Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 87
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by Toby
    The economy and stock market are con games in the most fundamental sense of the phrase.
    Damn! and I wonder why my IRA value keeps going down....
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Damn! and I wonder why my IRA value keeps going down....
    Then get out there and start building some confidence!
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #63  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The think with mnost Americans is that they thing their goverment is too good to do anything wrong.
    Nope, not at all. Trust me on this one.


    Many believe that President Clinton sent tomahawk missiles in Sudan and Afghanistan a few years back to get Americans mind off the Lewinsky scandal.
    [friendly humor break]Maybe it was to get Hilary's mind off the Lewinsky scandal[/friendly humor break]
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Then get out there and start building some confidence!
    Heck no!! I talked to the broker recently and said something to the effect that I *liked* buying cheap shares (theory being that the market will rebound before I retire in 30 years) and that this is how to make money on the market. He said he wished he could take me around to talk to clients with him...
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Heck no!! I talked to the broker recently and said something to the effect that I *liked* buying cheap shares (theory being that the market will rebound before I retire in 30 years) and that this is how to make money on the market. He said he wished he could take me around to talk to clients with him...
    heheh...yeah, I try not to be too overt in my like for getting maximum leverage for my money while I'm young. Considering that my Dad is constantly complaining about how he's going to actually have to work to retirement age now, it just wouldn't be good for familial relations.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by Toby
    heheh...yeah, I try not to be too overt in my like for getting maximum leverage for my money while I'm young. Considering that my Dad is constantly complaining about how he's going to actually have to work to retirement age now, it just wouldn't be good for familial relations.
    Maybe if you would mention how you plan to use your money to make him most comfortable in his "old age" the situation would de-intensify.

    Of course, Toby, you and I are not exactly "young" anymore. (Dang, that hurt to type...)
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Maybe if you would mention how you plan to use your money to make him most comfortable in his "old age" the situation would de-intensify.
    LOL...no, because despite how much he's 'lost', he's still not in bad shape. Nobody that just bought a Harley can complain about money to me.
    Of course, Toby, you and I are not exactly "young" anymore. (Dang, that hurt to type...)
    Speak for yourself. I'm always going to be young. I'll be one of those geezers talking about being '80 years young'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Well, I guess I didn't have to post that. But I am a straight-up kind of guy. This is genuinely how I felt when the war began. But I was very angry then (see my other post in other thread about flaming passions).

    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Yikes! If I had any close friends or relatives over there, as I am certain some members on this board do, I would not be very forgiving of that sentiment.


    As do I.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by yardie
    It is a dangerous precedent for one soverign country to invade another sovereign country. I wonder if you would have felt the same way you do now if Russia or China had invaded Iraq to "free the Iraqi people" instead of the U.S. You can bet that the U.S would be the first to say that Russia or China is violating international law etc. etc.


    Good point yardie!

    In addition I would like to say: It would be a misunderstandig to think France, Germany, and the great majority of other countries opposing this war are against disarming Saddam by force. They just totally against the way the Bush administration handles the situation: breaking international law, treating other nations as idiots, calling the UN "irrelevant", talking and acting like christian fundamentalists (however also not listening to the pope), etc.

    After all, Europe and the international community did participate in the liberation of Kuwait, and no one opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, no? I just think it is frightening to see how the Bush Administration acts. The effect on the arabic world (and not only that part of the world) is devastating.
  10.    #70  
    Originally posted by clulup


    Good point yardie!

    In addition I would like to say: It would be a misunderstandig to think France, Germany, and the great majority of other countries opposing this war are against disarming Saddam by force. They just totally against the way the Bush administration handles the situation: breaking international law, treating other nations as idiots, calling the UN "irrelevant", talking and acting like christian fundamentalists (however also not listening to the pope), etc.

    After all, Europe and the international community did participate in the liberation of Kuwait, and no one opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, no? I just think it is frightening to see how the Bush Administration acts. The effect on the arabic world (and not only that part of the world) is devastating.
    All the statements you just made reinforce my nagging suspicion that one chief reason nations (esp western europe) oppose the US is merely to oppose them and hope it weakens them. As for the Christian fundamentalist bit, do you have any idea how long it has been since Protestants actually cared what the Pope thinks?
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    All the statements you just made reinforce my nagging suspicion that one chief reason nations (esp western europe) oppose the US is merely to oppose them and hope it weakens them. As for the Christian fundamentalist bit, do you have any idea how long it has been since Protestants actually cared what the Pope thinks?
    I think very few European people/governments want to weaken the US. But the problem with the present US government is that
    they are strong enough to "win" a war, but they behave in such an arrogant and thoughtless way that in the end, world peace will be severely damaged, and that also negatively effects Europe and the rest of the world. The US may win a war, but they will never win a peace this way, to the contrary.

