Hey America Haters

[Shattered]

boy, how weak this answer was !!!!!!!!

Can't you better argue, dillodumb ?

The first sign of losing a debate is stooping to senseless and childish name-calling.

Proud of yourself?

 

[freeandfun1]

A strong EURO is not good for the exportations, but good for the importations (on the european side) : if the product cost 10 EUROS >> USA will buy it 13 dollars, no 10 dollars.. too expensive >> USA will buy to sombody other.
But for the european importations, if the product cost 13 dollars, Europe will buy it 10 EUROS, not 13. So, cheaper for us.
And fot some products, who only Europe or some other countris build, like the High-tech products, USA can not buy them everywhere >> they have to buy it to the EURO countries, for some of these products.

If the dollar will continue its fall, it would be bad for it.
Some countries, who befor only buy in dollar, are opening their economy to the EURO because the dollar is no more able to be good - at this time -

So, a weak dollar is not so good for USA, if this weakness it too strong.

YOU have NO idea what you are trying to say.

The USA started losing business in Asia in the late 90's due to a weak Euro and a too strong of a dollar. Companies like Motorola, etc. started losing business to Ericsson, Nokia, et al because their products were cheaper based on the currency exchange. Now that the Euro is getting stronger than the dollar, our exports are picking up and your's are falling off.

The dollar is only weak against the Euro. If you compare it to the Won, Yuan or Yen, it is still quite strong. A weaker dollar means that America will stop importing and start manufacturing at home, which will help our domestic economy. The Asians and Europeans will continue to prop up our dollar, as if they don't, they will have no customers (we are the world's largest importer).

The weakening of the dollar is all part of the larger economic cycle. If you compare the dollar to any of the Asian currencies in the mid 90's, you will find that our dollar is still stronger now than it was then.

 

[Mariner]

You won't find me defending Kofi or the way the oil for food program was run--a complete scandal.

As far as the dollar, I just posted a piece by the dean of the Yale School of Management published today, and agreeing with what I wrote above, on a different thread.

When you guys disagree with me, you immediately slip into name-calling. Not classy. Yes, a few Muslim nations were ok with the invasion. I never said they weren't. The big Muslim players were missing, however, just as nearly all the big players on the world stage refused to join the "coalition of the willing." Globally speaking, this is a very unpopular war.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

You won't find me defending Kofi or the way the oil for food program was run--a complete scandal.

As far as the dollar, I just posted a piece by the dean of the Yale School of Management published today, and agreeing with what I wrote above, on a different thread.

When you guys disagree with me, you immediately slip into name-calling. Not classy. Yes, a few Muslim nations were ok with the invasion. I never said they weren't. The big Muslim players were missing, however, just as nearly all the big players on the world stage refused to join the "coalition of the willing." Globally speaking, this is a very unpopular war.

Mariner.

Who are the big Muslim players? What single nation is the "Muslim" nation that speaks for all Muslims?

 

[Mariner]

the more moderate Muslim nations, which might have given us greater legitimacy: Indonesia, Egypt, and Jordan. Pro-American sentiment in Indonesia fell from 76% to 16% following our invasion. That's the opposite of the effect we'd like our actions to have. The more support we have in the Muslim world, the better chance we have of reducing terrorism at its source, which is disaffected, angry Muslims. Saudi Arabia's "support" is a bit of a joke--they obstructed our 9/11 investigation. Real support would have meant opening the books on the bin Laden family's support of Osama, bringing them all in for questioning about his whereabouts and network, and doing the police work on the ground to identify the Wahhabi extremists from whom the 9/11 hijackers were drawn, in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen (the part of Saudi Arabia they came from was once part of Yemen, until the Saudi's annexed it--that's the regional conflict which caused 9/11. We were victims of our friendship with the Saudi royalty.)

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

the more moderate Muslim nations, which might have given us greater legitimacy: Indonesia, Egypt, and Jordan. Pro-American sentiment in Indonesia fell from 76% to 16% following our invasion. That's the opposite of the effect we'd like our actions to have. The more support we have in the Muslim world, the better chance we have of reducing terrorism at its source, which is disaffected, angry Muslims. Saudi Arabia's "support" is a bit of a joke--they obstructed our 9/11 investigation. Real support would have meant opening the books on the bin Laden family's support of Osama, bringing them all in for questioning about his whereabouts and network, and doing the police work on the ground to identify the Wahhabi extremists from whom the 9/11 hijackers were drawn, in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen (the part of Saudi Arabia they came from was once part of Yemen, until the Saudi's annexed it--that's the regional conflict which caused 9/11. We were victims of our friendship with the Saudi royalty.)

Mariner.

And all this time I thought the terrorists hated us because of our support of Israel, our hedonistic lifestyle, and not to mention the fact that the US is full of infidels.

The fact that the moderate Muslim nations not only tolerate but also tacitly and covertly (if not overtly) condone and abet Muslimn extremeists doesn't make me value their stamp of approval for our actions.

 

[freeandfun1]

the more moderate Muslim nations, which might have given us greater legitimacy: Indonesia, Egypt, and Jordan. Pro-American sentiment in Indonesia fell from 76% to 16% following our invasion. That's the opposite of the effect we'd like our actions to have. The more support we have in the Muslim world, the better chance we have of reducing terrorism at its source, which is disaffected, angry Muslims. Saudi Arabia's "support" is a bit of a joke--they obstructed our 9/11 investigation. Real support would have meant opening the books on the bin Laden family's support of Osama, bringing them all in for questioning about his whereabouts and network, and doing the police work on the ground to identify the Wahhabi extremists from whom the 9/11 hijackers were drawn, in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen (the part of Saudi Arabia they came from was once part of Yemen, until the Saudi's annexed it--that's the regional conflict which caused 9/11. We were victims of our friendship with the Saudi royalty.)

Mariner.

Indonesia's dislike for America has been growing ever since Suharto's fall in the late 90's due to the economic crisis created by the darling of the left - George Soros. As the IMF implemented constraints on the Asian economies, many Asians saw America as the bad guy even though the IMF is an international organization. The dollar became too strong and the Euro was very weak, so the Asians turned against the US and toward Europe.

After Suharto fell, Jakarta erupted into riots in which the Muslim majority raped, pillaged and burned the minority Chinese Buddhist and Christian communities. If you are honest with yourself, you cannot blame Indonesia's - or even Malaysia's - dislike for America on Bush or this war. It started way before that and under the previous president.

Before you go off and tell me I don't know what I am talking about, please know that I do a LOT of business in Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore and I have worked with and have built friendships with a lot of Indian, Muslim and Chinese in the region. I am very familiar with the history of the region and I understand the fragile nature of region.

Overwhelmingly, the Chinese and Indians in the region support what the USA is doing. The Muslims are the only ones that don't. And among the Muslims in those countries, those more educated and more involved in International Business and such also support us. It is the poor and oppressed (by their own governments) that disapprove and that is because they tend to be more radical - desperate.

Funny, the libs support the middle Indonesia but thinks middle America is full of bunk. How fucked up is that?

 

[freeandfun1]

the more moderate Muslim nations, which might have given us greater legitimacy: Indonesia, Egypt, and Jordan. Pro-American sentiment in Indonesia fell from 76% to 16% following our invasion. That's the opposite of the effect we'd like our actions to have. The more support we have in the Muslim world, the better chance we have of reducing terrorism at its source, which is disaffected, angry Muslims. Saudi Arabia's "support" is a bit of a joke--they obstructed our 9/11 investigation. Real support would have meant opening the books on the bin Laden family's support of Osama, bringing them all in for questioning about his whereabouts and network, and doing the police work on the ground to identify the Wahhabi extremists from whom the 9/11 hijackers were drawn, in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen (the part of Saudi Arabia they came from was once part of Yemen, until the Saudi's annexed it--that's the regional conflict which caused 9/11. We were victims of our friendship with the Saudi royalty.)

Mariner.

Frankly, don't you think the opinions most close to Iraq is more important that those thousands of miles away? Those next to him - especially the smaller nations - were worried about him and that is why they gave us their blessings. If my neighbor's house is on fire, how does that affect you when you are miles away? I am the one that faces the most danger and why in the hell should you be allowed to decide if the fire department should do something about it or not?

 

[Mariner]

on-the-ground research, interviewing families and then using statistical tools to extrapolate. I haven't heard the latest on the verification of their findings.

It bothers me to no end that our gov't does not feel a responsibility to count and to name the victims. Every family who lost a member in 9/11 has been very well compensated, on the order of a million or more dollars. But Iraqi "collateral damage" is scarcely treated with the same respect, and is compensated far less well (a couple of hundred dollars). Is an Iraqi child, grandmother, or other innocent worth less than an WTC victim? That's the message our actions send.

A couple of weeks ago was the 20th anniversary of Union Carbide's disastrous accident in Bhopal, India. 5000 Indians died and 50,000 were made sick. Again, we as a country did far less for these people than we do when Americans are harmed--even though it was an American company responsible for the deaths. Same message: we're worth more than those brown people.

I see the same message in our entertainment all the time: the solo white character, James Bond or Indiana Jones, stands out against a backdrop of faceless, innocent, dumb brown people who talk gibberish. It's demeaning, but it's an American tendency, an embarrassing one.

We should be honoring every innocent Iraqi exactly as we honor our own fallen soldiers and civilian victims of this war. No one here ever seems to ask, "How would I feel if a foreign country invaded, with the best of intentions, but killed some members of my family?"

Mariner.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Mariner,
I don't know what movies you've been watching but the ones I've seen fromHollyweird are antigun and anti white male. Look at the tv shows that always portray the white male as a moron who onlys gets by because of his wife.