Politics, Politics, Politics

[PwettyPony]

1) Chemical weapons do fall under the WMD umbrella.
2) Because those weapons weren't found doesn't mean they didn't exist. There was art looted during WWII that has never been recovered, does that mean it didn't exist. Furthermore, if the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons, as the Chicago Tribune article suggests, where do you think they got it from? It very well could be that they have scientists on their payroll, but it's just as likely that they acquired those weapons from Syrian government stockpiles or from stockpiles smuggled in from Iraq.
3) That body count website counts all casualties in Iraq, regardless of who inflicted them; your statements have been made in a way that suggests that ALL of these casualties have been caused by the US, which is intellectually dishonest at best.

When you say "name another country that has killed that many", are you talking right now as we speak or are you talking historically, because if it's the latter, we could be here all day. And while we're talking Cambodia/Kampuchea, why don't you look up the body count from the Pol Pot regime and the resulting invasion by Vietnam in the late 1970's.
4) And if you look closely at your Chicago Tribune article, there is an article dated one day after your article where the UN backpedals from the assertions made in that article.
5) If you're going to buttress your argument with news articles, the World Socialist Web Site isn't what any rational person would call a neutral source, especially when it refers to NATO as "western imperialists". I thought I was reading Lenin or Stalin era Soviet propaganda, and lest anybody thinks that it isn't, the link to the Leon Trotsky document on the right side of the page is confirmation.

1. Excuse me then, didnt realize they were, however Im pretty sure they meant the more "harder ones" as otherwise this whole "never found any xyz" would never have started.

2. Oh, okay. well. The Easter Bunny exists after all then, we havent found him yet, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
As long as there is no proof, it doesnt exist.

Its clear that they got it from the Governments army bases. Stolen stockpiles, and also chemical weapons from Lybia because the NATO and US' only interest was to ******* Gaddafi and the plans he had for Africa(see gold dinar).
While we're at the part of Terrorists using Other peoples weapons, Im pretty sure that currently ISIS is using US weaponry and has a lot of soldiers that are US trained.

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.
In Lybias case, it is the NATOs fault that Lybia is in the state it is in currently(which is horrible). I still dont get why the whole infrastructure was bombed and why a new banking system had to be installed the second the "revolution" started, but okay.

One might think that the issue wasnt Gaddafi but the potential economical and therefore political power his country would have had in the future. The Gold Dinar would have given the dollar a run for its money worth.


Otherwise the US would have attacked North Korea ages ago, but they havent.
The only difference between Iraq/Lybia/Syria/etc is that they have lots of oil and North Korea does not.
Otherwise I am open to hearing other explanations why North Korea isnt being attacked, militarily they should be far behind.


4. Could be, I honestly barely read into that article and Ive never been on that site before, I simply looked for another site that said the same, as I dont remember what site I originally read it from as I dont bookmark such things.

5. And this is a point I disagree with. The Propaganda BS that you read on a lot of official news sites is extreme. So why not check out the other side.
I actually dont use the site I linked, I just simply googled for the article.
I usually go to more "neutral" sites, TheGuardian probably being my favorite one.

Either way, this is why I called the Bush thing the Bush regime, Syrias government for example is being called the Assad Regime.
Every enemy of the US/Nato is always called a regime to give it an evil tone, so when a site calls the US/Nato the "western imperials" I dont bat an eye because that is the exact treatment the US/Nato is giving the rest of the world that doesnt agree with them.

 

[shocked]

1. Excuse me then, didnt realize they were, however Im pretty sure they meant the more "harder ones" as otherwise this whole "never found any xyz" would never have started.

2. Oh, okay. well. The Easter Bunny exists after all then, we havent found him yet, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
As long as there is no proof, it doesnt exist.

Its clear that they got it from the Governments army bases. Stolen stockpiles, and also chemical weapons from Lybia because the NATO and US' only interest was to ******* Gaddafi and the plans he had for Africa(see gold dinar).
While we're at the part of Terrorists using Other peoples weapons, Im pretty sure that currently ISIS is using US weaponry and has a lot of soldiers that are US trained.

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.
In Lybias case, it is the NATOs fault that Lybia is in the state it is in currently(which is horrible). I still dont get why the whole infrastructure was bombed and why a new banking system had to be installed the second the "revolution" started, but okay.

One might think that the issue wasnt Gaddafi but the potential economical and therefore political power his country would have had in the future. The Gold Dinar would have given the dollar a run for its money worth.


Otherwise the US would have attacked North Korea ages ago, but they havent.
The only difference between Iraq/Lybia/Syria/etc is that they have lots of oil and North Korea does not.
Otherwise I am open to hearing other explanations why North Korea isnt being attacked, militarily they should be far behind.


4. Could be, I honestly barely read into that article and Ive never been on that site before, I simply looked for another site that said the same, as I dont remember what site I originally read it from as I dont bookmark such things.

5. And this is a point I disagree with. The Propaganda BS that you read on a lot of official news sites is extreme. So why not check out the other side.
I actually dont use the site I linked, I just simply googled for the article.
I usually go to more "neutral" sites, TheGuardian probably being my favorite one.

Either way, this is why I called the Bush thing the Bush regime, Syrias government for example is being called the Assad Regime.
Every enemy of the US/Nato is always called a regime to give it an evil tone, so when a site calls the US/Nato the "western imperials" I dont bat an eye because that is the exact treatment the US/Nato is giving the rest of the world that doesnt agree with them.

Gadhaffi was not a good man to be sure. He orchestrated the Lockerbie bombings and was a megalomaniac, hell bent on Islamizing the world. He even hosted dinners, billeted as auditions, with models in Europe in which he would insult Christianity and try to convince them to convert to Islam. He did this in Europe constantly. He also used his people's money to convince African leaders to Islam. He succeeded with Omar Bongo, president of Gabon. He would hand bags of $100 bills to Mugabe. That was with his people's money.

But he kept stability, invested in infrastructure, and made the country safe. He also made peace with the world and paid a $1.3 million compensation to the families of the deceased for the Lockerbie bombing, even though he did provide shelter to the terrorist who was responsible for it afterwards. The world recognized him as the legitimate leader of the country and the US and all EU countries had full and normalized relations with him. But we still broke our peace agreement and bombed all areas under government control while also supporting Al Qaeda terrorists against him. We even bombed a church full of Coptic Christian Egyptian migrant workers! We criticized him for his savagery. But what about the savagery of our Al Qaeda friends who beheaded and butchered him without trial while he was begging for his life? Why did we never condemn that? What gives us the right to do this to a sitting and recognized head of state?

Right on with Syria! The Al Qaeda/Al Nusra terrorists who behead people and forcibly convert Christians to Islam are "rebels" and "activists," while the Government, which is led by President Bashar Al-Assad, is called "the regime." It makes no sense! Assad's election may have not been fair. But neither was Bush's, especially the first time.

Gold is not a good currency. It can simply be dug out of the ground and can fluctuate wildly in value, just like other commodities. Greenbacks and Euros are still the best reserve currencies out there because they're fully convertible, support large economies that are well integrated with the rest of the world, and because they are run by independent central banks. Plus, Gadhaffi wasn't trying to use gold for pricing oil. I'm pretty sure that he wanted to do it in Euros. It wouldn't have happened though. He was really just grandstanding. Plus, America is still far more loved and respected by people in Africa than Libya. It's easily the most pro-America continent in the world! At the end of the day, they would have stuck with us.

 

[Daphne&D]

1. Excuse me then, didnt realize they were, however Im pretty sure they meant the more "harder ones" as otherwise this whole "never found any xyz" would never have started.

2. Oh, okay. well. The Easter Bunny exists after all then, we havent found him yet, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
As long as there is no proof, it doesnt exist.

