So, have any of those darn WMD surfaced yet?
For crying out loud, Binarydrone, would please you show a little patience? It’s only been two months since the fall of Baghdad, and the United States only has 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq, so it’s no wonder that they haven’t stumbled across the enormous arsenal of nuclear/biological/chemical weaponry just yet.
As I understand it, the current hypothesis is that Saddam Hussein may have posessed a working Phantom Zone projector, which he used to send himself and his weaponry into the Fifth Dimension, where he and bin Laden are even at this moment observing us in a wraithlike, insubstantial state. Give it some time; I’m sure we’ll find plenty of evidence of WMD’s soon enough. And remember, it was all about liberating the Iraqi people anyway.
On an unrelated note, the CIA has asked me to inquire whether anyone here has any experience stenciling Arabic lettering onto metal surfaces. They apparently need extra hands for a rush job of some kind.
Thanks, I plan to. I’ve been posting on a smaller forum. MUCH SMALLER. The size of this site and the number of members and topics is a little overwhelming. It will test my mental agility.
The drooling morons are in charge of our government.
You have a lot more confidence in the economic abiltities of the current adminstration than I have. I believe most of the domestic, foreign, and economic policies of the Bush gang are idiotic.
Are you suggesting that if the U.S. dollar was no longer the dominate world currency, it wouldn’t damage the American economy? I find that hard to believe.
American foreign policy makes the government and economy of the United States a model for development in any country that poses a threat to our security. We are testing out this policy in Iraq.
Rumsfeld on Iraq, "We can’t make it like the United States in five minutes.’’
Now you can call it what you like, but I think that involves opening up new markets. Our insistance that the world would be a better place if everyone looked and acted like Americans is idiotic!!! And dangerous!!!
Read for yourself our “busybody” foreign policy.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/general_foreign_policy/2000_dos_stratplan_body.pdf
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS MISSION STATEMENT
Create a more secure, prosperous, and democratic
world for the benefit of the American people.
In an increasingly interdependent and rapidly changing world, international events
affect every American. Successful US international leadership is essential to security at
home, better jobs and a higher standard of living, a healthier environment, and safe travel
and conduct of business abroad.
Under the direction of the President and the Secretary of State, the United States
conducts relations with foreign governments, international organizations, and others to
pursue US national interests and promote American values. The goals of US foreign
policy are to:
• Secure peace; deter aggression; prevent, and defuse, and manage crises; halt the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and advance arms control and
disarmament;
• Expand exports, open markets, assist American business, foster economic growth,
and promote sustainable development;
• Protect American citizens abroad and safeguard the borders of the United States;
• Combat international terrorism, crime, and narcotics trafficking;
• Support the establishment and consolidation of democracies, and uphold human
rights;
• Provide humanitarian assistance to victims of crisis and disaster; and
• Improve the global environment, stabilize world population growth, and protect
human health.
To advance the interests of the nation and the American people through foreign affairs
leadership, the US Government requires a strong international presence; a highly
qualified, motivated, and diverse Civil and Foreign Service serving at home and abroad;
extensive communication with the public, both foreign and domestic; and the political,
military, and economic means to carry out the nation’s foreign policies.
Perhaps they are, perhaps not.
As I don’t live in the States I don’t concern myself much with Bush’s domestic policies ex-economic.
I could care less if you find it hard to believe, the usage of the dollar as a dominant currency in international trade is not key to economic performance for the US economy. There are some incidental benefits, but hardly large enough to make it a key policy issue. If the Euro replaced the dollar in denominating some trade flows there would be some moderate drop in dollar demand, but relative to demands from capital flows this is not likely to be particularly significant.
Your statement is a trifle confused.
Remaking the Iraqi economy along free market lines is not inherently connected with the dollar’s position in the world economy as a unit of account.
As to economic policy on Iraq, you need not pretend to inform me on this. I’m plugged in on the matter, my dear Middle American.
It’s called oversimplification. Iraqis in a free market may or may not present a large new market for American goods. The data I look at suggests to me that they will not for quite a while, for all some of the pie in the sky visions that some have pimped in the US.
Most of the MENA region has trade surpluses with the US, trade deficits with Europe. If Iraq follows regional patterns, this will likely follow.
Reminds me, I have to finish my overview on the CPA-I meetings.
Oh my oh my, I just laughed myself silly…
Collounsbury, I think your response is a bit confused. I am not advocating or supporting the policies put forth by the US government. Why do you keep insisting that you have to tell me how stupid they are? That’s my point, get your own.
My intent has been to show that the Bush administration has had a lot more going on in their pea size brains than WMD. They have seized on that one idea to futher their policies in what I contend is an outright criminal attack on Iraq. They did it knowlingly and with the ultimate agenda to re-make the world kinder and gentler to the U.S. It is a stupid plan, and I can understand your lack of interest in delving into it very deeply.
The dollar issue is incidental, but since it seems to be the only aspect of my post you can discuss with any authority. I will concede that you may have a point. Although your statements concerning the dollar would have been more convincing it you had left out the personal comments. I’m left wondering how much your need to defend your ego controls your decision making ability. I’m concerned that your puffed up sense of self-importance may have left you very little room for the normal functions of the brain, collecting and analyzing information.
Confused, no. You’re just apparenlty reading impaired.
My point was that the assertions you are making in re the Bush Admin thinking are on their face ridiculous and insofar as one can tell from the published thinkig of Admin. heavyweights such as Wolfowitz, utterly baseless.
Yes, power politics, not simple minded ‘opening markets’ crap.
In re the dollar issue your assertions are without any basis at all.
Wonderful, you concede. If you bother to inform yourself on international capital flows you should concede rather more than I “may” have a point, your ignorant rambling about the dollar was w/o foundation.
Like I give a fuck what would be more convincing to some idiot mumbling on about Iraqi policy and the dollar.
Well, I guess we’ll have to wait for the end of quarter results in the portfolio for that.
Yes I saw that report on Fox too, right after the one about Lord Voldemort hiding out in Iran.
They must be stopped. NOW!
Collounsbury, Maybe you need to read my posts again without letting your emotions get in the way. My description of Bush’s agenda is classic power politics. His goal is to make America the most powerful and dominate country in the world to insure our national security. If you don’t think this involves opening up markets for the U.S. or protecting the dollar that’s your opinion. I don’t see any point in arguing the details.
Here is another chance to correct me. In your response to Spiny Norman, it seemed that you agreed with his statement that WMD would be found and used during the war with Iraq, although not on the scale the Bush administration forcasted. Also with his surprise that no weapons were found. I always thought the whole scenario painted by the Bush administration was too ridiculous to believe. And now your calling my opinions ridiculous? That’s funny.
No offense to the many of you who believed the lies told by the bush administration regarding the WMD, just to those who are still beating their chests and claiming superior knowledge.
I’m just asking is all. Anyway, I heard that all that stuff wound up in a TARDIS. 
So…anything show up yet?
Coll:
I’m with you on the dollar thing. In fact a weaker dollar right now would be pretty good for the US economy.
As I’m sure you know Weak does not equal bad and strong does not equal good.
Like the baby bear’s pourage (poorage? Poeriage?) the dollar needs to be neither too weak, nor too strong, but just right.
A too strong dollar makes US goods and services difficult for furriners to buy and hurts our economy by closing markets to us and investment to them.
Too weak means we can’t buy stuff cause nobody wants our $ and furriners can dominate our markets.
Yes a weak dollar is good for the U.S. economy right now. The government is keeping it weak with the hope that consumers will go on a spending spree.
I was not referring to a weak dollar, but the replacement of the dollar or petrodollar in the trading of oil.
Here is more information on my point from the Asia Times,
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world’s interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world’s central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world’s central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
Just to clarify: Before the war, I was expecting WMD (or robust proof) to be found in conquered Iraq. I was fearing that they would be used, but I didn’t consider that nearly as likely.
Nobody running with this…?
Ok, I’ll go:
I thought the President got his intelligence from inside a cornflake packet.
Or: The President needs a new director of central intelligence.
Or: …
But that’s their point with this - they want to try to shift the blame to the CIA and place themselves in the camp of everyman. “Hey, we’re with you guys. We thought, along with everyone else in the world, that Saddam had WMD. Everyone is equally complicit, and the failure is really on the part of the intelligence community.”
Remember when most of “everybody else” was saying, “We’d love to know what the intel is that supports your position.” The remainder were saying, “Hey, don’t ask them to burn valuable intelligence assets just to satisfy your curiosity. Trust Bush to do what’s right based on the intel without compromising our safety and intel resources.”
Now the message is “We knew what everyone else knew. Don’t blame us.”
The thing that gets me is that this is a particularly gutless message being supported by people who generally espouse a “stand up for your priniciples” and “be a man” attitude. Spineless, weak, waffling, slippery and without honor is what I call it.
ssssh! it was meant to be a joke…! i.e., if the president (the common stereotype of whom is thought to be rather unintelligent) gets his intelligence (that is, his cleverness) from… he needs a new …
I’ll set 'em up, you knock 'em down.
Huh? Can you give us some examples here?
Have you never heard “Slick Willie?” Did you never hear, let alone utter, “Clinton should simply stand up and tell the truth, for the good of the country.” How about, “Gore should simply accept that he lost.” “Sore Loserman.” From my perspective, it has seemed to be an endless flow from conservatives that others are lacking in moral fiber, that they aren’t straight talkers, that they are evasive, and do not stand up with honor to take the consequences whatever they may be.
Now, in the face of having misrepresented entirely the situation in Iraq, supporters of Bush, rather than demonstrate the qualities that they have so long chided others about not having, are being evasive, putting massive spin on, lying and using rhetorical devices. This is not true of all, and I have to say that I have been surprised and impressed by a number of people with generally conservative points of view on this very board who have said, “You know what, this is wrong, and I do not support it.” This my statement was never intended to be universal. If you have called it like you saw it and continue to do so, more power to you. The apologists, however, sicken me for their hypocrisy, lack of integrity and lack of honor.