Why America's Currency Is the World's Problem

[Kärnfysikern]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...520700,00.html

8 part monster article, but well worth a read. Is it as bad as it sounds?

[gixxerboy1]

I think it is.I have a feeling we are going to have a bad recession soon. I'm sick of the news trying to say the economy is good. BS

[helium3]

i dont know but when i went to the states this year and bought 4 pairs of trainers for next to nothing i was very pleased lol, the pound is very strong at the moment.

[Dagron]

Barely anybody understands how the monetary system works... without going into a long winded diatribe, the only thing that is artificially propping up the value of the dollar is the fact that if you want oil, you pay those middle eastern nations with dollars, and nothing else. At the latest OPEC meeting, these countries are rumored to have discussed dropping this policy. If this ever happens, the dollar will go into a free fall. Personally, I have my assets in Japanese Yen and plan on moving it into gold in a year or two when I see returns on my yen...

[soulstealer]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...520700,00.html

8 part monster article, but well worth a read. Is it as bad as it sounds?

Yes it really is as bad as it sounds.... Think of it like this... if you had 100,000 dollars 1 year ago and you bought gold with it 1 year ago...... and gold DID NOT significantly increase in value and you sold your gold for USD today you would have something like 180,000 and not because gold is significantly more expensive but because the dollar doesnt buy as much gold....

[soulstealer]

I think it is.I have a feeling we are going to have a bad recession soon. I'm sick of the news trying to say the economy is good. BS

Its proven by printing money the way we are your economical numbers Stay positive.... due to the lack of value in your dollar they both crash in value at the same time so the numbers are negated we're in a recession its just being masked my friend...

[soulstealer]

Barely anybody understands how the monetary system works... without going into a long winded diatribe, the only thing that is artificially propping up the value of the dollar is the fact that if you want oil, you pay those middle eastern nations with dollars, and nothing else. At the latest OPEC meeting, these countries are rumored to have discussed dropping this policy. If this ever happens, the dollar will go into a free fall. Personally, I have my assets in Japanese Yen and plan on moving it into gold in a year or two when I see returns on my yen...

I agree with what your saying but you failed to go into the fact that its not just OPEC the USD is the world reserve currency its used largely for trading between nations and such and other nations holding the currency is helping the strength of our dollar as nations start to diversify their holdings of currency and pull away from the dollar that dollar gets dumped back into our market thus aggravating the debasement problem we already have and if we get pushed aside as the worlds reserve currency we could be looking at an influx of 500billion or more dollars into our economy.... can you say depression ?

Oh and one more thing why Yen and not the euro? =P thats where I would've gone... if I had any money.. LOL

[Flagg]

Sounds like the American Empire is coming to an end. Surely Bush has to constitute as the worst president in American history.

US President George W. Bush is hardly likely to be impressed by this sort of talk coming from Old Europe. He has proven himself, once again, a master of ignoring the obvious, behaving as if the dollar problem were nonexistent. "The policy of this government is a strong dollar," he says, adding, "we believe that the marketplace is the best place to set the exchange rates."

[Tock]

Medicare is gonna sink the US economy for good in the next decade or two, according to the US Comptroller:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2528226.shtml

[soulstealer]

Sounds like the American Empire is coming to an end. Surely Bush has to constitute as the worst president in American history.

US President George W. Bush is hardly likely to be impressed by this sort of talk coming from Old Europe. He has proven himself, once again, a master of ignoring the obvious, behaving as if the dollar problem were nonexistent. "The policy of this government is a strong dollar," he says, adding, "we believe that the marketplace is the best place to set the exchange rates."

Bush is either the dumbest man ever to hold office or the most insane evil genius to have ever lived.... either way were ****ed..

[eliteforce]

I think: look for dollar to steadily weaken against Asian currencies in 2008 and at the same time stabilize vs. euro as the dollar cannot get that weak w/o total global meltdown..Asians bought up a bunch of tbils and hold dollars to keep it stable but are slowly decreasing their US$ holdings..the weaker dollar against Asian currencies will mean steady inflation and 2% or less economic growth in the US..next president (clinton) will immediatly face a bush recession like they did the first time and will have to dig out of it..much harder this time with war/defense spending out of control.

