it through my school's research database but look for this article by Gary S Becker:. "Why War with Iraq Is Not About the Oil" Business Week, Mar 17, 2003, p. 30
I'd also suggest trying to find a paper done by Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel about the economics of the war in Iraq. I can't find it on google right now, but then again I read the paper @ my moms office and I'm not even sure it was published but there is alot of works that quote it through google.
Also, this one is a good read: http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/kevin.murphy/vita/Terror.doc
I have written oodles on this in the past but short version Religion/history/alliances. Sunni/Shiite conflict. Sunni minority ruled majority Shiites now Shiites are in charge, remember Rwanda? similiar. Sunnis and Shiites have long standing differences relating to the who holds the true power of Islam. There are other problems with the Kurds and there claims for Indepence. Iran is a Shi'ite nation, Syria is a Sunni nation. Iraq will fall into a civil war between Sunni and Shiite, if they bring their neighbours into the conflict the whole region could destabilise,
Did you have a point in response to what I said? Or were you just babbling about nothing?
How exactly do you plan on stopping these conflicts in Iraq or even Rwanda without military assistance?
Your western idea of oppressed and freedom. America has a huge number of African Americans in jail
I'm black and I grew up on the south side of chicago. I think I have a better basis to make a determination of whether or not our situation is better than that in Iraq. Where I've also been and lived.
There is no comparison. Period.
An Arab Muslim women may tell you she is free because her husband provides for the family and protects them, and that they live in nation free from western corruption and crime.
And the ones that won't tell you that? What about them?
Iran has free elections to pick a President and Parliament. They have a court system and a council which shares power with religious leaders. It isn't up to us to try and shape their nation
Re-read what I said and see if you still think I disagree with what you said.
Tyranny where, like in Iraq? We knew Saddam was a monster but the CIA still helped him take power in the 60's. We knew in the 70's and 80s that he was a monster killing 1000s of innocent people but that didn't stop us from supporting him. We have a history of tolerating and even supporting tyranny if it is in our best interests.
So, thats an excuse to let it continue? Real compassionate.
I was guessing your age based on the fact you are trying to side step your schools network restrictions
I have no need to side step my schools network restrictions.
In some people with age comes wisdom not everyone certainly some people on this board can testify to that
Warriorbird
02-28-2006, 07:32 AM
Did you have a point in response to what I said? Or were you just babbling about nothing?
How exactly do you plan on stopping these conflicts in Iraq or even Rwanda without military assistance?
The illustrative issue there is the notion of Iraq going "Yay, Shiite brethren!" and joining up with Iran right after we leave. This would theoretically add to the notion of necessitating an invasion of Iran. Iran, while culturally a very messed up place...isn't nearly the hellhole Iraq was. Where do you stop at that point? I know you're big on the "cops of the world" notion, D, but what becomes our guidance system after a certain point? I can think of a vast number of problematic regimes that we could have taken out other than Iraq...or we could have gone after Bin Laden in a more serious matter. We wouldn't have had support for that internationally either, but we've proven we don't need international support here.
It seems like your positions on Iraq conflict with your essay. Do we immediately attack a country because we disagree with their style of government? What then happens when they elect some highly dubious government into office democratically?
Daniel
02-28-2006, 08:05 AM
Where do you stop at that point?
Why would we need to invade Iran? In the case of nuclear weapons its too easy to take the Israeli route and bomb nuclear facilities. I don't see the neccessity of an invasion at all.
It seems like your positions on Iraq conflict with your essay
Do we immediately attack a country because we disagree with their style of government?
I thought my position would have been quite obvious.
What then happens when they elect some highly dubious government into office democratically?
Then you take things as they come and confront issues as they arise, but you don't solve a conflict by rattling your sabres from jump.
P.s. I'm not big on the global policeman thing. The world is. Who gets derided for not doing enough when natural disasters hit? Who is *always* tasked with providing the economical and military means to solve world crises around the world? It's the US.
People can complain about US being the world cops all they want because in the end we are the ones they come to when they have issues. It's not China, it's not Russia or the EU. It's the U.S. and until the world stops thrusting us into the role of world cop than maybe I'll stop advocating it.
I disagree, but why bother wasting my time when I can point you to several nobel prize winning economists who disagree with you. I can't get the article posted here because I have to access it through my school's research database but look for this article by Gary S Becker:. "Why War with Iraq Is Not About the Oil" Business Week, Mar 17, 2003, p. 30
I am not about to do your research for you. I would love to read a paper that refutes the argument that the war isn't about the dominance of the US dollar. I am sure that article makes no such case.
I'd also suggest trying to find a paper done by Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel about the economics of the war in Iraq. I can't find it on google right now, but then again I read the paper @ my moms office and I'm not even sure it was published but there is alot of works that quote it through google.
Again do your own research and post links.
Also, this one is a good read: http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/kevin.murphy/vita/Terror.doc
I skimmed through the article and it has nothing to do with with the war in Iraq or US fiat dollars as the prime currency for buying oil. Basically it has no relevance to this discussion. The article was written in October of 2001, this was my favourite part:
"In general, the news that followed the September 11th attacks has been positive. There were no further attacks; peace prospects in the Middle East have if anything been improved and oil prices have declined rather than increased (as many had feared)"
I am glad I didn't have that guy as a Prof.
Did you have a point in response to what I said? Or were you just babbling about nothing?
How exactly do you plan on stopping these conflicts in Iraq or even Rwanda without military assistance?
I made a key point, I guess you failed to understand it. Your idea of freedom is just that your idea of freedon. There wasn't a conflict in Iraq before we invaded. We created the conflict, remember when Powell went to the UN to try and convince them to invade Iraq because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction and were an imminent threat? Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction were the reason America invaded? WMD in Iraq = 0.
The comparison to Rwanda was that the minority ruled the majority and when the tables were turned around the country plunged into civil war.The same thing is happening in Iraq.
