This was something that I just learned and was wondering how many other people know that Bush has been barrowing a BILLIONS of dollars from the Chinese for the last two years to pay for his little war "against terror" in Iraq to the pont that the cost has already come up to over a Trillion dollars and is believed at best is going to be at least 2 trillion dollors.
American Debt
- Thread starter AbyssalDaemon
- Start date
Old news, actually.
The debt's been going up like crazy ever since the war. If you ask me, the US shouldn't have hit Iraq, but rather, they should have gone after Iran and Syria, Iran in particular. That idiot in charge of that country is the one actually causing problems and I'd figure the world would be a better place without him in power.
The debt's been going up like crazy ever since the war. If you ask me, the US shouldn't have hit Iraq, but rather, they should have gone after Iran and Syria, Iran in particular. That idiot in charge of that country is the one actually causing problems and I'd figure the world would be a better place without him in power.
The situation with the Middle East, and Persia (Iran) in particular is very bad. Nukes may get used. I spent real money and bought geiger counters recently, rather than anime. I'm probably going to get a more high end model eventually too. I really don't envy those of you in the EU. Things are going to be very bad there. EU is closer than the US, and EU security is much worse, so a backpack nuke in Rome, London, Paris, Berlin... its very believable. Iran says they want nuclear power for energy, but they're exporting oil and planning to export natural gas rather than use it to solve their energy problems. That means they want weapons, not energy. Nukes, almost certain ICBMs and backpack models for suicide bombing. Iran wants to make them, and distribute them. If we back off from dealing with Iran, we'll lose cities to those bastards. There are a lot of persians living where I do. They're upset about the situation, as many of them still have family in Iran. They can't do anything about it, and their families can't leave.
Ahmadinejad wants to have his way, and he's the mouthpiece of the ayatollahs, the secret police, and the military of Iran. What he says is approved by them first. So when he makes with the crazy threats, he's saying what those groups want said. He said he wants to nuke israel. Israel has nukes. Israel has planes. The US may look the other way and let Israel nuke Tehran and kill off some of the population of Iran, enough to really hurt them. It won't stop the backpack nukes campaign, but it will slow it down, and once the first nuke flies, the second comes that much easier. Israel can't afford to let Iran strike first. So Israel is just waiting for approval to fly, at this point. W has already announced that action will be taken, so he's pretty much lining up the allies. 2007 is the first year since 1945 that a nuke will be used in war. How's that grap ya?
Of course, the EU will whine and complain. They'll offer aid to Iran. Sell them weapons. Give them loans and technology so they can build higher yield nukes to kill more people. The EU are pussies. The EU WONT act until they've lost at least two cities. The first one is just to show Iran is serious. "They wouldn't do it again right... opps, there goes Brussels. Now what?" They're always willing to sacrifice their citizens to buy a little more peace (Hitler, anyone?). As far as the US is concerned, the EU is the next front of the war and we pity them for not standing up and crushing the middle east. I can see the seriousness of a true crusade rising after Paris gets nuked. The french have a lousy rep, but they did conquer most of north africa and racism is waiting in the wings like a social disease in remission. The next muslim race riots, if a backpack nuke gets used... well, I won't give good odds on the muslims in france or the rest of the EU. Its going to be very bad for them, like a larger scale Bosnia. The fighting will be... intense.
And that says nothing about the impending starvation that follows nuclear war. There's no grain stockpiles anymore. The warehouses are empty. Major crop failures due to radiation fallout on grain... millions will starve. Possibly billions.
As bad as the economic impact of 2 trillion USD$ evaporating, the war events of 2007 are far worse. Its gonna be a bad year. Hold onto your horses.
Ahmadinejad wants to have his way, and he's the mouthpiece of the ayatollahs, the secret police, and the military of Iran. What he says is approved by them first. So when he makes with the crazy threats, he's saying what those groups want said. He said he wants to nuke israel. Israel has nukes. Israel has planes. The US may look the other way and let Israel nuke Tehran and kill off some of the population of Iran, enough to really hurt them. It won't stop the backpack nukes campaign, but it will slow it down, and once the first nuke flies, the second comes that much easier. Israel can't afford to let Iran strike first. So Israel is just waiting for approval to fly, at this point. W has already announced that action will be taken, so he's pretty much lining up the allies. 2007 is the first year since 1945 that a nuke will be used in war. How's that grap ya?
Of course, the EU will whine and complain. They'll offer aid to Iran. Sell them weapons. Give them loans and technology so they can build higher yield nukes to kill more people. The EU are pussies. The EU WONT act until they've lost at least two cities. The first one is just to show Iran is serious. "They wouldn't do it again right... opps, there goes Brussels. Now what?" They're always willing to sacrifice their citizens to buy a little more peace (Hitler, anyone?). As far as the US is concerned, the EU is the next front of the war and we pity them for not standing up and crushing the middle east. I can see the seriousness of a true crusade rising after Paris gets nuked. The french have a lousy rep, but they did conquer most of north africa and racism is waiting in the wings like a social disease in remission. The next muslim race riots, if a backpack nuke gets used... well, I won't give good odds on the muslims in france or the rest of the EU. Its going to be very bad for them, like a larger scale Bosnia. The fighting will be... intense.
And that says nothing about the impending starvation that follows nuclear war. There's no grain stockpiles anymore. The warehouses are empty. Major crop failures due to radiation fallout on grain... millions will starve. Possibly billions.
As bad as the economic impact of 2 trillion USD$ evaporating, the war events of 2007 are far worse. Its gonna be a bad year. Hold onto your horses.
Yeah, and the fact that Nazi Germany was the most powerful nation in the goddamn continent by a gigantic margin had nothing to do with the European nations surrendering that time, right? Look at what good resisting did to France. They got crushed like bugs. It took the Russian winter - read, nature itself - to stop the Nazi war machine.
The US themselves didn't lift a fucking finger until Pearl Harbor. It took losing their entire fleet because they thought they were too badass to be attacked to wake them up. Those who are without sin, cast the first stone.
I rest my case and stop there. Otherwse, I'll start a flamewar about generic American stupidity throughout history, and I'd go on forever.
The US themselves didn't lift a fucking finger until Pearl Harbor. It took losing their entire fleet because they thought they were too badass to be attacked to wake them up. Those who are without sin, cast the first stone.
I rest my case and stop there. Otherwse, I'll start a flamewar about generic American stupidity throughout history, and I'd go on forever.
Semi non-sequiter, but I think that if not for the massive loss of life involved in wars, I'd find all the screw ups in military history absolutely hilarious.
Battle of San Juan hill, Charge of the Light Brigade; hilarious.
The whole of the Punic wars, paralzing in their potential.
Then again, the history of the winners tends to be one of making less costly mistakes than the other guy.
Battle of San Juan hill, Charge of the Light Brigade; hilarious.
The whole of the Punic wars, paralzing in their potential.
Then again, the history of the winners tends to be one of making less costly mistakes than the other guy.
Sometimes, I look back at all the disasters that have occurred in 2006 and wonder if the end is nigh...I dunno - it seems that some terrible accident takes place in Indonesia every other day or so alone... 
If what AbyssalDaemon claims is true, things should get interesting when China comes a knocking to claim the debt. I shudder to think what sort of concessions the US may have to make...
If what AbyssalDaemon claims is true, things should get interesting when China comes a knocking to claim the debt. I shudder to think what sort of concessions the US may have to make...
Now that you mention it, Indonesia has been hit pretty hard lately, with the tsunami, earthquakes, bombings, plane crash, train crash, Bush's visit (that was the worst, actually), etc. And with new nuclear power stations....oh boy....hope they keep the funding up properly - they have a bad habit of pinching purse strings wherever possible.