[Dagron]

Listen it works like this. If you want oil, you MUST pay in one currency, and one currency only: US Dollars. It has been this way since WWII. By doing this, we have artificially propped up the value of our currency with oil. Now fast forward to today. The Federal Reserve (legality of such an institution aside) has been printing more and more currency, driving inflation up. Nobody wants to be holding US Dollars, let alone sign a contract to be paid in US Dollars because it is guaranteed to slowly slide each year due to poor monetary policies. Once these countries dump OPEC and start their own Middle Eastern Alliance, each country will pick what currency they wish to sell their oil in. Most of them will pick their own currencies, but regardless none of them will use USD, the new policies are to get away from it in the first place. Once these supporting props to the value of our dollar are stripped away, people will be free to dump their USD reserves without repercussion, the value will begin to fall... and then the speculators will jump on the opportunity on the Forex, driving it further down. It's gonna get ugly before it gets any better. Remember, USD are FIAT, there is nothing at all backing the value other than the artificial oil props, once those are gone, how much is a dollar REALLY worth?

[Johny-too-small]

Well the US government has one major thing that can change its course if they do it correctly: the ability to win a world war if they start one...which it looks as though they're right on schedule.

As most of Americans believe, isnt this why the US invaded Iraq? Dont bash me here, Im just putting out my thoughts after reading this thread...

[thegodfather]

Well the US government has one major thing that can change its course if they do it correctly: the ability to win a world war if they start one...which it looks as though they're right on schedule.

As most of Americans believe, isnt this why the US invaded Iraq? Dont bash me here, Im just putting out my thoughts after reading this thread...

You make a great point. Although I would never support a war in Iraq based on lies, and I strongly believe in non-interventionism. I would absolutely support a war against any country if natural resources became an issue in this country and we needed to take them by force from another country.

[Johny-too-small]

You make a great point. Although I would never support a war in Iraq based on lies, and I strongly believe in non-interventionism. I would absolutely support a war against any country if natural resources became an issue in this country and we needed to take them by force from another country.

I agree, and Im also starting to believe that this is the underlying course. Im sure the US government is well of aware of their situation and have been proactive in protecting its power for many years now.

If Im not mistaken, It looks now that the US is wining the war in Iraq. The war is hardly making headlines anymore. Iran will most likely be next. If nothing else makes sense, this does.

Im not currently a huge fan of Bush, however, I think that sooner or later, well all understand in the years to come why he has taken the course that he has. I dont think he is an idiot. He obviously has a lot of information that is not public and his actions are based on that, in spite of the public's outcry. What I dont care for, if this is the case and as Godfather mentioned, is the attempt to cover up our motives with lies.

[Red Ketchup]

Well the US government has one major thing that can change its course if they do it correctly: the ability to win a world war if they start one...

You actually believe that???

You do realize that a real all out world war (ie: the US against Russia/China) will eventually go nuclear. Now you're probably asking "who would be crazy enough to go nuclear?"...

Well think about it for a minute, any country who has nukes and is losing a war... what do they have to lose? Heck even the US would go nuclear in a minute if it was losing a war.

Mutual Assured Destruction has been the basis for the uneasy peace between the US and USSR since WW2, it has been proven without the shadow of a doubt that going nuclear = no winners.

To the younger generations who know little of the cold war, a world war going nuclear is an abstract concept. To those of us who lived thru the cold war and remember real international tensions and silly stuff like school drills, it's still very real.

Just my 2 cents...

Red

[thegodfather]

You actually believe that???

You do realize that a real all out world war (ie: the US against Russia/China) will eventually go nuclear. Now you're probably asking "who would be crazy enough to go nuclear?"...

Well think about it for a minute, any country who has nukes and is losing a war... what do they have to lose? Heck even the US would go nuclear in a minute if it was losing a war.

Mutual Assured Destruction has been the basis for the uneasy peace between the US and USSR since WW2, it has been proven without the shadow of a doubt that going nuclear = no winners.

To the younger generations who know little of the cold war, a world war going nuclear is an abstract concept. To those of us who lived thru the cold war and remember real international tensions and silly stuff like school drills, it's still very real.

Just my 2 cents...

Red

I think with the new advances in technology this may not be true. Have you seen the new airplanes equipped with powerful lasers that can destroy ICBMs in mid-flight? I think with technology like this, it would essentially allow us to launch nuclear ICBMs at the enemy, while destroying their incoming ICBMs from the sky. Also, assuming a war with a country who does not have nuclear capability would be a plus as well. In the cases of countrys who do, what about placing large amounts of suitcase nukes whithin their borders and then detonating them, they would have no chance to respond. The only serious issue would be those countries who have submarines with the capability of launching nuclear weapons, as there is only about a 15minute window from the time of launch to the time its hitting the US mainland.

