# Paul Wolfowitz World Bank



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It has been decided that Paul Wolfowitz should be the new head of the world bank, you can find the story here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4355197.stm

Now I know that some will support this decision, but I cannot think of a less worthy person to be the leader of this group. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this choice? I promise not to hold what is said against you.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Don't know much about it! Who do you recommend?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I guess if I had to recommend anyone I would have to go for Bob M. After he gets social security straightened out and the IRS out of the picture he could run the World Bank.  My humble opinion!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now I know that some will support this decision, but I cannot think of a less worthy person to be the leader of this group.


I don't know if I support it or not, I have paid little attention to this guy. You stated you couldn't think of a less worthy person. I guess I feel like Bobm on this one. Please state why you feel this way. Make a case for the statement. I don't understand, so I would guess there has to be at least one other person who doesn't understand why you think him so unworthy.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > Now I know that some will support this decision, but I cannot think of a less worthy person to be the leader of this group.
> 
> 
> I don't know if I support it or not, I have paid little attention to this guy. You stated you couldn't think of a less worthy person. I guess I feel like Bobm on this one. Please state why you feel this way. Make a case for the statement. I don't understand, so I would guess there has to be at least one other person who doesn't understand why you think him so unworthy.


I suspect our friend M_T believes him to be unworthy because he is a Republican and a major player in the war with Iraq. And anything involved with that conflict is bad as far as his liberal mind is concerned.

I don't know enough about him yet to make up my mind, but he seems to be qualified:
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

More information is needed for me to completely support this decision.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He is a war hawk who believes that we must make all of the world just like the USA through force. He made poor decisions in the war, and he has no economic experience.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> He is a war hawk who believes that we must make all of the world just like the USA through force. He made poor decisions in the war, and he has no economic experience.


If you are going to make blanket statements like this, lets see the material to back them up.

The more I read about the guy the better I like him, and the more I am coming to believe that this was not a bad decision.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If you are going to make blanket statements like this, lets see the material to back them up.


Certainly my good man.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050316/b0316134.html

As stated in said link he failed again and again during the staging phase of the Iraqi war, underestimating the number of troops we needed, the number which would be killed, the price of the war and how much cash the oil would produce. He has very little if any experience dealing with economics, hell even Bush's only reason (as he stated in a recent conference) was because Wolfowitz was the leader of a large group, that which planned the Iraqi operation. I'm not sure how heading two groups of similar size makes you qualified for both.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050316/b0316134.html

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: The Canadian Press :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Oh come on now M_T, do you seriously think that an opinion article from a decidely liberal organization such as the CBC is valid evidence.

Go to the link that I posted and you will find other articles that indicate that he does have the experience to handle this position. Of course, that is a military site so it must be wrong, eh.

Your age is showing now. Underestimating what may be needed in a war does not make a person unworthy or unexperienced. War is by nature a very fluid situation, what works now may not next week. A position that a squad can hold today may require a platoon tomorrow and a division next week.

huntin1


----------



## backhome (Oct 25, 2004)

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

A statement was made about this guy being a hawk with no economic experience. I think the hawk part has been widely publicized over the past couple of years. Anyone who disagrees with that statement has been asleep for a long time. As for the economic experience, I read his bio at the link above and didn't see anything that looked too economically oriented. Even so, this does not seem like a particularly productive debate given Bush has made his selection, but I will say that I think Carly Fiorina would have been a better choice. Maybe it was just a rumor that she was being considered - I do not know for sure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon
That Canadian press site just about convinced me that Wolfowitz is a good man. They turned me off with the headlines foreign policy hawk. So? I guess I would be a bit of a hawk with these pansy a$$ countries that complain about us then trade oil behind our back. Also, his part in the Iraq war tells us how he will perform on economics????? It will??? If I was such a poor shot that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (from the inside) with my deer rifle does that have anything to do with my economic management skills? These people grabbing at straws are a very good indication that he has economic ability. Why else would the beef about things that are not relevant?

The sites that were pro Wolfowitz I took with a grain of salt. Sure they are going to talk him up. Most may be true, but I am sure some was exaggerated. Then I read the Canadian press site. I didn't have much of an opinion on this fellow until reading the mindless chatter against him. 
I'm starting to like him.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Oh come on now M_T, do you seriously think that an opinion article from a decidely liberal organization such as the CBC is valid evidence.


You obviously don't watch much CBC. I watch quite a bit of their news, the national in particular and I can honestly say that they don't hold much bias at all. I'm sure you could find trouble with them though. I find it to be pretty funny that you reject the CBC and yet a .mil site holds nothing but the truth, what a joke.



> Your age is showing now. Underestimating what may be needed in a war does not make a person unworthy or unexperienced. War is by nature a very fluid situation, what works now may not next week. A position that a squad can hold today may require a platoon tomorrow and a division next week.


Apparently if you are over twenty years of age you are an expert on everything. You are showing your ignorance, Wolfowitz stated as though it was fact that the war wouldn't cost much, would pay for itself and would be a tiny conflict when it was obvious that it would be the opposite. He made bad decisions and made no apologies.



> So? I guess I would be a bit of a hawk with these pansy a$$ countries that complain about us then trade oil behind our back.


And this gives us the right to force our ways on other countries. You are nuts.



> Also, his part in the Iraq war tells us how he will perform on economics????? It will??? If I was such a poor shot that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (from the inside) with my deer rifle does that have anything to do with my economic management skills?


This is really cute, because you just proved yourself wrong. You ask how his experience heading up the Iraqi group will determine how he will do in economics, the fact is that it wont prove that he is bad at economics, but it also shows that he has no experience in the field. He has thus far been known for making poor decisions and spreading misinformation, along with his definate lack of experience, yes he is perfect for the job.



> I didn't have much of an opinion on this fellow until reading the mindless chatter against him.
> I'm starting to like him.


You didn't like the guy until you saw oposition by the party that you hate, and that changed your mind. That is quite a childish mentality for someone your age. You disgust me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As far as wars go this *was* a small conflict.

MT wrote:


> And this gives us the right to force our ways on other countries. *You are nuts*.


These countries were aiding Sadam. Aiding Sadam against UN sanctions and against America was treachery. Treachery deserves any form of punishment we feel like inflicting.



> This is really cute, because you just proved yourself wrong. You ask how his experience heading up the Iraqi group will determine how he will do in economics, the fact is that it wont prove that he is bad at economics,* but it also shows that he has no experience in the field*.


There is your lack of logic again. I said that his war experience has no bearing on his economic abilities. You say that proves he has no experience in economics. How does it prove that? I find no connection in that, the same as I find no connection in war and economics.



> You didn't like the guy until you saw oposition by the party that you hate, and that changed your mind. *That is quite a childish *mentality for someone your age. *You disgust me.*


I didn't read anything the democrats had against him. Maybe you don't like him because the democrats don't. I started liking him when press with little logic and less credibility began demonizing him. I didn't say I thought he was the man for the job or if I thought he was great, I said I was starting to like him. Don't exaggerate like these sites MT. If you do then you will blame me again for your credibility problems.

All in all your getting pretty slack again with you judgment of people aren't you MT. Like I said before, make a point, and try doing it without insulting people on the site. I give opinions of what I read, and explain why I feel that way. You are simply getting personal with people again. 
Lets not let that continue.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> These countries were aiding Sadam. Aiding Sadam against UN sanctions and against America was treachery. Treachery deserves any form of punishment we feel like inflicting.


I am confused at your utter hatred of Saddam, there are far worthier people to turn your anger towards, those who actually threaten our security. You wouldn't happen to be sunni would you?



> These countries were aiding Sadam. Aiding Sadam against UN sanctions and against America was treachery. Treachery deserves any form of punishment we feel like inflicting.


Care to explain yourself there or are you going to leave it as just another wild claim?



> There is your lack of logic again. I said that his war experience has no bearing on his economic abilities. You say that proves he has no experience in economics. How does it prove that? I find no connection in that, the same as I find no connection in war and economics.


The man has spent all of his time on war, he has not been the leader of anything to do with economics, thus showing that he has no experience in said field.



> I didn't read anything the democrats had against him. Maybe you don't like him because the democrats don't.


Those two statements are conflicting, what exactly do you mean?



> I started liking him when press with little logic and less credibility began demonizing him.


Less credible because they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear and used less logic because they showed his set of poor accomplishments.



> I didn't say I thought he was the man for the job or if I thought he was great, I said I was starting to like him. Don't exaggerate like these sites MT. If you do then you will blame me again for your credibility problems.


I never said that you thought he was great, just that you liked him, as you stated. As to credibility, I think we have all seen enough of your foiled attemps at proving me an uncredible 30 year old college hippy.



> All in all your getting pretty slack again with you judgment of people aren't you MT. Like I said before, make a point, and try doing it without insulting people on the site. I give opinions of what I read, and explain why I feel that way. You are simply getting personal with people again. Lets not let that continue.


How exactly do you propose that I respond to a personal opinion with a non-personal rebuttal? You are keen on the redundancies tonight aren't you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Quote: Plainsman wrote. 
I didn't read anything the democrats had against him. Maybe you don't like him because the democrats don't.

MT wrote:


> Those two statements are conflicting, what exactly do you mean?


I'll explain that MT, but I will not continue to argue. You said I perhaps liked him because the democrats didn't. I said I had not read anything the democrats had to say about him. Then what I said was perhaps you don't like him simply because the democrats don't like him. I don't make my decisions that way, but if you thought of this perhaps that is how you make your decisions.

Sent you a PM


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well this is not a military site and it certainly isn't from a socialist news paper site but it is from people who work in the field of economics. Good reading and at least food for thought.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c4e9702a-9753- ... 511c8.html


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Does make one think, doesn't it. Never looked at it from that point of view.

huntin1


----------

