Originally posted by VinceP1974
This is urban legend. The US never supported Bin Laden . Bin Laden would never have received assistance anyway.. Bin Laden viewed the US as just as much of an enemy as the USSR. Because Bin Laden actually believes the things that he says (unlike many people in the West who choose to ignore what he says and turn him into some Marxist Anti-Colonialist Freedom Fighter) he would consider working with the US to be the same thing as working with the devil.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. ~~ Robin Cook

But bin Laden brings some particular, and collectively potent, elements to this equation. As a volunteer in the war that the Islamic rebels of Afghanistan fought against the Soviets in the 1980s, bin Laden had a front-row seat at an astonishing and empowering development: the defeat of a superpower by a gaggle of makeshift militias. Though the U.S., with billions of dollars in aid, helped the militias in their triumph, bin Laden soon turned on their benefactor. ~~ LISA BEYER of TIME

The Mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter (~~ Freedom Next Time, by John Pilger) and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the inter agent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the Mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. ~~ Reagan Doctrine, 1985, United States State Department.

Originally posted by VinceP1974
Yeah. Saddam redenominating his holdings into Euros ended America.

LOL

It's more like Fannie Mae pumping out Trillions of Dollars in bad debt and incentivizing the public sector to do the same all based on Leftist "feel-good" economic policy by the Federal Reserve and the Clinton Admin (which wasn't reversed by Bush) is what will cause the economic destruction that will probably happen this year.

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times. America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to the US bandwagon. France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off. Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can share the leadership rewards. ~~ Geoffrey Heard

Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars. ~~ by Sohan Sharma, Sue Tracy, & Surinder Kumar

How the dollar might lose its status as the world's main reserve currency: Once a decade or so, economists ask whether the dollar's reign as the world's number one reserve currency might be at the start of a slow decline. ... In the past 30 years, the dollar has had four bouts of marked depreciation. ... Even so, 66% of the world's official foreign-exchange holdings are still in dollars, compared with 25% in euros, 4% in yen and 3% in pounds... And yet dollar sceptics note that this time the dollar's crown is, if not wobbly, at least skewed. America's current-account deficit, at 6% of GDP, is its highest on record; its net foreign liabilities, at 22% of GDP, are also close to an all-time high. Foreign central banks seem to have reduced their purchases of American Treasuries ... If this trend continues, other currencies could one day challenge the dollar's dominance. ~~ The Economist

Originally posted by bodrul

funny how the Israeli ammbasidor trys to dogde the answers

Originally posted by lunarminer


Would I bomb a school?

Well that depends. If that school was being used to launch rockets, RPGs, or mortars at me, then hell yeah, I'd bomb it.