I'm black and I grew up on the south side of chicago. I think I have a better basis to make a determination of whether or not our situation is better than that in Iraq. Where I've also been and lived
Where in Iraq did you live? Were you there as a soldier or did you visit before the war. I have been to Iraq before the war and not as a soldier.
There is no comparison. Period.
You saw Iraq after America invaded. Iraq was one of the top nations for education and health care before the first Iraq war. My point was concepts of freedom. You see America through an American's eyes.
And the ones that won't tell you that? What about them?
I am not clairvoyant. You are making presumptions. I have an Iraqi friend who was working in Iraq as a translator during this war. He tells me Iraqis would smile and wave to American soldiers out of fear because they saw them as an occupying army but behind their backs they cursed them and plotted against them. We don't have the right to try and determine the future for another nation even if we do it under the camouflage of spreading democracy. Our values are not there values and it is arrogance of us to try and spread our values. They are not wanted in many parts of the middle east.
Re-read what I said and see if you still think I disagree with what you said.
I don't think you disagreed to my first post about respecting democracy.
So, thats an excuse to let it continue? Real compassionate.
We are part of an international community, our decisions have a ripple effect and we have destabilised that region. Iraq will most likely plunge into civil war. We didn't go to Iraq out of compassion. China has a horrible track record with human rights and no democracy, yet we aren't interested in bringing freedom and democracy to them, why not? They are our second largest trading partner. We invaded Iraq for $ and for politics.
Daniel
02-28-2006, 07:34 PM
You know,
I was gonna respond to your post in a piecemeal fashion but you know..that's how arguments on the internet work but the reality is that your argument is based upon two distinct fallacies and it would be a waste of my time to argue anything else.
The fallacies are 1:
There wasn't a conflict in Iraq before we invaded.
and 2:
Iraq was one of the top nations for education and health care before the first Iraq war.
The problem with the first is that it's an outright blantant lie. The Kurds in the north have been in conflict with the government of Iraq since it gained its independance from Britain and there have been numerous instances of conflict between the ruling sunni's and the majority Shi'ites.
I'm sure you are familiar with the gasing of the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war and I doubt you really know alot about the Shi'ite upriding pursuant to the first Persian Gulf war.
To state that there was no conflict in Iraq prior to '91 Invasion of Kuwait (and subsequent international involvement) means that you are blantantly ignoring the facts of the situation to prove the ridiculous notion that without US intervention there would be no problems of Iraq.
Furthermore, it's a blantant hypocrasy to ignore the methods with which Saddam quelled any dissidence and then decry anything the American Military does that isn't exactly kosher in your eyes. At the very worst they are one and the same and you'd be very very hard pressed to even prove that.
The second fale premise is that somehow Iraq would have been better off without American intervention in the region from the very beginning. Even if one were to completely overlook and thus validate the action of invading a country for the sole purpose of obtaining it's economic resources (which is another example of your hypocrisy btw) The fact is that the invasion of Kuwait was bourne out of economic desperation. Iraq's economy was in shambles after a nearly decade long war with Iran and its very likely that the Iraqi economy would have failed if things continued as they had been.
The fact is, the average Iraqi citizen enjoyed the third highest standard of living BEFORE ascension of the Ba'athist party. The situation was far far worse at the onset of the Persian Gulf war and it's doubtful things would have turned around on their own.
I won't even bother touching on the stupidity of arguing against inaction in regards to improving human rights because of the sheer enormority of the task worldwide or the laughable position that even the most disadvantaged American is not well beyond that of most third world inhabits, especially those of Iraq.
However, I will comment on the research bit remarks:
Posting some link that validates your previously held position is *not* research. I simply don't have the time to go fishing for articles to disprove your googled position. Furthermore, if you had went to the University of Chicago's department of Economics you might just know wtf you're talking about, but even that might be a stretch.
Also, I never claimed the article had anything to do with the specific topic you talked about.
The point I was trying to get across by posting it is that contrary to what you are suggesting, the United States is not susceptible to massive perterbutions of the global market as it still maintains the basic fundamentals of economic production on a scale that dwarfs the rest of the developed world.
While there is no doubt that an OPEC switch to the EURO as it's currency standard (as unlikely as that is) will have a detrimental effect on the US economy, there is no basis to the claim that it would amount to a major failure in the economic market. Which in turn means that provoking a war that costs billions of dollars and thousands of life is not a neccessary or even prudent reaction to any such threats made by opec and they are just threats.
P.s. I'm completely lost as to how you don't think a Article entitled "Why Iraq isn't about the oil" from a nobel prize winning economists wouldn't be about why Oil or anything associated with it (monetarily speaking) would not be the cause of the war in Iaq.
You know,
I was gonna respond to your post in a piecemeal fashion but you know..that's how arguments on the internet work but the reality is that your argument is based upon two distinct fallacies and it would be a waste of my time to argue anything else.
The fallacies are 1:
and 2:
[quote]The problem with the first is that it's an outright blantant lie. The Kurds in the north have been in conflict with the government of Iraq since it gained its independance from Britain and there have been numerous instances of conflict between the ruling sunni's and the majority Shi'ites.
The Kurds have wanted their own country for years. Iraq and the surrounding countries don’t want them to have one. If a group in America wanted to take part of the country and form their own nation the army would be called in to quell the uprising. It would be considered treason. The Sunni’s and the Shi’ites lived in much greater peace than before we invaded.
I'm sure you are familiar with the gassing of the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war and I doubt you really know alot about the Shi'ite uprising pursuant to the first Persian Gulf war.
Let me fill you in, I haven’t just learned this stuff in a textbook. I am from a Muslim family. I have known and lived in the Arab community in Canada for years, despite the fact I am not an Arab. I have numerous Iraqi friends and have had Iraqi Profs.
The US War College undertook an extensive study of the gassing of the Kurds. They determined that the Iranians were responsible for it.
The Shi’ite uprising was at the end of the first Gulf war and was spurred on by President Bush Senior.