[Red Ketchup]

The only countries I would worry about in the case of a "world war" are Russia and China, and unfortunately they have the same launching capabilities as the US. Both russia and china can launch from a ship or a sub less than 10 minutes away from new york, miami or los angeles

As for taking out launch sites with suitcase bombs, ferget about it! Nuke launch sites are probably a country's most secure areas... give it a try and see how close you can get to an active silo, storage area or even a navy ship with live nukes on it.

Don't forget the other point of M-A-D is that the US, Russia and China have *so much* nuclear arsenal, that no matter what "missle shield" they have, enough will get thru eventually to destroy each other. Don't forget, just one high yield nuke getting thru and hitting New York, Washington or LA could potentially cripple the country for years.

In this day and age, the best policy is to get along with your neighbours and avoid a major conflict.

Red

[Kärnfysikern]

Totaly agree with Red. There is no possible winner in a nuclear war.

I would absolutely support a war against any country if natural resources became an issue in this country and we needed to take them by force from another country.

The only resource worth going to war to is oil, but considering the vast coal supplies in america it would be alot cheaper to make oil out of coal than to invade oil rich countries. The cost of the Iraq war could have done alot in making the US oil independent!

[Johny-too-small]

You actually believe that???

Yes, I do.

I also am old enough to remember the cold war very well. In addition, I dont think that Russia and China is required to be involved (outside of selling military assets to whomever) for a world war III to happen, nor does it have to be nuclear. JMO.

[Kärnfysikern]

How can it be a "world war" of two out of the three major power arent involved?

[Johny-too-small]

How can it be a "world war" of two out of the three major power arent involved?

Point taken, however, do you consider Russia to still be in the top 3 world powers?

[Kärnfysikern]

Point taken, however, do you consider Russia to still be in the top 3 world powers?

Sure. They still have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. I guess the second strongest conventional weapons aswell.

[Prada]

Point taken, however, do you consider Russia to still be in the top 3 world powers?

Militarily, yes. Global influence, yes. Economically, no,

[eliteforce]

THIS IS SUCH CRAP! Do you really beleive this BS? The anti-missile 'tech nology is a joke, at best it might knock a few of them down, Russia has thousands of warheads that can get thru, and China hundreds more; and don't forget the Russians change their ballistic missile technology to counter the anti-missile defense, and they will also target the anti-missile facilities for destruction and blind it..The missile defense the US is trying to install at great expense is not even intended for Russia, it's for Iran.

even that Iranian sub I just posted about can creep up on the east coast and blow away half the country with nuklear cruise missiles before the US even knows what hit it. The missile defense does not defend against that kind of attack at all.. you can never really track opposing subs because sonar technology cannot work long range.

another thing you fail to understand is that the radioactive fallout 'nuclear winter' from a massive nuclear attack will effectivly detroy all regional countries, not just the one your attacking..insuring that other countries will retaliate even if the target country neglected to-which it wouldn't.

as far as a conventional war-you can't fight a war w/o money..right now the US fights the Iraq war with borrowed money..much of it from China and the gulf arab states that supposedly the US would turn on..there is no 'war' that the United States can win simply by going out and inventing a reason for the war-like they did in Iraq; an unjust war guarantees failure..they can't even mount a raid on Iran w/o sustaining as much or more damage than they inflict.


>If Im not mistaken, It looks now that the US is wining the war in Iraq. The war is hardly making headlines anymore. Iran will most likely be >next. If nothing else makes sense, this does.

Yes you are gravely mistaken, the US is not 'winning' in Iraq now, they still come under constant attack everyday, it is still protracted warefare and it is now more expensive than before, not less..coalition casualties past few months have been around 40, instead of previously being around 60-80 a month..this is mostly due to improved techniques for avoiding casualties..AND the insurgents can step up the fighting later on..the Iraqi 'army' is still unable to control any territory w/o direct USM support..but at the end of the day, the US will still have to draw back out of Iraq..sometime in 2008-2009 and at that point the various insurgent milities will take over and the government that was installed will collapse like a house of cards.

I think with the new advances in technology this may not be true. Have you seen the new airplanes equipped with powerful lasers that can destroy ICBMs in mid-flight? I think with technology like this, it would essentially allow us to launch nuclear ICBMs at the enemy, while destroying their incoming ICBMs from the sky. Also, assuming a war with a country who does not have nuclear capability would be a plus as well. In the cases of countrys who do, what about placing large amounts of suitcase nukes whithin their borders and then detonating them, they would have no chance to respond. The only serious issue would be those countries who have submarines with the capability of launching nuclear weapons, as there is only about a 15minute window from the time of launch to the time its hitting the US mainland.

[Logan13]

The value of the dollar effects every country. Since the US is the largest market on the planet for much of the world's goods, ****ing with the dollar will have a dramatic effect on world economy. The perverbial sky has been falling for decades now, and yet the US presses on as the leader of the Free World. Everyone loves to hate a winner, just ask New York Yankee fans.......

[Dagron]

Agree on most points elite, but you're wrong about Iraq, we have already won there. Sectarian violence and "insurgency" is nill. They actually want us to leave, right now, but we remain, for the time being. It all has to do with trying to strong arm the Iraqi government into passing a national oil law that would sign away most of their oil wealth to oil companies. Don't believe me? Do your due diligence, the info is out there.

It's funny because the people who said this was a just war were half right (it started off that way) and the people who said this was an unjust war about oil were half right (it's ended that way). Look for a massive withdrawal to begin before long though, probably before year's end.

[Red Ketchup]

you're wrong about Iraq, we have already won there. Sectarian violence and "insurgency" is nill.

Huh???

So then what about the 37 American soldiers who died in Irak in November, 38 in oct, 65 is sept, 84 in august and the 1243 wounded in that time frame? Their wounds and deaths were accidental?

I'm not sure their colleagues and families would agree with your statement that Sectarian violence and "insurgency" is nill. I know I certainly disagree.


Logan ... I agree that the value of the US dollar affects the whole planet (which is why europe came out with the Euro to offset that influence), but remember that it's value is dictated by the confidence it's users have on the US economy and government. Right now the US dollar is tanking, that should tell you something is wrong.

Red

[eliteforce]

Thats not true..massive withdrawel means that rebels take over..if the US was getting anywhere they wouldn't have a 160,000 troop level backed by hundreds of thousands foreigners and contract militants..even at those numbers you still have militants taking over towns just north of Baghdad and still pretty much roaming around anywhere the Americans are not..the only way the 'iraqi army' can exist is if they are paid $700 or $1000us month salary and be close to US forces..once the next president starts withdrawing troops then the country is taken over by the insurgents and alsadrs militia in shiite areas..if thats what you call that "already won" .

[Dagron]

You have to understand, half of the reason for the insurgency is the over abundance of troops knocking down innocent folks doors and patrolling their streets. That isn't needed anymore, Al Qaeda is all but eradicated, and if the only problem then is "sectarian" (ie: locals) then the answer isn't to swat the hornets nest but to let them run the POLICING themselves. Look what happened in Basra when international forces completely withdrew: nothing. Nadda. Zilch. US Troops are needed to guard the embassy and a few bases, and that is it. I'm a staunch conservative but so you know I am not for defeat, but believe me when I say you are only getting the side of this story that you are intended to get.

[Johny-too-small]

Thats not true..massive withdrawel means that rebels take over..if the US was getting anywhere they wouldn't have a 160,000 troop level backed by hundreds of thousands foreigners and contract militants..even at those numbers you still have militants taking over towns just north of Baghdad and still pretty much roaming around anywhere the Americans are not..the only way the 'iraqi army' can exist is if they are paid $700 or $1000us month salary and be close to US forces..once the next president starts withdrawing troops then the country is taken over by the insurgents and alsadrs militia in shiite areas..if thats what you call that "already won" .

You really think these current insurgents/militias will rule over Iraq?
You think that Americans will leave Iraq without having installed a proper government and army? Even the democrats know it would be a security disaster to pull everyone out. In addition, any government or rule set up by these insurgents/militias could be destroyed by a few bombs. Do you really believe that American troops are going to be evacuated and allow any fanatical idiot govern Iraq? Eventually, a government will be installed in Iraq. Any government that is deemed hostle to US interests will end up being bombed, just like Saddam and his band of losers.

Its easy for the US to use conventional warfare to destroy established governments. There are physical, architectural structures that governments need to govern in and they cant effectivly rule a whole country from a neigborhood house or bunker. How do you set up a government without creating targets? Imo, I think the bigger problem lies in the insurgents hands. However, they're lives are crap and they have nothing to lose and everything to gain....

