Bush says we must stand together

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:53 am

President Bush has said

"In our interconnected world no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another, we're in this together, we will come through it together".

Sorry, who is this "we" exactly Mr Bush??

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:57 am

You rather wonder where his attitude toward North Korea sits in that. "No nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another"? "We're in this together"? "We'll come through it together"? Who on earth's been trying to drive down the fortunes of North Korea since he took office, that's what I'd like to know.

I note that the very first crack in the implacable US front of "we're invariably right and you all have to bow when any of us walk past" happened today when North Korea was taken off the list of Rogue States in exchange for North Korea's deciding to launch lots of missile tests, have the seals taken off the reactor ponds and generally telling George Bush exactly where he could park his bike. Maybe there's an upside to this financial meltdown after all.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:58 am

Im not taking orders off a bush:sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:07 am

spot;1016160 wrote: You rather wonder where his attitude toward North Korea sits in that. "No nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another"? "We're in this together"? "We'll will come through it together"? Who on earth's been trying to drive down the fortunes of North Korea since he took office, that's what I'd like to know.

Exactly Spot!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:41 am

oscar;1016157 wrote: President Bush has said

"In our interconnected world no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another, we're in this together, we will come through it together".

Sorry, who is this "we" exactly Mr Bush??

Now I'm confused. I thought you thought Bush was the saviour of the western world and his best mate McCain the best one to follow.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:44 am

Chezzie;1016162 wrote: Im not taking orders off a bush:sneaky:

Or as he is better know in dem circles "shrub":wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:50 am

The news is talking about a centralized world bank to control all banking. France and Germany are against it. My question is why isn't the US against it??

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:52 am

gmc;1016230 wrote: Now I'm confused. I thought you thought Bush was the saviour of the western world and his best mate McCain the best one to follow.

I took your advice gmc and in the time off i've had this week with builders in, i have been googling like mad.

There was a tempory moment today when i had to talk bollocks on account of Mr Oscar not being able to buy a "Daily Mail".

I do believe McCain is the one still but i have learnt alot this week about Mr Bush.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:55 am

I got an e mail yesterday from The Conservative opposition in my constituancy asking me if i'd help deliver leaflets etc

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:56 am

I got an e mail yesterday from The Conservative opposition in my constituancy asking me if i'd help deliver leaflets etc :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:06 am

Accountable;1016245 wrote: The news is talking about a centralized world bank to control all banking. France and Germany are against it. My question is why isn't the US against it??

The Prime Minister of Great Britain has just in effect bankrupted Iceland.

They owed the world £35 billion.

Iceland "illegally" refused to pay it back.

Gordon Brown used anti-terrorist laws to freeze Iceland's assets.

Iceland threw their toys out the pram and told Britain that they were looking for "New friends". Directly implecating Russia.

Well done at last Gordon Brown.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:22 am

oscar;1016272 wrote: The Prime Minister of Great Britain has just in effect bankrupted Iceland.

They owed the world £35 billion.

Iceland "illegally" refused to pay it back.

Gordon Brown used anti-terrorist laws to freeze Iceland's assets.

Iceland threw their toys out the pram and told Britain that they were looking for "New friends". Directly implecating Russia.

Well done at last Gordon Brown.
What was terrorist about Iceland's actions?? This is the kind of abuse of well-intentioned legislation that people scream about over here, regarding our PATRIOT Act. (PATRIOT being an acronym and resembling the noun only on the surface)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:48 am

Accountable;1016298 wrote: What was terrorist about Iceland's actions?? This is the kind of abuse of well-intentioned legislation that people scream about over here, regarding our PATRIOT Act. (PATRIOT being an acronym and resembling the noun only on the surface)

The British Treasury released a document to Parliment yesterday showing it used sections of the "anti-terrorism, crime and security act 2001" to take control of Iceland's banks assets, saying in the statement the banks collapse may harm the UK economy.

"The reason we took this action which was extraordinary action was in order to protect the interest and to try to insure there was money there for creditors and depositors in the UK".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, Michael Ellam told reporters in London today, "In the view of the chancellor, there was clearly a potential systemic risk, that is why the action was taken yesterday in relation to depositors."

What were they supposed to do or say?