To state that there was no conflict in Iraq prior to '91 Invasion of Kuwait (and subsequent international involvement) means that you are blantantly ignoring the facts of the situation to prove the ridiculous notion that without US intervention there would be no problems of Iraq.
There was the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq houses different people and at times there will be small problems. Iraq is home to Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians and Druze. There has been nothing like what is going on now, we have made things a million times worse. Intervention? Try invasion.
Furthermore, it's a blantant hypocrasy to ignore the methods with which Saddam quelled any dissidence and then decry anything the American Military does that isn't exactly kosher in your eyes. At the very worst they are one and the same and you'd be very very hard pressed to even prove that.
I haven’t ignored his methods but remember America put Saddam in power. We had no problems with his methods as long as he was an ally. We supplied him with money, arms and chemical weapons and asked no questions. We are happy to trade with China who runs over its citizens with tanks, uses slave labour, tortures its citizens, amasses nuclear arms and persecutes peaceful people like those who practice Falon Gong. We have no business in Iraq and if we commit human rights violations in Iraq and torture, what does that say to the people of Iraq about us?
The second fale premise is that somehow Iraq would have been better off without American intervention in the region from the very beginning. Even if one were to completely overlook and thus validate the action of invading a country for the sole purpose of obtaining it's economic resources (which is another example of your hypocrisy btw) The fact is that the invasion of Kuwait was bourne out of economic desperation. Iraq's economy was in shambles after a nearly decade long war with Iran and its very likely that the Iraqi economy would have failed if things continued as they had been.
First off the reasons the US Government gave for invading were Weapons of Mass destruction, remember those? Where are those? You have no understanding of the region or its history. You had probably never heard of a Shi’ite 5 years ago. I never validated invading Iraq for economics. I said that is why Bush did it. I think it is reprehensible. Kuwait was 15 years ago. Iraq did it because they claimed they had a historic claim to the land and they annexing it. They said they had fought Iran for the benefit of all countries in the region and as such Kuwait should right off its debt and lastly they accused Kuwait of slant drilling and stealing their oil. There is no comparison to the two wars. The first one was a United Nations effort. I didn’t say I was against the first gulf war. I am guessing you aren’t old enough to remember that war. I remember the war and the protests over it at the time. Many University students thought a better way could be reached. I didn’t like the first gulf war but I understood its necessity. I think Bush Snr really wanted to knock off Saddam in it. He was pissed because his Arab puppet had cut his strings.
The fact is, the average Iraqi citizen enjoyed the third highest standard of living BEFORE ascension of the Ba'athist party. The situation was far far worse at the onset of the Persian Gulf war and it's doubtful things would have turned around on their own.
Before the first gulf war Iraq still had an excellent healthcare system and an excellent education system. Iraq’s GDP before the first Gulf war was $60 Billion by 1999 it was $6 Billion.
I won't even bother touching on the stupidity of arguing against inaction in regards to improving human rights because of the sheer enormority of the task worldwide or the laughable position that even the most disadvantaged American is not well beyond that of most third world inhabits, especially those of Iraq.
Human rights? Did Powell go to the UN and say that we need to invade Iraq because of human rights? No. If human rights is the issue, why are we in Sudan or Kenya or fighting the Lord’s resistance Army in Uganda (which just had some interesting elections). Why aren’t we in China freeing those poor souls from torture and persecution and why aren’t we in North Korea? Iraq only became a third world country after the First Gulf war. Iraq is the cradle of civilisation. The world’s first written constitution came from Iraq.
However, I will comment on the research bit remarks:
Posting some link that validates your previously held position is *not* research. I simply don't have the time to go fishing for articles to disprove your googled position. Furthermore, if you had went to the University of Chicago's department of Economics you might just know wtf you're talking about, but even that might be a stretch.
My position comes from a life time of living in a Muslim family, from knowing Arabs including Iraqi’s for over 20 years, from visiting the Arab world. I went to the University of Toronto’s economics department I did my undergrad there in commerce with a fair focus on economics. I furthered my studies at the Schulich School of business at York University where I did my MBA. They also have an excellent Economics department. I suggest you continue your studies you have a lot to learn.
Also, I never claimed the article had anything to do with the specific topic you talked about.
Then why post it?
The point I was trying to get across by posting it is that contrary to what you are suggesting, the United States is not susceptible to massive perterbutions of the global market as it still maintains the basic fundamentals of economic production on a scale that dwarfs the rest of the developed world.
I think the word you are looking for is perturbation and I am astounded that you think massive changes in the global market place don’t affect the US economy. The US may be the world’s biggest economy but it is not immune to massive changes in the global market place. I think if you really believe this you should pick another course of study.
While there is no doubt that an OPEC switch to the EURO as it's currency standard (as unlikely as that is) will have a detrimental effect on the US economy, there is no basis to the claim that it would amount to a major failure in the economic market. Which in turn means that provoking a war that costs billions of dollars and thousands of life is not a neccessary or even prudent reaction to any such threats made by opec and they are just threats.
You need to do some research because that is exactly what a number of Oil producing nations were considering doing before the Iraq war. The effects to the US economy would be huge. What do you think props up the US dollar? It isn't backed by anything.
P.s. I'm completely lost as to how you don't think a Article entitled "Why Iraq isn't about the oil" from a nobel prize winning economists wouldn't be about why Oil or anything associated with it (monetarily speaking) would not be the cause of the war in Iaq.
I said I doubted the article would refute the argument that the war was about the dominance of the US dollar. I think there were numerous reasons for the Iraq war, none of which are the reasons stated by the Bush administration.
A Simple expanation of the impact of oil being traded in Euros and Euros becoming the dominant currency and the impact to the US economy. Interestingly enough now Iran wants to dump the US dollar for it's oil sales.
OIL DOLLARS
The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil. Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.
HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?
Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.
Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.
You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.
This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!
Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!
