Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope and believe you are wrong, but you may be right. I think that regardless of how long it takes it will happen sooner than if the regime had been in power another 20-30 years though.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Just a side comment on a tangent from the current line of thought. Isn't it interesting that in nations with great turmoil and no or unstable currency the money of choice is almost always the U.S. Dollar?

How's that for stable? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And the U.S. Dollar isn't even worth anything except a promise that it is worth something.

I guess the U.S. has an excellent credit rating in the eyes of the worlds people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Quote:

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well Yea dictatorships are often stable during the life of the dictator? But how did Castro come to power and what will happen when he dies? When a new leader takes over in a democarcy for the most part the entire governemt sturcture and all lower levels stay intact. All previous government commitments stay intact ( well at least the ones that have got to the point of binding contracts )

I think we have a differnt view on what stable means. Things may be instable at the very top level of government but the government and country as a whole is pretty stable.

Of course getting a democracy well established and stable is going to be pretty tough in Iraq.

[ April 19, 2003, 12:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the old times, the Gold ruled the international transactions, and the currencies were supported (in theory), with their equivalent in Gold. Then, the nation with more Gold had the more strong currentcy.
After the Second Wave, when Englad had the global supremacy, the more used currency for international transactions was the "Pound".
Of course that in our days, the Gold pattern doesn't support anymore the currencies... then, for a good time we will have the Dollar, although the Euro could be a new player.

Here an interesting link related with the currency and the war in Iraq: http://www.evworld.com/databases/sto...fm?storyid=490
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Must say that I don't believe this argument... but no more than the "oficial" arguments to justify this war.

[ April 20, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

In the Colonial days of America, the Pound was the official currency. But the Spanish Dollar was more popular and very much in circulation. Then when we gave the boot to the King, we of course adopted the Dollar, only we didn’t break it down by 8 as the Spaniards did. Hence the common name of “Pieces of Eight”. Back then money was supported by the value of precious metal, Gold in America and Silver in England. Today it is supported by economic strength and exchange rate. Given the strength of the American economy, and the ability of the Federal Reserve to influence exchange rates, the American Dollar has become the universal currency. A point of note would be that three countries print American Dollars. America and Liberia do it legally and Iran does it on the sly. The Iranian $100 bill is considered an exact
copy.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well put and interesting about Iran! My point (apparently poorly made) is that some countries seem to reject all the aspects of western culture that have made the US dollar the 'universal currency' it is but yet are still willing to use it. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well the US government has never once defaulted on a loan or failed to make payment.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see anything hypocritical; Although people reject western Ideals, they would cirtainly like to have western stuff, such as food, clothing, electronics,l and sometimes, even weapons. But people who sell these items only trade in accepted currencies; mainly, the US dollar. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to trade in the Dollar rather than Dinars.

It's been done since the beginning of civilization; the only difference is we trade money now, rather than barter precious metals like back then.

[ April 21, 2003, 05:04: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If what they reject is western culture I don’t see why they have to deny western wealth. Currency is backed by the wealth, not by the culture.

It depends on your definition of ‘stable’ and ‘unstable’.
I don’t know if this is what Some1 meant with “technically NOT STABLE”, but there’ve been many more successful coups against democracies than against dictatorships.
To overcome a dictatorship you need to support a rebel force able to face the dictator’s military.
To overcome a democracy you just need to turn the military leaders against the civilian government.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And more important, will the western world and specially the USA support a democracy even if it chooses to act against its economic interests?
Will an Iraqi democracy be allowed for example to take measures that may affect the oil market?

Iraq may be labeled a democracy soon, after all that is needed as a justification for this conflict. But yes it will take some time until it matures into “independent country with a true Democracy”.
This also depends on how strict are your definitions of ‘independence’ and ‘true democracy’ but I believe and hope that you'll live long enough to see this happen.