I think the surprise election results in Spain are a good indication that people EVERYWHERE are not pleased with the US/BUSH policy in IRAQ--The polls at home don't seem to me to be quite right-the published 5% difference between Bush and Kerry seems a little fishy to me --
in any case, the voters will speak and if the Bush campaign tries to make it seem like we don't care about terrorism by voting against him-- he may in fact be inviting a new wave of attacks---
IRAN gave back the hostages when we elected Reagan--IMMEDIATELY--remember? Carter didn't have a chance.
I don't see Kerry as a weak hand in SECURITY
I am not backing either candidate here --i am just editorialising about what i am seeing on the world news-
They were angry with the vote, feelling that it will set up all of Europe for attacks. Al Queda's web site was stating how they changed the election and what power they had over the weak westerners.
France recieved a threat today, if they go through with the law banning head scarves and religious attire in school they will face random bombings. (we all remember their stance on Iraq).
Its a bad precedent in Spain but there were other issues. Asner perceived as untruthfull for a while.
Bush is Prodding Kerry in this manner because Kerry does double speak, he's saying troops have were underprepared but, he voted no to giving them money for troop spending. I've said all along Kerry will have a tough time shedding this Image. Mass, is a brutally run state, and he's been here a long time!
I have no horse in this race either.
Keith
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited March 16, 2004).]
Kerry has promised to repeal the tax cuts. This will send the ecomony into a tail-spin along with all our investments.
Kerry will also start many new social programs in effort to shore up his base. (i.e. big labor unions) Not a very good way to make the economy grow. It is inflationary because he will want to raise minimum wages. (bad)
Kerry also has a very liberal anti-military voting record and he is already trying to play himself as a world orderist in order to court support from the world by playing the US as a weaker role. This will only invite more terrorist attacks and kill the market.
On the flip side.
President Bush has made a tax cut that has kept the US out of a deeper recession that it already was in. He has also weakened the US dollar in effort to bring in foreign investment.
But, President Bush has also played the US as a Ass Kicker with a "who cares what the world thinks" attitude. That is a bad decision that will come back to hurt the US economy in the long run. He has also burned alot of bridges by not respecting the inputs of Europe (our biggest trading partner)
President Bush has also encouraged a nationism that has created much isolationism in the US and fueled and anti-European feeling. Europe and the US are too closely related by economics to just get in a pissing contest at the expense of all.
I am not rooting either way here. I see this as a choice of 2 wimps running for President. The real question is one of economics......Which one will help?????
I report..........you decide....
:-
All of your points are great. On Kerry what I find amusing is this supposed love of the unions.
Fact: In Boston all Firefighters, policemen and teachers are without contracts. (more double speak for the union hero).
On Bush, and Europe, he had some of Europe with him some against France, before this issue had stated they did not like a bully in charge and would like to see a "top 3" of countries to run the world. Obviously France feels they are one of the three.
A way to attain this is to not give in to what the U.S. wants. This is a written and spoken of policy by French officials. They don't want to be U.S. lapdogs. I don't blame them, they have no power to speak of except that U.N. Veto.
Teuf this is not a rebuttal to you just an addition. I could analyze this crap all day, I find inner political workings fascinating!
Keith
You are absolutely correct in that Kerry's connections with the union are very interesting since they may loose their contract. However, the unions are playing politics in effort to use as politicians as a bargining chip as they have always done since their conception.
As to Bush and Europe, I agree that France thinks itself bigger than they are but in reality Germany is the real powerhouse of Europe.
Had Bush not been so cowboyish with Europe, Gerhard Schroeder would not have had anything to attack and would have lost the election and a much more Business oriented Edmund Stoiber Then Stoiber would be Chancellor of Germany who was much more pro American and much much more pro-business. Not the leftist, Green Party backed Gerhard Schroeder.
Additionally, I think President Bush realized he screwed up and began to mending fenses with Germany. (smart move)
I think Bush needs to patch up the US relations with Europe. He would best be served by using the bombing in Spain as a starting point. He needs to offer intelligence services, money, whatever to show the Europeans the US (particularly Bush) is a good partner to do business with now.
Just my 2 cents...............
Teuf, Basically I agree, also I wasn't saying the unions weren't powerful.
With Germany, I have no knowledge on their election process etc. You have frustrated my response process because I lack the fundamentals on that one.
Trade in the GREEN
Keith
Sorry to go on. I started to ramble. I ust be tired. I have been in numbers, reports, and stock DD for 12 hours now.
Whew. Need a break.
I had family obligations or I'm sure my last response would have droned on.
Keith
This rumor is noticable in today's market,
a slight slow down and flattening of trading,
then return to usual after this rumor was
announced as false.
Terrorists are not just killing innocent
people, they are trying to kill our
worldwide economy. Nine-eleven, the
World Trade Center. Our worldwide
economy is the easiest and most
vulnerable target.
This has nothing to do with religion,
geopolitics nor jihad.
This has everything to do with the
minds and egos of a select few madmen.
When you vote, consider a vote for a
party which affords the best chance
at defeating terrorism.
Purl Gurl
:-)
Here's an addition Chief U.N. master will be heading an investigation into food for oil program because of the Billions of Dollars going to France, Sadam, and the old U.N. leaders family (booooootross?), also some guy who ran its bank account.