But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm
Now this is article is interesting, it is dated February 16, 2003. It discusses how Iraq benefitted from dumping the US dollar as its currency for selling oil. A little over a month later Bush invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html
Daniel
03-03-2006, 10:22 PM
The Kurds have wanted their own country for years. Iraq and the surrounding countries don’t want them to have one.
So, thats okay?
Righto.
And you want us to think you give a fuck about the people in Iraq? Sure.
Let me fill you in, I haven’t just learned this stuff in a textbook
I wasn't aware you held a monopoly on knowing other people. Congradulations on your astounding success at life.
The Shi’ite uprising was at the end of the first Gulf war and was spurred on by President Bush Senior.
Which means it didn't happen?
Uh..okay.
Before the first gulf war Iraq still had an excellent healthcare system and an excellent education system..
Yea? But for who?
Key question.
Before the first gulf war Iraq still had an excellent healthcare system and an excellent education system.
What's the source for your numbers?
The highest estimate I've seen was about 16billion for 1990 which was about equal to Kuwait at the time. However, Iraq also had over 100 billion in Debt.
Also, on a side tangent. The GDP in Iraq is now 12.3 billion.
Human rights? Did Powell go to the UN and say that we need to invade Iraq because of human rights? No
Resolution 1441:
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Its not about whassa now?
I am astounded that you think massive changes in the global market place don’t affect the US economy.
Thats not what I was implying at all. I was merely suggesting that alot mroe than the US switching to OPEC would have to occur for a general Market Failure within the US.
Which is what the article you quoted was implying.
What do you think props up the US dollar? It isn't backed by anything.
Now its my turn to be astounded.
You're seriously suggesting that the US economy is not backed by anything? I mean, god just came down one day and said "Hey America, You're all gonna be rich" ?
wow.
Daniel
03-03-2006, 10:51 PM
since I have more time than I thought I'll add a little more about the durability of the Us economy:
The US out produces the entire world, and even still we aren't even operating at our max capacity of production because we can make more letting other people producing less efficient things. Because of this and the fact that the United States is probably the only large self sustainable in the world, it is very unlikely that there will be a large scale collaspe of the US economy.
Thats not even getting into the fact that the rest of the world would step in if a collaspe was imminent, as a US collaspe would likely trigger a domino effect throughout the rest of the world.
The worst that would happen is a large scale depreciation of the dollar worldwide. The end result of any such occurance would be the increase in production within the United States to compensate for the increased costs of producing and operating overseas, and a re-evaluation of several trade scenarios that take American interests more into consideration. (This is why some US economists are in favor of decreasing the value of the dollar)
So, even IF the United States were so afraid of a OPEC transition that they'd launch a major foreign war for purely economic means, we would have left Iraq a long time ago. The costs of sustaining a military presence in the Middle East is simply not worth maintaining Opec's use of the dollar.
Warriorbird
03-04-2006, 12:08 AM
Indeed.
;)
So, thats okay?
Righto.
And you want us to think you give a fuck about the people in Iraq? Sure.
If Rhode Island wanted to leave the United States, would we let them? I am saying that any attempt to form an independent Kurdistan would cause the other nations in that region to revolt. Do we need more political instability in that region? The Kurds have been trying for their own nation since before the UN was formed. Now all of a sudden we give a rat's ass about the Kurds? Did you even know what a Kurd was before 2001?
I wasn't aware you held a monopoly on knowing other people. Congradulations on your astounding success at life.
My guess is you are in your early twenties. You show a vast lack of knowledge about Iraq, the Middle East and its history. You kept referring to the University of Chicago's economics department. Based on these I judge you to be a first or second year student who has gleaned most of his information from books and maybe you did a stint in Iraq with the Army (if you did you didn't learn shit). I doubt until the last few years you knew shit about Iraq or its people except for the odd CNN story.
Which means it didn't happen?
Uh..okay.
The Shi'ite uprising didn't happen when you said. It also happened as a result of us sticking are oar in. The UN decided to go into Iraq in 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the UN won that war Bush Senior wanted to dictate the shape of Iraq, he instigated the Shi'ite uprising. Without American involvement it most likely wouldn't have happened. The Ba'athist party was formed a Syrian Christian. It was a secular party that was inclusive of all religions. Saddam used it as vehicle to gain power (helped and funded by America). The Shi'ites won't form a democracy, the may use democracy to take power but they will want total control of Iraq. The divisions between Sunnis and Shi'ites are fundamental in nature and very old. Any future government in Iraq must be inclusive to work, so far the Shi'ites are resisting including the Sunnis.
Yea? But for who?
Key question.
For your average Iraqi, according to Iraqis I have spoken to who lived in Iraq then.
What's the source for your numbers?
The highest estimate I've seen was about 16billion for 1990 which was about equal to Kuwait at the time. However, Iraq also had over 100 billion in Debt.
Also, on a side tangent. The GDP in Iraq is now 12.3 billion.
It was a newspaper article, I can't remember which one, however here is the figure of $77 Billion in 1990 by Tel Aviv University Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle East studies.
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes65.doc.
It was the sanctions that put Iraq in such poor economic shape in the 90's
Resolution 1441:
Its not about whassa now?
The UN decided not to invade Iraq. Resolution 1441 is a UN resolution so the UN decides how to deal with it, not America like some drunken swaggering bully.
Thats not what I was implying at all. I was merely suggesting that alot mroe than the US switching to OPEC would have to occur for a general Market Failure within the US.
If the OPEC nations switched its oil buying currency to Euro's the U.S. dollar would tank. What would the effect to the US economy be? We may still be standing but it would be very different in America.
Which is what the article you quoted was implying.{/quote]
The journalist took some license for effect.
[quote]Now its my turn to be astounded.
You're seriously suggesting that the US economy is not backed by anything? I mean, god just came down one day and said "Hey America, You're all gonna be rich" ?
wow.
