I build a wall to keep the world out

[plschwartz]

I build a wall to keep the world out instead I have shut myself in
proper citation welcomed.

The question is if Bush does invade Iraq without further UN support where will that leave us in the world.

The European letter of support brought high fives in the whitehouse, but was it as good as it seems?

This tidbit comes from deutsche welle a german tv network, shown in the US and fairly balanced in presentation.:

The article generated an immediate reply from European critics of Bush and his possible war plans. In Brussels, members of the European Union's parliament passed a resolution in which they warned the United States against carrying out an attack without authorization of the United Nations. The lawmakers, voting 287-209, also acknowledged that the weapons inspectors had uncovered violations of U.N. resolutions, but that these violations did not justify a military operation.

The call of support was signed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, outgoing Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel and the leaders of Portugal, Denmark, Hungary and Poland.

But this is five of 15 current members and eight of the enlarged 20 member union. Of these Havels' opinion was personal and Berlusconi might be opposed by his parliament.

http://www.eosgallupeurope.com/ENpressrelease.htm
presents a widespread poll of european opinion. Nor do we have much support in the rest of world. It is still easy to rouse anti-colonial forces in the third world. (Indeed in a sound bite on TV a German answered Rumsfield's "old europe" quip by answering: He represents old America the America of Teddy Roosevelt.

Does it matter?

Let me just speak ecomonically. With eu enlargement within the Euro zone will have a large well-educated source of cheap labor; it will import slightly less but export slightly more than the US.Against a US trade imbalance of (-$467 billion) the current EU was plus $98 billionhttp://www.economist.com/markets/in...=4a9fa57-c60a6bb3-ae2d-44ac-b753-b9aeeeb6aadb

The Euro is thus in a strong position to challange the dollar as a reserve currency. A reserve currency is that held by other nations to ensure the worth of their own currency. Significantly Putin has already announced that he is converting part of his reserve to Euros.

The lack of an alternative reference currency has been a major part of why the rest of the world has allowed us to run up our enormous trade debt. Without it we are so to speak chopped liver.
A simple minded example, probably too extreme, would be that if the world let our currency fall to where we had an even trade balance each persons loss of import ability would be over $1000.
And that is not to mention our need to repay what is already lent to us to cover past trade imbalances.... Think Argentina a model of a country who is now were we well might be if the world 86's us.

Still so sure about supporting the war??

 

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
IThe question is if Bush does invade Iraq without further UN support where will that leave us in the world.

So I guess you agree with the UN making Iraq and Iran chair and co-chair of the WMD disarmament comittee and putting Libya in charge of the human rights committee? Could that organization possibly be more of a joke!

Schwartz--wake up and smell the coffee!!!

 

[GoneForNow]

I don't have the time at the moment but the economic theory about the Euro is, at best, surreal.

PS: EU does not have a "well educated source of cheap labor".

 

[LANMaster]

If it weren't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in College --- Lewis Black

 

[plschwartz]

Mulder:

You see these things as a cause, I see them as an effect. Why do you think these things are happening now? This is the sam e world that so strongly supported us after 9/11.
Aren't they trying to tell us in a careful way of their displeasure with us. Would you like to see more direct methods of protest? Say a enlarged boycott of US goods? see Mecca-cola here http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/12/05122002171916.asp

gbrumb
I did say after EU enlargement:
Do you disagrre that the population of the new countries is
a) large
b) poorly paid
c) well educated
d) two or all of the above?

For just poland http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pl.html

pop: 38 million; 17 million work force
99% adult literacy
GDP $8,800 per capita

for comparison there are about 35 million african-americans/or hispanics in US
gdp for Mexico $9,000
Us literacy rate 97%

"Just the facts Ma'am" Sgt. Friday
It can't happen here Frank Zappa
Surrealistic Pillow Jefferson Airplane Album

 

[GoneForNow]

plschwartz.............Sorry, I don't think I'll allow you to set my choices. GDP is a bogus figure to use which includes traditionally low paying service labor (ie street sweepers). Three words for you.....UNIONS, UNIONS, UNIONS.

 

[slipe]

PS: EU does not have a "well educated source of cheap labor".

In December the EU accepted 10 new members. They aren’t officially part of the EU until 2004, but the ties are in place. Those countries are: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta. That list includes a vast source of educated cheap labor.

I don’t feel constrained to bow to Western Europe’s wishes. Our European allies hardly did an adequate job of holding our coats during the cold war. While they were spending less than 2% of their GDP for defense we were spending over twice that. And they were the ones directly threatened by the Red Army. During the 40 years we were holding the line against communism we could usually count on bitchy kibitzing from our allies. Only when it came to their direct protection or protection of their interests with our money and forces was there full cooperation.

During that time their cumulative economies came to equal ours with us eliminating their need to spend the money necessary to protect themselves from the powerful forces threatening them. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union they can’t even police their own back yard. We had to provide the bulk of the equipment to straighten out the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo – with our allies constantly saying the US had to do something.

If we are to be the ones who have to take the major role in policing the world with our allies mostly kibitzing and occasionally providing token support, then they can just keep their mouths shut when we have to do what has to be done.

But Iraq doesn’t have to be done IMHO. In case nobody noticed we went from a pre-9/11 federal surplus to a considerable deficit. We were amazingly even paying off some of our vast national debt – now we are having to cut programs. The minimum projected cost of an attack on Iraq is a hundred billion and a more realistic estimate in the two hundred billion range. It is not “surreal” to think that the US could reduce confidence in the dollar to the point that the Euro could at least partially replace the Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And it would not take too many countries hedging their bets and trading some of their dollars for euros before we found ourselves in a dangerous slide.

If our national security or national interests required it I would be all for it regardless of cost. But it doesn’t.

I’ll skim some points I made on another thread.

Syria and Iran both have tens of thousands of chemical and biological warheads and literally thousands of sophisticated delivery systems. They each spend more each year on chemical and biological weapons plus delivery systems than Iraq’s entire military budget. They both provide considerable material and professional training support for terrorist organizations. Iraq has never been shown to give anything at all to terrorists. So we are afraid that Iraq, that might have a few weapons squirreled away somewhere, might give some to terrorists where Iran and Syria who actively supply terrorists can be trusted with thousands of warheads. Somebody explain that.

Here is a very complete article on the state of terrorism and how we are fairing. Do a “find” for Iran and Syria – you will find dozens of entries for each. Do a find for Iraq – nothing. http://www.meforum.org/article/494

If our only justification for attacking Iraq is that they are in violation of a UN resolution then I would think the UN should agree they are in violation sufficiently to use force. Otherwise we are going it alone for our own reasons and can’t use the UN as a justification.

I agree with plschwartz that we are in real danger of doing permanent damage to our economy by attacking Iraq. We are also in danger of getting more deeply entangled and having eventual unintended consequences – like extending Iranian influence and power. We are also certainly going to get Americans killed; perhaps more than we imagine.

People say that even though no evidence has been given of Iraqi involvement in terrorism the government must know something we don’t. This is a democracy and it is about time they let us in on what they know if they indeed do know something. It is a decision sufficiently important that we need collective agreement before we take such a dangerous step.

 

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by slipe:
In December the EU accepted 10 new members. They aren’t officially part of the EU until 2004, but the ties are in place. Those countries are: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta. That list includes a vast source of educated cheap labor.

I don’t feel constrained to bow to Western Europe’s wishes. Our European allies hardly did an adequate job of holding our coats during the cold war. While they were spending less than 2% of their GDP for defense we were spending over twice that. And they were the ones directly threatened by the Red Army. During the 40 years we were holding the line against communism we could usually count on bitchy kibitzing from our allies. Only when it came to their direct protection or protection of their interests with our money and forces was there full cooperation.

During that time their cumulative economies came to equal ours with us eliminating their need to spend the money necessary to protect themselves from the powerful forces threatening them. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union they can’t even police their own back yard. We had to provide the bulk of the equipment to straighten out the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo – with our allies constantly saying the US had to do something.

If we are to be the ones who have to take the major role in policing the world with our allies mostly kibitzing and occasionally providing token support, then they can just keep their mouths shut when we have to do what has to be done.

But Iraq doesn’t have to be done IMHO. In case nobody noticed we went from a pre-9/11 federal surplus to a considerable deficit. We were amazingly even paying off some of our vast national debt – now we are having to cut programs. The minimum projected cost of an attack on Iraq is a hundred billion and a more realistic estimate in the two hundred billion range. It is not “surreal” to think that the US could reduce confidence in the dollar to the point that the Euro could at least partially replace the Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And it would not take too many countries hedging their bets and trading some of their dollars for euros before we found ourselves in a dangerous slide.

If our national security or national interests required it I would be all for it regardless of cost. But it doesn’t.

I’ll skim some points I made on another thread.

Syria and Iran both have tens of thousands of chemical and biological warheads and literally thousands of sophisticated delivery systems. They each spend more each year on chemical and biological weapons plus delivery systems than Iraq’s entire military budget. They both provide considerable material and professional training support for terrorist organizations. Iraq has never been shown to give anything at all to terrorists. So we are afraid that Iraq, that might have a few weapons squirreled away somewhere, might give some to terrorists where Iran and Syria who actively supply terrorists can be trusted with thousands of warheads. Somebody explain that.

Here is a very complete article on the state of terrorism and how we are fairing. Do a “find” for Iran and Syria – you will find dozens of entries for each. Do a find for Iraq – nothing. http://www.meforum.org/article/494

If our only justification for attacking Iraq is that they are in violation of a UN resolution then I would think the UN should agree they are in violation sufficiently to use force. Otherwise we are going it alone for our own reasons and can’t use the UN as a justification.

I agree with plschwartz that we are in real danger of doing permanent damage to our economy by attacking Iraq. We are also in danger of getting more deeply entangled and having eventual unintended consequences – like extending Iranian influence and power. We are also certainly going to get Americans killed; perhaps more than we imagine.

People say that even though no evidence has been given of Iraqi involvement in terrorism the government must know something we don’t. This is a democracy and it is about time they let us in on what they know if they indeed do know something. It is a decision sufficiently important that we need collective agreement before we take such a dangerous step.

Well, now wait a minute. I thought I recall schwartzy arguing that the war was about oil, i.e., money! At least I thought this was the rallying cry of the left against the war. Am I to now believe that the economy will go down the tubes thereby damaging Mr. Bush's chances at re-election? I'm all confused now!

PS--slipe, before you agree with schwartzy, you ought to find out if he agrees with himself first!

 

[Mulderator]

slipe,

Syria and Iran aren't even in the same league with Iraq when it comes to the level of the threat. The same argument applies to them as to North Korea. Neither Syria nor Iran have any real benefit to conducting campaigns of mass destruction on the US or Europe and neither country has a lunatic dictator running it. Hell, Russia has the most capability of any country to inflict significant casualties. But they also have a sense of self preservation as does Iran and Syria. That is entirely lacking with Iraq. Hussein is a madman who doesn't have any qaulms about endangering his own safety and that of his entire country.

Has Syria or Iran ever USED chemical weapons against any other nation? Hussein has and will again.

You've got a point about the cost of the war no question, but you're buying into this leftist nonsense about this country has weapons to and that country has nukes and this one has chemical weapons, etc., etc. Right now, Hussein is the only one that poses a real significant threat. You've got to weigh the threat against the cons of military action and in Hussein's case, the threat outweighs the cons. It simply does not in the case of Syria, Iran, North Korea, or Russia for that matter.

 

[plschwartz]

Slipe

: I have greast respect for you views which are always so well thought out. I am pleased that you feel that I am basically correct.

Mulder:
I think you are proably right that you have a better chance of getting away with disagreeing with me then with Slipe.

I do not think I am inconsistant. I do not think that I have said it was wise for Bush to try and get oil reserves by invading Iraq, but I do feel that Bush feels that it is advantageous to do.
What I am trying to suggest and I believe that Slipe agrees is that the
advantage of grabbing oil ( forgetting the morality of it for a moment), will in the longer run be highly detrimental to us and our economy.
Do you have any good ideas what we could do if the major economic countriesno longer wish to hold dollars? Previously there was no other currency that could replace the dollar. Now perhaps there is.

 

[slipe]

PS--slipe, before you agree with schwartzy, you ought to find out if he agrees with himself first!

Well I wanted to agree with him real fast before he changes his mind. A friend of mine once said that the only way to stay our of an argument with me was to ask me what I thought and agree with me real fast – but that it didn’t always work. Good minds are mercurial.

I'm all confused now!

Me to!

 

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Slipe

: I have greast respect for you views which are always so well thought out. I am pleased that you feel that I am basically correct.

Mulder:
I think you are proably right that you have a better chance of getting away with disagreeing with me then with Slipe.

I do not think I am inconsistant. I do not think that I have said it was wise for Bush to try and get oil reserves by invading Iraq, but I do feel that Bush feels that it is advantageous to do.
What I am trying to suggest and I believe that Slipe agrees is that the
advantage of grabbing oil ( forgetting the morality of it for a moment), will in the longer run be highly detrimental to us and our economy.
Do you have any good ideas what we could do if the major economic countriesno longer wish to hold dollars? Previously there was no other currency that could replace the dollar. Now perhaps there is.

Still inconsitent. Your article suggests that even the possiblity of war is hurting the dollar. Most economists believe and predict if we attack Iraq, it will either sink the economy further into recession or, if are on the road to recovery, put us back into recession. Grabbing oil, on the other hand, cannot possibly be good for the economy in the short run--any benefit to that would be in the long run. Bush certainly is aware and been advised of all this. So the question remains, why would he screw up his chances of re-election in 2004 by waging a war that will almost certainly hurt our economy (remember, "its the economy, stupid") in the short run. It is simply illogical to make the argument that Bush wants war with Iraq for their oil. If he loses the election in 2004, it will be to whom??? A Democrat, who will take the credit for whatever grabbing oil does for the economy in the long run (2, 3, 4 years down the road).

Seems pretty stupid to me.