1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

end of the open range

Discussion in 'Random Discussion' started by plschwartz, Feb 9, 2003.

  1. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
    Well it looks like they're putting up barbed wire round the US and Mr. Bush is going to find himself fenced in. Poor cowboy doesn't even know is was happening. The man who thought that he could ignore the rest of the world will soon find himself isolated instead.
    Belgium has just given Turkey its out in having US troops there. The need for Turkey to join the EU does I think outweigh the piece of Iraq we promised the Turks.
    The French-German (-Russian?) plan takes all the steam of of Bush's arguement .
    Can you believe that Rummy is upset that they planned without him:D

    From the Times online ( a Rupert Murdoch paper)

    February 10, 2003

    War split puts Nato's future in jeopardy
    By Roger Boyes in Munich, Elaine Monaghan in Washington and Melissa Kite
    AN EXTRAORDINARY schism opened up in the Western alliance yesterday as Washington flatly rejected a Franco-German plan to avert war by pouring UN weapons inspectors — and troops — into Iraq.

    President Putin of Russia last night backed the plan to turn Iraq into a de facto UN protectorate, due to be published on Friday, but President Bush and his leading officials bluntly declared that the United States would go it alone if the United Nations Security Council refused to approve military action.

    Later today the deepening transatlantic rift over Iraq is expected to plunge Nato into one of the deepest crises of its 54-year history when Belgium, France and probably Germany veto a decision to start contingency planning to defend Turkey in the event of a war.

    In an interview with The Times Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said that such a move to deny Patriot missiles and other Nato hardware to an alliance member would be “breathtaking” and “reverberate” through the alliance.

    Mr Rumsfeld also said that his preferred solution to the crisis was for President Saddam Hussein to go into exile, and indicated that America would not seek his extradition in those circumstances.

    The next key moment in the countdown to war will occur on Friday when Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, reports back to the Security Council on two days of talks with Iraqi officials in Baghdad that concluded last night.

    Dr Blix secured none of the dramatic concessions required to placate Washington, but said he perceived “a beginning” to the much fuller co- operation with weapons inspectors that the UN has demanded.

    The Franco-German plan envisages:

    # A threefold increase in the number of UN inspectors on the ground. At present there are about 100;

    The use of French reconnaissance jets, German drones and American U2s in an aerial search for hiding places;

    The extension of no-fly zones to all Iraqi airspace;

    The setting up of a permanent UN monitoring agency in Iraq;

    Smart sanctions applied against every infringement by Saddam including a tightening of export controls and a crackdown on oil smuggling;

    A special United Nations court to investigate human rights abuses.

    # The deployment of UN troops across the country, setting up road blocks and checking suspicious transports.

    At a meeting in Berlin last night Mr Putin, who is visiting Berlin and Paris to co-ordinate Russia, Germany and France’s opposition to war, said that Russia was “almost completely in agreement” with the Franco-German plan.

    That means it is backed by two of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council plus the country that chairs it.

    Vatican officials said that the plan also had the support of the Pope, who is sending a personal envoy to Baghdad today as part of his one-man campaign to avert war.

    But the Franco-German initiative elicited only scorn and defiance in Washington.

    “I don’t think the next step should be let’s send in more inspectors to get stiffed,” Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said. “It’s not more inspectors that we need. It’s more co-operation — far more co-operation.”

    He called the plan a “diversion, not a solution”. Referring to the last UN resolution, which gave warning of “serious consequences” if Iraq did not fully comply with UN weapons inspectors, General Powell continued: “More inspectors doesn’t answer the question and what France has to do and Germany has to do . . . is read (Resolution) 1441 again.”

    President Bush made clear that America would act with or without UN support. “The UN gets to decide shortly whether or not it is going to be relevant in terms of keeping the peace — whether or not its words mean anything,” he said during a visit to West Virginia. “But one thing is certain. For the sake of peace and the sake of security, the United States and our friends and allies, we will disarm Saddam Hussein if he will not disarm himself.”