"About that £35 billion Iceland, well don't worry, infact would you like some more money"?

If Gordon Brown had not of done this -- he'd be weak

The fact that he has -- he is now being called a bully.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:54 am

I have to say, that it is a bit galling having to listen to Bush pleading for unity from the countries whom he has been lecturing for years to mind their own business about what his administration has been up to, France particularly springs to mind, whose crime it seems was to state publically in 2003 that maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a great idea. If he had listened to them, he would have saved his own people a lot of lost lives, money, and pain.

However, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy, he is right. All of the Western countries are in this together whether we like each other that much anymore or not. There is going to be a new administration one way or another in the US come Jan 09, that administration will need support from its allies, and that will be a huge opportunity to renew relationships and alliances that have been badly damaged by the last 8 years of American policy. Hopefully all sides will realize quickly that despite all of the feuding and bad feeling, all free countries need to align their interests to weather the coming storms.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:58 am

Galbally;1016337 wrote: I have to say, that it is a bit galling having to listen to Bush pleading for unity from the countries whom he has been lecturing for years to mind their own business about what his administration has been up to, France particularly springs to mind, whose crime it seems was to state publically in 2003 that maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a great idea. If he had listened to them, he would have saved his own people a lot of lost lives, money, and pain.

However, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy, he is right. All of the Western countries are in this together whether we like each other that much anymore or not. There is going to be a new administration one way or another in the US come Jan 09, that administration will need support from its allies, and that will be a huge opportunity to renew relationships and alliances that have been badly damaged by the last 8 years of American policy. Hopefully all sides will realize quickly that despite all of the feuding and bad feeling, all free countries need to align their interests to weather the coming storms.

:yh_clap:yh_clap

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:08 pm

Maybe i'm just getting mean but i haven't seen any of those countrie's that the UK and America have bailed out of civil war, famine and eceonomic hardship jumping to the negotiation table to help us.

They must be laughing at us. :wah: all the way to the bank. :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:43 pm

Galbally;1016337 wrote: I have to say, that it is a bit galling having to listen to Bush pleading for unity from the countries whom he has been lecturing for years to mind their own business about what his administration has been up to, France particularly springs to mind, whose crime it seems was to state publically in 2003 that maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a great idea. If he had listened to them, he would have saved his own people a lot of lost lives, money, and pain.

However, despite the unbelievable hypocrisy, he is right. All of the Western countries are in this together whether we like each other that much anymore or not. There is going to be a new administration one way or another in the US come Jan 09, that administration will need support from its allies, and that will be a huge opportunity to renew relationships and alliances that have been badly damaged by the last 8 years of American policy. Hopefully all sides will realize quickly that despite all of the feuding and bad feeling, all free countries need to align their interests to weather the coming storms.
I don't see it in America's best moral interest to "weather the coming storms." The cost to individual liberty is too dear. We are selling our national soul to avoid accountability for our bad policy, bad politics, and bad behavior ... all so we can keep our material possessions.

Collectively speaking, we're acting like the spoiled rich guy who begs to suffer any humiliation so long as he doesn't have to be poor. Now THAT'S real poverty.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:45 pm

If your national soul involves knowing best how other countries should organize their affairs and insisting on making it happen then sell, by all means.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:47 pm

oscar;1016354 wrote: Maybe i'm just getting mean but i haven't seen any of those countrie's that the UK and America have bailed out of civil war, famine and eceonomic hardship jumping to the negotiation table to help us.

They must be laughing at us. :wah: all the way to the bank. :wah:

Umm. name a few? Preferably within my lifetime?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:50 pm

Accountable;1016592 wrote: I don't see it in America's best moral interest to "weather the coming storms." The cost to individual liberty is too dear. We are selling our national soul to avoid accountability for our bad policy, bad politics, and bad behavior ... all so we can keep our material possessions.

Collectively speaking, we're acting like the spoiled rich guy who begs to suffer any humiliation so long as he doesn't have to be poor. Now THAT'S real poverty.

No I don't think its about that Accountable, we are already past the stage where its possible to avoid very serious economic disruption, recession, and a drop in living standards in the west, I think what we are talking about is Western countries and other developed nations being as united as they can to stop it getting any worse than that.

Also in dealing with the inevitable geopolitical changes that are going to arise from this collapse, because make no mistake, this is not just an economic collapse, its also a significant collapse of Western power, though that is not apparent right now, but it will be.

There is a aspect of what you say, trying to avoid being poor, but thats going to happen no matter what we do now, its about trying to preserve some sort of cohesion so that the post-war western world and the settlements that underpin it don't fall apart, its as important as that I believe. The coming week is going to be a difficult one, it remains to be seen what is going to happen next.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:57 pm

Accountable completely ignores the fact that the majority of people in America are poor and that, for as long as they allow the hyper-rich to stand on their shoulders to stay out of the mud and within reach of the banquet tables, that's the way they'll stay. It's called Capitalism and, with any luck, it died this month. We should be dancing on its grave.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Galbally;1016603 wrote: No I don't think its about that Accountable, we are already past the stage where its possible to avoid very serious economic disruption, recession, and a drop in living standards in the west, I think what we are talking about is Western countries and other developed nations being as united as they can to stop it getting any worse than that.

Also in dealing with the inevitable geopolitical changes that are going to arise from this collapse, because make no mistake, this is not just an economic collapse, its also a significant collapse of Western power, though that is not apparent right now, but it will be.

There is a aspect of what you say, trying to avoid being poor, but thats going to happen no matter what we do now, its about trying to preserve some sort of cohesion so that the post-war western world and the settlements that underpin it don't fall apart, its as important as that I believe. The coming week is going to be a difficult one, it remains to be seen what is going to happen next.
But at what cost? If in doing so we have to cede national identity and individual liberties to One World Order I don't see the point. We can have cohesion without trying to save the wasteful & irresponsible, can't we?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:02 pm

spot;1016610 wrote: Accountable completely ignores the fact that the majority of people on America are poor and that, for as long as they allow the hyper-rich to stand on their shoulders to stay out of the mud and within reach of the banquet tables, that's the way they'll stay. It's called Capitalism and, with any luck, it died this month. We should be dancing on its grave.
If it's a fact, prove it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:11 pm

Galbally;1016603 wrote: I think what we are talking about is Western countries and other developed nations being as united as they can to stop it getting any worse than that.

I remember on another thread, you said that Ireland was capable of being self sufficient, (or words to that effect).

Then i asked you what would happen if Ireland's economy collapsed and another country was to declare war on Ireland??

I just object to this "we" Bush is now talking about.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:30 pm

spot;1016610 wrote: ... the majority of people on America are poor ....

Poverty: 2005 Highlights

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2005.

HIGHLIGHTS

The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004.

In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.

Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004).

After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005—higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available.

The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent)—all were not statistically different from 2004.

In 2005, the number in poverty remained statistically unchanged from 2004 for people under 18 and people 18 to 64 years old (12.9 million and 20.5 million, respectively). The number in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older—3.6 million in 2005, up from 3.5 million in 2004.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ ... v05hi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... te_note-20

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_p ... verty-line

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you going to claim that 38%+ of our population fell into poverty in the past 3-4 years? Of course not, you're going to change the definition of "poor" to suit your bigotry.

P!ss off, snot.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:32 pm

Accountable;1016617 wrote: If it's a fact, prove it.

The official squirmings by US Government statistics bureaux to disguise this fact are amazing. They take "over 25s", they take "excluding those out of work", they take all sorts of exclusions just to push their "average income" figure as high as they can lie it and mostly they try hard to discuss "average household income".

Let's look at reality for once.

We're discussing most, remember?

I happily exclude those under 18 as being effectively unemployable and not counted in the labour force.

Shall we accept that the US labour force is 154.5 million? That's a May 2008 figure at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

if it were me I'd include the prison population as well, which that doesn't, but I don't insist, it makes little difference to my conclusion, it just reinforces it slightly.

If you go to the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... html#_grp5 they'll show you the nation's income.

Table 1.1--Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006

138,394,754 returns - that fits well enough with the size of the labour force.

The lowest 50% of people filing returns earns a gross income of $1,371,240,737,000

There are 85.3 million members of the labour force covered by that total once you include all the unemployed.