This will be a major hit on U.N credibility if true. This while they say Bush is the one hurting credibility. Votes for Kerry so far: new guy in spain, Al Jazeera nice portrayal of him on their website, and Chirac.
Bad news for him.
Erin Go Brah!
Drink and eat green baby.
Keith
I was waiting for you to get involved, you started this one. It's been a long day of drinking beer, some green. By the way, I LOVE BEER.
The Teacher Union in Boston just recieved a contract. This is only important becuase I said they didn't have one earlier, which they didn't. Big threat of Boycott on Dem. Convention pulled that one off.
ON WMD's, I pray we were wrong because if the weapons are not in Iraq they're on the way here.
Keith
I am hearing more poorly conceived statements from the White House campaign----
Fearless leader is beginning to sound anything but fearless.
Does anyone remember what daddy Bush's job was prior to being Reagan's VEEP?
He ran the same crew that now seems to be absorbing the blame for the intel errors.
The rhetoric sounds like an INVITATION to the terrorists to give us their best shot. I don't like it.
To bring all of this back to investing----I am concerned that we are going to see a very "interesting" news year. The bomb that went off yesterday did not lead to investor panic---granted it was in IRAQ--not somewhere unexpected. Can we expect investors to remain calm in the face of more incidents like Spain? I hope SO because in the long run the terrorists really are more likely to do the most damage by destroying economic interests--that's why they picked the WTC towers.
panic, that bomb in Iraq didn't even create a blip.
Attacks other than those in the usuall places will produce shock waves.
Keith
Don't start scaring me, you know I summer in Greece this year will not be no different. I just can't run scared. I'll be going to some island events I'm sure.
Keith
I am a beginner here, so I very well could be very wrong. I see military companies prices going down and oil companies going up (along with most of the market). What does everyone else think?
Other sectors that you see getting a good gain?
McGivey
I can see the airline stocks, but why Starwood Hotels?
McGivey
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 18, 2004).]
We should be hearing news, right about now.
It is past dawn over there.
A little bit of less tension, a little more
confidence, mild increases in prices across
all the boards.
However, fear will remain widespread. My
guess is it will take at least a decade to
reduce terrorism to less frightening levels.
Plenty of murderous madmen out there
claiming God is on their side.
Purl Gurl
don't you remember in the wizard of OZ?
Little munchkins dancing in the streets and partying to the tune of Ding Dong the wickid witch is dead?
It is sad -the software artist/engineers of the last decade created this wonderful internet communication system and screwed themselves out of a job with it--the jobs they were expecting to do from home are now being done in India----and other places with low cost of living and at least some level of higher education. Meanwhile illegals are still coming here packed like sardines in containers and tractor trailers--maybe PG should post her doublewide homestead pix more prominently.
NEVER EXISTED---not if you believe the intel reports made public by EVERY intel group around the world.
Iraq had been in opposition to ISLAM and the Tallaban due to the fact that Hussein felt intimidated by religious leaders of any kind.
I have to disagree. I think that if Bin Laden is caught the market will over-react quite a bit (as will the American people). Now, I believe it will only be a 1 - 2 day jump and then retract, but I think a lot can be made during those few hours/days. Then again, if it happens on a weekend, I don't see there being much of a reaction at all on Monday.
I also think that there is a small chance that Bin Laden is actually in the group that is being surrounded and that the Pakistani and Americans know it. I think they may not want to have it leak because if he gets away again (like it is reported that he got away from the French) it will look VERY bad for Fearless Leader.
We will see soon I am sure (and as usual, you will probably be correct in the end).
McGivey
prior to Iraq invading Kuwait --they were one of our best allies in the middle east---
as the war started there was some discussion as to whether or not Saddam had misinterpreted state department signals that he had a green light to take Kuwait back---Kuwait was a part of the Old Iraq---you have to go back a ways to find that---
also--Kuwait was in fact using an advanced drilling technique to "steal" oil from Iraq---not a guess here------if you did that in Texas--you would be shot---
President Noriega was snatched out of his country in a manner similar to, but not nearly as dramatic as Hussein.
Seeing the same patterns here that I am?
I don't wonder why the rest of the world is concerned about our policy of aggression and unilateralism.
Those who fail to study history are DOOMED to repeat the failures.
Yes we liked when Iraq attacked Iran obviously Iran had taken hostages. It's a tough part of the world to gather allies. He was considered a threat and not just our country thought he had WMD's. When France, Germany etc didn't want war, they never said the intelligence is wrong. Saddam also never came clean when threatened with force.
Here's the good I see out of IRAQ
-Hussein gone, no complaints.
-terrorist training camp in the north is gone hopefully for good.
-Iraq no longer paying and supporting hezbollah gorrillas suicide bombing missions.
-Lybia gave up nuclear program
- North Korea opened up for discussions
- Iran and Syria towing the line with U.S. on their borders.
- Iran letting inspectors in.
- When U.N. says serious consequences they mean it.
Bad no wmd's, dead and wounded soldiers, international political arguments-no worse than the oil for food program scandal which will undermine the U.N. way more than the war did (I think it finally gave U.N. credibility). Tons of money spent.