    General Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s National Security Adviser, appeared on television chatshows yesterday to stress that time had almost run out. “If (Saddam) is going to comply he can do it today,” General Powell asked. “How much longer are we to wait?” The British Government, America’s closest ally, also poured cold water on the Franco-German plan. “You can put all the inspectors in the world in but the bottom line remains the same. The bottom line is Resolution 1441,” a senior source said.

    “Saddam Hussein is either co-operating or he is not. Unless there is full compliance from the regime it really does not matter how many inspectors you put in or whether they are supported by troops. They are still not going to be able to do their job.”

    The Americans were angered not only by the content of the Franco-German plan, but by the fact that it was hatched in secret. The plan was not mentioned to Mr Rumsfeld during a private session with Peter Struck, the German Defence Minister, at a conference in Munich.

    “Everything has been played close to the chest,” a chancellery adviser said yesterday. Cautious approval seems to have been gained from China, Greece — which holds the six-month European Union presidency — and from the Pope, who met Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, on Friday. The news magazine Der Spiegel said yesterday, however, that the British, Spanish and Italians were not consulted.
  2. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
    Don't know if this got posted:
    Mandela told the International Women’s Forum in Johannesburg, Jan. 30., “What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.”
  3. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
    from todays Financial Times
    Europeans unimpressed with Rumsfeld's optimismUS attempts to win consensus on Iraq reveal bitter differences, writes Peter SpiegelPublished: February 9 2003 21:00 | Last Updated: February 9 2003 21:00

    Before their three-week trip to Europe, aides to Donald Rumsfeld were increasingly certain that momentum had shifted in the debate over an invasion of Iraq. The US defence secretary's bilateral meetings with European leaders in Munich, they confidently predicted, would be a final step in securing continent-wide support for US policy.

    One senior Pentagon official said just before he left with Mr Rumsfeld: "I would not characterise it as a hard sell because I don't think a hard sell is necessary. I expect it to be very positive in terms of the German government and German minister of defence's views, and the Russians as well."

    But if the US delegation expected to leave the annual gathering of defence ministers in snow-bound Bavaria closer to a consensus on Iraq, they were sadly disappointed.

    The German and French officials failed to budge. Mr Rumsfeld was followed at the podium by an emotional outburst against an invasion by Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, and a bitter denunciation of "ad-hoc coalitions" by Michèle Alliot-Marie, French defence minister. As if that were not enough, the conference soon became consumed with reports that the "old Europeans" were working on an Iraq plan of their own which could include sending peacekeepers there.

    US officials, who learned of the Franco-German plan only when questioned by reporters, were furious. When Mr Rumsfeld asked Peter Struck, his German counterpart, about the reports Mr Struck said he could not discuss the details.

    Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of the US Congress's leading Iraq hawks, said: "I feel like I'm watching this unfold in split-screen. At home, Secretary [of State Colin] Powell's address to the UN has changed a lot of minds. Here, nothing seems to have changed."

    Delegates from both sides of the Atlantic, including Mr Lieberman and Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, attempted to bridge the differences, insisting the heated rhetoric over Iraq was merely "family therapy" in what Mr Lieberman termed a "dysfunctional family".

    Indeed, Mr Rumsfeld noted that the transatlantic alliance had braved similar divisive disagreements over the last 50 years, including tendentious back-biting over the status of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe during the 1980s, and predicted that this, too, would pass.

    However much of the conference saw Americans and Europeans talking past each other on Iraq, with the US delegation asking their European counterparts why they did not see Saddam Hussein as a threat, and continental leaders insisting it was not Mr Hussein's behaviour but whether war was the only option.

    Mr Fischer, arms frequently crossed in a defensive crouch against the American onslaught, complained: "In Afghanistan, we haven't finished the first job; we can't even see the end of it. Why this policy now? Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, but we've known that for years."

    Contentious as the public exchanges were, private discussions off the conference floor were even more belligerent, one official said.

    Mr Rumsfeld himself harangued three Nato members - France, Germany and Belgium - which have blocked the planning for anti-missile batteries to be moved to Turkey to defend it against a possible attack by Iraq. He said it was "beyond comprehension to me".