[Logan13]

Logan ... I agree that the value of the US dollar affects the whole planet (which is why europe came out with the Euro to offset that influence), but remember that it's value is dictated by the confidence it's users have on the US economy and government. Right now the US dollar is tanking, that should tell you something is wrong.

Red

Agreed, one would have to be thick-headed to think that the economy is in fantastic shape right now. But the whole "doomsday" scenario that many wish to pursue is pathetic and irrational.

[thegodfather]

Do you really believe that American troops are going to be evacuated and allow any fanatical idiot govern Iraq? Eventually, a government will be installed in Iraq. Any government that is deemed hostle to US interests will end up being bombed, just like Saddam and his band of losers.....

The government that was in place in Iraq before we destroyed it was fine. Saddam was a dosile little animal compared to the extremism of Admedinejad. If anything Saddam kept the region stable, his army was powerful enough to keep neighboring countries like Iran from invading and destabilizing the region. The best part of Saddam being in power, is that it was his task to keep the region stable, and not ours. All invading that country did was make it our responsibiliy and cost us billions of dollars.

There really is no sense in bitching about it now I guess though. Whats done is done, and I dont think it would be smart to turn tail and run without at least establishing something. But for christ sake, what is taking so long? I would like to see them establish a powerful Iraqi government by 2009 and have a complete troop withdrawl, that would be ideal.

Next, onto the point of economic collapse. If this were to happen, I would immediately advocate a war with any country in order to secure natural resources vital to the survival of all United States citizens. For instance, if countries were to say that our currency was not good enough to purchase their goods, I would be in favor of invading them and taking them. When you put our survival at stake, those are the measures that have to be taken in order to survive. People may not agree with my views, but those same people would probably not want to starve or sacrafice their quality of life.

[Logan13]

[QUOTE=thegodfather;3726071]The government that was in place in Iraq before we destroyed it was fine. Saddam was a dosile little animal compared to the extremism of Admedinejad. If anything Saddam kept the region stable, his army was powerful enough to keep neighboring countries like Iran from invading and destabilizing the region. The best part of Saddam being in power, is that it was his task to keep the region stable, and not ours. All invading that country did was make it our responsibiliy and cost us billions of dollars.

There really is no sense in bitching about it now I guess though. Whats done is done, and I dont think it would be smart to turn tail and run without at least establishing something. But for christ sake, what is taking so long? I would like to see them establish a powerful Iraqi government by 2009 and have a complete troop withdrawl, that would be ideal.

Next, onto the point of economic collapse. If this were to happen, I would immediately advocate a war with any country in order to secure natural resources vital to the survival of all United States citizens. For instance, if countries were to say that our currency was not good enough to purchase their goods, I would be in favor of invading them and taking them. When you put our survival at stake, those are the measures that have to be taken in order to survive. People may not agree with my views, but those same people would probably not want to starve or sacrafice their quality of life.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not as PC as many would like, but true nonetheless. I would be in favor of this as well. I find it amusing that so many in here think that the US would just shrivel up and die.

[eliteforce]

Nothing zilch nada happened, EXCEPT: Mqtada al-sadrs militia took over the city! That is an insurgent group you weenee..they are the same people that kill American troops in Bagdad with Iranian provided EFPs, once the british withdrew the sadrsts immediatly took over. thats what i'm saying, as soon as a withdrawel happens in any region some insurgent group or another takes control, the puppet govt immediatly collapses. The various iraqi security forces cannot operate independently from the USM, they have almost no tanks, apcs, artillary units and 0 combat aircraft--there is no real 'Iraqi Army'

You have to understand, half of the reason for the insurgency is the over abundance of troops knocking down innocent folks doors and patrolling their streets. That isn't needed anymore, Al Qaeda is all but eradicated, and if the only problem then is "sectarian" (ie: locals) then the answer isn't to swat the hornets nest but to let them run the POLICING themselves. Look what happened in Basra when international forces completely withdrew: nothing. Nadda. Zilch. US Troops are needed to guard the embassy and a few bases, and that is it. I'm a staunch conservative but so you know I am not for defeat, but believe me when I say you are only getting the side of this story that you are intended to get.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

YES! thats what will happen, rebels take over; the US will have to quit (remember what we were talking about in the first place; collapsing dollar, bankruptsy?//the american people want involvement ended and there is a200billion$ bill at congress right now..which is reluctant to pay it and send the ecomomy deeper into the red, by the time hillary takes over the gig is up they'll either have to to leave and let rebels take over or hand the thing over to some arab league force..which would serve as a facilitator for the rebels to take over..
the same thing happened in lebanon in the 1980s, as soon as the US/Israel withdrew, the govt that they installed collapsed.