Heh, thank God my country has almost nothing to do with the current world affairs. If World War 3 does break out, I think we'd be the last to get our door knocked on....or broken down or whatever.
Anyway, it's quite ironic that America would borrow from China, considering the fact that they are obviously frightened of China's rapidly increasing influence in the world theatre. I mean, they've been sending emissaries everywhere, asking countries to help impede China's economic growth. As if that's possible. Halting trade with the Chinese is suicide. Flip over you computer now and look at the labels underneath folks - at least 60 to 70% of it must be made in China.
I was quite surprised the Ring in Lord of the Rings didn't have 'Made In China' inscribed in the inside....or maybe Gandalf read it wrong.
As for why they hit Iraq intead of Iran, well, because Iraq DOESN'T have WMDs, while Iran DOES. Seriously, would any sane government in the world even consider attacking Iran now and risk opening a can of whoop-ass on themselves?
Heh, thank God my country has almost nothing to do with the current world affairs. If World War 3 does break out, I think we'd be the last to get our door knocked on....or broken down or whatever.
Anyway, it's quite ironic that America would borrow from China, considering the fact that they are obviously frightened of China's rapidly increasing influence in the world theatre. I mean, they've been sending emissaries everywhere, asking countries to help impede China's economic growth. As if that's possible. Halting trade with the Chinese is suicide. Flip over you computer now and look at the labels underneath folks - at least 60 to 70% of it must be made in China.
I was quite surprised the Ring in Lord of the Rings didn't have 'Made In China' inscribed in the inside....or maybe Gandalf read it wrong.
As for why they hit Iraq intead of Iran, well, because Iraq DOESN'T have WMDs, while Iran DOES. Seriously, would any sane government in the world even consider attacking Iran now and risk opening a can of whoop-ass on themselves?
I am not really going to argue with you on this because political views are different for everybody, but for the purpose of clarification, I don't think that surrendering was what was intended to be discussed. What was meant was that nothing was done to stop germany when they could be stopped. Before Germany took control of Czechoslavacia, Poland, etc..., Germany probably could have been stopped more easily, but nothing was done about Germany until after they had taken over a few countries and had built up strength.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that only people from one country are stupid. I generally go with the fact that just people in general are stupid. I know that you are upset, but don't generalize the whole country over an issue.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that only people from one country are stupid. I generally go with the fact that just people in general are stupid. I know that you are upset, but don't generalize the whole country over an issue.
I could say that nothing was done to stop Bin Laden before 9/11, even though something COULD have been done - heck, you people even knew where he was holed up. Never mind that the US of A pretty much CREATED the whole Afghan regimen in their misguided urge to flip Russia the bird. That was... not their best moment, eh?
And yes, the German and Afghan situations were similar. You couldn't just attack someone who had until then not done anything wrong, officially, no matter how much you disagreed with the way they did things.
The difference is that 9/11 was the excuse the Americans got to stomp Afghanistan and Bin laden, while by the time the Krauts gave us an excuse, they were already steamrolling over Poland and were an unstoppable juggernaut.
So saying Europe did nothing until it was too late is the classic case of pot, kettle, black.
I'll stop, though. The more I stay in this discussion, the angrier I get over the gall some non-Europeans have to presume they know better. Everyone knows hindsight is 20/20.
And yes, the German and Afghan situations were similar. You couldn't just attack someone who had until then not done anything wrong, officially, no matter how much you disagreed with the way they did things.
The difference is that 9/11 was the excuse the Americans got to stomp Afghanistan and Bin laden, while by the time the Krauts gave us an excuse, they were already steamrolling over Poland and were an unstoppable juggernaut.
So saying Europe did nothing until it was too late is the classic case of pot, kettle, black.
I'll stop, though. The more I stay in this discussion, the angrier I get over the gall some non-Europeans have to presume they know better. Everyone knows hindsight is 20/20.
You could also argue that Afghanistan was a case where we 'pulled' out too soon instead of helping the 'good' guys, we said 'later!' Granted, this is an argument for nation building which, you can ALSO argue, is why we're in the shits in Iraq. <_<
As for WWII Europe? I'm not going to say 'we know better' than those stupid Europeans at the time since, like you said GH, hindsight is 20/20. But it should be noted that, Germany was blatantly violating the Versailles Treaties. And yet the nations, too weary of war, did nothing about these violations.
Yes, the Versailles Treaties have issues. Which is again 20/20 hindsight. But that didn't mean that the signs of another war weren't there, or could have been stopped/prevented.
And this political talk I think is fucking stupid to be honest. Yeah, there is a place and time for it, but IMO, this isn't the place. After all, we seem to all get along pretty well here. But once politics enters the discussion. :flameon: :headbanger: :flameon: :lonegunman:
As for WWII Europe? I'm not going to say 'we know better' than those stupid Europeans at the time since, like you said GH, hindsight is 20/20. But it should be noted that, Germany was blatantly violating the Versailles Treaties. And yet the nations, too weary of war, did nothing about these violations.
Yes, the Versailles Treaties have issues. Which is again 20/20 hindsight. But that didn't mean that the signs of another war weren't there, or could have been stopped/prevented.
And this political talk I think is fucking stupid to be honest. Yeah, there is a place and time for it, but IMO, this isn't the place. After all, we seem to all get along pretty well here. But once politics enters the discussion. :flameon: :headbanger: :flameon: :lonegunman:
*sigh* This is why I usually tend to ignore political discussions. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just pointing out what I thought someone meant and suddenly I am the stupid American that needs to be told off. If you dislike the situation of today, that's fine, I respect that, but the fact of the matter is that is how things are, getting upset at me is not going to change anything.
And I don't really see how taking over 2 countries can be seen as doing "nothing wrong" on the part of Germany. I never said that the EU was stupid for not doing anything, because yes, today we can look back and see that something should have been done, but they didn't have that advantage. I was just trying to clarify someone else's point. That said, I do agree with Simmy in that I prefer not having political discussions on this board. All it does is make us mad at each other, not change anyone's views or change the situation of the world today.
And I don't really see how taking over 2 countries can be seen as doing "nothing wrong" on the part of Germany. I never said that the EU was stupid for not doing anything, because yes, today we can look back and see that something should have been done, but they didn't have that advantage. I was just trying to clarify someone else's point. That said, I do agree with Simmy in that I prefer not having political discussions on this board. All it does is make us mad at each other, not change anyone's views or change the situation of the world today.
*Gets out of his study mode just for this thread.*
Debt, nukes, middle east and Europe?
Amusing, many of the issues the US has with the middle east wouldn't be there in the first place if the americans would have stayed out.
Let's see:
1) Iran.
a) Who wanted to get the shah out?
The US.
Yay, welcome the curent regime.
B) Who supported Saddam when he went to war with Iran?
The US.
This is one of the main causes for the hate iranians have against the US.
2) Afganistan.
a) Talibans & Osama?
Backed up by the US.
B) Pakistan?
Say whatever they want to say, but it's kinda obvious for all that Pakistan isn't quite well. Military coupe? Allright, as long as the new tirant is a US friend.
As for terorist support? Only a blind man would miss it, yet the US shuts an eye...
3) Israel.
The Nuke problem... wonder just where a small country like that got nukes from?
Let's be blatantly honest, Iran getting nukes is not as bad as people *Read US goverment* makes it be. Why? Because if you really want a nuke, you can get them at the cost of a few millions from the Russian Mafia, much cheaper than developing them by yourself.
It's an illusion to think that once Iran develops nukes all is going to go to hell, the ability for terorists to use nukes has existed ever since 1991 when the USSR collapsed.
The iranian leaders are no fools, imagine just what's going to happen to Iran if a nuke is used in a terorist attack, even IF the nuke isn't from Iran, people will blame them *Read US again*. I'd rather say that they have all the interest in the world to prevent that. People are always greedy, and always follow their interests.
No, the truth of the matter is BALANCE, since once Iran gets nukes it's hard for me to believe that anyone would risk doing something nasty in a area that basicly has 70% of the worlds oil resources. It would ensure that the US can't touch them and that Israel will no longer be the only nuclear power in the region.
If in the worst case scenario, nukes are used the worst area where they can target them is NOT civilization, but the oil fields, everyone is going to suffer in that case.
Also for the subject of Europe:
When Germany started gobling up countries they were already able to take on most of Europe and win. Add to this the relations they had with Italy, the situation in Spain and the fact that Russia was a very nasty sight for most Europe and you'll see why there was little europeans could have done. Not to forget that the US turned a blind eye to almost all foreign affairs at that point...
Also, people tend to forget about what was happening in Asia, where Japan was getting stronger and stronger a reason for France, the UK and the Dutch to get worried since some of their best colonies were there.
Also for informational pourposes:
A war simulation done by the russians proved in 1939 that the germans could have conquered Moscow in just one summer. What does this tell us?
It's true that if the allies hit first, the war would have gone differently, but i doubt they would have passed the Siegfried line and it would have been a matter of time for the stronger german economy to take them on. Think about what could have happened in that case...
I also notice a lot of people underestimating Europe:
You forget that this time, the Germans would be among the europeans? France and the UK have nukes and an attack against the UE could just give an excuse for extremist behaviour, but then again i pretty much doubt that the UE is going to fall as a target.
Meh...
*goes back to his books*
Debt, nukes, middle east and Europe?
Amusing, many of the issues the US has with the middle east wouldn't be there in the first place if the americans would have stayed out.
Let's see:
1) Iran.
a) Who wanted to get the shah out?
The US.
Yay, welcome the curent regime.
B) Who supported Saddam when he went to war with Iran?
The US.
This is one of the main causes for the hate iranians have against the US.
2) Afganistan.
a) Talibans & Osama?
Backed up by the US.
B) Pakistan?
Say whatever they want to say, but it's kinda obvious for all that Pakistan isn't quite well. Military coupe? Allright, as long as the new tirant is a US friend.
As for terorist support? Only a blind man would miss it, yet the US shuts an eye...
3) Israel.
The Nuke problem... wonder just where a small country like that got nukes from?
Let's be blatantly honest, Iran getting nukes is not as bad as people *Read US goverment* makes it be. Why? Because if you really want a nuke, you can get them at the cost of a few millions from the Russian Mafia, much cheaper than developing them by yourself.
It's an illusion to think that once Iran develops nukes all is going to go to hell, the ability for terorists to use nukes has existed ever since 1991 when the USSR collapsed.
The iranian leaders are no fools, imagine just what's going to happen to Iran if a nuke is used in a terorist attack, even IF the nuke isn't from Iran, people will blame them *Read US again*. I'd rather say that they have all the interest in the world to prevent that. People are always greedy, and always follow their interests.
No, the truth of the matter is BALANCE, since once Iran gets nukes it's hard for me to believe that anyone would risk doing something nasty in a area that basicly has 70% of the worlds oil resources. It would ensure that the US can't touch them and that Israel will no longer be the only nuclear power in the region.
If in the worst case scenario, nukes are used the worst area where they can target them is NOT civilization, but the oil fields, everyone is going to suffer in that case.
Also for the subject of Europe:
When Germany started gobling up countries they were already able to take on most of Europe and win. Add to this the relations they had with Italy, the situation in Spain and the fact that Russia was a very nasty sight for most Europe and you'll see why there was little europeans could have done. Not to forget that the US turned a blind eye to almost all foreign affairs at that point...
Also, people tend to forget about what was happening in Asia, where Japan was getting stronger and stronger a reason for France, the UK and the Dutch to get worried since some of their best colonies were there.
Also for informational pourposes:
A war simulation done by the russians proved in 1939 that the germans could have conquered Moscow in just one summer. What does this tell us?
It's true that if the allies hit first, the war would have gone differently, but i doubt they would have passed the Siegfried line and it would have been a matter of time for the stronger german economy to take them on. Think about what could have happened in that case...
I also notice a lot of people underestimating Europe:
You forget that this time, the Germans would be among the europeans? France and the UK have nukes and an attack against the UE could just give an excuse for extremist behaviour, but then again i pretty much doubt that the UE is going to fall as a target.
Meh...
*goes back to his books*
Heh, Bush has only Osama to blame...
Bush Senior left Saddam alive so that Bush Junior to overthrow him. But they did not count on the 9/11 incident. Which essentially reshuffled his carefully stacked deck of cards...
Que 4 years into the future...
Maybe he should have quit while he was only a little behind.h43r:
Bush Senior left Saddam alive so that Bush Junior to overthrow him. But they did not count on the 9/11 incident. Which essentially reshuffled his carefully stacked deck of cards...
Que 4 years into the future...
Maybe he should have quit while he was only a little behind.
h43r:I still doubt that 9/11 was really terrorists. It might have been, it might not have been. There was too much shit wrong with that day to be sure.
I still get furious about Rudy Guiliani's popularity skyrocket because of it though. He became popular because he ended up at the twin towers, but the bastard coward was running towards his security bunker (which was located in the other collapsed building.) He got there and found his hiding hole destroyed and had no where else to go because of all of the people who were stuck in the area. Millions down the drain in a project that wasn't needed and was done horrifically stupid as well.
I still get furious about Rudy Guiliani's popularity skyrocket because of it though. He became popular because he ended up at the twin towers, but the bastard coward was running towards his security bunker (which was located in the other collapsed building.) He got there and found his hiding hole destroyed and had no where else to go because of all of the people who were stuck in the area. Millions down the drain in a project that wasn't needed and was done horrifically stupid as well.
*Gets out of study mode*
Just to point out, the US secret services admited that they knew that something was going to happen. The question is: If they revealed this much to the public... how much did they actually knew?
It seems nawfully convenient that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to atack Irak and Afganistan, although the so called 'founded' acusations against Irak proved to be nothing more than a soap bubble.
*Back to his books*
Just to point out, the US secret services admited that they knew that something was going to happen. The question is: If they revealed this much to the public... how much did they actually knew?
It seems nawfully convenient that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to atack Irak and Afganistan, although the so called 'founded' acusations against Irak proved to be nothing more than a soap bubble.
*Back to his books*
Woohoo! 9/11 conspiracy theories! Where's George Noory when you need him? :yay:
Seriously, you can call Bush many things and his policies following 9/11. But to imply that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorist? <_<
Bin Laden after all has been around since, well, for a while. During the Clinton years, his group of terrorist blew up a number of American embassies in Africa, and even damaged an American ship in the Middle East. Given the man (men?) in charge, you could say it was America's fault for letting it fester (didn't Clinton have a chance to get Bin Laden? But was too PC to do it? Besides, he bombed an aspirin factory. Woohoo!). You can't just say it was Bush's fault either.
This is kind of ridiculous discussion is why politics will only ruin this forum. :angry:
Seriously, you can call Bush many things and his policies following 9/11. But to imply that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorist? <_<
Bin Laden after all has been around since, well, for a while. During the Clinton years, his group of terrorist blew up a number of American embassies in Africa, and even damaged an American ship in the Middle East. Given the man (men?) in charge, you could say it was America's fault for letting it fester (didn't Clinton have a chance to get Bin Laden? But was too PC to do it? Besides, he bombed an aspirin factory. Woohoo!). You can't just say it was Bush's fault either.
This is kind of ridiculous discussion is why politics will only ruin this forum. :angry: