Iraq agrees to destroy missiles

[The Mad Monk]

Have they been destroyed, yet?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew.

Ned, care to explain me why you would declare war to Germany, France and Belgium ? I assume you don't consider a diplomatic disagreement to be enough to declare war ?

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Ned, care to explain me why you would declare war to Germany, France and Belgium ? I assume you don't consider a diplomatic disagreement to be enough to declare war ?

I fully understand him. Those countries disagree with US politics, just nuke them

[OliverFA]

Very interesting.

So Sadam has agreed to destroy the missiles he said that didn't exist?

Isn't that enought to prove he was lying?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Still not enough financial reward to justify the huge cost.

Effective control of the region from US controlled bases at the top of the persian gulf not worth 100 billion?

70 billion would be spent in the US anyway so, the real
cost is only the bribe money-profit on weapons sold to
turkey.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew.

It is easier to just throw them out of the OTAN and the EU. That's what Chirak deserves after speaking in behalf of the whole EU with no right.

[DAVOUT]

No problem, to morrow if you like. We will be interested in watching the Young Europe competing with the Old one.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Your post is the first i heard that Turkey is in violation.

Especially since you also mentioned Israel.

GA resolution, which is not binding

I tend not to believe you.

Good, much better than just be more specific.

201 1965 is a clear example of the SC issuing another
SC resolution telling the belligents to heed earlier SC
solutions. Which is exactly what is happening with
Iraq.

The point I was trying to make was the resolutions
seem to be "selectively" applied.

Especially Israel eh. The Pariarch of the pariah club?

GA resolution isn't binding? Sounds like a bit of lawyer
snakeoil here. More like 'yer too strong or important to
attack' or 'your not worth the expense to attack'.

[Sandman]

Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew.

Hmm. Almost as daft as 'Manx Americans', but not quite.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
9/11 reduced America's tolerance to security threats to America to very close to zero. That is what is different.

Then America should be dealing with Israel first.

THAT is America's number one security threat.
(the rest of the world's #1 too)

[The Mad Monk]

You're right -- we should take the safeties off Isreal and let them at it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Ned,

You want to pay banks to keep excess reserves? Do you see any problem there? Is that going to increase the money supply?

Duncan, Why would a bank keep reserves at 1% when they can loan money at the prime rate and make 4.5%?

[DuncanK]

Ned,

Even without your proposal to give banks a 1% return on their reserves there is already a danger that banks would keep excess reserves, because of increased risk of making new loans. They aren't going to make loans for any interest rate if there is too much risk. There isn't anything the Fed can do to prevent them from increasing their reserves, but we certainly don't want to encourage them to do it.

One solution would be to change the reserve requirement from 10% to 5%. This would allow more loans to be made.

We are at a point where we could be in real danger of monetary policy not working at all. If that happens the only hope will be for the government to take direct action to get things going, fiscal policy.

[KrazyHorse]

Ned, whether they will or not doesn't make a difference; at best it does little to tighten the credit supply. At worst it dries it up completely. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what you intended?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You're right -- we should take the safeties off Isreal and let them at it.

You can read that both ways.