You really think these current insurgents/militias will rule over Iraq?
You think that Americans will leave Iraq without having installed a proper government and army? Even the democrats know it would be a security disaster to pull everyone out. In addition, any government or rule set up by these insurgents/militias could be destroyed by a few bombs. Do you really believe that American troops are going to be evacuated and allow any fanatical idiot govern Iraq? Eventually, a government will be installed in Iraq. Any government that is deemed hostle to US interests will end up being bombed, just like Saddam and his band of losers.

Its easy for the US to use conventional warfare to destroy established governments. There are physical, architectural structures that governments need to govern in and they cant effectivly rule a whole country from a neigborhood house or bunker. How do you set up a government without creating targets? Imo, I think the bigger problem lies in the insurgents hands. However, they're lives are crap and they have nothing to lose and everything to gain....

[***xxx***]

[QUOTE=Logan13;3726433]

Next, onto the point of economic collapse. If this were to happen, I would immediately advocate a war with any country in order to secure natural resources vital to the survival of all United States citizens. For instance, if countries were to say that our currency was not good enough to purchase their goods, I would be in favor of invading them and taking them. When you put our survival at stake, those are the measures that have to be taken in order to survive. People may not agree with my views, but those same people would probably not want to starve or sacrafice their quality of life.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not as PC as many would like, but true nonetheless. I would be in favor of this as well. I find it amusing that so many in here think that the US would just shrivel up and die.

lol, great idea! I tell u what: u cant even win the war in Iraq - how u gonna manage to invade another country and steal 'dem goods and yes, blame your god damn government for your monetary politics and blame yourself for driving those stupid, inefficient, slow and low quality SUVs and all the other American crap cars - you created your oil addiction. now deal with it. and don t whine and fantasize about invading other countries. even the kids in a kindergarden have more political sense than the most of you here...

[Dagron]

You folks realize that there is in fact a government in Baghdad, right?



Dec 4, 2007 15:48
Iraqi Cabinet agrees to extend mandate for US-led forces for a year
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD

The Iraqi Cabinet agreed Tuesday to ask the United Nations to extend the authorization for US-led forces in Iraq through the end of next year, but it will be the last time, officials said.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week that his government would ask the UN Security Council for the last time to renew the mandate that has given the United States and its partners sweeping powers in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.

The chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Cabinet had formally approved that decision.

US Embassy spokesman Philip Reeker welcomed the move.

"This is a very positive process," he said at a news conference. "Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own but will not have to stand alone."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[gixxerboy1]

The Iraqi government has basically no power and little control. Its meaningless.

[Dagron]

The Iraqi government has basically no power and little control. Its meaningless.

You are wrong sir, and I challenge you to provide evidence to support your position.

[helium3]

The government that was in place in Iraq before we destroyed it was fine. Saddam was a dosile little animal compared to the extremism of Admedinejad. If anything Saddam kept the region stable, his army was powerful enough to keep neighboring countries like Iran from invading and destabilizing the region. The best part of Saddam being in power, is that it was his task to keep the region stable, and not ours. All invading that country did was make it our responsibiliy and cost us billions of dollars.

There really is no sense in bitching about it now I guess though. Whats done is done, and I dont think it would be smart to turn tail and run without at least establishing something. But for christ sake, what is taking so long? I would like to see them establish a powerful Iraqi government by 2009 and have a complete troop withdrawl, that would be ideal.

Next, onto the point of economic collapse. If this were to happen, I would immediately advocate a war with any country in order to secure natural resources vital to the survival of all United States citizens. For instance, if countries were to say that our currency was not good enough to purchase their goods, I would be in favor of invading them and taking them. When you put our survival at stake, those are the measures that have to be taken in order to survive. People may not agree with my views, but those same people would probably not want to starve or sacrafice their quality of life.

jesus christ, i hope you never get elected lol.
a world leading country like america storming into another country with no greater reason than to plunder its "goods" would set a fine example to the rest of the world. fortunately you wouldnt have the skill to pull it off.

countries like ours should lead the way forward, finding new technologies and resources,not go back to the dark ages. but i guess you did it to the indians.