The World indices reaping the benfits of GWB voodoo economics

[jokerswild]

They are crumbling. It is rather clear that the war in Iraq is lost in the sense that this adminsitration sold it on a basis of increased Iraqi production would keep oil at $20-$25 a barrel. With the massive deficits, and weak dollar, the US economy is now vulnerable to sell off's of the dollar by those arch Limbaugh enemies: the Chinese Communists.

The world and the USA are less safe than before this aggressive war.

There were reasons aggresive war was made a crime against humanity at Nuremburg.

The Neocons are guilty.

[Dead]

I really hope China doesn't float their currency like they've been hinting at.

I want them to teach G-Dub a lesson.

[lehighguy]

I don't even know what that statement is supposed to mean?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It is rather clear that the war in Iraq is lost in the sense that this adminsitration sold it on a basis of increased Iraqi production would keep oil at $20-$25 a barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]
When did the "administration" say this?

[ QUOTE ]
The world and the USA are less safe than before this aggressive war.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
There were reasons aggresive war was made a crime against humanity at Nuremburg.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if this had been applied to Saddam for his wars of aggression, we wouldn't be where we are...

[ QUOTE ]
The Neocons are guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]
...guilty removing a madman murderer from power...
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

When did the "administration" say this?

Please provide one of the reasons offered by the administration prior to the start of the war that has come true.

And please dont insult us with "we removed a mad man from power" as that was not what the drum beat from DC was prior to the war. The reasons offered were: WMD (we know where they are, we have proof), AQ (Bin and Saddam are in cahoots). See Powell speech to the UN.

The undercurrent was oil prices -- what is the latest quote on that?

Keep you head where it is or pull it out and see the real world -- your choice.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The undercurrent was oil prices -- what is the latest quote on that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess I should just take your word for it...? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[jaxmike]

Wow, you are trying to connect events that aren't clearly related. To call this war aggressive is an incorrect statement in my opinion also.

[jaxmike]

As soon as they do that, we adopt a true fair trade policy destroying just about every economy in the world, including our own, however, we will recover first and most quickly from this event.

[bholdr]

the Neocons are:

[ QUOTE ]
...guilty removing a madman murderer from power...


[/ QUOTE ]

...at a cost of several hundred billion dollars and counting, plus 1500+ american lives, 18k+ wounded, 500+ coalition lives, 2k+ wounded, probably close to 100k iraqi lives, untold numbers of iraqi wounded, 50$ barrells of oil, damaged relations with our log-term allies, the loss of american ability to project power worldwide, the exposure of the limitations of our military and it's doctrine, etc, etc, etc...

all while he could have been peacibly forced from power by now. (he was close to taking an offer of asylum from syria before bush forced his hand in '03)


I aggree, they are guilty as sin.

[BCPVP]

And how much did WWII cost?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
And how much did WWII cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very poor counter. WWII has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war and is in no way comparable.

[BCPVP]

Well, he's the one who's trying to show that the war wasn't worth it by showing the costs. So I offered another war with vastly greater costs, yet I think most would say that was a good war to fight. My point was that perhaps the cost in blood and treasure is not the only measure (or maybe even the biggest) of whether a war was a good idea.

[sirio11]

And our point is, whatever measures, while WWII was worth the cost, the Iraq war is not.

[BCPVP]

You don't say...

I disagree w/ you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[bholdr]

pearl harbor. axis aggrement. etc...

[BCPVP]

9-11, state sponser of terrorism, broken ceasefires, etc.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]

9-11, state sponser of terrorism, broken ceasefires, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

diffrence of degree and of kind, you know this, unless you're arguing that saddam was as bad as imperiel japan and hitler, and that there was NO possible alternitive.

'
BZZZZZZT!!!


bad example.

[ACPlayer]

No better source you shall find.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
diffrence of degree and of kind, you know this

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and no. I'd say that 9-11 was far more devastating as far as damage to the U.S., but obviously it's not exactly analogous. I'd be willing to put Saddam on Hitler's level. Saddam just didn't have enough power, yet.

[ QUOTE ]
and that there was NO possible alternitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you implying there was no other possible alternatives to WWII, as far as U.S. involvement goes?