quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner:
Did you also know that the reason we don't make flu vaccine in this country is due to a 5 million dollar lawsuit brought by a man who contracted the flu after having the shot. Did you also know who this man's attorney was?? None other than a young JOHN EDWARDS. And John Kerry has the outright NERVE to Blame Bush UNREAL

---

Amen to that. a fox smells its own hole first! How can those who are part of the problem be accusers? They can't. It is like a wolf trying to blend in with the sheep. =) I must admit their costume seems to be effectivley working.

And there history in the senate (or lack of) further backs up that they have no real concern for their elected offices, at least not thus far. But who knows, maybe history will prove them wrong? It seems that many americans are willing to take a chanceon the bigest longshot of all time.

i might remind you that i know MUCH MORE than a little bit about vaccines and biz...
i have a copy of mdd on my desk right now that i am reading in between swatting flies...LOL

you guys are the reason i won't vote GOP this time cuz there are just too many LIES.... and you guys aren't even smart enough to tell the difference..

tort reform will just be a GREEN light for corporate america to do whatever it wants....
and i am an investor....

seems we used to use MERCURY in our vaccines as a preservative...
sadly it is used in tooth FILLINGS as well...
so the dentists want tort reform too..
you guys are just PROVING you can't find the truth..are you investors?

Chiron is an AMERICAN Co. based in Caliornia(which is barely still USA..LOL)

any article where you see someone saying Foreign supplier( like Bush himself did in the last debate) just doesn't have the facts...

note the date on this one...hmmmmm

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2003/1210-pr.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner:
Did you also know that the reason we don't make flu vaccine in this country is due to a 5 million dollar lawsuit brought by a man who contracted the flu after having the shot. Did you also know who this man's attorney was?? None other than a young JOHN EDWARDS. And John Kerry has the outright NERVE to Blame Bush UNREAL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner:
Well lets see here first you deny Edwards did this then you say Chiron the company he sued isnt the only one in the U.S. Now you being the smart investor should know about trends and understand if one vaccine maker gets nailed with a large lawsuit the others will react. You seem to have a reaction for anything people say you seem to post more than anyone did you know there is more to life than this message board?

---

Sarge, are you an investor? what brings you here????

the vaccine BIZ is not stifled from liability issues...THATS A LIE!!!!!and Cheney told it...

they have to use one egg to produce 4 to 5 vaccines....each egg has to be prepped, injected and kept at a constant temp, and kept VERY VERY clean....
the lost batch? it got infected by a bacteria.....
in other words its expensive, hard, labor intensive work .....and it doesn't pay well...

the reason they don't make more vaccines is cuz they never know how many they will sell...

now, here's where it get's tricky... cuz one of the MAIN reasons they don't know how many will sell is cuz they don't know how bad the flu season will be...

ALSO, they don't even know for sure WHICH flu strain to make the vaccine for...

i hate to tell you this, but it's kind of a feel-good vaccine...

is that a good answer?

i dont WANT to vote for Kerry ....i HAVE to...

remember when Clinton pulled the gun ban,
he had ALL Dems behind him(house and senate) that was dangerous too...
just as dangerous as leaving all GOP in charge..it's that simple..i seek balance,OK?

do you really want to see our whole system of government become JUST LIKE the military?

that's what will happen...it will only take(IMO) 3 more years of this because of how fast we get things done in the puterage

i really am not a bleeding heart...
but i do REALLY LIKE people...as long as they don't disagree with me....LOL

you have to admit the Saudis are raking it in right now..and they appear to be funding the insurgency in Iraq to keep them off-line...
the Saudis are not our friends..

i don't think Kerry will be able to fix the problem overnite either...
we NEED IRAQ OIL pumping ASAP....
Bush isn't getting that done either tho, is he?

different source here...

Congressman Joseph Crowley: House Must Withhold Funding from Two-Faced Saudi Arabia
Supports Amendment Adding Saudi Arabia to List of Terror Supporting Nations

Congressman Joseph Crowley (NY-07) was on the House floor to speak in support of an amendment offered by Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY-09) to prohibit any funds in H.R. 3288, Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2004 from being used for Ex-Im Bank programs or other loans for Saudi Arabia. Congressman Weiner's amendment added Saudi Arabia to a list that included Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran and Syria. The amendment failed to pass the House by a vote of 233 to 193.

more sources...
U.S. officials said terrorists from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, where a U.S. contractor also was killed recently, have used two Arabic language Web sites. One is Kuwaiti.com, and the other is called Symphoniyat Loli Nagham al-Mawaqi al-Arabiyah. A third site that has been used in the past by Islamists is a British portal to Lycos.

the war isn't nearly as simple as Bush seemed to think it would be...
i know, alot of people are making excuses, but the evidence is clear.....
we did NOT plan for an insurgency of this proportion...PERIOD...and the reason is cuz the President only listened to who he wanted to....

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ehrenfeld200404140848.asp

The increasing violence in Iraq, supported by foreign insurgencies from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, will be as difficult to control as the ongoing terror activities by the Palestinians. As long as tens of millions of dollars in funding from Iran continue to fuel the thousands of unemployed and disenfranchised that have joined al-Sadr's Shiite militia, and as long as tens of millions will continue to flow from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian terror organizations, terrorism will continue.
Despite the Saudi crackdown on dissidents in the Kingdom and their claims that they are taking steps to stop both terrorism and terrorist funding, and even despite Condoleezza Rice's recent praise of the Saudi Kingdom's cooperation in the war on terrorism, Saudi money continue to fuel terrorist activities against the U.S. and Israel.

we have installed a bunch of Iraqi EX-patriates in the interim government...the people of Iraq don't really care for that...

guerrilla warfare isn't about capturing ground..it's about capturing hearts and minds.....

Iraq oil future not bright despite early high hopes

Jim Krane
Associated Press
Oct. 24, 2004 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD - It was supposed to be the linchpin of Iraq's bright future: oil, and plenty of it, pooled in great reservoirs below the surface of this tormented land.

But about 250 guerrilla attacks have blown apart pipelines and other oil infrastructure, squandering between $7 billion and $12 billion in potential export revenue. Experts say the losses, as much as $490 for each of the 26 million Iraqis, have hamstrung Iraq's development.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1024lostoil24.html

March 28, 2003, 10:44PM

U.S. says oil in Iraq to pay for rebuilding
By MIKE ALLEN and PETER BEHR
Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The White House projected Friday that postwar Iraq will not require long-term U.S. aid, in part because of oil reserves that the Bush administration contends will offset many of the costs of reconstruction.

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and Budget. ADVERTISEMENT

The conclusion was aimed at reassuring lawmakers who have questioned whether the $74.7 billion Bush has requested in war-related funding would come anywhere close to the true costs. Democratic officials said the commitment appears to be wildly optimistic, and said it will draw new skepticism to administration war plans as Bush's request is debated over the next two weeks.

"At every step of the way, the administration has sought to downplay the true costs of this war," a Senate Democratic leadership aide said. "This is just another example. Oil won't cover it."

OMB Director Mitchell Daniels told reporters at a breakfast that Iraq's oil and natural gas reserves have been underperforming under Saddam Hussein but still have been generating billions of dollars for Hussein. Daniels, noting the regime assets that the United States has moved to seize, said the resources for Iraq to help fund its own reconstruction "are abundant and a lot of people have simply not noticed yet."

"Iraq has all the elements to be become a successful country once again," Daniels said. "You're not starting from scratch, which was pretty much the case in Afghanistan. I think people have made too much of a loose mental transfer from one experience to the other."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842094

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

there is sooooo much evidence that these guys just plain screwed up i can spend ALL night posting it...

but they aren't doing enough to clean up their own house, and we aren't putting enough pressure on them to do it..IMO

i have NO IDEA if Kerry has a WORKABLE plan to do that either..he mentioned it, but that's all i have heard....

the Saudi's killed the ring-leader supposedly, but very little follow-up comes up on my searches...
one would assume that the rest of the cell got interrogated, but...

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
FO that's ex-post facto.....
i have gone intot he White House Archives and READ READ READ..they portrayed this campaign as one that would pay for itself quickly....

[b]

Iraq oil future not bright despite early high hopes

Jim Krane
Associated Press
Oct. 24, 2004 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD - It was supposed to be the linchpin of Iraq's bright future: oil, and plenty of it, pooled in great reservoirs below the surface of this tormented land.

But about 250 guerrilla attacks have blown apart pipelines and other oil infrastructure, squandering between $7 billion and $12 billion in potential export revenue. Experts say the losses, as much as $490 for each of the 26 million Iraqis, have hamstrung Iraq's development.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1024lostoil24.html

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 26, 2004).][/B]

---

Much like a citizen dependent on the country, you seem to want things with no wait. The US had the Oil productions up to prewar levels one month after sadaam was taken out, Fact (partially possible because of the condition sadam ran them, bubblegum and scotch tape). Insurgents attacked interupting the production, unfortunate fact. Will the insurgents actualyl suceed, ... It is probably the most unlikely event. Will the Iraqi peoples oil bring them money, Yes. It will bring them money, and it will happen (just not in one day like those who seek to be dependent on others want). I can not understand how people think this should be a "one day event" This is not a Tennis match. We are talking about revamping an entire country...
from the quote in your post:

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure. "
...Well, he gave his figure, then stated that it would be up to Gen. Franks. I thought that is exactly what the President was doing, following the suggestions of people who are actually invloved in the war itself. Are you suggesting that the country should follow the suggestion of that one person? That is insame. You follow the recomentdations of those in the feild, and you take all suggestions into consideration. That is simply how it works, I do not see how the remaarks of one person who was obviously not in the position to make the decision for the country are taken as fact? Do you think we would have lost any less servicemen if there were more of our troops there? Again, I have been one of the fortunate generation, and have been given the choice I chose education, so I am privy to much of the military and how it functions. I still can not see how anyone can try to draw conclusions as to how this would have worked out? Is it a lack of faith in the troops on the ground? It certainly can not be looked at like the president is directly responsible for this. He did what any good leader would do, took under advisment the sugguestions based on the knowledge of all the people who are in the position to make a comment. But I guess it all comes down to opinion, and how you want to see it.