Keith
If gas prices don't go down though Bush may loose on that alone.
Keith
I wonder why t e c h n i c a l t r a d e r s gets treated like a cuss word here?LOL
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 20, 2004).]
By the way T.Turner- Day trading- you recommended was excellent and the C. Brown TA book is good, the TA book is a little tough I'm 1/2 way done it but started before Turners.
Thanks,
Keith
Oil prices are likely to plummet soon--the OILMEN can't risk the high prices right now --the politics are getting too rough --and the democrats haven't begun to do the slamming--everybody else is---even Chris Matthews from whitehouse TV-er i mena FOXNEWS
the market crash today is being blamed on
terrorism fears---i am skeptical
this is getting ugly----now its all the fault of some analyst that was part of both administrations--LOL-- Rummy and George had nothing to do with any of it.
If Kerry says NOTHING he could get elected in ten days--------
don't forget the election is still 7 months off- anything can happen--and probably will---stock up on the popcorn----
chris mathews is a dem also but on msnbc hardball.
I like Fox news so no slamming, of course you have to watch another channel to set your mind straight.
Like reading the N.Y. times and the wallstreet journal. for example.
Being in Law School you get a whole lot of very liberal professors saying don't even watch fox news. I find that appalling. A prof. should teach to watch and learn from all sides not just from their own point of view.
I'm ranting, back to class now.
Oh yeah, market fears over the weekend. Hammas-dead leader, will get america.
Still fallout from spain.
New book saying clinton told bush everything (even though their head al queda guy was 1st day on job 9/11 at the world trade center)Obviously if he knew something would have went to work elsewhere
I'm missing something but I must go to class.
Enjoy the Green tomorrow.
Keith
[This message has been edited by Bart (edited March 22, 2004).]
So many mixed signals with politicians,
so many mixed signals in our markets.
Kerry, combat Vietnam vet, three purple
hearts and earned a silver star. None
can claim he is a coward. I think his
experiences in Vietnam have left him
with a bad taste for war. This is very
understandable; he has witnessed the
worst of the horrors of war.
Bush, strong leadership, iron fist, a
good president, certainly. He handled
a major crisis situation with dignity.
Kerry, on one hand, will be more cautious
about leading us to war, but understands
war as best as any. Contrasting this, he
fully understands war and the needs of
the troops in the field.
Bush is using all the right tactics for
dealing with terrorism. He keeps his word
and walks the talk.
So which is best? I don't know.
Bad political year, bad market year, too
many emotions running wild. Glassman, yes
too much media hype as well which shouts
down our good economic news.
The Jews, I applaud what they did and am
significantly pleased only a head remained.
I like that.
People of Spain, major mistake which they
may come to regret, just as the French have
come to regret thier cowardice. Bending the
knee before terrorists will only add boldness
to their horrific acts of violence.
Wrote this previously and will close with
the same thought.
"We need to be more savage than the terrorists."
Purl Gurl
"Enjoy the Green tomorrow."
I am crossing my fingers and do expect
a bit of a rebound.
Our markets were trying to rebound, have
been rebounding a bit over the past week
or two. Friday was a pretty good day.
Today's low opening and falling of prices
was a real surprise here. Didn't expect
this at all.
Terrorists. So much related to terrorists.
Purl Gurl
pretty good presidential critique there.
Whenever I talk of Kerry I have to prefice I live in MA. He's a nightmare here, changing his mind saying one thing then another, I hate it. I said it before he was the nominee, I want a good argument about who to vote for. That makes it exciting. With Kerry to I guess which way he'll vote? I can't trust what he says from history. He's a war hero and I here him and Bush get along quite well. Kerry likes to throw a few back and chase the ladies (or he did).
With Bush you know where he stands and why. You can disagree but thats where he stands.
I'll never agree with everything a president does but right now 2 1/2 years no terrorist attacks, thats some good work.
Unless gas is 2.00 a gallon I think we'll keep him.
Keith
Well, I would have liked to watch the Jews
play a game of soccer with his head. That
would be something more to want.
His is not a measure of physical condition.
His is a measure of the death he dealt with
his mind. Words can be fatal and he used
his words to slaughter innocent people,
and to send innocent children to suicide,
in the name of God.
He deserved to have his head blown off
and the Jews delivered just that!
Purl Gurl
Well, I would have liked to watch the Jews
play a game of soccer with his head. That
would be something more to want.
Purl Gurl are you confusing the Mongol hordes and their invention of POLO with the jewish natioanl soccer team now?
I am just surprised at all the insane rhetoric---Bart is saying stuff like--the DEMOCRATS want terrorist attacks so that Kerry can win---on the news they say people are selling off perfectly good stock cuz they are afraid of terrorism---everybody seems to think spain voted in a bad set of politicians cuz they are afraid of of a few bombers--none of these STATEMENTS makes sense ------------------------
Did you know that it is a sign of insanity when YOU think everybody ELSE is NUTS--i need to visit the doctor cuz from my vantage point--EVERYBODY IS NUTS-- LOL
The spanish peoople are putting up signs of Bush and Asnar(sp?) and writing this is your fault. In most ways the bombing changed the outcome of that election. The spanish dissatisfaction with Iraq had hit the back burner. Even the other European countries feel that Al Queda turned that election. But, the most important fact is that Al Queda feels like they changed the election.