    He also insisted there were more differences among Europeans on Iraq than between the US and Europe. The statement appeared to be part of concerted campaign by the US to isolate France and Germany. This has included repeated references to the eight countries that signed a letter of support for US policy last month, followed last week by a similar letter from the "Vilnius Ten" eastern European states.

    Mr Fischer was also assailed by Paulo Portas, the Portuguese defence minister, who argued that pacifism had been a dangerous force in Europe. "They were wrong in 1939, they were wrong in the 1980s, and they were wrong on Milosevic." Mr Fischer testily responded that he did not recall any Portuguese troops being deployed to Afghanistan.

    But in the end, the biggest complaint aimed at Mr Rumsfeld seemed to be that his European counterparts had not been consulted on almost any of the military action that had taken place since September 11, 2001. Mr Fisher said: "We need a strategic discussion. Why haven't we had it systematically in the North Atlantic alliance?"

    It was a theme picked up by Ms Alliot-Marie. "Being allies is a status that implies dialogue and respect for partners," she said.

    "It means we avoid levelling unfounded allegations against each other. Being allies means consulting with each other to find a solution. Being allies does not mean saying, 'My solution is the best, and I don't want to listen to yours'."
  4. RP McMurphy

    RP McMurphy

    Feb 9, 2003
    I wouldn't consult with the hypocritical socialists either.

    Our New and Peculiar Friends: Europe's Leftist Leaders
    Col. Stanislav Lunev
    Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2001
    For more than two months America has been at war against international terrorism, which poses a real danger for us as well as for the rest of the civilized world.

    In this war we are getting support from our friends and allies, but it would be tough to say that some of them are really doing very much in this effort.

    Some of our NATO allies are still talking about their potential participation in fighting against terrorism, and continue to promise to send troops to support the U.S.-led military operation against the Taliban, now actually in its final stage.

    They are also still considering preconditions for implementing NATO's special articles, which recognize any attack against America as an attack against all of NATO's members.

    In other words, something's gone wrong with some of the liberal governments of Western Europe that were traditional U.S. allies during the Cold War and for a few years afterward.

    We know that using the weakness of American policy in 1993-2000, Western Europe's leftist governments began to look after their own interests in international affairs at the expense of the Free World's common strategic interests.

    For more than half of the last century, Western European nations enjoyed protection under the U.S. military shield and its nuclear umbrella, spending a minimum of their annual budgets for defense and relying on America every time there were threats against the European continent.

    But now some of NATO's members do not even consider using their own resources for upgrading the Free World's strategic defense system by developing and deploying the National Missile Defense system (NMD), which could protect them from hostile as well as accidental missile strikes.

    And this is not because they do not like President Bush's plan for the NMD, but only because they do not want to spend their own resources, which they prefer to use for their own political advantage.

    Some of these present liberal leaders in Western Europe are individuals who cut their political teeth demonstrating their opposition to U.S. military power, to the NATO alliance and to America in general.

    For example, there are Germany's Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder and his Green Party Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, both pedigreed leftists who were active in the pro-Soviet European leftist campaign in the early 1980s that was aimed at preventing the deployment of U.S. intermediate-range nuclear missiles in five allied countries.

    The same activity characterizes the political careers of many other liberal Western officials. What kind of creativity could we expect from the present and immediate past secretary-generals of NATO, Britain's George Robertson and Spain's Javier Solana, respectively, both determined opponents of the U.S. leadership of NATO in the face of manifest Soviet threats?

    While some European nations criticize the U.S. for so-called isolationism, they themselves have become absorbed in their own affairs during the last decade.

    Currently, many of Western Europe's leaders and their foreign ministers are spending most of their working days promoting European Union (EU) initiatives. They, and not the Americans, are the real isolationists of our time.

    In recent years, 15 European countries have come together as the EU for reasons of increased leverage in trade and economics. This arrangement involves cross-border agreements and some surrender of sovereignty among member states to the central EU arbitrators.

    But the member nations of the EU retained their own political and cultural identities, which made this union popular.

    Some time later, leaders of the EU introduced their own currency –the euro – which they consider to be a counterbalance to the U.S. dollar in pursuit of their goal of neutralizing American economic and financial superiority.

    Created artificially, the euro lost almost 50% of its value during the last few years and in September 2000 the U.S. Federal Reserve had to spend billions of dollars to rescue the euro when it plunged in value against other currencies.

    At the same time, the EU established discriminatory rules in dealing with the U.S. in favor of its own corporations.

    For example, last June the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed to a request from the EU and handed the U.S. a resounding defeat in a multibillion-dollar trade dispute over a tax law that benefits American corporations such as Microsoft, GE and Boeing.

    Previously, the EU rejected GE's $41 billion purchase of Honeywell International because of competition concerns from Europe.

    On May 30, the EU warned European corporations to take steps to protect data sent by phone, fax or e-mail from commercial spies. A European Parliament committee stressed that there was no hard evidence to back up suspicions that American companies are spying on them via the U.S. Echelon spy network, but it said that should not stop them from taking precautions.

    As NewsMax.com reported (on June 7), at the end of last year leaders of the EU decided to create their own 60,000-strong military force to serve as the EU's army. The new military structure would exist outside NATO's military infrastructure and simply duplicate NATO.

    This Euro army will not include the U.S., Canada and other non-EU members of NATO, but counts on using some NATO facilities, including electronic surveillance, transport and bases.

    Having pledged to create a new all-European Rapid Reaction Force, liberal and socialistic European governments continue to slash their defense spending, now spiraling down at a rate of 5 percent a year.

    Last year, European Commission President Romano Prodi said the EU would issue security guarantees for all EU members, four of which are not members of NATO. Turkey, a staunch NATO member since 1952, has opposed the idea of a Euro army as potentially "creating new division lines on the European continent."

    Also, new NATO members such as the Czech Republic feel themselves discriminated against by Western European nations because they are not yet members of the EU and would be outside its military structure.

    Of course, not all European nations are strong supporters of their continent's isolationism. For example, just three of the EU governments – Spain, Italy and Austria – are firmly in the control of conservative or center-right coalition governments, while many of the socialist governments in power in Europe would be considered far left of the American political spectrum.

    The leftist dominance was most clearly on display last year when the EU effectively blackballed the government of Austria when a rightist party was invited to join the government in Vienna.

    For the left-Europeans, anyone not like them is a "fascist" and must be sanctioned, and this is exactly what happened with Vienna last year.

    The EU imposed sanctions against the rightist Austrian government without any real reason, and this step was supported at that time by the Clinton administration. The government in Vienna was denounced by the leftist press as a "fascist regime," but the sanctions, which were bitterly denounced in Austria, were quietly dropped six months later.

    The big victory of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy was a blow to left-wing control of the EU. Both Belgian and French ministers threatened before the vote to sanction Italy if he was elected, as they did with Austria. Pre-election liberal publications labeled Mr. Berlusconi a "Reaganite" because he is for tax cuts and for radically ceding power to Italy's regions while slimming the bureaucratic center.

    Also, Ireland is still smarting after being widely criticized for drastically cutting taxes and for a referendum that seriously limited euro extension to this country. Denmark rejected the euro as its monetary unit in a referendum despite support for it by all of its political parties, and in Switzerland voters recently rejected plans to join the EU by 77 percent to 23 percent.

    The EU has a much larger population than, and an economy comparable to, that of the U.S. Currently, there is no reason for the U.S., which unlike its allies carries global burdens, to continue subsidizing Europe's defense at a time when its leftist leaders are taking their continent into real, not imagined, isolationism.

