Contemporary Wars

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Ann Coulter

I love Ann Coulter, our sweet neo-fascist w****.

You mean this beauty?:

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/photo....er124stitch.jpg

What, you're Mr. Spongebob or something?!

p.s. can you post a link for that quote? its kind of cool coming from a chick. I'd really want to meet her sometimes...

You should find that quote somewhere in this educative sample

Sweet Ann Coulter

oh man!!!!!!!!! i love this woman

But, lo and behold, the Chinese think the Apocalypse is nowhere near us! Could it be true? Have I donated my earthly possessions to the Holy Church and retired to the monastery over a fake scare?!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

I didn't say that "the EU prefers a $ dominated market", I said that right now, on the current $ orientated market, it's more advantageous to the EU to buy oil because the Euro buys more $ right now. Of course the EU would very much like that nations of the world trade and keep their foreign currency reserves in Euros instead of US$, but presently the situation is something like global foreign currency reserves in $: 70%; -- " -- in Euros: 15%.

And the EU can't do nothing about it except trying to outperform the USA economy-wise and attract foreign investments in Europe at the expense of the US.

Unfortunately for the EU (and for me too, since I live in Romania), if one investor is fond of its money and has to take the decision whether to choose between the EU or the US in order to invest them, right now and for decades from now the reasonable choice is the USA - for a cohort of reasons that would go quite off-topic from the present line of discussion.

Which brings us back to Iran: not only does it not trade with the USA and hasn't for the last 25 years or so, but GATT statistics place the share of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the global imports at around 0.8 percent and in global exports at 0.5 percent considering oil exports and 0.1 percent without considering oil exports: http://www.irvl.net/FIRAN13.HTM

Now, are you seriously thinking that a 0.5% share of the global economy that supposedly is going Euro is gonna run the US$ to the ground?

P.S. Why do you think Coulter's a whore? She isn't always wearing the regulamentary burka? Is she showing some ankle? Are her toes visible in public? She's going against her parents' advice when choosing a boyfriend? Or is it the fact that she has premarital sex? Can you get more embarassing than that?

Presently. Do you know the trend ?

I think that Bush can manage that, if nobody else
Otherwise I think that especially that share could help a lot.

From me to her that was affectionate

Of course, ... but that's none of your business

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 14, 2005 12:14 pm

Before joining the party you should read all the material on this site:

http://www.ccnr.org/index.html#accident

Especially the articles related to nuclear waste...

Then ask yourself how many nuclear reactors would be needed to replace the current level of oil use worldwide. Specialists argue about 950 reactors of 1000 MW each would have to be built to cover 30% of the present energy derived from oil or from oil-driven processes worldwide.

Fake scare? Well, the every fact that the Chinese turn to nuclear power to cover their increasing demand seems to CONFIRM, not infirm the theory/scare.
Don't take the measures to prevent the consequences of the scare for proof of the scare's fakeness.

Has anyone an idea what the world ressources in fission materials currently are ?And how far we can go when cheap oil stops flowing ?

Well earlier you said that money is not just paper printed at random but a carrier of real material value. And I agree.
Then why would the EU prefer to change euros into number of equivalent dollars and then buy oil denominated in $, when the value exchanged (value of euro - value of oil) remains the same, irrespective of the dollar "middle-man"? Buying dollars with euros cannot possibly add to the value introduced in those euros initially and so you cannot buy MORE oil.
Therefore the oil-dollar game is the basis of that foreign currency reserve that makes the dollar appealing.
If the oil producers sell only in dollars it forces the buyers to constantly use the dollar middle-man. But the oil producers could very well change by selling into euros or yen. The basic value-value exchange remains the same, but the global prestige of a currency is at stake... and when those deposits change from dollar to euro, what would be the effect?! I think the end of the dollar as global currency.
The euro is more appealing because it packs a lot more value, and therefore you can buy more oil with euros, not with dollars!!!

Sorry for quoting from myself, but I wanted to add that it will make it harder for the dollar and the american economy to use the Euro as a middle-man for oil.
More dollars will be needed to change into Euro and buy oil, and therefore more value to be exchanged for oil.
Can the US economy cope with higher oil prices? Sure, coping is no problem, but we're talking about power politics here, and super-power rivalry, not the end of the world...

The fact that fossil fuels and especially oil are bound to be exhausted at some moment is not debatable, of course. What is however debatable is the fact that that moment will be the apocalyptic end of civilization as we know it - that was the "fake scare" I was talking about.
Now, let me guess: you didn't open the link I provided. It should have been an eye opener for you, however your take on the issue strikes me as an argument against the feasability of mass air transportation because zeppelins are expensive and hazardous. Read what I've pointed you to and then we can discuss again.

This post has been edited by valachus on February 14, 2005 01:35 pm

Well earlier you said that money is not just paper printed at random but a carrier of real material value. And I agree.
Then why would the EU prefer to change euros into number of equivalent dollars and then buy oil denominated in $, when the value exchanged (value of euro - value of oil) remains the same, irrespective of the dollar "middle-man"? Buying dollars with euros cannot possibly add to the value introduced in those euros initially and so you cannot buy MORE oil.
Therefore the oil-dollar game is the basis of that foreign currency reserve that makes the dollar appealing.
If the oil producers sell only in dollars it forces the buyers to constantly use the dollar middle-man. But the oil producers could very well change by selling into euros or yen. The basic value-value exchange remains the same, but the global prestige of a currency is at stake... and when those deposits change from dollar to euro, what would be the effect?! I think the end of the dollar as global currency.
The euro is more appealing because it packs a lot more value, and therefore you can buy more oil with euros, not with dollars!!!

a ) The EU doesn't necessarily have to exchange Euros in US$ in order to buy oil. The payments can be made in whatever currency the trade partners agree to - coincidentally, Iran decided, or is about to decide to accept only Euros for its oil. However though, the price of oil is fixed on the major stock exchanges of the world and so far those work in US$ - ergo, since the Euro has significantly appreciated over the US$ in the recent past, the Euro holders have made "oil" profits for simply holding onto their currency reserves.
b ) The decision to keep one's currency reserves into one specific currency is inextricably linked with one's ulterior investment intentions - does he intend to invest in the US$ zone or in the Eurozone? Since as I said the US$ zone is much more appealing for investors than the Eurozone, the answer to this dillema is in the majority of cases the US$.
c ) As I said, presently the proportion between US$ and Euro global currency reserves is 70% to 15%, due to the history of world trade during the 20th century. So there is another reason for holders of US$ to maintain their levels of reserves in US$, since a massive switch to Euros would only make their dollars worthless and artificially and pointlessly boost the Euro. Unless, of course, the long-awaited (by various people around the world) downfall of the USA occurs for some yet-unknown reason. But IMHO even if that will happen at some moment in the future, it most certainly won't be because Iran accepts downpayments for oil in Euros only.

This post has been edited by valachus on February 14, 2005 02:00 pm

And this conclusion should perhaps establish the facts more clearly :

The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-31.htm]

No doubt it will be summarily dismissed as "economic junk" by our onsite economic expert. Like the previous one - by an renowned Canadian research institute - was

Aah what's wrong with this one we will soon know...

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 14, 2005 02:39 pm

Valachus, I never talked about the apocalyptic end of the world... where did you get that from?

I did/do say:

1. Fossil fuels will end and their caloric energy-value that facilitated a boom in world economy and population cannot be replaced. And the entire infrastructure will be affected. Transportation, agriculture, industry etc.
The end of the world? No. Massive structural changes, yes! With unforeseen consequences.

2. If nuclear power is to partially replace fossil fuels then the building frenzy should already start, as even the most up-beat assessment points to a peak in oil supply around 2030. While the pessimists point to around 2014 if the growth in energy consumption continues.
That HTR-10 is only a 10MW nuclear reactor and the 200MW version is on the drawing board!!!
And the article talks about something around 300GW for China alone! Hmm... now how many built 200MW HTR-10s are needed?

Denmark's engineers talk about 950 1000MW needed worldwide. When will those be built? For now I see no inkling to do that, as economic theorists (maybe like yourself ) keep dismissing the "danger".

This post has been edited by Imperialist on February 14, 2005 02:55 pm