My European friends are in a complete uproar over the killing of the Hamas leader. As is most of their countries. I am amazed at how my world view is so vividly different than theirs that I can't even comprehend why killing the leader of a terrorist group is a bad thing.
These are also the countries where most people on the streets say that America deserved 9/11 because of the way they treat other countries.
Off to work,
Enjoy
1000 miles south of bumflunked egypt...really!,
wade
It makes no sense to me.
Keith
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
Sorry, not ready to kill European leaders, they may annoy me but so do my wife and kids.Keith
Well Keith i am pleased to know that i am not the only person left in the world that thinks maybe peace has a chance---
Quite the oxymoron. We are the most hated
of all peoples and yet almost all peoples
of the world want to live here.
Many peoples of the world celebrate when
our own are slaughtered. Nonetheless they
wear American jeans, American watches and
listen to American rock n roll.
We have a lot of friends out there but
have more enemies who envy our success
and kill us because of envy.
Nothing has changed. They hate us no more
than they have for decades.
Purl Gurl
A few weeks back, big soccer game down in
Mexico. Towards the end of the game the
audience, tens of thousands of Mexicans,
began chanting,
"Osama! Osama! Osama!"
President Vincente Fox continues to send
his economic refugees here, continues to
demand more rights for illegal aliens in
our country, and continues to delight in
the billions of American dollars flowing
into his hands, from our hands.
Such hypocrisy, such hatred. They delight
in having our money. They delight over the
death of our innocents.
Rather interesting this stadium event,
this chanting by the Mexicans, never
made the news. Maybe this is a result
of Bush planning a sleep over with Fox
right after that event?
Nothing has changed. There is no greater
hatred of us; this hatred remains constant
and could not be greater.
Purl Gurl
My limit on poltics above...
I do know the reason "the third world" hates us. It has a lot to do with the history of colonialism they have yet to recover from.The fact that we are not/never were a colonial power doesn't matter to them cuz they are uneducated. The petty warlords that run them are diverting the frustration/anger from themselves to US.
Most of the time we send aid to one of these countries the warlords take control of the shipments and use them themselves---lack of followthru on our part.
A lot of americans are also angry at the wealthy in this country. But they don't commit suicide bombings-------
The suicide bombing issue is strictly a religious phenomena---we are not going to fix the problem ezly---as a matter of fact fixing this problem is going to require direct actions that are CONTRARY to our basic principles----not easy but necessary---live and let die---sadly i see no other way--the hard part is this--how do you avoid becoming the thing you are fighting?
Way back, worst which would happen is
Buddhist monks would immolate themselves,
set fire to themselves, to protest whatever.
That was once horrifying. Today, that would
be a welcomed relief although grotesque.
Wealthy in this country, perhaps not as
many as you think. Here in California,
wtih a population of seventeen-million
or so, there are only twenty-five-thousand
people earning a million or more per year.
Guess what? That small percentage of people
pay twenty-five percent of all tax revenue.
Purl Gurl
It's like the markets--just becasue you pay a lot for something don't make it good-----
We obviously have had some problems maintaining good relationships with our "friends"(Manuel and Saddam were once our "friends")---
We have risked losing some good friends by weakening the UN----I am not a proponent of The New World Order--but security is only going to be had by working together. Even within our OWN government we have had SERIOUS problems trying to coordinate our OWN agencies intel---sibling rivalry destroys the family--again
ISRAEL---yes that does seem to be at the core of the issues---I have never understood why Israelis (or any other religious peoples) NEED to live in/around palestine---The US has shown itself to be-- at the very least --THE MOST-- welcoming place in the world for the Hebrews. This is not a criticism--it is a question that probly has no answer that i will comprehend----cuz the Muslims and the Christians also seem to be focused on this tiny piece of less than fertile real estate.Sad--
in the end it seems MAYBE we are all just fighting over the name of god----------------a word---
I feel we have strenghtened the U.N. when the U.N says serious consequences but the dictator doesn't think anything will happen because he has side deals with veto holding members of the security council. He feels he has positioned himself to ignore the U.N. which is what happened to the league of nations.
Now people will look at the U.N. and when it threatens consequences they will have to fear these consequences will come even if you have side deals making you billions in the oil for food program.
Keith
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first
$1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program
would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust
Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no
other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a
Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are
getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to
"put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent
"Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could
spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democraticly-controlled House and
Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social
Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking"
deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of
the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants
moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social
Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the
original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that
the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election
year!
Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay any FICA deductions into the
Social Security Trust Fund, and, of course, they do not collect
annuities from it.
You see, such tiny Social Security benefit annuities were not suitable
for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should
have a "special plan" for themselves. So, many years ago they simply
created and voted in their own benefit plan, commonly referred to as the
"Golden Fleece Retirement Plan." In more recent years, only one
Congressman (Ron Paul, R-TX) has felt the need to change it. After all,
it is a great "plan."