    Their current, mostly symbolic, participation in the U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition only postpones but does not resolve the problem.
  5. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
  6. LANMaster

    LANMaster Banned

    Jan 6, 2003
    Jumping for joy at the prospect of US economic decline? Gee, looks like you may want to head out before the fence goes up, huh? Seems obvious to me that you consider the USA the most god awful stink hole on the planet. Makes me wonder how you can stand living in New York. Besides, the USA is obviously headed for disaster under the current administration, right? It will only get worse when he is re-elected, right?
    UN1441 passed 15-0
    muahahaha, it is all part of our evil USA plan, don't you see? They can't live without us !!! The strength of their economies depends on the strength of the US economy! muahahaha.
    Where's balsac when you need him?:rolleyes:

    Oh sure. Yeah, the world has the US by the cojones.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: That's why we export billions, and billions in aid around the world. Gee, what on Earth are we to do? Get real.

    And by this quote, you believe that (the Gods) have raised up the USA because they (the Gods) plan to destroy us???
    But gee, golly, pl, I thought it was all George Bush's fault? :)

    LMAO Now I must ask you where your sense of humor is? It is just a cartoon, Paul.

    I must admit, that you are far more educated in literature than I am, and I enjoy your references to ancient novella and mythology.
  7. RSM123


    Aug 1, 2002
    Speaking as someone from the UK - Or the 51st State I am also intrigued by a number of things in the present situation. For example over 200,000 Chechens have been killed in several years of Russian Air / Ground Assaults yet these newly created 'Peace' groups don't say a word about this ?? Why ? If they are truely motivated by human rights considerations and not just cyincal anti Americanism ? Either you care or you don't. I sent an extremely detailed email to a group called International Answer.org - and asked them why they are not protesting outside the Ruusian Embassy. I also asked whether they would be protesting in Red Square about what the Russians are doing. As yest I have had no reply. What about protesting about what China continues doing in Tibet ? There was no response on that issue either - why ? Don't these people count ?

    In this country there are many people who are unsettled by the imminent threat of war - and the way Tony Blair has taken Britain to the brink without recourse to Parliament - much less the electorate. However the widely publicised 1 million strong peace rally staged here two weeks ago was organised by the British Muslim Association. Yet the irony seems lost that a substantial number of the more anti western muslims who spoke at the rally firstly choose to live in Britain - a country the claim to despise, but not only that ... are living on the welfare state.

    If Britain is a fascist state - then why do they stay here ? And why haven't they been arrested - or something more permanent ? Simple answer is they have a cushy number here and they wouldn't be dragged kicking and screaming from whence they came. The muslim world is far from an idyllic 'briotherhood' - corruption is endemic and these people live here under our asylum laws because they tried not to implement reforms but to agaitate for a cause from which they would benefit. Having failed to get what they wanted, they left Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc and headed for any country stupid enough to let them set up shop. Enter Britain.

    As far as the UN is concerned - what will they do ? Expel Britain and the USA ? If we are in breach of International Law then surely they should - the only problem is that these two nations pay the bulk of the budget of the UN. As it was set in 1946 - USA pays about 45%, UK pays 22 % then Russia, then France, then China. Will these countries make up the shortfall ? No. They want the same voting rights in the Security Council - but don't want to pay their own way. Indeed surely Russia and China themselves have done more than enough to receive censure.

    With regard to using trade embargoes as a weapon - sure these would be effective but they won't happen. And as far as the idea put forward by Malaysia about oil as a lever is concerned. Let them try. Certainly it had a dramatic effect in 1973 when the USA intervened in the Yom Kippur War. However unfortunately for the Arab nations Russia surpassed Saudi Arabia last year as the number one oil producer / exporter - and their crippling debts mean they must sell. So supplies will continue unabated from either source. Ultimately no matter what is said in the UN - money is final arbiter of international relations.
  8. LANMaster

    LANMaster Banned

    Jan 6, 2003
    I tend to agree with your perspective RSM. I hope Tony Blair makes it through this hard time. His idiology is somewhat opposite mine, but I believe he is a good human being and represents the Britain that I am quite fond of. :D

    plschwarts, I hope that you understood my reply as somewhat satire, mixed with a few dashes of sarcasm. :D I was a bit hyper earlier this afternoon and my fingers were typing almost faster than I could think what to write.

    Take care Paul.

  9. RSM123


    Aug 1, 2002
    Thanks Lanmaster,

    Actually I loathe Blair. He is by birth wealthy yet when in opposition to Thatcher he was a supposed Socialist. Thats bad enough - but like most of his ilk he's Champagne Socialist. In his time he has been anti police, anti bosses, anti privatisation, and actively pro union. Now he he is in office he realises those ideas are all left wing addle headed crap and he has done an about face - firstly to gain power, then to keep it.

    His stance on Europe while in opposition was to pull to the European Union, in the 80's he wanted Reagan to withdraw nuclear missiles from UK. He has not held to a single view he held then. As I said, for me a left wing politician is bad enough, but to wear politics as a mask of convenience makes him worth less than nothing.

    The only people whom I wish well in this time are the men and women on the ground ready to go to war.
  10. Mulderator


    Feb 20, 1999
    Ahh, RSM--good to see there are practical people in Britain still! ;)

    If you don't know already, the liberal elite don't whine unless its for a politically correct purpose, hence:

    They don't care if a black person is a racist.
    They don't care if a woman is a sexist.
    They don't care if an Arab kills a Jew.

    "America" to the liberal is something to despise--a country where, God forbid, individuality and free enterprise is valued more than cradle to crave welfare.
  11. GoneForNow


    Jul 22, 2001
  12. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
    Beat your children when they cry;
    they only do it to annoy

    The Red Queen ( not a commie transvestite)

    I don't mean to hang that cartoon around your neck. Others on this board certainly approved of it. But I do think that it exactly represents that inflated, power- driven sense that has been exploited by Mr. Bush. Why is it that so few countries in the world support us? In spite of all the power and powers of persuation that Bush has, in the end he could not even get the support of Mexico ( or Canada), Columbia or those little African impoverised states. They know that Bush will punish then but they would not support us.
    You can change the names of food ( how about Tex-tex food) but that changes nothing. I think that the simplest answer is that most of the rest of the world is afraid of us and what we have become. The history of the world, even of the 20th century is repleat with powerful countries insisting that small countries were a threat and need be invaded. Stripped of all hype this is what we are doing in Iraq.
    I noticed today that on a list of WMD nuclear bombs suddenly were missing. Doesn't it bother you that Colin Powell stood up in the UNSC and LIED. bold faced LIED in the name of America to the world. It wasn't just the Niger uranium, but also the specs on the aluninuk tubing and the magnets. What do you think the budget of the inspectors is maybe one hour of the CIA budget? They found out but we couldn't? Is the CIA and FBI so, so ineffective, or was it an attempt to decieve. If Saddam was caught in this kind of lie, what would you think? What did that do to the credibility of the US around the world. The world sees that in his sinking boat Bush just threw the Israelis overboard.
    I see you added smallpox to the list. There is no way to use that as a WMD unless you have innoculated your population; best take it off the list. Iraq just filed its VX report, maybe that will have to be scratched also. Just tonight on Hardball Matthews asked Dick Armey about supplying Saddam with Bio and chem weapons. Armey all but admitted it, suggesting that we should applaude this president for trying to get them back. Hmmm .
    Cutting to the chase, what Bush is saying is that we have a right to do anything that we need to to feel that we are insuring our survival, and we have that right. This to me is not a christian ideal. It is the law of the jungle.
    To personalize this, if you were in a shipwreck and not in a lifeboat, would you pull somebody in the raft overboard so that you could take his place?

    I don't think we have conversed befoe. I do think it a shame that your parents didn't wash out you mouth with laundry soap the way mine did. For you trash-talk as well as any kid from Harlem. I do hope for your clients' sakes that you know more about the law than about international economics. Some time ago I tried to show Mulder what could easily be done to us economically just by having foreigners refuse to turn over their purchases of treasury bills. Forgetting about the extra costs of war and occupation, it would only be months until we would have to start raising our interest rates. Not the best thing to do in a recession. I would refer you to the post but I fear it reqiures a level of intelligence beyond that which you have demonstrated on this board.

    Oh Yeah: If you have any, sell Boeing stock; they may just have a number of orders cancelled.
  13. john1


    Nov 25, 2000
    I dare say that a degree in economics from Russia is probably
    as good as one from any developed country, although plschwartz
    is actually a New Yorker, i can tell because he has his location
    down as 'NY'

    "Just where is the continuing flow of capital going to come from
    if you embargo the US?"

    As for the wondrous flow of capital...
    Well it might be nice if the USA just paid its dues to the UN.

    The United States, the world's richest nation, is currently the
    biggest single defaulter owing more than 800 million dollars
    to the world body.


    The number of potential economic disasters that would affect the
    rest of the world economies in the event of a US embargo is mind
    boggling. And this is not even taking into consideration the
    assured land grabs between countries no longer restrained by the
    "policeman" role played by the US. The economic and military void
    would most likely result in numerous wars around the world.

    OMG !

    firstly this attitude that has the US and the Rest of the World in
    some sort of relationship like a big brother and a little brother
    is really a mind bogglingly dopey idea.
    Some of us here have furniture thats older than your buildings.

    A food shortfall ??
    well... i spose we might get some food from America, not sure what,
    but i dont think they give it away,
    i think i have some uncle ben's long grain rice in the cupboard,
    i think we import some of our grain from the USA, not sure about
    that, most of our food comes from nearer places.
    Like the European Union.

    Economic Disasters ??
    far from preventing trouble as you claim,
    a lot of your fiscal practices have had very negative effects on
    many of our companies who now strive to spread their international
    liabilities in a way that has far less dependance on US commerce.

    And what is this 'Type of thinking' you refer to ??
    do you mean the bit about not using the dollar?
    I had always thought that most people recognised gold as the
    basic currency. (even Americans)

  14. Mulderator


    Feb 20, 1999
    John, schwartz, you two are living in a friggin fantasy land. Honestly, I don't think either of you recognize that the rest of the world has absolutely no economic leverage over the United States (very little anyway!). Hell, if California were its own country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and that's only one friggin state for Godsakes!!! Add to that the fact that the lone other economic superpower (Japan) has such a co-dependent relationship with the US that it could not even consider an embargo. Essentially, it would be Japan/USA/England vs. Europe. Kind of similar to the original Dream Team playing the rest of the world in basketball--a total blowout. Many dependent nations would die on the vine economically before the US felt a ripple.

    Have the two of you researched facts? Do you even know what the GNPs of the US, Japan, and England are compared to the rest of the world? Honestly, this shouldn't be about some bravado exchange, it should be about understanding the facts and obviously the two of you don't if you could even consider such an absurd idea as an embargo agains the US and Enlgand by the rest of the world's nations.

    Wake up from your dream.
  15. plschwartz

    plschwartz Thread Starter

    Nov 15, 2000
    John. Nice post.
    But before you catch it from Valleygirl or some other NY state resident
    New York is both a city and a state. The city I sure you know but there is a sizable population who lives in what is called "upstate" which is fairly rural-conservative.ity
    When I first started living there, Easthampton was an old farming-fishing community, with a few very wealthy living in"beach cottages" near the ocean.They stayed for "the season"only. Today alas it has become overrun by the BMW-Lexus- Range Rover crowd who stay all year round.
    But there is a tremendous difference beteen those americans who live in major seaports and those who dont. I think most of the people living in inland cities are closer to the more rural area then to the coastal cities. One might think that in New York City, which was directly affected by the WTC disaster, the call for retribution might be strongest. But the numbers of people who support for the war is much closer to european than heartland american figures.
    I do not believe that there is an appreciation of how interdependent the world has become. There is still the myth of the self-sufficient settler who tamed the wilderness; that we are a law unto ourselves.
    I love my country and what it has stood for, but it must forego its superior attitude. We forgot the lesson of Vietnam in the easy win of Desert storm. I think that the rest of the world will teach us the lesson we need to learn - we are no different than anyone else.
    I just hope and pray that the cost and pain are not too great.
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/117949

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice