December 06, 2006
More Convert Or Die Diplomacy
My friend Linda has a chilling look at Iran's latest actions in its 27 year-long war with us.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Don't kid yourself or be mislead by the MSM. This is economic warfare, pure and simple.
It's funny. I caught a snippet of Robert Byrd questioning the new SecDef in his confirmation hearing. Byrd asked Gates if we were going to attack Iran, or if he supported an attack on Iran.
Not once did he ask if Gates thought Iran would attack us. Maybe it's a moot point, they already have more than once.
Posted by: Vinnie at
09:27 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think they are dead.
Posted by: Gabriel Logan at December 06, 2006 10:36 PM (gF3rB)
2
When Bush became President the dollar was worth more than the euro, about 82 cent equaled one euro (Nov 2000) Now it takes 1.33 dollars to buy one euro.
If you were any foreign nation would you prefer to be paid in a currency, that would be worth more the next day, or one that would be worth less the next day ?
During this time we also went from record surpluses to record deficits.
If you were any foreign nation would you prefer to be paid in a currency, that would be worth more the next day, or one that would be worth less the next day ?
During this time we also went from record surpluses to record deficits.
Posted by: John Ryan at December 07, 2006 12:09 AM (TcoRJ)
3
Some will obviously view the drop of the dollars worth as a prelude to the "Amero" and it may or may not be but I think there is ample evidence that Bush abandoned the "strong dollar" prior to 2004 and is using the weak dollar to raise the price of imported goods while hoping to encourage the sale of domestic goods. There is also speculation that a weakened dollar might cause the Chinese to sell off some of the record number of greenbacks they own.
Did I hear that the Republicans withdrew a bill this week to allow drilling in those huge oil reserves offshore in the Gulf? Doesn't surprise me in the least.
I too wonder what happened to those conservatives in Congress who balanced the budget and gave us those record surpluses during the Clinton years. We sure could use them now but it looks like the big pork / big deficit boys are still in power (on both sides of the aisle).
Did I hear that the Republicans withdrew a bill this week to allow drilling in those huge oil reserves offshore in the Gulf? Doesn't surprise me in the least.
I too wonder what happened to those conservatives in Congress who balanced the budget and gave us those record surpluses during the Clinton years. We sure could use them now but it looks like the big pork / big deficit boys are still in power (on both sides of the aisle).
Posted by: Buzzy at December 07, 2006 02:10 AM (CXz7T)
4
John Ryan. record suprluses? actually I thought we have been maintaining a deficit, plus or minus some percentage since 63? I guess my favorite economists on NPR have it all wrong.
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1006
Posted by: DAT at December 07, 2006 08:00 AM (VxXTk)
5
Troll, I mean err "John",
When Bush assumed the Presidency Al-Qaeda had been actively attacking US interest's for the better part of ten years. Due to the Clinton administrations failure to seriously address this issue we suffered an attack on 9/11/2001 that was big enough to get world wide attention.
Left with no choice but to commit to an all out attack on Al-Qaeda and it's sympathizers the Bush administration, with the blessing of the Senate and Congress, committed the United States to a plan called the "War on Terror". This plan mainly consisted of taking the fight to the enemy and the Democratic party of the US promptly withdrew their initial support of this action for political gain.
The "record surplus" you speak of (while being no such thing) was created by the Clinton administrations gutting of the top of the line Cold War military forces that the US had maintained for decades. While a force of that size was no longer needed the downsizing was too fast and the cuts too deep. The end result on the budget was reflected as "look at all this surplus money we have" (taken from National Defense budgets). The end result on the Armed Forces was devastating, leaving a force too small to conduct a world wide conflict. Pumping money into the behemoth that is the Armed Forces in an effort to make it War ready is where your "record deficit" comes from. You think "up-armoring" HumVees is free?
Nice try though.
When Bush assumed the Presidency Al-Qaeda had been actively attacking US interest's for the better part of ten years. Due to the Clinton administrations failure to seriously address this issue we suffered an attack on 9/11/2001 that was big enough to get world wide attention.
Left with no choice but to commit to an all out attack on Al-Qaeda and it's sympathizers the Bush administration, with the blessing of the Senate and Congress, committed the United States to a plan called the "War on Terror". This plan mainly consisted of taking the fight to the enemy and the Democratic party of the US promptly withdrew their initial support of this action for political gain.
The "record surplus" you speak of (while being no such thing) was created by the Clinton administrations gutting of the top of the line Cold War military forces that the US had maintained for decades. While a force of that size was no longer needed the downsizing was too fast and the cuts too deep. The end result on the budget was reflected as "look at all this surplus money we have" (taken from National Defense budgets). The end result on the Armed Forces was devastating, leaving a force too small to conduct a world wide conflict. Pumping money into the behemoth that is the Armed Forces in an effort to make it War ready is where your "record deficit" comes from. You think "up-armoring" HumVees is free?
Nice try though.
Posted by: blackflag at December 07, 2006 09:39 AM (Mq5jS)
6
My Econ teacher, who was a flaming liberal, even said there was no actual surplus. According ot him, blackflag is dead on. There was all this money from the canceled parts of the defense budget that was reallocated, giving the impression of a surplus.
Granted, there was a projected surplus...but that would have assumed we would have been in the same situation 50 years from now as we were when that calculation was made.
Granted, there was a projected surplus...but that would have assumed we would have been in the same situation 50 years from now as we were when that calculation was made.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at December 07, 2006 12:33 PM (VvXII)
7
John Lyin:
Currency rates fluctuate, and the European Union is going bankrupt paying for its socialist welfare programs. It costs a lot of money to feed, shelter, clothe, and reward its own freeloaders, much less the muslim vermin who have infested the continent.
The dollar is in much higher demand than the euro, so the rest of the world disagrees with you. Even your terrorist idols prefer the dollar.
Feel free to trade your savings in for Euros, comrade Muhammad. (*Hypocrite alert!*)
Currency rates fluctuate, and the European Union is going bankrupt paying for its socialist welfare programs. It costs a lot of money to feed, shelter, clothe, and reward its own freeloaders, much less the muslim vermin who have infested the continent.
The dollar is in much higher demand than the euro, so the rest of the world disagrees with you. Even your terrorist idols prefer the dollar.
Feel free to trade your savings in for Euros, comrade Muhammad. (*Hypocrite alert!*)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 07, 2006 11:55 PM (bLPT+)
8
As for people doing business with Iran, it would take about three days playing nice, and about 15 minutes playing serious, to take Iran's trade off the global map.
They are only a threat if we tolerate them, and their little death cultists that they export.
Iran needs to move its oil out to be able to sell it. If they can't move it, they have nothing. We can ruin them in a very short time, and so it all comes down to death cultists with nukes.
If we keep them from getting nukes, the nation of Iran is not a global economic player unless we let them be. If they get nukes, we will have to deal quickly, and completely with that reality. Otherwise, we have a luxury of power that is often overlooked. Our navy could ruin the Iranina economy by itself. We don't need troops on the ground.
Lets not get to distracted by 'oil bourses' or whatever you call them. Their production is an egg shell, and we have a big hammer.
USA all the way!
They are only a threat if we tolerate them, and their little death cultists that they export.
Iran needs to move its oil out to be able to sell it. If they can't move it, they have nothing. We can ruin them in a very short time, and so it all comes down to death cultists with nukes.
If we keep them from getting nukes, the nation of Iran is not a global economic player unless we let them be. If they get nukes, we will have to deal quickly, and completely with that reality. Otherwise, we have a luxury of power that is often overlooked. Our navy could ruin the Iranina economy by itself. We don't need troops on the ground.
Lets not get to distracted by 'oil bourses' or whatever you call them. Their production is an egg shell, and we have a big hammer.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 08, 2006 09:21 PM (2OHpj)
9
John Lyin: Bullshit. The economy is at its highest ever.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 11, 2006 06:03 AM (ezJiI)
34kb generated in CPU 0.0463, elapsed 0.0665 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0285 seconds, 164 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0285 seconds, 164 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