For all practical purposes their "plan" works like this:
When they retire (even after serving only ONE day in the Congress), they
continue to draw their full salary until they die. However, their
salaries continue to increase each year, for cost-of-living adjustments
(COLA).
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives
may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred
Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last
years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for
each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I
pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan
come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
>From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have
involuntarily paid) into, -- every payday until we retire (which amount
is matched by our employer) -- we can expect to get an average of $1,000
per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to
collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1)
month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!
The fraud doesn't stop there. There are many thousands of hard-working
Americans who previously worked in private industry, paying the full
FICA amounts into the Program for the "agreed-upon" 40-quarters. The
workers then entered Federal Service, worked for many additional years,
while paying into the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Fund.
These workers finally retired, expecting to receive the "agreed-upon"
annuities from each of the two Programs (FICA and CSRS) under which they
had been employed during the decades of their faithful service.
However, in the meantime, the Democrats, having gutted the Social
Security Trust Fund into insolvancy by their annual thefts to fund
various "Pork-Barrel" projects in their own States' Congressional
Districts, decided to also "access" the solvent CSRS Trust Fund! The
Democrats invented a term to incite envy against these CSRS retirees,
calling it "double-dipping." The Democrats then passed laws to steal
2/3 of these workers' Social Security annuities, and called it the
"Offset" Provision.
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made:
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from
under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security
plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they
would fix it!
Both Bush and Kerry came to visit, came
to chat with me. Lots of interesting
but confusing conversation ranging from
nuclear disarmament, to cats, and to
favorite clothes to wear.
Bush told me he misses wearing Levi jeans
but has to dress to impress.
Kerry told me he dislikes suits and will
wear what he likes.
Kerry will win this presidential election
based on my conversations with those two.
Purl
But sadam was asked to follow the rules after breaking them for so many years. He was asked to come clean or face serious consequences. He did not come clean, Hans Blix even said that. For not coming clean and our wondering why someone would lie and try to hide things, we went in.
It was his choice he knew the rules.He had thumbed his nose at the U.N for many years.
Now other dictators will have to think twice before not following U.N. imposed sanctions.
Keith
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Possibly---we may have strengthened it in the long---but---
the UN inspectors themselves say that there is no strong evidence to support the assertion that Saddam had WMD--the only hard evidence as i recall was whether or not the rocket engines for Sadams missiles--(which were unassembled) had enough range to reach Israel---they were the only non-compliant ordinance (that has been made public) immediately prior to the war and they were non-compliant by a very narrow margin(less than 100 miles over allowance)
these missile that were unassembled are also PROVEN to be very unreliable--
what will we do if the WHOLE rest of the UN says--DISARM now?---i will be loading my rifles-----
i say that in particular because my European acquiantances at the Universities i have lived in ALL seemed to think i am a criminal because i own firearms---
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 24, 2004).]
Long way from dictator to personal firearm use, another one they hate-death penalty.
If the wold's against us, I'm loading mine too.
keith
Now that we know the answer, the question is more valid. His fault for trying to be sneaky. Hind site is 20/20
If I use my rifle wrongly, attack my neighbors I will loose the use of my weapon. Saddam worried others with his weapons.
Intel only works effectively thru cooperation--INTERNATIONAL cooperation-----that seems to be a t low point right now---HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmm
despite the rhetoric from what I gather this is the most cooperation our nations have ever witnessed.
today two threats were stopped by OBSERVANT people-----one was a bomb planted on the rails in France going to Switzerland--the other was a Palestiinian suicide bomber in Israel spotted by someone and disarmed---this is what i meant when I said EVERYBODY working together and being observant will be the key to stopping the threat---
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 24, 2004).]
Terrorists will use any excuse. Spain- because you helped in Irag.
France is a target, they didn't want the war, are they spared, NO. Terrorists will find some other reason to kill innocent people.
time to start huntin'em down.
Here is my thought.
Since terrorism is my #1 concern for this country, when I vote, I will ask myself who would binladen vote for and then I'll vote the opposite way.
Keith
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
Its just any excuse why bali, oh australians go there and its owned by a non-muslim.time to start huntin'em down.
Bali is in Indonesia which is very muslim along with micronesia, malaysia, south philipines, abu saif? if that is how it's spelled is the far east version of Al Queda.
These are probably the most ruthless, organized and hardest to kill because there are hundreds of little Island's and thick jungles for them to hide.
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
g-man,Here is my thought.
Since terrorism is my #1 concern for this country, when I vote, I will ask myself who would binladen vote for and then I'll vote the opposite way.
Keith
THAT is why i started this thread--OSAMA has now got you tooo---he stole a significant portion of our FREEDOM
NEITHER candidate is going to be weak on terrorism--PERIOD---i am not-- you are not--NOBODY IS----vote your conscience- vote the issues on economics-vote social issues---KERRY KILLED people with his own gun--
I am a REPUBLICAN-----I grew up inside the 495/95 beltway around DC
i am not pressing anybody to vote either way---------
i am encouraging the POLITICAL debate AWAY from terrorism cuz that's what the TERRORISTS WANT
All of the political spin aside--she said that she appreciated Dick Clark's frankness and in particular she said that she
APRPRECIATED THE FACT THAT HE ADMITTED HE FAILED US AND THAT HE IS SORRY---
first step to fixing a problem----
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 25, 2004).]
I don't think they will fight terrorism the same, I didn't see clinton fight it at all 3 cruise missles after all the men killed in Africk, the cole etc.. I think Bush would have struck back harder than clinton. I don't buy clintons argument that the people wouldn;t have wanted war. If he said to the people this man has american blood on his hands we would've gave him permission to hunt him down no matter what he and moncia were doing.
Different world after 9/11 though but, I find Kerry weak on everthing here in MA. whether its war, taxes he wants more, running this state is a joke, check out the billions of extra cash spent on the big dig. Billions of lost money.
Hope your trading better than I
keith
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
THAT is why i started this thread--OSAMA has now got you tooo---he stole a significant portion of our FREEDOMNEITHER candidate is going to be weak on terrorism--PERIOD---i am not-- you are not--NOBODY IS----vote your conscience- vote the issues on economics-vote social issues---KERRY KILLED people with his own gun--
I am a REPUBLICAN-----I grew up inside the 495/95 beltway around DC
i am not pressing anybody to vote either way---------
i am encouraging the POLITICAL debate AWAY from terrorism cuz that's what the TERRORISTS WANT
i am obviously mad about Bush's outrageous spending--i think the war in Iraq was a little too personal--but a lot of terrorists have come to Iraq to fight us there instead of slipping into the states---not easy to decide what is right---
Clinton had no way to send ground troops into Osama's playground without starting a big State Dept mess-----they could not send a cruise missile to "hover" waiting for him to show up--cruise missiles take 6 hours to arrive---intel was not that timely--the NEW, ARMED predator can hang around on site and it works-- has been proven in the feild------this is GOOD
How can you make in informed decision on Kerry, You can't listen to what he says he will vote differently. I have to look at his record here, I guess you could just listen to his speeches but, I wouldn't.
Kerry hasn't been quiet. The whole democratic debate centered on trashing Bush not each other which is fairly unusual. That was a lot of press time for just one side. Now in the last 2/3 weeks bush has been firing back. While rising ever so slightly in the poles.
I don't like the spending either, but I love my tax breaks and would like more. I also am not a fan of his more religous based policies.
Keith
MUUUUUAAAAHHHH
there was guy runnin around here during the IBZT run who's signature was
"there's nothing more fun than a subpenny run"
or something like that---better than drugs----at least i hear it is--LOL
(better than drugs, Dark side of the moon,)
g-man what were you doing in the 70's??????????????????????????????
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
on fire? on fire? as PG would sayMUUUUUAAAAHHHH
there was guy runnin around here during the IBZT run who's signature was
"there's nothing more fun than a subpenny run"
or something like that---better than drugs----at least i hear it is--LOL
guess how long we will be hearing about WNMI?---if it goes to .25$ i won't be surprised--that means the echoes will last a year---LOL
unless it does a real nose dive at the end--which I doubt
maybe Bush will consider this idea too?----I hope?
Did Kerry sign on to NAFTA that he complains about. Yes he did.
Saw Bush's convoy last night downtown had protesters for and against running around. Mostly local college kids.
keith
iteration---LOL
I hope BUSH was listening--cuz these are the ISSUES i care about--
terrorism is not an issue to vote on-IMO
this is the same basic issue group that Bush SR LOST ON_-----
To joke about not finding any WMD in Iraq is an outrage!! Soldiers are losing lives almost daily and are President is joking about the MAIN issue we went to war about.
I know BUSH doesn't write his speeches(not smart enough) but he should of known this would of caused an uproar! Sometimes I wonder if he even thinks of all the people dead because of his decision to go to Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
Did anyone see Bush's joke about WMD?To joke about not finding any WMD in Iraq is an outrage!! Soldiers are losing lives almost daily and are President is joking about the MAIN issue we went to war about.
I know BUSH doesn't write his speeches(not smart enough) but he should of known this would of caused an uproar! Sometimes I wonder if he even thinks of all the people dead because of his decision to go to Iraq.
The battle in Irag was not waged for the sole purpose of finding WMD's. If it were I suspect it would have been named Operation get them WMD's. We fought and some died to free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator. We fought and some died to protect us from the threat of Saddam giving or selling WMD's or WMD technology to terrorists. We fought and some died to centralize the war on terror away from your home. The joke was made as a jab at all the whining liberals who think they were deceived into war. Funny that you imply President bush is a moron, yet I am sure you also whine that you were tricked into a war by him. If he's a moron and he tricked you, then what does that make you? Before you come back and tell me the war was illegal I will post resolution 1441 for you to read.
Following is the text of the resolution:
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
o All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
o Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
o UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by reCommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[This message has been edited by DiQuiRiesco (edited March 27, 2004).]
As a capitalist--i believe in economic actions to achieve your goals---impatience is expensive as the MM's will teach you EVERY few minutes.-
i do not question it---but here is a very good legal question that IS going to be tested very soon
There is a VERY LARGE number of troops that are coming close to their re-enlistment date----VERY LARGE---
in time of war they have no right to refuse enlistment---
do you feel it is correct to hold them to THAT in this war?
somebody is being charged with desertion RIGHT NOW for refusing to re-enlist---it will become a huge problem soon--
i joined while we had hostages in IRAN---it was long time ago and a very different military then--but i found out after being in awhile that there are a lot of things that you don't know til you are in--this is just one---
THINGS I REALLY LIKE ABOUT FEARLESS LEADER
He appears to be colorblind--
his staff is a GREAT reflection of the cultural diversity in this country---
He has conviction---i deeply respect that in anybody--even if i hate their guts--LOL
i don't hate fearless leader.
he has done good job picking up the peices--literally--very few people are aware just how bad the FINANCIAL world was crippled on 9-11 that is a good thing
This is just a short list there are more----
i started this thread in the hope that BOTH of the campaigns would not weaken our country with BAD politics---i continue to hope that
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited March 27, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Bart (edited March 27, 2004).]
The Democoratic presidential candidate is saying he will cut corporate taxes.
The Republican presidential candidate is being praised for his political correctness.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the question of the legality of the war WILL become an issue sooni do not question it---but here is a very good legal question that IS going to be tested very soon
There is a VERY LARGE number of troops that are coming close to their re-enlistment date----VERY LARGE---
in time of war they have no right to refuse enlistment---
do you feel it is correct to hold them to THAT in this war?
somebody is being charged with desertion RIGHT NOW for refusing to re-enlist---it will become a huge problem soon--i joined while we had hostages in IRAN---it was long time ago and a very different military then--but i found out after being in awhile that there are a lot of things that you don't know til you are in--this is just one---
Glassman, the question of legality has been an issue since we sent inspectors back in to verify COMPLIANCE. The thing to note is that the world community (not just evil bush) knew saddam had WMD's. The inspectors were there to verify that saddam was and would comply with rules he had already agreed to. The consequences for non compliance were war and his removal from power. The question should be, did he comply. Blix said he was not complying, he was up to his old games. The natural result from his noncompliance is the insertion of our collective foot up his singular ass.
The question about re-enlistment during war time is a bit of a stretch. The fact that you say "this war" is quite telling of your position. You say you were in the millitary during the iran days, ok I was in the millitary during the bosnia/panama/kosovo/ somolia/ congo days. Yes one of the things your recuiter does not tell is that you are infact not signing up for four years of service. You are signing up for four years of active and four years of inactive duty. Meaning they can call you back after your discharge. They can also deny your discharge depending on the needs of the nation. I am sorry that some of the soldier's feelings were hurt because they can't refuse re-enlistment as you put it. My discharge date was pushed back as was my brother's, neither one of us ran to CNN telling tales of a mean spirited millitary. THIS IS WAR...WE ARE AT WAR, THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW.
Just a reminder 1st Iraq war we entered a cease fire agreement with sadam. We would cease fire if he would follow UN instructions. He failed on many occasions.
In my book if You break the terms of a cease fire then the war aint over!
Keith
[This message has been edited by GREGDOGG (edited March 27, 2004).]
these legal issues are going to be brought out --not my doing--OK?
i am just trying to see the future-----relax----
the soldier in question is National Guard--i didn't join that --so i don't know how it works---I joined while we had hostages in IRAN and was 20--no wife and family- the Natl Guard guys are very different--i am not familiar with their culture at all-----
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Calm down DQR--- i am trying to open deliberate communications here--I are a REPUBLICAN--OK--these legal issues are going to be brought out --not my doing--OK?
i am just trying to see the future-----relax----
the soldier in question is National Guard--i didn't join that --so i don't know how it works---I joined while we had hostages in IRAN and was 20--no wife and family- the Natl Guard guys are very different--i am not familiar with their culture at all-----
Same rules for the national gaurd as far as wartime re-enlistment goes. You are right Glassman, all these things will be brought up at some point by an emotional yet still annoyingly perky Katy Curic, or Larry King. The fact of the matter is that logic and precedent areon the side of the millitary and this administration. These legality issues are nothing more than evidence that liberals don't understand how to run a country. They haven't the wit required to fight the war on terror. If you try to fight a war while being preoccupied by Private Blinky's desire to go home you will most certainly lose the war. If you claim to be able to create ten million jobs by double taxing companies that operate both here and obroad you will induce a stgnant world economy. Kerry's witless proposal is to start double taxing companies like Microsoft, Heinz, damn near the whole steel industry in the hopes that they will stop out sourcing employment to other countries. It is that very outsourcing that allows everyone of us to buy a computer for less than ten thousand dollars, it is that outsourcing that encourages third world countries to strive towards being free nations concerned with freedom and prosperity. I've heard people say that we have never bombed a country with a Mac Donalds, this is true, but the question is why. Quite simply if we outsource to them or allow american owned business to expand into that country they are much more likely to be a free nation with dreams of cohabitation rather than conquest. The other side of the outsourcing arguement is that we are losing jobs. We are not just losing jobs, we are transitioning into a new job market where fewer people are manufacturers and more are managers or in the service industry. The jist of the liberal's arguement is that americans haven't the ability to make this transition, meaning that most americans are capable of little more than standing on an assembly line for the duration of their working lives. This is obviously false and supremely pessimistic. I am of the opposite opinion, I believe americans can conquer any challenge, we are not limited to mindless physical work, nor do I believe when chips are on the table we want it. When Kerry whines about two million jobs lost I would like to remind him that mine was one of them, and I couldn't be happier about it. I now make money with my mind and have free time to enjoy pursuits that are of my choosing. Was I scared when I was laid off? Yeah a little worried. Did I complain or blame bush? No. What did I do? I entered a new industry. I decided that I needed a source of income that couldn't lay me off, I trade stocks from home. I am capable of change and so is the rest of this great country.