No, I said the US dollar isn't backed by anything more than faith in it. We haven't used currency to back our dollar in a long time. I didn't say the US economy.
Sean of the Thread
03-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Xtc.. I think daniel has some first hand experience with the Iraqi people.
Xtc.. I think daniel has some first hand experience with the Iraqi people.
His stint in Iraq with the army? He didn't learn much.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 07:05 PM
Wow. Eight years later.
I am saying that any attempt to form an independent Kurdistan would cause the other nations in that region to revolt.
^
So its okay to maintain the status quo even if people are being brutally oppressed? I like the kurds, and I'd want them to have their own country. Baring that I'd at least think we would want them to not be brutally oppressed. Which is what you're saying was the better alternative.
I doubt until the last few years you knew shit about Iraq or its people except for the odd CNN story.
Well. You'd be wrong.
The Shi'ite uprising didn't happen when you said.
I said it happened after the invasion in '91. What exactly are you referring to?
It also happened as a result of us sticking are oar in.
I never said we didn't instigate it. However, you were making the claim that the issues were created by the United States which would be wrong.
To be clear, the United States did not force the Shi'ites to raise up, we merely offered them support if they did so. That doesn't suggest at all that conflict did exist in Iraq prior to the invasion of '91.
For your average Iraqi, according to Iraqis I have spoken to who lived in Iraq then.
So, you have the monopoly of knowing people from Iraq? right. (Said this before)
You still didn't answer the question, who are you talking about when you say "average"?
Obviously, the shi'ites disagreed. Obviously, the kurds disagreed. So what does that leave?
It was a newspaper article, I can't remember which one, however here is the figure of $77 Billion in 1990 by Tel Aviv University Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle East studies.
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/tanotes/TAUnotes65.doc.
It was the sanctions that put Iraq in such poor economic shape in the 90's
A newspaper article? Lol
For the life of me I can't seem to figure out where they are getting their numbers, but I can only assume they aren't usually the generally accepted view of GDP. I'm gonna try and upload an XLS file that has data from the UN's Statistical database. So, you don't have to wade through every country in the world's GDP from 1770 onward.
If I can't get it to work, which is possible the numbers they have is for a GDP of 23 billion in 1990.
The UN decided not to invade Iraq. Resolution 1441 is a UN resolution so the UN decides how to deal with it, not America like some drunken swaggering bully.
Why to try and deflect the topic. Nice try though. The point was that human rights have been one of the stated purposes since the very beginning. If you want to counter that, then do so.
If the OPEC nations switched its oil buying currency to Euro's the U.S. dollar would tank. What would the effect to the US economy be? We may still be standing but it would be very different in America.
Very true. Then again I don't think that would neccessarily be a bad thing. OUr standard of living is way out of whack with the rest of the world and in the end it creates more problems than its worth. Of course, theres alot of people in beverly hills who would disagree with me.
However, a better point would be that if the US was so afraid of the Euro, why then did it do nothing to stop the formulation of it?
They might not have been successful but then again we didn't exactly take a big stance against it.
The journalist took some license for effect.
Lol..ok.
No, I said the US dollar isn't backed by anything more than faith in it. We haven't used currency to back our dollar in a long time. I didn't say the US economy.
Its the same thing. The faith is that the US will capable of honoring the debt the issuance of money creates.
That faith is entirely based upon the strength of the US economy.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 07:06 PM
His stint in Iraq with the army? He didn't learn much.
Because I didn't come to the same conclusions as you? Wow. Okay.
Lets be a tad realistic here. The people you may know that feel the way they feel obviously had the means to escape Iraq and establish themselves into Canada or America has the case may be. Do you honestly expect us to believe that those same people represent the vast majority of Iraqi's who had no choice but to live under Saddam, sanctions or not?
Furthermore, whatever experience you may have had in Iraq prior to 1991 offer you no unique insight into the general feelings of the Iraqi people.
I can take a trip to london. That doesn't mean I know jack shit about how the average british person feels about their country.
Sean of the Thread
03-17-2006, 07:10 PM
Because I didn't come to the same conclusions as you? Wow. Okay.
They're all fucking hypocrits and think they have the only correct ideal around here. He obviously knows more about the Iraqi people from sitting in his studio apt in Toronto reading crackpot internet sites so you should stfu.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 07:12 PM
Iraqi GDP 1970-2003 per UN statistical databse.
I also forgot to include the link to the UN statistical database site.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp
Because I didn't come to the same conclusions as you? Wow. Okay.
No because you don't know about the historical divisions betweens Shi'ite and Sunni. Because your information is wrong, as I have pointed out and because you have no understanding of the history or the other players in the region.
Lets be a tad realistic here. The people you may know that feel the way they feel obviously had the means to escape Iraq and establish themselves into Canada or America has the case may be. Do you honestly expect us to believe that those same people represent the vast majority of Iraqi's who had no choice but to live under Saddam, sanctions or not?
I have spent much of my life around Arabs and Iraqis. As a child I spent a lot time around Arabs at Muslim social events which eventually spilled over into my home and their homes. By the time I hit my 20's I had Arabs as friends, girlfriends and Professors. I still keep up with one Iraqi Professor (now retired) and his family. I was at his house last Saturday. They are Iraqi Catholics, they have no love for Saddam but they hate the Americans. They won't talk about it with most non-Iraqi Canadians but they feel a kinship with me. There oldest son has gone back to Iraq again to work as a translator again. He is the one who told me that all the Iraqis be it Sunni, Shi'ite or Catholic will smile to the American soldiers but behind their backs they curse them and talk about how they hate them. So the information I have comes from Iraqis in Iraqi.
Furthermore, whatever experience you may have had in Iraq prior to 1991 offer you no unique insight into the general feelings of the Iraqi people.
It was a long time ago and feelings change but I have probably meet more Iraqis in an open setting than you ever will. What I convey, they convey.
I can take a trip to london. That doesn't mean I know jack shit about how the average british person feels about their country.