That's an average gross pre-tax individual income of $16,075 a year for the ENTIRE bottom half of US society, for 85.3 million people in the labour force of 154.5 million. Most of America, which is what I spoke of.

You don't call that poor? In the land of the free and the home of the brave? I wouldn't begin to know how to keep body and soul together on that little income. For comparison, the upper 69.2 million of US society - the top 50% of people filing returns - earn an average gross pre-tax individual income of $97,554 a year. They're not poor at all. They're rolling in clover. The division between rich and poor in the USA is very stark. For every single person in the labour force in the top half of US society there's another person in the labour force earning one sixth of what he's getting, you can pair them up in a long long line, they could even try talking to each other as they stand there. One line of the rich and one line of the poor. Six times the income!

I call it shameful.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:57 pm

Oh come on - is nobody going to tell me where I err arithmetically? I can't believe "Most Americans are poor" is just going to be let through on the nod like this, true though I believe it to be. Stiffen a sinew, someone.

For every one of the 69.2 million people filing a return in the top 50% income bracket there's another member of the US labour force earning just one sixth of that filed income. I say it's fair to describe that situation as one country in which two nations of equal size live side by side - the rich and the poor.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:51 pm

Clean up when you're finished masturbating.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:04 pm

It always disappoints me when you just mock from the sidelines.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:10 pm

spot;1016811 wrote: It always disappoints me when you just mock from the sidelines.
'kay

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:21 pm

Accountable;1016814 wrote: 'kay

There's a simple test I can do even from this distance. There's lots of Americans on the site.

Do they recognize the picture I painted with those numbers or do they say it's not the America they can see from where they're sat?

I'm more than happy to hear what they have to say about my summary and how closely it tallies with what they can observe themselves.

I claimed, from official statistics, that there's an average gross pre-tax individual income of $16,075 a year for the ENTIRE bottom half of US society, for 85.3 million people in the labour force of 154.5 million.

I said those people represented most of America.

I compared them to the upper 69.2 million of US society - the top 50% of people filing returns - whom I claimed earn an average gross pre-tax individual income of $97,554 a year. I concluded that the division between rich and poor in the USA is very stark, that for every single person in the labour force in the top half of US society there's another person in the labour force earning one sixth of what he's getting.

The American Lie is to extrapolate the fact that some from the underclass can work their way into the ranks of the hyper-rich to the fiction that "anyone can succeed", a lie which ignores inequality of ability and the statistical fact that what happens to individuals has no effect on the shape of wealth distribution.

The sooner this theft of resources in the so-called name of "freedom" crashes and gets replaced by a socially equitable distribution the better.

Come on, you're a teacher. Engage your brain instead of your emotions.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:30 pm

Mr Bush's input is no longer necessary. What say we just put our feet up and ride it out George ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:31 pm

oscar;1016330 wrote: The British Treasury released a document to Parliment yesterday showing it used sections of the "anti-terrorism, crime and security act 2001" to take control of Iceland's banks assets, saying in the statement the banks collapse may harm the UK economy.

"The reason we took this action which was extraordinary action was in order to protect the interest and to try to insure there was money there for creditors and depositors in the UK".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, Michael Ellam told reporters in London today, "In the view of the chancellor, there was clearly a potential systemic risk, that is why the action was taken yesterday in relation to depositors."

What were they supposed to do or say?

"About that £35 billion Iceland, well don't worry, infact would you like some more money"?

If Gordon Brown had not of done this -- he'd be weak

The fact that he has -- he is now being called a bully.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I don't pretend to understand the UK relationship with Iceland. I just don't understand how what they did can be seen as instilling terror. When a gov't asks for extraordinary powers to fight terrorism, it always raises red flags with me when they apply those powers in ways they were never intended to be used.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:54 pm

The sooner this theft of resources in the so-called name of "freedom" crashes and gets replaced by a socially equitable distribution the better.

Youre very un-American

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:22 pm

Accountable;1016805 wrote: Clean up when you're finished masturbating.

Why should he?

One has to ejaculate sumptin before it needs a cleaning Acc.

But then again, all a steer or neutered dog can do, is TRY!!

SEE SPOT TRY:wah:

OK, so I went to his link and started putting #'s together and this is what I came up with. (still scratching my head where fido got his end sum)

In 2006 there were 138,394,754 total returns (not sure where he got info on ages and being above 18 and all?) and I added up the total return # for people claiming $20,000 and under ($4,000 above his $16,000). It totaled 58,657,346 returns...Right............

So the % of people claiming $20,000 and less is about 43% (may I add they pay very little if any income tax on that amount)

Ok now people making between $20,000 and $100,000 total 63,877,364

or about 47% (and may I add they pay a large % of their income to taxes).

The LARGEST # of returns (18,854,917 returns) come from the $50,000-$75,000 Brackett.

No Acc. I think he is just shootin blanks!!!

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:59 pm

My numbers are exact, BTS. I said which table I used, I said what I added together. I didn't claim anything related to ages came from there.

Ignore the -91 billion, that's people with deficits for the year reclaiming tax.

Add together 31,004,475 87,992,646 146,357,710 191,038,095 222,862,623 240,252,128 and 32% of 492,158,138 to get the sum income of the lower 50% of tax payers. They total half of the 138.4 million who made returns. That's 69.2 million, add on the rest of the labour force (154.5 - 138.4) who didn't make a return, that's a total of 85.3 million Americans earning a total of $1,371,240,737,800 and their average gross annual income is $16,075 each. Just like I said.

For the rest of the Americans filing returns, the upper 50%, add the remaining 68% of the 492,158,138 to the other figures in the column, 478,795,699 1,158,386,347 960,841,319 1,606,322,715 895,151,023 399,608,986 182,043,576 110,211,789 295,129,497 171,407,703 452,475,087. They total $6,750,798,818,200 earned by 69.2 million Americans at an average of $97,554 each per year which is six times the average income of the other half.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:07 pm

spot;1016908 wrote: My numbers are exact, BTS. I said which table I used, I said what I added together. I didn't claim anything related to ages came from there.

Ignore the -91 billion, that's people with deficits for the year reclaiming tax.

Add together 31,004,475 87,992,646 146,357,710 191,038,095 222,862,623 240,252,128 and 32% of 492,158,138 to get the sum income of the lower 50% of tax payers. They total half of the 138.4 million who made returns. That's 69.2 million, add on the rest of the labour force (154.5 - 138.4) who didn't make a return, that's a total of 85.3 million Americans earning a total of $1,371,240,737,800 and their average gross annual income is $16,075 each. Just like I said.

For the rest of the Americans filing returns, the upper 50%, add the remaining 68% of the 492,158,138 to the other figures in the column, 478,795,699 1,158,386,347 960,841,319 1,606,322,715 895,151,023 399,608,986 182,043,576 110,211,789 295,129,497 171,407,703 452,475,087. They total $6,750,798,818,200 earned by 69.2 million Americans at an average of $97,554 each per year which is six times the average income of the other half.

NAWWWWWWWWWWWW

You add em together............

I quit you win

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:17 pm

BTS;1016911 wrote: NAWWWWWWWWWWWW

You add em together............

I quit you win
Nope. I win for being clairvoyant.

Accountable;1016652 wrote:

*snip*

Are you going to claim that 38%+ of our population fell into poverty in the past 3-4 years? Of course not, you're going to change the definition of "poor" to suit your bigotry.Now, back to the original conversation.

Galbally;1016603 wrote: No I don't think its about that Accountable, we are already past the stage where its possible to avoid very serious economic disruption, recession, and a drop in living standards in the west, I think what we are talking about is Western countries and other developed nations being as united as they can to stop it getting any worse than that.

Also in dealing with the inevitable geopolitical changes that are going to arise from this collapse, because make no mistake, this is not just an economic collapse, its also a significant collapse of Western power, though that is not apparent right now, but it will be.

There is a aspect of what you say, trying to avoid being poor, but thats going to happen no matter what we do now, its about trying to preserve some sort of cohesion so that the post-war western world and the settlements that underpin it don't fall apart, its as important as that I believe. The coming week is going to be a difficult one, it remains to be seen what is going to happen next.
Accountable;1016615 wrote: But at what cost? If in doing so we have to cede national identity and individual liberties to One World Order I don't see the point. We can have cohesion without trying to save the wasteful & irresponsible, can't we?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:37 pm

Accountable;1016915 wrote: Nope. I win for being clairvoyant.

