Poorer Americans

[thrillbill]

I just read on another post about a complaint about the cost of drinks at the go-go bars. Part of the "cost factor" to this American chap is that he doesn't realize that the US dollar is like one of a developing country. I am also an American and it just hit me in Singapore that the US dollar is crap.... Singapore has always been on the expensive side but ... just to do it on the "economical side" is a challenge now. Middle class Americans will no longer be able to travel overseas like they use to...and to buy imported brand names will be more expensive back home (except for the sh*t from China). Fortunately in Thailand I am paid in baht so it is like getting a raise, but I would hate to be a retired American here in LOS seeing my dollar worth less and less. :cyclopsani: Thank you George Bush... go ahead and spend billions on more weapons(and saving the world) while the infrastructure in America is rotting away.

Thank you George Bush... go ahead and spend billions on more weapons(and saving the world) [/b]
Oh if that were only true. He is spending tne billions all right but "saving the world" - which planet are you from?

[bing]

Well, like it or not, we are here and all over, and so we grouch about the exchange rate. It is OK to grouch, usually you feel better after getting it all out. All you have to do is spend more, and all will be fine. You can't take it with you, and if you can't afford to party for a couple of weeks a year. Well make that several weeks a year. Then you need to do something to get more money. A second job might be in order, or advance in the one you have. I have mentioned it before, but it you find a place more inviting than Pattaya, by all means let me know where it is. I do like Pattaya, but am willing to hear of other places. Japan and Korea are OK, but the coins run out of purse even more quickly in these and other countries. Perhaps am a wuss, but still am cautious of Manila, because of bad press. Am serious, if you have a solid suggestion of neat places to visit, I would appreciate the nudge in that direction.

[Brad the Impala]

Thank you George Bush... go ahead and spend billions on more weapons(and saving the world) [/b]
Oh if that were only true. He is spending tne billions all right but "saving the world" - which planet are you from?

Perhaps a rash assumption, but I would have said that thrillbill's irony has passed you by.

[thrillbill]

Thank you George Bush... go ahead and spend billions on more weapons(and saving the world) [/b]
Oh if that were only true. He is spending tne billions all right but "saving the world" - which planet are you from?[/quote

I was using sarcasm when I said Bush was "saving the world".... You couldn't tell that was sarcasm???? (don't be serious)

Thank you George Bush... go ahead and spend billions on more weapons(and saving the world) [/b]
Oh if that were only true. He is spending tne billions all right but "saving the world" - which planet are you from?

...actually.... Which Planet are you from snowkat? :drunken:

[Narakmak]

These are the countries I know about that still have decent exchange rates for Americans:

Mexico
Turkey
Argentina

I have always wondered why gay men tend to be knee-jerk Leftists, and Europeans in general tend to be knee-jerk anti-Americans. I guess I will have to keep on wondering, as Europe gradually succumbs to sharia law.

I know you'll hang me, but I regard George Bush as a very poor speaker who is fairly good at executing his plans. One of his plans was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and do his best to establish a democracy in the Middle East. That battle still hangs in the balance. I don't see anyone here helping, but of course Europeans don't much like democracy in the first place.

The recent elections of Sarkozy and Berlusconi seem to indicate that the European people have lost patience with their "elite" leaders.

And (while this obviously has nothing to do with Thailand) would you REALLY rather have John Kerry sitting in the White House? That was the alternative, as almost nobody seems to remember. Compare that with the situation today, where the Democratic race is between two Actually Horrible Candidates, and John McCain simply seems to be the safer bet. After all, a non-lunatic seems marginally better than a certifiable lunatic (which label I apply to the crazed Hillary and Barack alike).

Of course, I also wonder why people post shite about exchange rates without having even opened a book on basic economics. But I guess I will keep on wondering.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAILAND!!

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

actually ...." Middle class Americans will no longer be able to travel overseas like they use to..."..they are the least percentaged travellers of their country..

but as Henry Cate says..."but I regard George Bush as a very poor speaker who is fairly good at executing ..." :cheers:

[Brad the Impala]

I have always wondered why gay men tend to be knee-jerk Leftists, and Europeans in general tend to be knee-jerk anti-Americans. I guess I will have to keep on wondering, as Europe gradually succumbs to sharia law.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAILAND!!
Have I missed something. Which country in Europe has succumbed to sharia law?