[This message has been edited by DiQuiRiesco (edited March 27, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
We too have benefited from downsizing---going back to school was the BEST thing we ever did and we were able to maintain a healthy family and raise our children while we did it--- but that was also under Clinton too---if we wish to help "uderpriveleged" countries we need to provide them with job opportunities AND reasons to have those jobs--like TV and sports do for us----what do they want to spend money on?
Levis, Coca cola, Hip Hop CD's, Brittany Spears concerts, the list is quite long.
The question is, do we ship all of these items to other countries or manufacture them there and transfer the net profit back to the states. Obviously the latter is the better and more profitable choice as we will be both making money and furthering the development of another nation who will now be far less likely to allow control by a dictator.
[This message has been edited by DiQuiRiesco (edited March 27, 2004).]
I am not from this state-and will not be here for much longer--this state is--and has been in BIG trouble--NE is running out of money to pay state employees(even JUDGES) and has been firing them and not replacing those lost to attrition---
IOWA has now suspended the 24/7 State Trooper Patrols across the State--they can't afford to pay the cost of patrolling the roads 24/7-- they are still there --but--- the patrol mans-hours are now below the level of the 1960's--
Once again I ask--what good is it to be rich if you are surrounded by slums?
The good news is that we now have 68% of Americans as homeowners. That will hopefully increase interest in maintaining the infrastructure.
Corporations are US---let's come up with a better plan----
Also why should Israel be the only Middle East country allowed to have chemical weapons?
If your going to make the case we went to war to protect us from Saddam and free the Iraqi people than we better invade North Korea, Iran, and Syria! North Korea is worse than Iraq! They have starving people and military camps. They also HAVE a nuclear program which Iraq DID NOT have.
The middle east is worse off now then it was before. More Arabs hate us. Now more muslims are calling for a Jihad against the US. People cannot start having pre-emptive wars. The US has already started it so what is keeping countries from invading one another! Now the Pakistan government is on the brink of being over thrown. If this happens the US might try to stop this! If this happens it will be a total disaster.
People DO NOT hate America because of our Freedom!. People hate us because we try to FORCE our way of living on other people. In recent pollong the majority of people OUTSIDE the United State feel that the US is the #1 threat to world peace.
I feel that an army should NOT invade another country unless they are attacked first. The US has a DEFENSE Department not an OFFENSE Department. Our military is stretched thin right now. If North Korea decided to do something we do not have enough resources to handle all of these problems.
Bush probably knows that, and that's why he's backing down... JMUO...
quote:
Originally posted by GREGDOGG:
I'm not up to date on my U.S. politics, but if the U.S.A. ever went to war with Isreal you guys would take some HEAVY casualties...Bush probably knows that, and that's why he's backing down... JMUO...
Bush is not backing down from Israel. Israel is THE ONLY mideast democracy and one of our strongest allies. Israel has been the victim of terrorism for countless years. Do any of you sincerely suggest we do not allow them to defend themselves?
I have news for you guys, The world is not made of flowers and clovers. There is real evil out there and we are in the midst of a war with it. If that reality is too harsh then I suggest another planet as the grass is always greener.
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
The only time "Palestine" was ruled by "Palestinians" or any people from the Arabian Peninsula was briefly around 635 A.D.
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 A.D. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years...," the Muslim chairman of the Syrian Delegation attested in his remarks to the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919.
"Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel... " Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
[/B]
Again, just my uneducated canadian opinion.
I don't have any proof, I only know what I see on the news on my 2 free channels of cable. Yes it's color...colour in U.S. english.
And I might be parroting but I usually don't get into political conversations with other Canadians, most of us just float around in a daze.....
I think popular Canadian sentiment is that most people are just happy we aren't getting bombed, and are just thankful that we are somewhat "protected" by the USA.
But we don't agree with killing the inocent to get the guilty.
With all the camera's and long range missiles you guys should be able to bolw those guys up without even blinking.
Look at Isreal, they use those Apachi helicopters and put missiles in the laps of wheelchaired polititions....
Give me a gun, an Apachi helicopter and 6 months and I'd blow up every number in that deck of cards.
Anyways, I hope Big Brother doesn't come get me for saying that...
You want free trade? Expect free discourse.My biggest problem with globalisation is that the US has some very respectable rules, laws and regulations concerning workers rights, the environment and FREE TRADE. We are sending our business to countries that do not share that with us and the enequities are what make it profitable.
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
How did either Bush profit from any war? If you are going to make assertions of this nature I think you should provide proof, or are you parroting popular canadian sentiment? I lived in Canada for ten years and was quite aware of the negative view Canadians have of their big brother, I suppose it is only natural.
DQR ---can you say H A L I B U R T O N?
DQR, I enjoyed the political discusion.