Now, back to the original conversation.

Ok the clairvoyant tee-row-phee goes to the one and only Acc.

Today 10:53 AMoscarBush says "we must stand together"

President Bush has said

"In our interconnected world no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another, we're in this together, we will come through it together".

Sorry, who is this "we" exactly Mr Bush??

Unfortunately I believe it is a reference to Bush's idea of a "One World Order" We need to steer clear of it like a plague.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:42 pm

Accountable;1016915 wrote: Nope. I win for being clairvoyant.So - let's get this right - you accept that the average gross annual income for these specific 85.3 million Americans is $16,075 each and that they represent the majority of Americans but you don't see that as any reason to think your extremely rich country's corrupt and led by über-rich tossers who don't give a damn about the underclass? Is that a fair reflection of your position?

You don't recognise that a gross annual income of $16,075 is pitiably low for a first-world country?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:43 pm

BTS;1016923 wrote: Ok the clairvoyant tee-row-phee goes to the one and only Acc.Thanks. Now I have a reason to build that mantle.

BTS wrote: Today 10:53 AMoscarBush says "we must stand together"

President Bush has said

"In our interconnected world no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another, we're in this together, we will come through it together".

Sorry, who is this "we" exactly Mr Bush??

Unfortunately I believe it is a reference to Bush's idea of a "One World Order" We need to steer clear of it like a plague.
I'm with ya there, BTS!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:52 am

oscar;1016626 wrote: I remember on another thread, you said that Ireland was capable of being self sufficient, (or words to that effect).

Then i asked you what would happen if Ireland's economy collapsed and another country was to declare war on Ireland??

I just object to this "we" Bush is now talking about.

Sure, Ireland is self-sufficient, at the level of 19th century subsistence farming, but otherwise we depend on trade to maintain anything like a like a late 20th century existence. It depends what you want out of life really. If the economy collapsed and another country delcared war on us, I don't know what we would do, no more than you would know what Britain would do.

I understand your objection to Bush's conversion to multilateralism now that his house of cards has fallen down, but he won't be president in 4 months time, and then it will be time to move on.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:54 am

Accountable;1016828 wrote: I don't pretend to understand the UK relationship with Iceland. I just don't understand how what they did can be seen as instilling terror. When a gov't asks for extraordinary powers to fight terrorism, it always raises red flags with me when they apply those powers in ways they were never intended to be used.

I think its terrible that the UK government has used these laws in this way, precisely what they said they wouldn't do, its a bad portent of what may happen in the future politically. They have a right to try and get the money back, but it isn't terrorism what has happened, and these laws should not be misused in this way.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:01 am

Galbally;1017049 wrote: I think its terrible that the UK government has used these laws in this way, precisely what they said they wouldn't do, its a bad portent of what may happen in the future politically. They have a right to try and get the money back, but it isn't terrorism what has happened, and these laws should not be misused in this way.

I agree, I think that it is horrible. The Anti-Terrorist act is supposed to freeze the assets of businesses and countries found to be directly funding terrorist activities. To impose this on Iceland as part of the financial crisis is despicable.

All the British should be hanging their heads in shame and embarrassment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:13 am

To Oscar's point, what would have been a good alternative?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:24 am

Accountable;1017064 wrote: To Oscar's point, what would have been a good alternative?

if the EU leaders of the large countries could get together to talk about the situation, the British Government could have opened discussions with Iceland.

There are many alternatives other than treating a NATO member like an enemy.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:53 am

The clue is the the title "Anti-Terrorism and Crime act!.

Iceland were approached for this money before their banks were on the verge of collapse.

They have avoided paying the £35 billion illegally. That is a crime and it comes under the "Anti terrorism and crime act".

It is not just Britain that Iceland owed this money to, it was America as well.

In effect, Gordon Brown was protecting Creditors and depositors in America as well. Note that Bush didn't have the balls to do it.

Negotiations with Iceland did not work. This law was the only one Gordon Brown could have used to immediately cease Iceland from trading and bleeding dry more British and American Investors.