    Without behaving so arrogantly and carelessly (e.g. regarding the arabic world), there would not be all those terrorist threats to the US. US support for Israel allows Israeli extremists like Sharon doing just about everything. Are you indeed surprised about suicide bombing? What can you expect from a people treated like Palestinians by Israel in the last years?

    The Bush administration also abuse its power in the economical arena. Look at how the US treat Canada e.g. regarding timber or tomatoes. Free trade? Ha, ha, ha.....

    If things go on like this, the US will be a very powerfull nation, but isolated, scared about terrorist threats, not welcome anywhere, etc....
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I've often seen this allegation, but I've never seen any substance to back it up. Happen to have a reliable link (as opposed to something culled from Google)? In the same show which I previously referenced a Scott Ritter statement, he stated that such allegations were false.
    I'll do some research.. I thought it was generally accepted that the US gave those and other support to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq incident...

    Found a link with lots of info:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
    But I'm sure you'll not accept that... havent done a cross check on the quotes he's using...

    http://www.foreignwire.com/chemical.html
    is mere heresay...

    how about the washington post? that should be a reliable source right?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html

    "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You're missing the point. I was pointing out that the argument that somehow, because a different administration supported Iraq in a different situation, that it is wrong to go after them now. The only thing anyone can ever do is what they think is best. Those perceptions will always change and of course hindsight is perfect. Don't consider that an endorsement of using chemical weapons, it is a broader statement attacking a weak argument.
    I think you kind of missed my point.. I pointed out the irony of things...
    And the way you responded sounded like it like you said it was OK back then... which I disagree with.. yes hindsight is allways 20-20 but giving chemical/bio weapons is never a good thing...even in frontsight (or whatever is the opposite of hindsight )
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14.    #74  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Look at how the US treat Canada e.g. regarding timber or tomatoes. Free trade? Ha, ha, ha.....
    You are exactly right on that. Farm subsidies, steel and lumber tariffs, the list goes on. I maintain that one of the best ways to not only lift the fortunes of the world (the US included) but to increase goodwill, is the spread the benefits of specialization and free trade. Unfortuanately the folks in Washington and Brussels don't seem to realize that. Such short-sightedness is costing the lives of massive numbers of Africans unable to fight their way into protected markets.
  15.    #75  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    I think you kind of missed my point.. I pointed out the irony of things...
    And the way you responded sounded like it like you said it was OK back then... which I disagree with.. yes hindsight is allways 20-20 but giving chemical/bio weapons is never a good thing...even in frontsight (or whatever is the opposite of hindsight )
    I didn't mean to imply it was right. What I meant to imply was that we cannot allow that to keep us from doing what is right today.
  16. #76  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I'll do some research.. I thought it was generally accepted that the US gave those and other support to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq incident...
    The problem is that 'support' doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Ritter's claims were that this support was advisory at best.
    how about the washington post? that should be a reliable source right?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html

    "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
    Regardless of their reliability, I think that quote in and of itself casts doubts on what would have transpired. Who did they "authorize the sale" from and for what purposes. Even the quote admits that the items had both military and civilian purposes. But if you ask me, even _if_ we provided them to him explicitly for military purposes (which the article seems to refute), that's the most justification that anyone should need for why we need to take him and the weapons out.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #77  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    ...even in frontsight (or whatever is the opposite of hindsight )
    Foresight.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    [...] how about the washington post? that should be a reliable source right?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html [...]
    OK, just finished reading the complete article, and I think it shows that the official government support of Saddam was tenuous at best (turning a blind eye to US-based multinationals selling 'dual-use' items which even the article states were on a much smaller scale than French and German companies' similar business dealings), and ultimately against our better judgement. I think the last couple paragraphs sum it up nicely.

    The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

    "Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by Toby
    OK, just finished reading the complete article, and I think it shows that the official government support of Saddam was tenuous at best (turning a blind eye to US-based multinationals selling 'dual-use' items which even the article states were on a much smaller scale than French and German companies' similar business dealings), and ultimately against our better judgement. I think the last couple paragraphs sum it up nicely.

    Do you have anything to back up that statement about the french and germans selling (parts for) chemical and biological weapons to Iraq?

    Since the article is in a US paper it doesn't surprize me they gave it that twist at the end... (not that I blame them for doing that.. I guess everybody would try to give such a thing a more positive ending...)

    Fact of the matter stays that delivering materials that can be used for chemical/bio warfare to a country that is known for using it is at least a dubious thing to do... (that also applies to Germany and france if they did)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I didn't mean to imply it was right. What I meant to imply was that we cannot allow that to keep us from doing what is right today.
    OK, I get you, just looked like you didnt get my point...

    BTW the general opinion on a unilateral attack is not that it is the right thing.. but that is another discussion...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions