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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I beg to differ on this point. Granted, the Argentine government borrowed more money than they could make payments on, but whose fault is that? The bankers?

It looks to me as if the real problem is that the world bank didn't blush and forgive some or all of the debt when Argentina said "I won't make my payments."

Don't kid yourself. I know more about Argentine politics than you might think. I work in agricultural marketing and my company's actions are affected every day by the import and export totals of many countries (of which Argentina is one.) We watched these developments closely. It was reminiscent of a bad game of JUNTA (remember that one?)

I would point out that, at least in part, the collapse of Argentina's currency involved a change in goverment policy that prevented the sellers of grain (a MAJOR export item) from getting fair value for their commodities once the currency exchange rate started to slide. The exporters were put into a position that made it their best interest to NOT sell their grain. This caused a chain reaction that destroyed any hope of generating enough money to make the payments to to world bank.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Last I heard that program was dead. The ships were part of a NATO deal that had been put on hold. NATO's need no longer existed. Last I heard the strike fighter was stone dead, our navy is about to roll out a new strike fighter on its own. If England wanted to do a deal like was done on the Phantom, I have no doubt that we would. France might be another story. And when we begin to over run the French SAM’s that we have been bombing in Iraq, I think relations will cool even more. Can’t wait to hear the French explain how all the reloads got to Iraq. The carriers were originally intended to be blue water units, then they were scaled back for use in the smaller waters around Europe. I hadn’t heard anything about them in quite a while, what with defense spending being cut way back in the west. With the cooling of relations between America and some of Europe, I would think that England would begin to plan on deploying a fleet carrier of her own. The current situation indicates that the European powers feel strong enough to go their own way again. I think we all know what that leads too. History would tell us that an English Carrier would be a ship to be respected. Well trained and well fought. French carriers will come with bull’s eyes on them I guess, that’s how their fleets were fought in the Last big war. Sorry to be giving France the Jones Job, but they really rub me the wrong way. During the cold war, they weren’t full NATO participants. They reserved the right to control their troops independently of NATO. I guess they wanted to make sure that could repeat the Last war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Now they want to act like they are the corner stone of the alliance. What a joke! No wonder Germany hated them so much! I recall when Europe had a little problem in their back yard. We were not really interested in going there, but we supported NATO and fulfilled our obligations. I bet we won’t have our people sitting on that powder keg much longer.

As for Korea, that is a UN problem. The south’s economy is strong enough to more than match the north’s military might. Their will to defend themselves is another thing. Both sides deserve to have the UN get right on this. Perhaps the UN will scare them into disarming with a barrage of harsh wishy washy words. Personally, I would give the south several short range nukes of their own. Then I would see if the north wanted to talk about unification and disarmament. They could make peace or kill each other off, either way it works for me. I’m tired of what it has cost to defend that sorry little piece of rock and dirt. I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not in charge around here? Probably been playing too much SE, it makes you casual about glassing planets and such. At least in SE4 it is a little harder to nuke whole systems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 28, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

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

Yes Samurai you're correct that the fixed currency exchange rate, known as "convertibility" started to slide and prevented our exports to sell at a competitive price.

(I was going to attempt to explain the historical situations that lead to that situation, and why it was prolonged more than necessary but it would take too long, and I'm not as good in history as I'd like)
What you fail to mention that the IMF and WB encouraged that economic policy, and that imperialistic companies took advantage of that to sell us goods we didn’t have access to before at prices that appeared cheap to us, while they lent money to the government to sustain that fictional economy.
Making your employee have a debt with you with a debt that he will never be able to pay is one of the modern shapes of slavery.

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

Hey aleast the guy with the most votes won the election in Iraq http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ...

Now that is a Troll...

Good debate going on...

I am alittle disappointed in Powell Lately. I thought that cat had his head screwed on correctly... Or did he really learn something to make him change so quickly. Time will tell..

Lets hope they do not use another Gulf of Tonkin or Iraq is built up to invade Saudi Lies...

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will never be able to take that guy seriously until he learns to say his own name correctly. C-O-L-I-N spells "Colin", with the "Col" pronounced to rhyme with the "hol" in "holiday".

Everyone seems to have some wierd idea that it's pronounced "Coal-in". Which is stupid.

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

LAST POST!!!
I WIN THE DEBATE!!!

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

Check out this article I got in an email:

Confronting Iraq February 11, 2003

Before we started seriously mobilizing to confront Saddam, I wrote several articles on dealing with Saddam.

In brief, I recommended giving Saddam 10 days notice to stand down all of his weapons and draw back whatever "sleeper cells" he had placed in or knew about in America. The threat was specific. If he did not do this in 10 days, a section of Bagdad and several military bases would be obliterated with neutron weapons.

The reasons which prompted this position were and are vital - as follows:

First, we know that Saddam had and, no doubt, yet has the following Chemical and Biological Agents: Summary: Since 1991 Gulf War, despite what was destroyed by the previous UN inspection teams, Saddam reconfigured 30 facilities. He has Mustard Gas/Blister Agent; CS Tear Gas; Nerve Gases including Tabun (GA) and Sarin (GB); VX Nerve Agents of which UNSCOM was unable to verify quantities destroyed BUT, 200-250 tons of VX Nerve Gases were unaccounted for. In its new declaration to the UN of this year, Iraq declared an addition 350 and 500 gauge and 100/250 gauge aerial bombs filled with CS. He also has Agent 15 - an incapacitant gas, similar to agent BZ produced by the U.S. (1)

Iraq has declared that it weaponized for chemical weapons purposes the following munitions: RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades and 82mm and 120mm mortar shells exclusively for CS; 130mm and 155mm artillery shells for mustard agent; 250- and 500-gauge aerial bombs for mustard, Tabun, Sarin and CS; 122mm rockets, R-400 and DB-2 aerial bombs for Sarin and mixtures of GB/GF; and Al Hussein missile warheads for Sarin. Of these, Iraq acquired the capability to produce all of the aerial bomb types listed and the Al Hussein missile warheads and chemical containers for 122mm rockets.

Iraq's chemical warfare program was of enormous scope both in terms of scale and breadth. With respect to the issue of chemical warfare agent production, and based on Iraq's chemical FFCD of June 1996, the following material balance of chemical warfare agents and their precursors procured abroad and produced by Iraq in the period from 1981 to 1990 was presented by UNSCOM October 1997: [S/1997/774]:

Type of material Quantity (tons) Remarks
Precursor chemicals produced and procured More than 20,000 Some 4,000 tons of declared precursors are not verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from suppliers.
Chemical warfare agents produced 3,850 Whether several hundred tons of additional chemical warfare agents were produced cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of precursors (mentioned in 1 above).
Chemical warfare agents consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 2,870 No documents or information on the consumption of CW has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the
material balance is impossible. Chemical warfare agents destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 690 Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
Chemical warfare agents discarded during production, or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 290 Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 130 tons of chemical warfare agents declared to have been discarded or destroyed.

In the area of chemical warfare munitions, based on Iraq's FFCD of June 1996, a material balance of munitions either procured abroad and produced by Iraq, for CW purposes, in the period from 1981 to 1990 was presented by UNSCOM in October 1997 [S/1997/774]:

Type of munitions Quantity Remarks
Empty munitions produced and procured 247,263 Some 107,500 empty casings have not been verified owing to the absence of information sought by the Commission from the suppliers.
Munitions filled with chemical warfare agents or components 152,119 Whether several thousand additional munitions were filled with chemical warfare agents cannot be established owing to the uncertain quantities of procured munitions (mentioned in 1 above).
Filled munitions consumed in the period from 1981 to 1988 101,080 No documents or information on the consumption of chemical munitions has been provided by Iraq to support the declared quantities consumed. Without supporting documents the verification of this part of the material balance is impossible.
Filled and empty munitions destroyed unilaterally by Iraq 29,172 Unilateral destruction of 15,620 munitions is not verifiable owing to the destruction methods used by Iraq (melting and demolition).
Filled and empty munitions destroyed under UNSCOM supervision 38,537 Declared quantities were verified by the Commission.
Filled and empty munitions discarded by Iraq or destroyed during aerial bombardment in 1991 78,264 Iraq has not provided supporting documentation for 16,038 discarded chemical munitions.

Note. The margin of error in the accounting presented by Iraq is in the neighborhood of 200 munitions. (2)

In most cases there either are no antidotes or cures. Even with such cures and antidotes, the victim may not fully recover, assuming that they are treated quickly. If Saddam launches a saturation attack, there may be too many victims to receive timely treatment (called ‘casualty surge’).

Saddam has threatened all invaders, including American soldiers both going into Iraq and those stationed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be fired upon. (Note! They will be fired upon with area-wide weapons which mean exactly as it sounds - across a broad area. This translates into using many of the substances mentioned in the U.N. table of toxic chemicals.)

In addition, Saddam has openly threatened to use these substances on population centers in Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, ‘et al’.

In terms of casualties, we are minimally talking of hundreds of thousands into the millions. If such substances as Small Pox, Plague, Hemorrhagic Fevers among other Biological materials hit a populated area, it can additionally spread across the globe in a short time.

It was this picture I envisioned when I recommended a stand-off strike with neutron weapons to force Saddam to either stand down his Weapons of Mass Death or have his generals simply assassinate him out of self-preservation of their lives and families.

Starting a conventional war with numerous air-strikes would only allow him time to give the orders to fire his mix of WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There is no reason to give him this opportunity to unleash death on such a massive scale that even countries far away would experience outbreaks of Plague or other incurable diseases.

I realize that Liberals who cannot imagine the elimination of whole civilizations, will bleat, mewl and howl at the deaths of so many innocent Iraqis. Regrettably, in my estimation, there is simply no choice. It is either him or us. To allow Saddam to grow more tonnage of VX or Botulinum Toxins or to acquire Nuclear weapons (possibly from North Korea or Pakistan when, not if either of those governments are taken over by radical Islamists) - any or all of this cannot be tolerated.

There is no wiggle room, except in the minds of foolish diplomatic bureaucrats who babble nonsense even as Armageddon rolls over them. Should we be interested in the opinions of simplistic pastors, liberal marchers and the Peace Now crowds - all of whom have become unwitting pallbearers for the burial of western civilization.

After the 10 day notice and the subsequent obliteration of part of Bagdad, another notice would be given with a 12 hour deadline or all of Iraq, along with Saddam’s Mass Death weaponry would be reduced to ashes.

Shortly after that demonstration, a similar notice would be issued to Iran, Syria and North Korea.

The civilized world can no longer tolerate rogue nations ruled by dictators or religiously-driven would-be conquerors to co-exist on this planet with the supposedly sane rest of us. Nor can our cities be held hostage to sleeper agents who have been given materials that can decimate one of our cities.

What I am proposing is pre-emption in its most deadly form. If we do not wish to see those we love struck down by the substances we in the so-called civilized world, developed and allowed to be transferred to primitive nations, we must stop them immediately.

We made the mistake of being their suppliers and now we must cure the mistake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chemical Weapons Programs in FAS: Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. "UNSCOM & IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS" http://www.fas.org/nuke/guid/iraq/cw/unscom.htm

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well have you seen his holiday snaps recently? No wonder he's edgy, the guy can't walk down the street without wondering if its a Terrorist Fire Hydrant he just past or if it was just a standard Fire Hydrant.

[ February 28, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ]

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

Andres, I ask that you take all I say in the spirit of friendship. It is how I offer it. If I offend you, it is unintentional and I hope knowing that keeps you from being offended. Also note that when I say 'you' I often mean the people of your country. Don't take it personally.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, actually, the sliding made your exports more competitive on the world market. The problem was that the government tried to set things up so that they (and not the owners of the commodities) kept the difference between the new exchange rate and the old exchange rate.

At least that is how it looks from here. The end result is that many of the agricultural producers are planning on sitting on their crop rather than selling it because it will not lose value like the currency will if inflation continues.

The unwillingness to sell creates a bigger problem because now your country has a trade deficit and cannot come up with enough foreign currency to pay the IMF.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your instincts are correct, in my opinion.

This is where things get fuzzy. I believe that ultimately a trade surplus is good and a trade deficit will *always* lead to this problem if allowed to go on. Some economists will disagree with me, but I will stand by that opinion.

The problem is you have to count interest payments to the IMF as part of the equation.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not mention it directly, but I do not intend to shy away from it. You are exactly correct in how these things can work. The world loaned you money to buy the things you wanted and before too long there was more debt than could be serviced. I don't disagree that that is what happened.

The problem is to assign the blame. Everyone involved (The IMF, your government, and the people who voted them into office) shares some of the blame. The IMF will say, "You asked for the money and we were kind enought to loan it to you." Your government will say, "We needed to have the money to bring our economy up to world standards." Your populous seems to be saying, "We expected someone else to tell us this would be bad for us."

To the part about 'imperialist companies', I have only this to say: I don't think anyone figuratively held a gun to you heads and said buy this or we will punish you.

It is true that the industrialized world wants a larger market for its goods. It is true that the IMF loans money to allow those markets to grow. Someone must show restraint and not borrow more than can be paid back. Unfortunately governments are notorious for letting the next poor sap who gets elected hold the bag. In my opinion, this is why there is a problem.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, remember that the IMF is not your employer. While there may be some similarities, it is not strictly correct.

Yes, there are situations like this that can be just as unethical as slavery. If we were selling you life's necessities at too large a price and a high rate of interest, this would be evil. But was it life's necessities that the money was borrowed for?

We face exactly these problems in the United States. For example, a landowning farmer borrows money to raise his standard of living. This is a perpetual thing because he is living beyond his means. Each year, the bank is happy to lend him more and more money because (a) he asks for it and (b) he has enough colatteral in the value of his owned land to cover the debt. He does not realize there is a problem because there is always money in the bank account.

Then the bad things start to happen. The economy goes soft, land values go down substantially, and prices for the produce are depressed. The farmer has a very unprofitable year. It is then time to renew the loan. The farmer's equity is not enough to cover any more debt, he is unable to pay all of his payments because of the poor crop year, and he has not enough cash to put in a crop without a loan.

Now he is bankrupt.

He will cry and moan about how the bank did him dirty, but who is to blame?

Is it possible that your government has been selling your future to make themselves look good for the next election? Who is really to fault.

I know you are having problems and I know they are troublesome and I hope that they can be resolved. But unless the real reasons for the problems become obvious, they will only repeat themselves.

If you can find a copy, you should read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" It deals with world monetary policy and how it came about. You might find that all of us are 'slaves' to a very few. In fact, many individuals in this country are in the same boat as your government. If the world economy continues to soften, you will see evidence of it here as well.

Peace

[ March 01, 2003, 01:58: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

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

Thought I'd share this. It doesn't reflect anyone's point of view (at least that I know of), but might be good for a chuckle or two. Or maybe just for getting everyone united to come lynch me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*ducks for cover*