The mere fact that as soon as Gordon Brown got nasty, the Icelandic government were threatening to find "new friends" just about sums up their mentality.

I make no bones about the fact that i am actually proud of our Prime Minister for doing this. It might be a lesson to other countrie's who think the UK is a pushover.

Brown is basically saying "Enough".

Iceland refusing to pay this money back was a threat to the UK economy, he was within his rights to use this law.

Iceland have a population of just 300,000. The debt is approx £160,000 for every-one of their citizens. Every-one of them would have benifited from reduced taxes, higher wages, benifit and a better economy. Now it's payback time - they don't like it and are threatening to accept an offer of money from Russia.

Who the hell wants to trade with a country who threatens this?

The icelandic citizens won't be giving a toss when our pensioners can not affored to put their heating on this winter or our jobs are being axed.

Why should we give a toss about them?

Bloody well done Gordon Brown.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:09 am

oscar;1017286 wrote: The clue is the the title "Anti-Terrorism and Crime act!.

Iceland were approached for this money before their banks were on the verge of collapse.

They have avoided paying the £35 billion illegally. That is a crime and it comes under the "Anti terrorism and crime act".

It is not just Britain that Iceland owed this money to, it was America as well.

In effect, Gordon Brown was protecting Creditors and depositors in America as well. Note that Bush didn't have the balls to do it.

Negotiations with Iceland did not work. This law was the only one Gordon Brown could have used to immediately cease Iceland from trading and bleeding dry more British and American Investors.

The mere fact that as soon as Gordon Brown got nasty, the Icelandic government were threatening to find "new friends" just about sums up their mentality.

I make no bones about the fact that i am actually proud of our Prime Minister for doing this. It might be a lesson to other countrie's who think the UK is a pushover.

Brown is basically saying "Enough".

Iceland refusing to pay this money back was a threat to the UK economy, he was within his rights to use this law.

Iceland have a population of just 300,000. The debt is approx £160,000 for every-one of their citizens. Every-one of them would have benifited from reduced taxes, higher wages, benifit and a better economy. Now it's payback time - they don't like it and are threatening to accept an offer of money from Russia.

Who the hell wants to trade with a country who threatens this?

The icelandic citizens won't be giving a toss when our pensioners can not affored to put their heating on this winter or our jobs are being axed.

Why should we give a toss about them?

Bloody well done Gordon Brown.

Again, I reiterate, that Britain has every right to seek restitution from the Icelandics for what has happened; however, it wasn't the icelandic government that owed the money but the big three banks in that country. Those banks acted incredibly irresponsibly (just like banks everywhere including British ones, which are also heavily endebted to foreigners, Irelands banks are just as bad BTW) and when they collapsed the left a situation that depositors and creditors were left being owed money that the Icelandic state, even if it took on the responsibility simply cannot afford to pay back.

You see the issue is that on one hand you have these calls for international coordination and understanding, and then on the other you have countries acting in a unilateral and arbirtray manner, they two don't add up. I would also say that Iceland not the only country that faces these potential insolvency problems, for instance, should Arab or Asian countries decide to pull their money out of long term US treasury bonds, its lilkely that the US Government could see a run on the dollar and ending up in the position where it is not in a position to meet its deficit funding, i.e. it would be bankrupt.

In fact Britain's budgetary position is even worse, it is the most heavily endebted nation out of all the G7, and totally reliant on the City of London for much of its economic activity and tax base, the population are also the most heavily endebted people in the industrialized world and are also facing a housing crash just like us in Ireland). I just hope that Britain's foreign creditors show more mercy to Britain should the worse come to the worse, than Britain has shown to Iceland, which I accept has acted foolishly but is now in a position that it simply cannot get out of without help and understanding.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:24 am

That's a thoughtful and interesting post Gal. I'm not sure I approve of refunding the various councils, police authorities and hospital trusts that went after the huge interest rates abroad either. The bleating whine of "we followed best practice" sounds not just hollow, it sounds untrue. Let these organizations take stock of their staff and hold internal enquiries, let them see what dates safety ratings were lowered and who was on watch when the rocks hove into view. Let's see a bit of blood on the payroll.