Last edited by alpinestar (2006-07-12 11:47:49)
QFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!kr@cker wrote:
Your thinly veiled hatred for anyone more successful than you is pathetic, I don't have anything against anyone from another country, so I've been holding back this comment for a long time, but I just gotta say that it's a sad statement on your condition when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-12 12:28:07)
WTF!!! This is a serious debate about the state of the US economy, I can't remember anyone flaming the US. Kr@cker, why are you so ultra defensive when no one has said anything negative (that isn't factual and relevant to this topic) about your country?kr@cker wrote:
so.......what difference would it make? How would it be any different if they traded in clamshells? is it breaking the US to buy euro made cars? cuz I sure see an assload of them on the road. It would just go through an exchange, a barrel would still be a barrel, would the value (careful, not cost) of each bbl rise? I personally don't care, you're all screwing yourselves plotting against the planets economic center,after all, if things are as bad as you say, the fact that the middle east is running out, and you switch to the rupee, are going to be the two biggest reasons for the US to start tapping it's own supplies, just one field alone is estimated to hold more than 3 times the amount in the middle east, not to mention Canada's and Mexico's massive fields, and it would be awful hard for them to justify trading in a different continents standard when they are just shipping it across the border.
Your thinly veiled hatred for anyone more successful than you is pathetic, I don't have anything against anyone from another country, so I've been holding back this comment for a long time, but I just gotta say that it's a sad statement on your condition when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-12 14:05:13)
uhm, you yourself have been known for your flaming of the US and your particular ultra patriotic attitude toward your own nation. An understandable position, but I think you're just pissed because you've met someone just as patriotic as you but on the other side. The death of petroleum will ripple throughout the globe. It is much larger than merely a US issue, whatever the trading currency. Ultimately, you choose to select statistics which support your arguements, and are typically british in origin. Seriously, chill and take a step back and look at what you're doing/saying.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
WTF!!! This is a serious debate about the state of the US economy, I can't remember anyone flaming the US. Kr@cker, why are you so ultra defensive when no one has said anything negative (that isn't factual and relevant to this topic) about your country?kr@cker wrote:
so.......what difference would it make? How would it be any different if they traded in clamshells? is it breaking the US to buy euro made cars? cuz I sure see an assload of them on the road. It would just go through an exchange, a barrel would still be a barrel, would the value (careful, not cost) of each bbl rise? I personally don't care, you're all screwing yourselves plotting against the planets economic center,after all, if things are as bad as you say, the fact that the middle east is running out, and you switch to the rupee, are going to be the two biggest reasons for the US to start tapping it's own supplies, just one field alone is estimated to hold more than 3 times the amount in the middle east, not to mention Canada's and Mexico's massive fields, and it would be awful hard for them to justify trading in a different continents standard when they are just shipping it across the border.
Your thinly veiled hatred for anyone more successful than you is pathetic, I don't have anything against anyone from another country, so I've been holding back this comment for a long time, but I just gotta say that it's a sad statement on your condition when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
Also, if you knew anything about economics, you'd know that Britain doesn't use the Euro and we'd be better off in the current system. Why do you think we backed you up in Iraq and France and Germany didn't? This isn't about "the destruction" of your econmy but about real world events. Besides, if this did happen it would mean the US were trading on level terms, like the rest of the World. And your argument against that would be?
Isn't that exactly what usa has been doing? Or how do explain americas import duties against foreign products or usas eagerness to mess with countries that were going to switch to euro. And I didn't find any 'plot' on EstebanReys text. Just pondering what would happen if you'd have to come to same line with rest of the world.kr@cker wrote:
when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
Are you honestly suggesting that you have fewer or less expensive export duties in Europe than the US does?PekkaA wrote:
Isn't that exactly what usa has been doing? Or how do explain americas import duties against foreign products or usas eagerness to mess with countries that were going to switch to euro. And I didn't find any 'plot' on EstebanReys text. Just pondering what would happen if you'd have to come to same line with rest of the world.kr@cker wrote:
when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-13 12:03:19)
Canada? I think you're wrong here Ninja.cyborg_ninja wrote:
err this does not make sense... invading iraq to control the petrodollar? US doesnt get most of its oil from the middle east... they get it from canada...
No, just pointed out that even usas trade policy isn't that liberated as kr@cker stated. I'm talking about 'axis of evil' that estebanrey mentioned, ie Iran, Iraq and NK. I know there are many reasons to 'mess' with those three, but still...how conveniently picked from all unstable countries in a world.whittsend wrote:
Are you honestly suggesting that you have fewer or less expensive export duties in Europe than the US does?PekkaA wrote:
Isn't that exactly what usa has been doing? Or how do explain americas import duties against foreign products or usas eagerness to mess with countries that were going to switch to euro. And I didn't find any 'plot' on EstebanReys text. Just pondering what would happen if you'd have to come to same line with rest of the world.kr@cker wrote:
when dozens of other nations have to band together and actively seek the destruction of another's economy because they can't do the shit right on their own, after all, if you can't outrun your competition, you can always push them into the wall.
And what "eagerness to mess with countries that were going to switch to the euro" are you talking about?
Please be specific.
It certainly isn't as liberated as I would like, but comparitively speaking, it's not bad.PekkaA wrote:
No, just pointed out that even usas trade policy isn't that liberated as kr@cker stated.
Um, you don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that they are the three which are/were capable of inflicting the most harm on the rest of the world, do you?PekkaA wrote:
I'm talking about 'axis of evil' that estebanrey mentioned, ie Iran, Iraq and NK. I know there are many reasons to 'mess' with those three, but still...how conveniently picked from all unstable countries in a world.
Iraq: Yes, we should have realised that based on the data in our crystal ball. Try to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Bush is a shithead, but reasonable people still believed Saddam was a threat.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh.......say what? Iraq had nothing to do damage with, and Iran has yet to develop any nukes. You know who does have nukes, and has been at war just about since it was founded? Pakistan. You know who may have nukes, and is constantly attack civilian infrastructure? Israel. But hey, the US is getting along fine with them, so I guess it's ok.
I'm curious as to how the US, with one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, could get it wrong when everybody else had it right.whittsend wrote:
Iraq: Yes, we should have realised that based on the data in our crystal ball. Try to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Bush is a shithead, but reasonable people still believed Saddam was a threat.
Uh-huh. And if the nukes start flying, you don't think China will pitch in? See, the thing is, once one country goes off, the rest follow.whittsend wrote:
Pakistans issues are focused on one country, which is also nuclear arms, and whose own nuclear development program induced Pakistan's. Do I even need to name it?
Apart from the fact that the only reason it's domestic is because of their terrorism, it wasn't at all untrue: they do consistently attack civilian infrastructure, and they are keeping tight lipped about whether they have a nuclear stockpile.whittsend wrote:
Israel: What an incredibly biased and inaccurate way to describe Israel's attempts to deal with a domestic terrorism problem.
You don't seem to.whittsend wrote:
Bubbalo, please, if you are going to discuss this stuff, at least make an attempt to see past your biases.
Wrong in almost every respect. If our intelligence agency was that good, one would think they might have said something to prevent the deaths of 3000+ people one day in 2001. Also, NOBODY with any intelligence whatsoever was saying that Iraq categorically didn't have WMD back in 2002/2003. What they were saying was that an invasion was not appropriate.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm curious as to how the US, with one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, could get it wrong when everybody else had it right.
So, you suggest that we should invading a country with a long history of conflict with another country, but no other country, and chance setting off the very nuclear war you are afraid of? Do you think at all before you post? This is really the most ignorant example I have ever seen from you....Bubbalo wrote:
Uh-huh. And if the nukes start flying, you don't think China will pitch in? See, the thing is, once one country goes off, the rest follow.
...until I read this. If you won't accept that Israel has a right to exist, there is no basis of discussion. Israel has a right to exist as a country; almost every nation in the world has accepted this, including many Arabic ones. Your comments that they habitually attack civilian infrastructure can only be borne from the assumption that they have no right to exist, or to respond to attacks against them. That puts you in fine company with Hamas and Hizbullah, and there is no point discussing a topic with a fanatic.Bubbalo wrote:
Apart from the fact that the only reason it's domestic is because of their terrorism, it wasn't at all untrue: they do consistently attack civilian infrastructure, and they are keeping tight lipped about whether they have a nuclear stockpile.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-14 06:56:16)
hear hear ! ahem....At least acknowlege your own Bias. i know I am biased.Bubbalo wrote:
whittsend wrote:
Iraq: Yes, we should have realised that based on the data in our crystal ball. Try to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Bush is a shithead, but reasonable people still believed Saddam was a threat.I'm curious as to how the US, with one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, could get it wrong when everybody else had it right.Hoseman77 wrote:
Save comments like this until you are in possession and looking over the same Intel Satellites photos documents, etc., as him.
You cant possibly know the picture as clearly as someone who has first hand knowledge in a timely manner. Remember Reagan was portrayed as "Asleep at the Wheel " by celebrities and their ilk in an effort to derail his efforts and discredit his policies. They have yet to apologize to His name or mourn the Fallen Countries they defended in acts of treason to their own Homeland.
But his legacy has born out his methods and Ideas beyond the reproach of educated knowledgeable people.Uh-huh. And if the nukes start flying, you don't think China will pitch in? See, the thing is, once one country goes off, the rest follow.whittsend wrote:
Pakistans issues are focused on one country, which is also nuclear arms, and whose own nuclear development program induced Pakistan's. Do I even need to name it?Apart from the fact that the only reason it's domestic is because of their terrorism, it wasn't at all untrue: they do consistently attack civilian infrastructure, and they are keeping tight lipped about whether they have a nuclear stockpile.whittsend wrote:
Israel: What an incredibly biased and inaccurate way to describe Israel's attempts to deal with a domestic terrorism problem.You don't seem to.whittsend wrote:
Bubbalo, please, if you are going to discuss this stuff, at least make an attempt to see past your biases.
Reams of documents support either position.bubalo wrote:
US, with one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, could get it wrong
Again, This to is yet to be shown as fact, only History will bear either side out. I for one would love to see all the Nations who " get it right " Australia included, step in and do something anything in a competent and purposeful manner once in a while but I wont hold my breath.Bubbalo wrote:
when everybody else had it right.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-14 08:24:05)