7 economy nobel laurates against WAR

[emprworm]

What a poor argument.

Very childish.

He cannot refure those undsputable arguments of those 7 noble laurates and therefore he attacks them. That's very emprworm, when he wants he goes to reason, when he can't he dodge the subject and atacks the persons.

Being inteligent to have won a nobel, doesn't make those few refugees right.

the only stupid argument is the words of 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists that are not experts in military, with liberal philosophies, and are not not in a moral position to tell 24 million people what they want. These 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists do not have the credibility to speak on behalf of Iraqi's when the Iraqi's can speak for themselves.

30,000 of them have a different story than the 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists. The credibility of the 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists is only good when speaking about economics, but when you have 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists trying to dictate how 24 million Iraqi's should live, and try to dictate military logistics, suddenly we have a serious credibility problem.

[zamboe]

the only stupid argument is the words of 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists that are not experts in military, with liberal philosophies, and are not not in a moral position to tell 24 million people what they want. These 7 rich, opulent mansion-living, status-seeking, honored-by-men economisists do not have the credibility to speak on behalf of Iraqi's when the Iraqi's can speak for themselves.

They can't speak for on the behalf of Iraqui's, but how about the long time what Bush devotes everytime he is in front of TV cameras to talk on behalf of Iraqi people ?

Do you consider youself intelectually superior to 7 nobel laurates, at least 3 of them US citizen ?

Is Bush in a moral position to talk about Iraq ?

Do you think majority of people believe him ?

Would you call them anti-american too ?

What's wrong with living in a mansion ?

What's wrong with having an status ?

What's wrong with getting some recognizition when you have made something unique that helps the development of humankind activities ?

[emprworm]

but how about the long time what Bush devotes everytime he is in front of TV cameras to talk on behalf of Iraqi people ?

Answer: YES. Bush does indeed speak for the Iraqi's that have a free voice. They are in full support of him.

"Do you consider youself intelectually superior to 7 nobel laurates, at least 3 of them US citizen ?"

In economics, not even the slightest. I am a complete moron in economics.

In the knowledge of the religion of Islam, I could probably take them all on. In knowledge of quantum physics (which I don't have a degree in and am only an amateur student), most likely yes. In philosophy....I would be willing to bet "yes". In math....not a chance.

"Is Bush in a moral position to talk about Iraq ?" Considering he is speaking on behalf of the free-speaking Iraqi's, that would be an affirmative.

"What's wrong with living in a mansion ?

What's wrong with having an status ?

What's wrong with getting some recognizition when you have made something unique that helps the development of humankind activities ?"

it means they have self-serving interests contrary to the Iraqi's. This is undisputable since they are turning up their rich snobb-ed noses to the voices of the free Iraqi's and telling them "we know whats best for you." that is supreme arrogance. The iraqi's know whats best fot them, and they've already spoken.

[zamboe]

Bush does indeed speak for the Iraqi's that have a free voice. They are in full support of him.

He cant even speak for the US, he didn't even get the majority. He's got no moral authority to do so.

May I know if you have a shrine devoted to Bush ?

In the knowledge of the religion of Islam, I could probably take them all on. In knowledge of quantum physics (which I don't have a degree in and am only an amateur student), most likely yes. In philosophy....I would be willing to bet "yes". In math....not a chance.

Neither philosophy or physics are going to resolve the Iraq issue.

The way you talk as another person who also posted in this thread only shows some kind of lack of knowledge, when you indicate that economics has only to deal with money and capitalism, that's very wrong indeed, economics goes far beyond that.

There is great difference betweend finance and economics in case you've never learned that.

it means they have self-serving interests contrary to the Iraqi's. This is undisputable since they are turning up their rich snobb-ed noses to the voices of the free Iraqi's and telling them "we know whats best for you." that is supreme arrogance. The iraqi's know whats best fot them, and they've already spoken.

You didn't even read the article.

Those economist are speaking what's best for the US and only for the US. They didn't even say a word about what's best for Iraq.

Next time, if you are going to answer a thread, READ THE LINKS FIRST, else don't post off topic things.

[emprworm]

"He cant even speak for the US, he didn't even get the majority. He's got no moral authority to do so."

of course he can, and he is now. Majority currently support a war in the US. But that is irrelevant anyway. All that is relevant is if he speaks for the Iraqi's. Answer: YES

"May I know if you have a shrine devoted to Bush ?"

May I know if you have 7 shrines for the 7 demi-god nobel laurates?

"Neither philosophy or physics are going to resolve the Iraq issue."

And neither will France and Chile. The US and her allies will resolve the Issue (maybe Chile will be in there....who knows)

"economics goes far beyond that."

LOL! I hardly believe it goes into Surah 5 of the Qu'ran or plank's constant, or logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" that you have committed atrociously for several posts.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm - for a summary of your recent, multiple aggregious fallacies.

[zamboe]

"He cant even speak for the US, he didn't even get the majority. He's got no moral authority to do so."

of course he can, and he is now. Majority currently support a war in the US. But that is irrelevant anyway. All that is relevant is if he speaks for the Iraqi's. Answer: YES

"May I know if you have a shrine devoted to Bush ?"

May I know if you have 7 shrines for the 7 demi-god nobel laurates?

"Neither philosophy or physics are going to resolve the Iraq issue."

And neither will France and Chile. The US and her allies will resolve the Issue (maybe Chile will be in there....who knows)

"economics goes far beyond that."

LOL! I hardly believe it goes into Surah 5 of the Qu'ran or plank's constant, or logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" that you have committed atrociously for several posts.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm - for a summary of your recent, multiple aggregious fallacies.

Is that your best emprworm ?

Can't you post something worth to answer ?

Did you actually read the declaration they made ?

[emprworm]

When I deal with the appeal to authority fallacy, that is all that is needed.

that, and the voice of 30,000 iraqi's

p.s. i read the entire article

"During the 1990's America enjoyed strong economic growth, strong financial markets and unprecedented job expansion. "

funny how they left out the reasons why, which were founded and based on wideswept, vast corporate corruption and internet & technological inflation. i'd say the 7 rich, opulent, lauretes are playing a little game of deception.

[nemafakei]

Zamboe, there are many good reasons not to go to war, but the opinion of seven Americas is not one of them...

Try reading my Sources, Sources, Sources thread for more explanation.