Best summary of the US Presidential Election

[Duke]

We would have lost money from imports/exports as well as other business links. The money spent on the war comes from the budget and therefore will not have an impact on the economy in the same way as saying no would have.

Wow. You need a serious lesson in economics. The 8 American people who refused to buy Jaguars would not have put a 4 billion pound dent in your economy.

 

[okoj]

Yes

Exports to US percentage of GDP
UK 15%
Germany 10%
France 7%

Is that such a massive difference...

Well actually it is, it's a 50% more than Germany and over 100% more than France. Also I meant the way they are tied into each other with the use of sweetheart deals etc.

 

[okoj]

Wow. You need a serious lesson in economics. The 8 American people who refused to buy Jaguars would not have put a 4 billion pound dent in your economy.

Sure.

Wowzer dude. You totally need a serious lesson in economic policies, trade policies and business ethics, man.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Well actually it is, it's a 50% more than Germany and over 100% more than France. Also I meant the way they are tied into each other with the use of sweetheart deals etc.

oooh lies, damm lies and statistics

You say 50% more than Germany...its 5%! Germany have another 90% export to other countries, we have 85% to other countries...how is that a 50% difference

 

[okoj]

oooh lies, damm lies and statistics

You say 50% more than Germany...its 5%! Germany have another 90% export to other countries, we have 85% to other countries...how is that a 50% difference

You were the one who came up with the figures. If the German's is 10% and our's is 15% then ours is 50% bigger (5 being half of ten and half being 50%).

 

[Tacet_Blue]

You were the one who came up with the figures. If the German's is 10% and our's is 15% then ours is 50% bigger (5 being half of ten and half being 50%).

five is half of ten...cheers.

Shall I draw a pie chart for you, the difference is 5%. Point is... we would both still have more than 85% of exports even if US stopped trading.

The 8 American people who refused to buy Jaguars would not have put a 4 billion pound dent in your economy.

I couldn't find an accurate figure of the cost so far, but I think it is actually much higher than £4 Billion.

 

[milefile]

we would both still have more than 85% of exports even if US stopped trading.

Which wouldn't happen anyway.

 

[okoj]

five is half of ten...cheers.

Shall I draw a pie chart for you, the difference is 5%. Point is... we would both still have more than 85% of exports even if US stopped trading.


I couldn't find an accurate figure of the cost so far, but I think it is actually much higher than £4 Billion.

Yes but we are still the biggest importers to the US, 50% more than Germany, yes? Our economy is tied in with Americas, mainly thanks to the Maggie/Ronnie years. It's not just about the percentages, it's about business deals and trade deals including exports/imports to other countries besides the US. If America wanted to it could make a big impact on our economy, more so than any other European country.

How much of that other 85% exported is arms (our biggest export) BTW?

 

[///M-Spec]

Sure.

Wowzer dude. You totally need a serious lesson in economic policies, trade policies and business ethics, man.

The centerpiece of your argument supposes that the UK would suffer economic fallout if it chose not to participate in Iraq; i.e. the US government used 'economic blackmail' to coerce the UK's troop deployment.

You offer no factual evidence of this and yet when three other people point out Germany was not affected by this supposed 'blackmail', you dodge the argument.

Your 'expert testimony' is the only evidence you can produce and that is about as worthless here as it was in the thread where you alleged US censorship laws.

Neon_duke, on the other hand, has displayed far greater understanding of economics (and a lot of other stuff) in the past than in your short tenure here. I'd say it is you who needs a lesson. Not in economics, but in basic, high-school level logic and debate.


M

 

[okoj]

The centerpiece of your argument supposes that the UK would suffer economic fallout if it chose not to participate in Iraq; i.e. the US government used 'economic blackmail' to coerce the UK's troop deployment.

You offer no factual evidence of this and yet when three other people point out Germany was not affected by this supposed 'blackmail', you dodge the argument.

Your 'expert testimony' is the only evidence you can produce and that is about as worthless here as it was in the thread where you alleged US censorship laws.

Neon_duke, on the other hand, has displayed far greater understanding of economics (and a lot of other stuff) in the past than in your short tenure here. I'd say it is you who needs a lesson. Not in economics, but in basic, high-school level logic and debate.


M

I have mentioned the Anglo-American deals several times. Germany and France were not 'in bed' with America before the war so it was not a deciding factor for them.
I will say it slowly this time, 'America and the UK are ecomically tied to each other'.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I will say it slowly this time, 'America and the UK are ecomically tied to each other'.

And....if the UK pulled its troops out of Iraq tomorrow...those ties...would...still...be...in...place

 

[okoj]

And....if the UK pulled its troops out of Iraq tomorrow...those ties...would...still...be...in...place

but if we'd refused to go there in the first place?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

but if we'd refused to go there in the first place?

I think we would be in the same position as France and Germany. ie. no change

Maybe the US would refuse to eat our yorkshire puddings

As M-Spec said, there was no economic blackmail, for one thing do you think our government is that weak?

I'm leaving it at that, you can have the last word if you want

 

[okoj]

I think we would be in the same position as France and Germany. ie. no change

Maybe the US would refuse to eat our yorkshire puddings

As M-Spec said, there was no economic blackmail, for one thing do you think our government is that weak?

I'm leaving it at that, you can have the last word if you want

Thank you.

No I don't think we'd be in the same position as France or Germany, and yes I do think our government is that weak.

 

[Danoff]

No I don't think we'd be in the same position as France or Germany, and yes I do think our government is that weak.

So there isn't any other possible reason why the UK could support the US? It has to be economic? It could be because we did the right thing??

 

[okoj]

So there isn't any other possible reason why the UK could support the US? It has to be economic? It could be because we did the right thing??

Starting a war with out of date intelligence? Being completely unprepared for the conflict? That was the right thing?

How about ignoring the lessons learnt from Britain's conflict with terrorism in Northern Ireland?

 

[Danoff]

Starting a war with out of date intelligence? Being completely unprepared for the conflict? That was the right thing?

You'd have more traction if you called our intelligence wrong. We certainly weren't unprepared for the conflict - and none of this has anything to do with whether we were justified in going in.

How about ignoring the lessons learnt from Britain's conflict with terrorism in Northern Ireland?

If we were to do that we'd take your advice.

 

[okoj]

You'd have more traction if you called our intelligence wrong. We certainly weren't unprepared for the conflict - and none of this has anything to do with whether we were justified in going in.



If we were to do that we'd take your advice.

The situation in NI is not over and was not helped by extracting revenge it is moving forward due to diplomatic measures.

You were not prepared for the conflict either, otherwise it would have ended when George said it did and he wouldn't have to go around asking people to help him out.

 

[Danoff]

You were not prepared for the conflict either, otherwise it would have ended when George said it did

You don't understand what he said and you don't understand what we're doing now. That's evident from this post. We were obviously prepared for the conflict if we can invade an entire militant country with people ready to defend it with suicide tactics and take only 1000 casualties.

and he wouldn't have to go around asking people to help him out.

He's asking people to help out because everyone's b*tching at him to do so.

The situation in NI is not over and was not helped by extracting revenge it is moving forward due to diplomatic measures.

Again, you're misunderstanding the war. First it was religious, now it's revenge. Maybe those are the only reasons you can conceive of for going to war but it's not the reason we're there. We're there to fight terrorists and spread freedom (which is to fight terrorists and promote prosperity).

(Don't confuse the reason I just gave as being the justification)

 

[///M-Spec]

I have mentioned the Anglo-American deals several times. Germany and France were not 'in bed' with America before the war so it was not a deciding factor for them.

I will say it slowly this time, 'America and the UK are ecomically tied to each other'.

Phssh. America is economically tied to lots of countries. Canada and the US form the largest trade block in the world, yet Canada has no troops in Iraq. America's second largest trade partner, Mexico, has no troops in Iraq. I don't see Chinese (#3 largest) troops in Iraq either, even though they hold Favored Nation Trade Status, which is an exceeding lucurative position, yet Bush was not able to leverage that.

In fact, of America's Top 10 trade partners. Only ONE country has combat troops in Iraq (UK, of course), and two other countries with support troops there in non-combat roles (Japan, RoK).

You seem to have lots of opinions which are deeply rooted in your imagination. When you are ready to discuss the real world, let us know.


M

 

[rjensen11]

Which wouldn't happen anyway.

No, we're just going to pull out of NATO and the UN.

 

[ledhed]

The rest of the world needs to spend more money on thier own defence and let the US bring all thier troops home. The cold war is over Germany and France seem to get along for now. Why should the US still be pumping money into Europe ? Your all big boys so take care of your selves for awile. Try not to invade France as anoying as they can be i know its hard but you can do it . Russia seems to be occupied with trying not to fall apart and Communism has been proven to be a big bust. China seems to be happy just selling stuff and keeping its people clueless. So all you have to do is keep to yourselves and not covet your nieghbors goods and you should be fine. Dont worry the US and Great Britain and the Aussy's and the rest of the countrys that are taking up your slack won't hold it against you. In fact not having the French screw everything up and surrender to the terrorist was worth it.

 

[Solid Fro]

The French have already surrendered to the terrorists. Arafat, a known terrorist supporter, is staying in a French military hospital.

 

[ledhed]

Arafat has been recognised as the representative of the Pallestinians. What if the world had the same view of Isreals former terrorist prime minister ? besides he's in France with french doctors..how long can he live ?

 

[okoj]

Canada, Mexico and China all have bigger economies which is why they form large trading blocks with the US. The US trades with them out of necessity.

With regards to the war are you trying to say it was a well fought conflict?
Are you trying to say that GWB was bluffing when he said the war was over?
Are you trying to say that Saddam's regime was getting worse? That when the US army went in, that was the worst point in recent Iraqi history? Why didn't America finish the job after it was started in the 90's? Why didn't Bush send the troops in in 2000 when he was first elected? If you're fighting terrorism how come there's no problem with North Korea or Pakistan having WMD's?

 

[///M-Spec]

Canada, Mexico and China all have bigger economies which is why they form large trading blocks with the US. The US trades with them out of necessity.

See Rule 7.


M

 

[okoj]

See Rule 7.


M

Why?

When I say British companies are in bed with American companies I'm not saying that we are a big player in the world economy. What I am saying is that we need to keep the US happy otherwise all that investment money will dry up.

 

[Duke]

...just like it's dried up for France and Germany. Right.

Honestly, give up now. You're not doing anything but looking foolish and uninformed. Come back when you've completed 8th grade history and done a little reading outside of conspiracy-theory websites. Then we might take you seriously.

 

[okoj]

...just like it's dried up for France and Germany. Right.

Honestly, give up now. You're not doing anything but looking foolish and uninformed. Come back when you've completed 8th grade history and done a little reading outside of conspiracy-theory websites. Then we might take you seriously.

Well sorry for learning about the rest of the world and mainly Britain in history (we have a lot of it, you see). French and German companies do not need the investment capitol the same way that UK companies do. The main reason we are so dependant on US money is Margaret Thatcher and her attempts to privatise everything and encourage oversea investors. Our stockmarket is affected by America's much more than France or Germany's.

 

[Danoff]

Our stockmarket is affected by America's much more than France or Germany's.

um.... of course? Because America is the sole superpower left on the planet? You do see how this doesn't help you show your point right?

French and German companies do not need the investment capitol the same way that UK companies do.

Prove it.

The main reason we are so dependant on US money is Margaret Thatcher and her attempts to privatise everything and encourage oversea investors.

Prove it.

What I am saying is that we need to keep the US happy otherwise all that investment money will dry up.

...and there is evidence against this. Provide some evidence to support it.

If you're fighting terrorism how come there's no problem with North Korea or Pakistan having WMD's?

There is but war is not a forgone conclusion in those cases. With Iraq it was obvious that it was our only course of action if we wanted to see change. 10 years of diplomacy showed that clearly.

...and by the way. we've covered this a few hundered times in about 20 other threads.