ANOTHER free clue for you: The only thing you seem to know is spell.
I don't understand why you had to stoop so low as to criticize my spelling. Did you think before you did that?

Apparently, you know nothing about the Israeli-Arab conflict as well. Not only your assumptions are wrong and been proved time and again as wrong but it also, seems to me, you are not even using facts (even wrong ones) to back your claims but rather just desire for say "things".

Only as lame as your rebuttal.

:thumbsup

just claiming that you're right and the other person is wrong doesn't win you an argument. You have to say WHERE the other person is wrong, and WHY you're right.

Spelling is important, and arguing with an illiterate is a waste of time as they won't understand anything but the most simple concepts anyway, the kind that Bush likes to make speeches about. The fact that English isn't your first language excuses you, I've seen native speakers that are much worse.

True - but as turkey proven in the last elections, democracy there is (unfortunatelly) very fragile. The base of power that US is negotiating with in Turkey is military - not political.
I don't think Arab countries in the middle east are looking for a role model in democracy. If anything, it should come from people's desire for some effect on their country - and in the ME Arab countries - that might be possible ONLY if they have a new type of regime that allows free will of the people. That is very far from today's situation but we can all hope.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe."

Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war.

First, why is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam? If Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam?

Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered U.N inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program.

Third, and despite Bush's rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.

Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were 'exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war.

Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency.

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro.

The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the 'petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our 'client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak, threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a 'Saudi Revolution' might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) [1].

Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and grab Saudi's oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.

"Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China."

This information about Iraq's oil currency is censored by the U.S. media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This quasi 'state secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000:

"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency." [2]

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. 'oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition?

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)." In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no 'exit strategy' in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive 'regime change' if they convert their oil exports to the euro.

Another underreported story from this summer related to another OPEC 'Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro issue.

"Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said.

"But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an 'axis of evil.'

"The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary representative said.

"'There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea... now that the euro is stronger, it is more logical,' the parliamentary representative said." [3]

CONTINUED

what's so funny about what he's saying? I'm not asking you to just say 'he's stupid'. what EXACTLY is so ludicrous in his post that you couldn't even be bothered to address it?

Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency.

"More than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union's member countries.

"He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in global trade." [4]

After toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran's disloyalty to the dollar qualifies them as the next target in the 'war on terror.' Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this MSNBC article alludes to the objectives of neo-conservatives.

"While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks -- are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: 'Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'" [5]

Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk factor is actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war may be Japan's weak economy. [6]

If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan's fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Indeed, Japan's fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian government lacks the controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately force an OPEC switch to euros.

Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged. It is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. This would foster the very situation this administration is trying to prevent: another OPEC member switching to euros as their oil transaction currency.

Incidentally, the final 'Axis of Evil' country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002. [7] Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea's switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of Bush's harsh rhetoric.

Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea's nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam was entirely contrived.

Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton's Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."

During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (1990-91 and 1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate aresolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the 'America first' policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush's 'warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.

Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's bellicosity has changed the worldview, and 'anti-Americanism' is proliferating even among our closest allies. [8]

Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with movements towards the euro. [9]

It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration's economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K. article by Hazel Henderson outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes:

The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this scenario:

1. US global over-reach in the 'war on terrorism' already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see -- combined with historically-high US trade deficits -- lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world's capital.

2. More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity.

3. OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC's oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to [euro dollar symbol] 40 (euros) per barrel.

4. The Bush Administration's efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide.

5. All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks.

6. The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band -- removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a "win-win" for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro.

7. Developing countries lacking dollars or "hard" currencies follow Venezuela's lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural Venezuelan villages.

The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current account trade deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on terrorism or evil. The USA ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US administration begins to return to its multilateralist tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more realistic international cooperation.

Hardly - You were saying in the same sentence -so to speak- that Saddam has nothing with the oil price in the US.
I think it is funnier than anything I said.

This is what I'd like to see happen.

Inspections continue, the good things Blix mentioned in his report followed thru (there was big movement on non-accompanied interviews, spy planes etc.). The things that Blix reported as not forthcoming need to be focused on now. If the inspectors find anything, or Iraq does not continue in the vein Blix's last report suggested, then war.

If the inspections continue to get further cooperation from the Iraqis, they will eventually come close to approaching an end. At that point, all the evidence so far is examined. Any further questions that need answering are put to Iraq/Saddam. If they are answered to the UN's satisfaction, the Inspectors withdraw.

What happens after that.
1) A smaller team of inspectors stay to continue montoring doing random unannounced checks (at customs as well) and importers have to report tracking and inventory information to the inspectors (in advance from the source!).
2) Spy planes remain doing random checks.
3) Intelligence is beefed up. (E.G. Turkey to allow (hopefully) sophisticated listening posts installed on the border).
4) The US elects proper politicians instead of business executives. (quite frankly the US government has handled this appallingly, and I think that's the reason why, and I don't just mean the war itself, but the interaction with the allies as well.).
5) The allies becoming allies again and our support for US reiterated.
6) Sanctions to be lifted apart from weapons related.
7) The US start to develop an alternative ME policy, particularly with regard to bribing the dictators/kings in power. (No. 2 reason US hated).
8) The US to help solve the Palestine/Israel problem instead of simply supporting the Israelies. (No 1 reason US hated).
9) The US/someone to get Bin Laden.
10) Iraq to be allowed to sell it's oil, but monitored.
11) Iraqis have to report all new war related installations, offices, laboratories & factories b4 they go live to the inspectors.
12) The size of the Iraqi airforce & army to be limited.

Okay, shoot me down....

so you're saying we should spend billions of tax dollars and waste american lives to bring down the price of oil? and you don't even LIVE HERE??

no thanks

Thats what he has been impling.. lol! We have done just fine without his oil for the last 12 years... we can and will continue to do fine without it.

Let take care of matters at home!

Unless you can say you know what the economy would be if 9/11 never happened... (and you can't) - then when are people like you going to quit blaming him for the results? - It was huge man, and it's still not close to "healing" itself. The man has no magic wand to wave.

You've been voting right all along - don't let people who have never considered all the facts sway you.

Ignorance is worse (in debates and conversations) than spelling mistake. Think about your approach before replying again to what I wrote.
It seems you managed to understand well enough what I said - I hardly see how I can be regarded as illiterate, while at the same time much of what you said has grasp in reality and much of it is an expression if ignorance.
It's a lengthy process and hardly the place to educate you about the Israeli-Arab conflict and why your observation about when/how Israel will have peace with the Arab world has no base in reality.
I never said you are stupid. As a native English speaker you should know the difference between Ignorance or lack on knowledge and stupidity. (though calling me illiterate is stupid enough).

we could buy all his oil cheaper than what this war is going to cost...

Must be something else huh? - Cause that old argument just doesn't really even make sense.

There it is in a nut shell.

Right on target.

XXX let me repeat it for the 3rd time:

you haven't made one single point that has withstood opposition. Everything you've said has been shot down and exposed as foolish, and apparently your only defense is to call everyone else stupid and ignorant.

THAT is transparent stupidity.

agreed.

Instead of flooding this board you could have pasted this URL and avoiding copyright infringement
http://www.evworld.com/databases/sto...fm?storyid=490
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

First, I don't need to make a point, you do since this thread is about alternatives to the war with iraq.
Second, I didn't say much so how can you shoot down what I said. All i said is that you talk nonsense - which I am right about and noone disproved me.
Third - I didnt, untill very soon now, called you stupid.
You are acting stupidly and should reread this thread to see that.
You said US has nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam. That is a "stupid" remark.
I don't need to explain that. That will be a waste of time as much as trying to explain to you "why bullets can kill". Don't waste my time - read about it first.

Hate to break it to you, the Palestinian/Israel problem is symbol over substance. Bin Laden has only recently begun using Israel/Palestine as one of his complaints.

The real reasons behind islamo-fascism is as follows:

Believe it or not, during the golden age of Islam, Islam had pronounced influence throughout the world in science, culture and politics. The decline of Islam, which had been going on for centuries, but finally the final blow, the disbanding of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, left muslims wondering what happened. Over the years, the people in the NEWLY defined muslim nations became increasingly disatisfied with regimes and leaders that western powers France and England installed. For years muslims vented their anger at their own governments. But in contemperary times they increasingly began venting their angst outward, to the western supporters of their corrupt governments.

For example, Mubarek in Egypt has a long history of oppressing and quelling disent in that country, yet Egypt has long been one of the leading recipients of U.S. aid (they rank 2nd).

Osama and his lot who also despised their own governments viewed much of their struggle as a struggle against modernity. They yearned for return of the golden age of Islam. They see moderninty as the root cause for the decline of Islam.

If their were peace in Israel and the disputed territories tomorrow, unfortunately terrorism would continue to exist. To cite Israel-Palestine as the source of most of the muslim world's hatred towards the west is not only naive, but a reckless and irresponsible propagagation of one of the greatest myths of the middle east.

my last post to you, since I can see that this is completely pointless:

"First, I don't need to make a point, you do since this thread is about alternatives to the war with iraq."

nobody needs to give reasons NOT to go to war. I don't ask my friends to give me reasons why I should NOT punch them in the face. It's assumed as a matter of civility that I will not punch them in the face without a damn good reason.

the case has to be made to go to war, and it has to be a damn good one if you place ANY value on human life.

geez...you really are naive.....go read a book on the history of the middle east and Islam....

The focus on the Palestinian plight is to divert attention from the many domestic problems and inter-Arab conflicts, and to direct the Moslem-Arab frustration against Israel and the "infidel" west.

No need to hate to break it to me :)
Been doing a quick piece of research, and I withdraw my statement about it being the No 1 reason, however, I still think it has significant affect having read a few diverse articles.

Also found this page;
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...01gilwhite.htm

It is so easy to forget events. This page has reasons for Arab hostility towards the US, and while I absolutely do not subscribe to some of them, it's still an interesting read.



Quoted by JeremySF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hate to break it to you, the Palestinian/Israel problem is symbol over substance. Bin Laden has only recently begun using Israel/Palestine as one of his complaints.

The real reasons behind islamo-fascism is as follows:

Believe it or not, during the golden age of Islam, Islam had pronounced influence throughout the world in science, culture and politics. The decline of Islam, which had been going on for centuries, but finally the final blow, the disbanding of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, left muslims wondering what happened. Over the years, the people in the NEWLY defined muslim nations became increasingly disatisfied with regimes and leaders that western powers France and England installed. For years muslims vented their anger at their own governments. But in contemperary times they increasingly began venting their angst outward, to the western supporters of their corrupt governments.

For example, Mubarek in Egypt has a long history of oppressing and quelling disent in that country, yet Egypt has long been one of the leading recipients of U.S. aid (they rank 2nd).

Osama and his lot who also despised their own governments viewed much of their struggle as a struggle against modernity. They yearned for return of the golden age of Islam. They see moderninty as the root cause for the decline of Islam.

If their were peace in Israel and the disputed territories tomorrow, unfortunately terrorism would continue to exist. To cite Israel-Palestine as the source of most of the muslim world's hatred towards the west is not only naive, but a reckless and irresponsible propagagation of one of the greatest myths of the middle east.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scooby doo as scooby does

The US to help solve the Palestine/Israel problem instead of simply supporting the Israelies. (No 1 reason US hated).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

you'll grow up to realize the world is not a Teletubbies show.
BTW. Can you tell me how good a friend you are with Saddam? :1orglaugh

Maybe you didnt understand... This is an Arab/Palestinian problem. Not a US/Arab/Palestinian or the rest of the worlds problem.

Religous wars that have been going on since the beginning of time will never be solved.. Not by US intervention or anything else for that matter. They will continue to throw rocks at eachother for 10,000 more years, just like have for the last 2,000.

Once again... we have issues of grave concern right here in our counrty... issues that have solutions. This should be our focus.

A Democratic Iraq in the region is a very interesting thought. It can't be an American puppet regime though. It would need to be an independent state....food for thought.

:)

No need to take than link too seriously :)
From their site - "word from their president" (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/newwelcome.htm):
Newsflash to their president: There is a thing called biological warfare :thumbsup

Also - from the article itself
:1orglaugh

Israeli-Arab conflict is not a religion conflict. Its cultural conflict and entity-related (Zionism+Western factors). It does have roots though in religion but that is filtered through culture.
PLUS
This conflict is has nothing to do directly with the Iraq coming war. Its effects are indirect at best if not side-effects.
Israel is only the buffer that kept terror from reaching US and Europe before.

That's sad.

These conflicts were going on hundreds and hundreds of years before the US ever existed. Please

Cultural/Religion I would say the two go hand and hand.

Sad but true. Read about the conflict of Islam and Europe. Read about the problems of Kuwait with the rest of the arab world. Read about the history of Jewish communities in Arab countries 100 years ago (and the undisturbed [in Arab standards] way of life they had until Israel was founded).
Tell me what you think after you do.

You could say that Culture and Religion is the same in the aspect of the conflict, but then again it would be as accurate as saying the terrorism and Islam is the same thing.

Anyway - back to the issue of this thread.
What do you suggest US do? Leave the area and ignore Iraq, Iran. Lybia and their weapon/military plans? Do the same with N.Korea? and focus on "US economy"? and everything will be jolly good? :glugglug

You really have no idea what you or anyone else is talking about do you?

This is silly.

Have a great evening

Enron? Worldcom? results of 9/11?

You don't really think your arguments should be taken serious - do you? Still, I guess its fun for you to express something you might call "opinion". Oh well, everyone gets his kick from different things.
Good night..

No - nor have both added together had near the effect on the economy as 9/11 did - not even worth mentioning.

You deny 9/11 had acute financial effect?
If so - how can you seriously argue Enron and Worldcom had negative effect on the economy?

Enron and Worldcom as well as AOL had a great effect on the US economy. 9/11 had even bigger effect. much bigger.

Right again!!


We were in big trouble far before 9/11. The events of that day were just the last nail in the coffin.

Was it Bush's fault? No.... but he has not addressed those issue head on like he has the "Iraq issue".

As aweful as 9/11 was.... what Enron, Worldcom and the others did to the stability of the US ecomony has a stonger and longer lasting effect then 9/11 will have on the US. The events of 9/11 just gave it more speed.

do nothing.
The US put saddam in power, live with yah governments fuck up and get over it.

:ak47: = :2 cents:

and you arrived at that conclusion.... how?

You are certainly welcome to your opinion - but you are sorely lacking when it comes to the facts...

The cost to added security after 9/11 ALONE is having more of an effect than Enron - it's costing the States a fortune - not to mention the air line industry - and that's on TOP of the actual cost when it happened.

Then add world-wide economies as they have had to spend tons on their own security....

Sorry - I think you missed the big picture on this one....


:)

I never said that the cost of the events of 9/11 were going to be less.. I said that 9/11 was the nail in the coffin.

Enron, Worldcom and the like were just terrorist attacked carried out by people in $1000.00 suits. Our economy was in a very fragile state, before 9/11. Those "terrorist" acts have been swepped under the rug, by Bush and his big money buddies. You dont think the terrorist of 9/11 knew they could deliver the final blow to the US ecomony?