Good analogy because you don't know jack shit about Iraq. As I pointed out I am telling you what Iraqis in Iraq have conveyed.
They're all fucking hypocrits and think they have the only correct ideal around here. He obviously knows more about the Iraqi people from sitting in his studio apt in Toronto reading crackpot internet sites so you should stfu.
Not at all. Everyone is entitled to a opinion, even you as wrong as it is at times.
As I pointed out much of my knowledge comes from first hand interaction with Iraqis. I would be pleased to introduce you to my Iraqi friends the next time you are in Toronto.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 09:19 PM
No because you don't know about the historical divisions betweens Shi'ite and Sunni.
Okay. Keep telling yourself that.
Because your information is wrong, as I have pointed out and because you have no understanding of the history or the other players in the region.
What information of mine has been wrong? The only thing you have ever said of mine was wrong was the dates of the Shi'ite Uprising, which I was correct about.
Feel free to provide explicit examples.
They won't talk about it with most non-Iraqi Canadians but they feel a kinship with me. There oldest son has gone back to Iraq again to work as a translator again. He is the one who told me that all the Iraqis be it Sunni, Shi'ite or Catholic will smile to the American soldiers but behind their backs they curse them and talk about how they hate them. So the information I have comes from Iraqis in Iraqi.
So you know a guy, who has a son, that knows some people that believe in the very same thing his parents believe in? And he has a representation of all people in Iraq?
Just out of curiousity. Who does he work for?
I have spent much of my life around Arabs and Iraqis.
And you own the monopoly on KNOWING PEOPLE?
Since you know so much about my life, and who I have and have not known. Feel free to inform me and the rest of the boards as to the extent of my knowledge of people from the middle east.
As I pointed out I am telling you what Iraqis in Iraq have conveyed.
As am I.
However, mine come from people who have been there in the last decade.
Wow. Eight years later.
^
[quote]So its okay to maintain the status quo even if people are being brutally oppressed? I like the kurds, and I'd want them to have their own country. Baring that I'd at least think we would want them to not be brutally oppressed. Which is what you're saying was the better alternative.
Which would cause a massive war in the region. It is more realistic to have the Kurds protected under a one Iraq government.
Well. You'd be wrong.
What year did you first meet an Iraqi? When did you first hear the word Kurd? or Shi'ite of Sunni?
I never said we didn't instigate it. However, you were making the claim that the issues were created by the United States which would be wrong.
We exacerbated them for our own ends. The Shi'ites and the Sunnis in Iraq were never at each others throats under Saddam the way they are know.
To be clear, the United States did not force the Shi'ites to raise up, we merely offered them support if they did so. That doesn't suggest at all that conflict did exist in Iraq prior to the invasion of '91.
LOL, we created the environment and then proded them on. It never would have happened without our involvement.
So, you have the monopoly of knowing people from Iraq? right. (Said this before)
No, but I have grown up with them and as a man with a Muslim name the Iraqis talk freely around me something they won't do around an American soldier. Each one I meet is from an introduction from another Iraqi.
You still didn't answer the question, who are you talking about when you say "average"?
Average:
"typical amount: the level, amount, or degree of something that is typical of a group or class of people or things"
Obviously, the shi'ites disagreed. Obviously, the kurds disagreed. So what does that leave?
Wrong, The Shi'ites, Druze, Sunnis and Christians in Iraq all want the Americans gone. I say the world average was well placed.
A newspaper article? Lol
No it wasn't a newspaper article. It was a publication from Tel Aviv University, specifically The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies & The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies.
For the life of me I can't seem to figure out where they are getting their numbers, but I can only assume they aren't usually the generally accepted view of GDP. I'm gonna try and upload an XLS file that has data from the UN's Statistical database. So, you don't have to wade through every country in the world's GDP from 1770 onward.
You will have to ask them how they arrived at that figure. I may not agree with alot of the political conclusions of the staff at Tel Aviv University but I would say they are well repected.
If I can't get it to work, which is possible the numbers they have is for a GDP of 23 billion in 1990.[quote]
...and the CIA factbook from 1990 had Iraq's GDP at $35 Billion. A difference of $12 Billion dollars from the UN. I doubt very much that Saddam was letting outsiders look at the books.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/updates/iraq/
needless to say Iraq was much better of before the First Gulf war than after it.
[quote]Why to try and deflect the topic. Nice try though. The point was that human rights have been one of the stated purposes since the very beginning. If you want to counter that, then do so.
Not deflection, fact. The UN drafted the resolution and it was incumbent upon the UN to decide how to deal with it, not America. The no fly zone kept Saddam from bombing the Kurds.
If America was concerned with human rights there are a list of countries that warranted attention before Iraq.
Very true. Then again I don't think that would neccessarily be a bad thing. OUr standard of living is way out of whack with the rest of the world and in the end it creates more problems than its worth. Of course, theres alot of people in beverly hills who would disagree with me.
Forget Beverly Hills try this board, ask Xyelin for a comment on that one lol.
However, a better point would be that if the US was so afraid of the Euro, why then did it do nothing to stop the formulation of it?
They might not have been successful but then again we didn't exactly take a big stance against it.
A few things, I think the US under estimated how strong the Euro would become, how well received it would be in Europe and the rest of the world and there isn't anything they could do to stop it. The last we divided up Europe and went to war, it wasn't pretty.
Its the same thing. The faith is that the US will capable of honoring the debt the issuance of money creates.
That faith is entirely based upon the strength of the US economy.
They may be linked but they aren't the same thing. The dollar isn't backed by currency anymore, it is free floating and tradied on the world market. If the OPEC nations switch to the Euro, traders will start dumping the US dollar. A small drop can help exports but a big drop will hurt the economy. Imports like oil will just cost too much.
Okay. Keep telling yourself that.
What divides Sunnis and Shi'ites?
What information of mine has been wrong?
Feel free to provide explicit examples.
You claimed that is the OPEC nations switched from the US dollar to the Euro that this was a minor peturbation that wouldn't affect the US economy for starters.
So you know a guy, who has a son, that knows some people that believe in the very same thing his parents believe in? And he has a representation of all people in Iraq?
I have made friends with an ex-Prof and his family from the University of Toronto. He was my Prof during my undergrad, his son has been back to Iraq several times since his family moved here. He is ONE EXAMPLE. He is a native Iraqi who speaks Arabic, he gets the real feel for the people, not the PR campaign they put on for the American soldiers.
Just out of curiousity. Who does he work for?
Lol us the Americans.
And you own the monopoly on KNOWING PEOPLE?
Not all all but out of all the 1000s of Iraqi I have spoken to not one likes the American Army occupying their country.
Since you know so much about my life, and who I have and have not known. Feel free to inform me and the rest of the boards as to the extent of my knowledge of people from the middle east.
Please Daniel informs us yourself.
As am I.
However, mine come from people who have been there in the last decade.
You as a non-Muslim, non- Arabic speaking member of an occupying Army. You rolled by with a Hummer or a tank, US Army uniform and a gun, do you really think the Iraqi people told you shit about what they think?
I too have spoken with numerous people who have been in Iraq in the last decade. Toronto is a multi-cutural haven and since this occupation has started many Iraqis have moved to Toronto.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 10:25 PM
It is more realistic to have the Kurds protected under a one Iraq government.
So Saddam was "protecting" the kurds?
lol
I mean thats all that really needs to be said.
You're so zealous to prove your point that you'll use any outlandish and obviously wrong premise to support your position.
Have fun thinking you know absolutely everybody and that the guys son you know who went to Iraq who worked for the United States (which means he never left the FOB as a canadian citizen) knows absolutely every Iraqi and how they feel.
And just because I find these particular quotes so funny.
You claimed that is the OPEC nations switched from the US dollar to the Euro that this was a minor peturbation that wouldn't affect the US economy for starters.
I said Minor? Not quite. I said It wouldn't kill the US economy like the article you posted claimed.
Something you have already went back on and said wasn't neccessarily true.
Try again.
No it wasn't a newspaper article.
Your words not mine.
...and the CIA factbook from 1990 had Iraq's GDP at $35 Billion. A difference of $12 Billion dollars from the UN. I doubt very much that Saddam was letting outsiders look at the books.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/updates/iraq/
needless to say Iraq was much better of before the First Gulf war than after it.
A newspaper article? .... Wait.. I just thought you said..fuck it.
Anyway, You must have missed this number. I know its hard to see RIGHT BEFORE THE NUMBERS YOU QUOTED:
GDP $59.9 billion (1999)
Interesting.
Not deflection, fact. The UN drafted the resolution and it was incumbent upon the UN to decide how to deal with it, not America
I'm sorry. I coulda swore the point was that the US used Human rights in its case from the very beginning.
Anything aside from that would be bullshit immaterial to the subject at hand.
The dollar isn't backed by currency anymore,
What exactly is a dollar again?
oh right, a form of currency.
Those damn Canadian schools.
Daniel
03-17-2006, 10:27 PM
What divides Sunnis and Shi'ites?
Oh. This. Historically it has been over who rightfully became caliph after Muhammed. Of course, over time there have been various things that have caused friction between the two groups.
Then of course there are other factions like Sufis that fill their own sort of Niche in Muslim society.
So, in the end, what have we got other than a big fuck-up?
Warriorbird
03-18-2006, 01:43 PM
Nothing.
So Saddam was "protecting" the kurds?
lol
I mean thats all that really needs to be said.
You're so zealous to prove your point that you'll use any outlandish and obviously wrong premise to support your position.
Your ability to comprehend is sorely lacking. It is preferable to currently have the Kurds protected under one Iraqi government as opposed to have a separate Kurdistan. I was talking about now not under Saddam.
Have fun thinking you know absolutely everybody and that the guys son you know who went to Iraq who worked for the United States (which means he never left the FOB as a canadian citizen) knows absolutely every Iraqi and how they feel.
Wrong again but I imagine you are getting use to it. He is a born and bred Iraqi so he goes wherever he wants, his first assignment was in the field. I think I also mentioned that this is just one of many people Iraqis I have spoken to on the matter, many of them having moved to Toronto very recently. I am guessing born and bred Iraqis know more about their country and the feelings of their country men than a member of the US Army who didn't know where Iraq was on a map prior to 2001/2002.
I said Minor? Not quite. I said It wouldn't kill the US economy like the article you posted claimed.
You said that the US economy isn't susceptible to "massive perturbations" of the global market place which is a crock. Perturbations are small not massive, check your first year economics dictionary.
Something you have already went back on and said wasn't neccessarily true.
Wrong again. The individual who wrote the paper said the US economy would collapse if OPEC bought oil in Euros and dumped the US dollar. What I said was "The US risked oil being traded in Euros, this would have sent the US dollar into a tail spin."....which I stand by.
Try again.
Why, I got this time again.
Your words not mine.
and what was CNN's source? Sources: CIA World Factbook 2000, CIA World Factbook 1990 and World Almanac 1993)
A newspaper article? .... Wait.. I just thought you said..fuck it.
See above and learn to read to the end of an article.
Anyway, You must have missed this number. I know its hard to see RIGHT BEFORE THE NUMBERS YOU QUOTED:
GDP $59.9 billion (1999)
Again different sources have quoted great variations in Iraq's GDP. According to the well-respected Economist Intelligence Unit in The Economist's newly published annual supplement "The World in 1999 Iraq's total GDP had fallen to just $5.7 billion, or $247 per capital.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irq3-22.htm
I'm sorry. I coulda swore the point was that the US used Human rights in its case from the very beginning.
Anything aside from that would be bullshit immaterial to the subject at hand.
