04 Nov 04
Lots of speculation is going on about this. The hawks in Washington lead by the neo-cons are said to advocate this.
Do you think Dubya & Friends are making any plans to invade, say Iran, North Korea, or Syria ?
I don't think so. He's having enough trouble as it is now in Iraq. Besides he went to war to open a new front in the war on terror. A front that was NOT on American soil. There is no need to open a third front.
What are your thoughts on this ?
Will George W. & Friends invade another country within the framework of the War on Terror and why ?
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe will take out Iran next June.
Lots of speculation is going on about this. The hawks in Washington lead by the neo-cons are said to advocate this.
Do you think Dubya & Friends are making any plans to invade, say Iran, North Korea, or Syria ?
I don't think so. He's having enough trouble as it is now in Iraq. Besides he went to war to open a new front in the war on terror. A front ...[text shortened]... l George W. & Friends invade another country within the framework of the War on Terror and why ?
Unless you brave souls in Europe take away their Nuclear Bomb factory. BTW. Why does the second most rich energy nation on earth need a fast breeder reactor? Who's only function is the production of fissible material?
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHypocritical, Iran should be able to develop nukes if it wants, the US has them too.
We will take out Iran next June.
Unless you brave souls in Europe take away their Nuclear Bomb factory. BTW. Why does the second most rich energy nation on earth need a fast breeder reactor? Who's only function is the production of fissible material?
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by mateuloseI agree. They are the sponsors of the attack on Spain. Let them have at it. More nukes the better. The most we will lose is New York. Big deal. We will then make them glow in the dark.
Hypocritical, Iran should be able to develop nukes if it wants, the US has them too.
But I'm betting they hit Paris. It's a matter of ease and scarfs.
snicker.
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyShouldn't you be happy they hit NY seeing that NY is mostly democratic (ie: the commies that you hate)?
I agree. They are the sponsors of the attack on Spain. Let them have at it. More nukes the better. The most we will lose is New York. Big deal. We will then make them glow in the dark.
But I'm betting they hit Paris. It's a matter of ease and scarfs.
snicker.
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by mateuloseit is not hypocritical: each party is acting in its own perceived best interest, which is fair enough. the US wants nukes and wants to limit access to them by other countries - particularly non-allies - because that is what seems to be in its own best interest. similarly, Iran wants nukes because it thinks this is in its own best interest.
Hypocritical, Iran should be able to develop nukes if it wants, the US has them too.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say: hypocrisy - perhaps, but in the world of realpolitik, defending your interests is more important than trying to be fair and consistent.
04 Nov 04
War in Iraq has got nothing to do with terror and bin Laden. It is the war for resources - oil! Iraq is lucky enough to have the resouces and not lucky at all having no nukes to protect thier resources.
bin Laden got nothing to do with WTC buildings - how can you explain, that both buildings collapsed with a "demolition" accuracy, why didn't they fall on a side and destroy a lot of other buildings around them? WTC building was destroyed not by a plane crashed into it, but by something else.
To answer the question - yes, there will be another war if there will be a nation rich of resources, but weak to protect them.
04 Nov 04
The whole thing is about laziness / convenience (it's like fast food that's making alot of us fat).
Everyone wants energy sources to make their life easier.
We kill each other for it. We develop nuclear weapons to defend it.
I hope that the finale is swift and that enough people survive to look back on it and learn with the opportunity to apply what they have learnt.
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by R00kyinteresting thinking but:
bin Laden got nothing to do with WTC buildings - how can you explain, that both buildings collapsed with a "demolition" accuracy, why didn't they fall on a side and destroy a lot of other buildings around them? WTC building was destroyed not by a plane crashed into it, but by something else.
the buildings had an exoskeleton.
the plane crashes caused very hot fires.
the fires caused a floor to fall on the floor below it, these two floors then fell on the floor below etc etc.
the real collapse happened inside the exoskeleton and went straight to the ground in a vertical manner.
the planes can have caused the collapses.
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by R00kyone theory i have heard is:
To answer the question - yes, there will be another war if there will be a nation rich of resources, but weak to protect them.
it does not really matter so much what is available to the u.s.
the us.s already has plenty, and the government does not further it's cause by supplying its citizens with more.
more importantly: if a country has resources and will sell them to the u.s.'s main competitors, but not to the u.s. then the u.s. will get very upset.
the theory claims: sadam wanted to sell oil in euros, not in u.s. dollars.
can anyone enhance on this? is it true? does it enable us to see into the future?
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDon't be silly.
We will take out Iran next June.
Unless you brave souls in Europe take away their Nuclear Bomb factory. BTW. Why does the second most rich energy nation on earth need a fast breeder reactor? Who's only function is the production of fissible material?
You don't invade Russia in the winter and you don't invade Iran in the summer.
Everyone knows that!
04 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreThis has more implications than you wrote. I'll won't go as far as I should due to lack of time, but:
the theory claims: sadam wanted to sell oil in euros, not in u.s. dollars.
The value of the dollar is very high compared to the economic activity of the US.
Why? Because the fact that oil is traded in USD and most foreign trade is conducted in USD, the demand for USD worldwide is much higher than the demand for USD in the US (the total of world trade not connected directly to the US conducted in dollars is higher than the foreign and internal trade connected to the US)
This means that if oil was not traded in USD but in EUR the USD value would plunge down and if this was accompanied (as expected) by a international change from USD to EUR as the "international" currency, it could cause a downward spiral in the USD. Remember that the demand for USD would fall to less than half and I read a study indicating that the USD price could fall more than 30%, if this happened, in just one week.
Fast depreciations of a currency tend to lead to inflationary surges (a dollar is worth less, so the same thing costs more dollars) and a fall this high (and fast) could lead to a spiral of inflation that could throw the US in the biggest recession of its history.
Some say that the constant but slow fall of the dollar is a way to prevent the damage done by this possibility and that the fact that Saddam (Iraq is the country with the largest oil reserves) wanted to trade oil in Euros was the real motivations for this war.
It's curious that Syria also claimed this and shortly after, they were included in the famous axis-of-evil. Why Syria? That's one explanation...
(note that if this happened, a fast increase in the Euro would also be damaging, unless the ECB printed a lot more Euros to counter the increase in demand which could also help hinder the USD/EUR rate fall. Consider the revenue that is printing money when the demand for it increases, the US gain a lot by being the world currency)