I wrote: as Europe gradually succumbs to sharia. And you asked me which country had already succumbed.

I would keep my eyes on England and France, just for starters. "Of course, we did not send any soldats to Iraq because already over half of our cities are Muslim."

May I ask you, personally, whether you find a fatwa of death against a writer to be "offensive?"

[Brad the Impala]

I wrote: as Europe gradually succumbs to sharia. And you asked me which country had already succumbed.

I would keep my eyes on England and France, just for starters. "Of course, we did not send any soldats to Iraq because already over half of our cities are Muslim."

May I ask you, personally, whether you find a fatwa of death against a writer to be "offensive?"

You are forecasting that England and France will "succumb" to sharia law. OK, now I get the base of knowledge about Europe from which you made your statement, and realise that a discussion of the topic is pointless. Bringing a fatwa, that originated in Iran, into a dialogue about sharia law in Europe, demonstrates both your lack of geographical awareness and your islamophobia.

[Bob]

Come on, Henry, as a fellow American, I can easily acknowledge Bush is an idiot. He's good at executing what????? That escapes me as the guy is capable of screwing up a perfectly good wet dream.

Bush can't do shit. The military, excellent as they are, took care of the military end of it in a few weeks (mind you, chicken hawk Bush and Rumsfield, who've never served on any front line of anything, didn't do any of this other than the idiotic planning part of it and committing the brave guys and women who did the job for them); however, some idiot (your Bushie boy), listening to Rumsfield, didn't send enough people to secure Iraq and all hell broke loose (nobody thought about protecting the banks or the museums or even the friggin' arsenals???). As everyone would acknowledge now, there were no plans to "secure the peace." And they sent our men and women over there to do it with inadequate and unsafe equipment (I really felt good about hearing stories of servicemen scrounging the scrap yards over there to put 1/4" plate steel on the shitty humvees to save their friggin' lives).
And exactly what was our national security interest we we're protecting by going to war??? Let's see, before we went in, everybody acknowledges that there was no Al Queda element there - but there sure as hell is now. Before the war, there were "x" number of terrorists in the world that wanted our ass - but now you can multiply that number by at least thousands. And we've gone broke doing it, lost close relationships with allies, and made much of the world hate our guts.
So, maybe, dear Henry, you might just explain to me what good this bastard did for us??? I can't wait to hear this one.

I'm no leftist or rightist but, by now, I'd vote for Osama Bin Fucking Laden before I'd ever vote for anyone associated with Bush or his destructive policies.

[Impulse]

Yes i would rather have John kerry in office.And I would prefer Clinton or obama over McCain.

Lets face the only interest we old queens of pattaya have in the exchange rate is that a bad one puts the price of cock up

I have always wondered why gay men tend to be knee-jerk Leftists....... would you REALLY rather have John Kerry sitting in the White House? ....

Yes, most certainly John Kerry over Bush Jr. (Shrub). And I am not a "knee jerk" leftist but arrived at my politics after a great deal of (sometimes painfull) self reflection.

Well Henry my boy, you're going to take an awful pasting on this board like your comrade-in-arms Buckinaway. But, like a True "Blue" American, I'll disagree with what you say but not your right to say it.
But...en garde! :duel:

But as Thrillbill originally posted....yes, the "Bush Dollar" has certainly put a crimp on my style. For instance, I usually stay at Tarntawan in Bangkok but now the price is over $75 a night and it's just out of my range for a stay more than 3 days. So I'm staying at OmYim this trip at a more reasonable $32 a night. In the past Tarntawan was just north of $50 a night.
More sadly (more sadder?) Rabbit Resort used to be a resonable splurge for me at $75 to $95 a night, but this upcoming trip the lowest price I could find was $138 a night!

I used to think of 20 baht as "chump change" but now as its closer to a buck I'm more careful how I spend my money on holiday. I do realise that a lot of this is psychological, but its still my "reality".

[cottmann]

.... One of his plans was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and do his best to establish a democracy in the Middle East. That battle still hangs in the balance. I don't see anyone here helping, but of course Europeans don't much like democracy in the first place.

There is already a mostly Muslim democracy in the Middle East - Turkey. Israel and Lebanon are as democratic as anywhere else.

As for Europeans not liking democracy, I should point out that the term is from a European language - Greek.

[dave_tf-old]

Taking the long view, my first several visits to Thailand I was trading dollars for anywhere from 25 and chump change to 27.5, so this is more a return to normalcy to me. IF I could afford a trip at all, it would be under conditions Kenc described--more budget-minded than I have been in the recent past.

[cottmann]

I wrote: as Europe gradually succumbs to sharia. And you asked me which country had already succumbed.
I would keep my eyes on England and France, just for starters. "Of course, we did not send any soldats to Iraq because already over half of our cities are Muslim."
The percentage of the population that is Muslim in both the United States and in France and Germany is somewhere between 3 and 6 percent, and the percentage is less than 3 percent in most other Western European nations [http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php]. There are already Muslim states in Europe - Albania and Kosovo - but neither uses sharia law.

I wrote:May I ask you, personally, whether you find a fatwa of death against a writer to be "offensive?"
No more than I find offensive the fact that Christians burned books and authors with whom they disagreed throughout most of the past 2000 years.

I have lived in Pattaya for over 20 years the lowest I can remember the dollar being is 24-25 Baht to the USD
so until it gets back to or below that level then stop complaining, and yes I know all about inflation and all that just live with it or go home and see what it will buy you there.

It has to be said that at that time (20 years ago) the place was FULL of American tourists and the US Navy were never away from the place they loved it and reckoned it was the raunchiest place in the world to visit and still do I believe.
I hope they come back soon they were always great fun and great business for Pattaya.

... like your comrade-in-arms BuckinawayThere's an article on gay men (no women, thank god) who work in Congress (staffers etc.), especially the Republicans in the latest US Out issue. Apparently there's a Web site call BlogActive run by a Washington activist Michael Roger who regularly "outs" closet Republicans who make homophobic remarks (justification: they're hypocrites). The article says that readers of the site were well aware of Larry Craig's liking for airport and other bathrooms well before he was caught soliciting in one

Gays are knee-jerk leftists? I can never understand how one can be "Gay" and "republican". George bush and his fellow republicans are religious fanatics and major homophobes. They consider gays "Sick" and would be happy if they could lobotomize every gay in the US. This is the president that wanted to single handedly pass a constitutional amendment to deny the rights of a whole segment of the population based solely on their sexual preferences! God Bless America! And yes, John Kerry would have been a MUCH better president. Bush has a 75% disapproval rate. Imagine that! Bush Invaded Iraq solely because he was impotent at finding Osama. He actually lied about WMAs to find a reason to invade. Bush is just a stupid Puppet of Rowe and Cheney, the real evil in the White House. He should be Impeached. Only in American can you get impeached because you got a B/J and not because you lied to congress and the world LOL. Yes, Sadam was a tyrant and a dictator, but he was not a fantatic religious muslim. By removing him, Bush has actually DESTABILIZED Iraq. McCain promises to continue Bush's insanity.
The cost of this war is one of the biggest factors behind the failing economy and the weak dollar. This will not change until the republicans are out of office.

Americans will no longer be able to travel overseas like they use to...and to buy imported brand names will be more expensive back home (except for the sh*t from China).

Oh you poor, literally poor idiot. Where do you think all those imported designer label clothes are made these days?

OPEC have said that oil could reach US$200 a barrel. They have said it now so it probably will. So everyone will have less in their pockets.

OPEC have said that oil could reach US$200 a barrel. They have said it now so it probably will. So everyone will have less in their pockets.Except the Arabs?

[Dboy]

No more than I find offensive the fact that Christians burned books and authors with whom they disagreed throughout most of the past 2000 years.

But now instead of literally burning the books, they subvert them...and any complaint about it is "intolerance":

"If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them." --- "Biology for Christian Schools" textbook, Page 1


dboy

[Wesley]

lets move on to Obama and his love life or lack there of. Looks like rev. Wright will certainly not help his church member out of the a rock and a hard place by moving into his multimillion dollar house and going on vacation to Pattaya where his wonderful dress style will be so well received.

I just happen to think we are beating a dead horse with Iraq. I don't like it either or why we are there, but its been said enough and by so many what is the need of repeating it again. Mistakes and often bad mistakes are made. Its sad we can't turn back the clock and fix it but, all the Bitching has no value either. Next minute tomorrow and next year are important. Dwelling on Bush now that he is a lame duck is like Duck hunting with his friend dick. There is little Bush or anyone can do to fix this mess quickly. Best to ride it out and enjoy life on the way out.

Wesley

Using the old Monty Python adage in reverse what has the Iraqi war done for us.

Thousands of young soldiers
have been killed and injured

A can of worms has been opened with sunnis fighting shites, destabalising the whole region with thousands of innocent people being blown up every year.

Al Quida now have a stronghold that never existed before

Megabucks of dollars have been sqandered which could have been spent on helping to prevent the current US financial crisis and investing in alternative energy and measures to prevent global warming

Proved there definitely are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

I just happen to think we are beating a dead horse with Iraq. I don't like it either or why we are there, but its been said enough and by so many what is the need of repeating it againLet's all just shut our eyes and pretend it's not still happening. Those damn ungrateful Iraqis should realise they've never had it so good. We freed them from Saddam Hussein, dammit

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

I read a most interesting report today-I think in the Guardian -a must for older gay leftists-that said how the Iraq War had cost the USA to date $170 TRILLION DOLLARS..which is basically what their oil bill would have been for the next 50/60 years so that sort of dispels the oil theory.

Plus of course you don't build the world's largest embassy costing $150 million in Baghdad over 150 acres that is a self contained city within itself unless you intend it to be the representation of the ruling country with a puppet government.

It's obvious isn't it ?...Iraq is a buffer zone between Israel and Iran and will be a colony of the USA.

Then again I do come from a family of old lefties and most were IRA supporters..one dear old Auntie blew herself up in her bathroom concocting a bomb to hurl at the occupying British forces in Belfast. She was an honored heroine for years until her husband finally revealed she was actually mixing one of her deadly brews of Poteen in a copper still which she sold about the neighborhood, sending some people blind and others stark raving mad.

I read a most interesting report today-I think in the Guardian -a must for older gay leftists-that said how the Iraq War had cost the USA to date $170 TRILLION DOLLARS..which is basically what their oil bill would have been for the next 50/60 years so that sort of dispels the oil theory.



How? When there's none left believe me everyone will be wishing they paid that premium up front. It wont last thankfully, the Yanks have been thrown out of the region before. 170trillion$ sounds far too much anyway.

[Bob]

Lunch, somebody's math skills are a bit off. The cost of the war so far (there's actually a website that continually totals the amount financing the war) was a little less than 518 billion a couple of minutes ago. 170 trillion, last time I looked, is about 34 times larger.

Of course, whether it's 50 gazillion or 20 cents, it was the single dumbest thing W has done so far (hey...he's got another 7+ months to do something worse!).

[Wesley]

I just happen to think we are beating a dead horse with Iraq. I don't like it either or why we are there, but its been said enough and by so many what is the need of repeating it againLet's all just shut our eyes and pretend it's not still happening. Those damn ungrateful Iraqis should realise they've never had it so good. We freed them from Saddam Hussein, dammit
Its just that after a while repeating yourself makes one think you are senile. It will not change until we have a new president. Until then we just as well forget about it for a while its not going to change.

As to how much is spent and how much the green zone cost as well as our foreign policy it seems to me that is there little to talk about until we leave then the new Saddam can set up is own trillion dollar condo already paid for and built. The minutes we leave it will shortly return back to what it was. If all we wanted to Do was remove Saddam that was done on a few months. It took them longer to litigate his trial than find him in his little spider hole.

Its just that after 7 years of this back and forth between the left and right once would concede that Bush will STAY THE COURSE until there is no money left to spend. We now owe China more than our whole economy will produce in the next ten years. God help the world if we default on all the loans we took out to get rid of this guy. So, yes we can talk about it forever, but until there is a new guy in office or woman on hormone medication we are stuck with stay the course.

Wesley

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

"Lunch, somebody's math skills are a bit off. The cost of the war so far (there's actually a website that continually totals the amount financing the war) was a little less than 518 billion a couple of minutes ago. 170 trillion, last time I looked, is about 34 times larger. "

well dear I did qualify it by stating I was reading the Guardian, I'm an old leftie and I come from a long line of insane Irishman. We don't always get our facts exactly right or the chemicals for making Poteen as Auntie Doreen discovered when she blown to smithereens.

Either way, the Iraq adventure has gone slightly askew, as was Doreen's head which was found in the next county.

Lunchtime O'Booze= "Either way, the Iraq adventure has gone slightly askew".

Someone told me that when the Chinese Communist Prime Minister Chou En Lai was asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a success he said "It's too early to tell". I think that's probably true of Iraq.

One:

"Gays are knee-jerk leftists? I can never understand how one can be "Gay" and "republican". "

Yeah, sure, and "Gay/Independent" escapes your mind as well.

Two:

The Iraq war has cost 170 trillion dollars.

OK, the last time I looked, the total US budget was some $4-5 trillion. $170 trillion?!??!?!?!?

As some fat-ass Democrat once said, "A billion here, and then a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Ahem. $170 trillion is, shall we say, "real money." And it's totally off the map for military expenses in Iraq.

By the way, now that Bush is being vindicated, we don't seem to hear so much of the Chimpy talk.

[cottmann]

. ....By the way, now that Bush is being vindicated, we don't seem to hear so much of the Chimpy talk.

I know Congressman Denis Kucinich was keen on having Bush indicted, but "Bush is being vindicated?" What did I miss?

[Smiles]

GWP (gross world product): $65.61 trillion (2007 est.) according to the CIA ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/xx.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html) ).

Lunch's figure ($170 trillion from The Guardian apparently) seem a little stretched. Just like all old (blinkered) lefties everywhere ... no wonder a dying breed.

Cheers ...

Let us see. He has the lowest rating of any former President. Not only did he lie about the reason of going into Iraq, he now is insisting we via the Israelis bomb Iran. Remember we need democracy around the world, but when it comes to Burma, we leave thousands of people in need and with our tail between our legs pull our ships with aid support out and leave a ruthless dictator to rule.....how much oil does Burma have?

If we "crush" Iran after soundly defeating the Iraq army and building a stable government, the entire mid-east will tremble and sell us their oil at $250 a barrel so when Cheney goes back to Haliburton, he and his investors can make billions more which certainly the best thing for the US capitalistic system. This should be so obvious. At last we shall have peace in the world!!!!

Out to Lunch,


I read a most interesting report today-I think in the Guardian -a must for older gay leftists-that said how the Iraq War had cost the USA to date $170 TRILLION DOLLARS..
As usual, Out to Lunch is mathematically challenged and suffering from selective amnesia. The figure in the Guardian was actually $3 trillion dollars and referred to the estimated total cost of the war including deployment of troops up to 2017, and such future costs as long term caring for the estimated "40% of returning veterans that are likely to suffer from disabilities". In that context it is not unrealistic and is matched by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes in their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War", published in March.

To illustrate how the money could be spent elsewhere, Bilmes cited the annual U.S. budget for autism research -- $108 million -- which is spent every four hours in Iraq. A trillion dollars could have hired 15 million additional public school teachers for a year or provided 43 million students with four-year scholarships to public universities, the book says.

Stiglitz and Bilmes say they were excessively conservative in calculating the $3 trillion figure, overcompensating for their bias in having opposed the war. (Reuters)
Henry Cate,

One of his plans was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and do his best to establish a democracy in the Middle East.
Why? If you spent any time in the Middle East you would soon realize that this is not the priority for most of those there.

I don't see anyone here helping
Presumably you are referring to countries, and have overlooked the contributions by the United Kingdom and Australia, which amounted to some 15% of combat troops during the Major Combat Operations phase from March 19 to May 1. Given the size of their respective combat forces and operational commitments elsewhere this is far from negligible - or are you referring to your personal contribution and involvement?

I would keep my eyes on England and France, just for starters. "Of course, we did not send any soldats to Iraq because already over half of our cities are Muslim."
See above for England. France had opposed the war in the UN assembly on the grounds that it had not been justified in terms of proof of WMD (later shown to be correct), so were hardly likely to "send any soldats".

[cottmann]

Bloomberg Radio reported on March 1 2008 that Stiglitz now estimates the final total cost of the American War in Iraq: "'It's much more like five trillion,' Stiglitz said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. 'We were trying to make Americans understand how expensive this war was so we didn't want to quibble about a dime here or a dime there.'"

One of his plans was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and do his best to establish a democracy in the Middle East.
As I noted on an earlier posting, there are already democracies operating in the Middle East, some of which are US allies - Turkey, Israel and, probably, Lebanon. And if the present situation is Bush "doing his best," there is considerable room for improvement.

I don't see anyone here helping

I would keep my eyes on England and France, just for starters. "Of course, we did not send any soldats to Iraq because already over half of our cities are Muslim."
France opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, but has sent troops, especially special forces, into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Bush Invaded Iraq solely because he was impotent at finding Osama. He actually lied about WMAs to find a reason to invade.



If anyone hasn't figured it out Bush and the conspiracy behind him are only interested in spending it before anybody else does, it goes NO further than that, really.

[Aunty]

Well whatever the merits of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, oil currently at $US140 a barrel kind of disproves that the motivating factor was all about getting cheap oil.

Hardly, Aunty.

All it proves / disproves, at best, is that if that was a motivating factor then they did not achieve it.

[cottmann]

Hardly, Aunty.

All it proves / disproves, at best, is that if that was a motivating factor then they did not achieve it.

Alan Greenspan, in his memoirs published last year, wrote: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.тАЭ And if one cannot believe him, whom can one believe?

[Aunty]

Hardly, Aunty.

All it proves / disproves, at best, is that if that was a motivating factor then they did not achieve it.

IтАЩm not so sure about that. If the agenda for invading Iraq was cheap oil, then not only has that failed, it has failed spectacularly! I somehow doubt that the interests behind тАШcheap oilтАЩ - given that they must have been sufficiently powerful and global enough to launch a war - would be so careless and ineffectual in the execution of their plans as to end up in the situation they are now facing with respect to the price of oil. Such a notion defies credibility and leads to a certain conclusion. However it wonтАЩt stop many from still advancing the idea that the Iraq war was all about oil. Patently it was not.

In addition, the motivation for cheap oil (and the interests that lie behind it) must by now (given oilтАЩs price and the failure of the Iraqi invasion to ensure its cheap cost), be greater and more urgent than ever! So where are they? They presumably havenтАЩt gone anywhere. I wasnтАЩt aware the US was planning to invade another oil producer?

Yes IтАЩm sure AmericaтАЩs former No. 1 banker will know all about the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. (Not like those dumb asses in Congress) I wonder if he got to pick any of the targets on the map? I mean he must have been intimately involved, right?

If the agenda for invading Iraq was cheap oil, then not only has that failed, it has failed spectacularly! .... Such a notion defies credibility

The whole episode defies credibility.


However it won├п┬┐┬╜t stop many from still advancing the idea that the Iraq war was all about oil. Patently it was not.

In that case maybe you would let the rest of us in on the secret. Not about oil (so you say), not about WMD (there weren't any), not about terrorists (there weren't any of those either), not about dictators (there are far worse), or democracy (many had far less), or expansionism (at least by Iraq!), or any identifiable threat to any other country; what, with all due respect, are you so sure it was all about?

[dave_tf-old]

Pick a reason--any reason. The concensus among those who have exited this administration is that GW and clan wanted this war. They were going to allow and espouse any reason for doing it, and were not going to let any reason dissuade them from doing it. To try to pick through the rubble seeking a single, overriding reason doesn't seem possible or even advisable to me, given the nature of ideologues and their natural allies and bedfellows.

I'm no economist, but the last time I looked, the US was an oil producing nation (not a net exporter, but a producer). Greenspan's assertion that the war was about oil doesn't necessarily translate to 'cheap oil'. Given the rise of China and demands rising in the market, access may play as large a role as price in this conspiracy.

Agreed, Dave.

Any reason would seem to have been acceptable as a good enough reason.

Interesting to see what, if anything, Aunty thinks was so obviously the reason ...

[cottmann]

......I'm no economist, but the last time I looked, the US was an oil producing nation (not a net exporter, but a producer). Greenspan's assertion that the war was about oil doesn't necessarily translate to 'cheap oil'. Given the rise of China and demands rising in the market, access may play as large a role as price in this conspiracy.

The USA consumes about one-quarter of the world's oil production and produces about one-third of what it consumes.　It has about 3 years proven oil reserves. See 2007 figures http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

[Wesley]

Well lets all move to Thailand where the gas is cheap and he smoke is even cheaper. There are no god excuses for the war. it was revenge and hopes that they would get a foot in the door to OPEC. Not that the bastard did not need to go. It was the not our place to do it. Lets see how Israel does with Iran. talk about oil going up... !

Wesley

[Bob]

There are no god excuses for the war.

Sure there are. That's the dude that invented the dumbasses that make war!

P.S. Gas is more expensive in LOS than most of the US.

[Wesley]

pick pick pick, it was there is no good excuse for war, don't play games, someone might take you serious

Wes