Weapons of Mass Destruction was the byline of every White House Press conference just before the invasion. It was what Colin Powell said to the UN to make America's case, remember how Saddam was every so close to making a nuclear bomb and the African uranium connection?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2278019.stm
What exactly is a dollar again?
oh right, a form of currency.
A piece of paper basically an IOU by the US Government. The dollar was once backed by Gold and other precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency
Those damn Canadian schools.
The Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto and The Schulich School of Business at York University are both excellent schools. Talk to me after first year and after you have wiped the wet from behind your ears.
Ebondale
03-23-2006, 10:03 PM
A piece of paper basically an IOU by the US Government. The dollar was once backed by Gold and other precious metals.
Last I heard the dollar is still backed by the gold held at Fort Knox.
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 10:08 PM
Last I heard the dollar is still backed by the gold held at Fort Knox.
The gold standard isn't in use any longer.
Artha
03-23-2006, 10:08 PM
"The gold standard is no longer used in any nation, having been replaced completely by fiat currency."
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard)
Ebondale
03-23-2006, 10:24 PM
*dusts the salt off of his shoulder* :)
Daniel
03-23-2006, 10:27 PM
Your ability to comprehend is sorely lacking. It is preferable to currently have the Kurds protected under one Iraqi government as opposed to have a separate Kurdistan. I was talking about now not under Saddam.
No, I understand quite fine.
The issue was whether or not there was conflict in Iraq under Saddam. Not now.
his first assignment was in the field.
With what unit?
You said that the US economy isn't susceptible to "massive perturbations" of the global market place which is a crock. Perturbations are small not massive, check your first year economics dictionary.
I will right after you look up "currency"
Wrong again. The individual who wrote the paper said the US economy would collapse if OPEC bought oil in Euros and dumped the US dollar. What I said was "The US risked oil being traded in Euros, this would have sent the US dollar into a tail spin."....which I stand by.
....
Okay.
and what was CNN's source? Sources: CIA World Factbook 2000, CIA World Factbook 1990 and World Almanac 1993)
You can find the actual text of the 1990 CIA world fact book here: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/world12.txt
You'll notice that the GDP numbers (from 1989) are an estimate. When you are capable of doing some actual research then maybe we'll talk.
A piece of paper basically an IOU by the US Government. The dollar was once backed by Gold and other precious metals.
Thanks for the history lesson. However, that does not change the fact that the dollar is a form of currency. Just as a cold coin, a piece of marked bark or anythig else can be a form of currency.
I just you reference those first year economic books you are so fond of.
No, I understand quite fine.
The issue was whether or not there was conflict in Iraq under Saddam. Not now.
You got the wrong end of the stick about the Kurds and one Iraq Government that was the point. However to address yours, Iraq never saw the kind of conflict under Saddam that it has today.
With what unit?
So you can try and get him fired, I think not.
I will right after you look up "currency"
......please you probably thought the dollar was still backed by gold.
....
Okay.
exactly
You can find the actual text of the 1990 CIA world fact book here: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/world12.txt
You'll notice that the GDP numbers (from 1989) are an estimate. When you are capable of doing some actual research then maybe we'll talk.
I have posted all the sources for my numbers etc., unlike some people who are just getting out of their osh kosh and posted articles that had nothing to do with this discussion and referenced Time Magazine articles they thought they might have read but didn't have a link to, despite the fact Time also publishes their magazine online.
Thanks for the history lesson. However, that does not change the fact that the dollar is a form of currency. Just as a cold coin, a piece of marked bark or anythig else can be a form of currency.
Your welcome. I never contended it wasn't, however gold has intrinsic value where a dollar doesn't.
I just you reference those first year economic books you are so fond of.
I think you should pick up an English 101 course, your sentence is incomprehensible. I am sure you can fit it into your first year schedule.
Daniel
03-24-2006, 12:27 AM
However to address yours, Iraq never saw the kind of conflict under Saddam that it has today.
Not even close to being true.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
So you can try and get him fired, I think not.
It doesn't really matter. I don't know a single unit, outside of those operating in Kurdistan that allowed people to leave the base and return whenever they liked.
......please you probably thought the dollar was still backed by gold.
sure I did.
....
Okay.
exactly
The okay was in reference to the fact that you already admitted that the article took license in the actual consequences of things.
I have posted all the sources for my numbers etc.,
Yes of course you have.... Newspaper articles.
Your welcome. I never contended it wasn't, however gold has intrinsic value where a dollar doesn't.
What exactly is the intrinsic value of gold?
I just you reference those first year economic books you are so fond of.
I think you should pick up an English 101 course, your sentence is incomprehensible. I am sure you can fit it into your first year schedule.
*just=suggest
Warriorbird
03-24-2006, 08:55 AM
Yep...and under Saddam we helped them with the whole weapons of mass destruction bit in said conflict.
Not even close to being true.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
How long was the first war? We didn't have anything like what we have now.
It doesn't really matter. I don't know a single unit, outside of those operating in Kurdistan that allowed people to leave the base and return whenever they liked.
He is an Iraqi citizen, he goes where he likes, like any other Iraqi, he is not a member of the US military.
sure I did.
It wouldn't surprise me.
The okay was in reference to the fact that you already admitted that the article took license in the actual consequences of things.
I did, but you were wrong in your statement. I never said the US economy would collapse if OPEC nations bought oil in Euros. I said it would go into a tail spin.
Yes of course you have.... Newspaper articles.
......referencing CIA world factbook and UN stats among others, as opposed to the articles you read in Time, that you didn't post a link to, and those articles that have nothing to do with this discussion. You need to read your Mom's stuff before blindly posting it here.
What exactly is the intrinsic value of gold?
You need to read more of your Mom's books.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/guru329.html
*just=suggest
Not according to The Oxford Dictionary.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/just?view=uk
...and I am getting tired of this discussion, it is becoming obvious you know little of the politics and history in the Middle East and that you have a lot to learn about economics.
Daniel
03-24-2006, 12:03 PM
Obviously.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.