Its clear that they got it from the Governments army bases. Stolen stockpiles, and also chemical weapons from Lybia because the NATO and US' only interest was to ******* Gaddafi and the plans he had for Africa(see gold dinar).
While we're at the part of Terrorists using Other peoples weapons, Im pretty sure that currently ISIS is using US weaponry and has a lot of soldiers that are US trained.

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.
In Lybias case, it is the NATOs fault that Lybia is in the state it is in currently(which is horrible). I still dont get why the whole infrastructure was bombed and why a new banking system had to be installed the second the "revolution" started, but okay.

One might think that the issue wasnt Gaddafi but the potential economical and therefore political power his country would have had in the future. The Gold Dinar would have given the dollar a run for its money worth.


Otherwise the US would have attacked North Korea ages ago, but they havent.
The only difference between Iraq/Lybia/Syria/etc is that they have lots of oil and North Korea does not.
Otherwise I am open to hearing other explanations why North Korea isnt being attacked, militarily they should be far behind.


4. Could be, I honestly barely read into that article and Ive never been on that site before, I simply looked for another site that said the same, as I dont remember what site I originally read it from as I dont bookmark such things.

5. And this is a point I disagree with. The Propaganda BS that you read on a lot of official news sites is extreme. So why not check out the other side.
I actually dont use the site I linked, I just simply googled for the article.
I usually go to more "neutral" sites, TheGuardian probably being my favorite one.

Either way, this is why I called the Bush thing the Bush regime, Syrias government for example is being called the Assad Regime.
Every enemy of the US/Nato is always called a regime to give it an evil tone, so when a site calls the US/Nato the "western imperials" I dont bat an eye because that is the exact treatment the US/Nato is giving the rest of the world that doesnt agree with them.

1. . Excuse me then, didnt realize they were, however Im pretty sure they meant the more "harder ones" as otherwise this whole "never found any xyz" would never have started. Er,mm

There are no soft WMD. No ohh thats a nice gentle one. It's either a WMD or not. The socialist leftie social media circus regulary states there were no WMD' found. Yet the UN states otherwise. Now who would I believe first???????

2.
2. Oh, okay. well. The Easter Bunny exists after all then, we havent found him yet, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
As long as there is no proof, it doesnt exist.

really. No one has seen their god yet they believe and say he is as real as they are. So why not the E Bunny??????

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.

Well no its not that simple. Even during Saddams reign there were the bitter in fraction fighting. Did the US etc cause casualties . Sure. But you fail to include in-fighting that was there BEFORE the wars. ie Saddam gassing the kurds (which by the way your own IBC websites adds to their list as casualties) You fail to allow for the many factions killing each other due to their beliefs. Something they were doing before the wars. You also fail to mention that IRAQ invaded Kuwait raped pillaged, murdered, bombed , shot, stole and plundered. Therefor brought upon its self the response of the US and allies. So before you try to blame everything on the US try blaming Saddam for starting the whole shooting match with his invasion.....So the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore IRAQ .

4. Could be, I honestly barely read into that article and Ive never been on that site before, I simply looked for another site that said the same, as I dont remember what site I originally read it from as I dont bookmark such things.

That exact statement renderes your whole arguement, all statements as having ZERO credibility or substance.
Basically you just google an answer (to which you have very little of an idea as to what is mentioned) and pray it says what you hope it says. Wonderful. And you dare to try to lecture on here...

And this is a point I disagree with. The Propaganda BS that you read on a lot of official news sites is extreme. So why not check out the other side.
I actually dont use the site I linked, I just simply googled for the article.
I usually go to more "neutral" sites, TheGuardian probably being my favorite one.

Yes of course you do.' Cough cough'.

You don't research, you post things you don't read, you try to pass off BS as the truth and when you get caught out you claim you ' I just simply googled for the article'.

Please keep posting here. You are the best source of laughter since comdey central was first on air!

 

[Torpedo]

1. Excuse me then, didnt realize they were, however Im pretty sure they meant the more "harder ones" as otherwise this whole "never found any xyz" would never have started.

2. Oh, okay. well. The Easter Bunny exists after all then, we havent found him yet, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
As long as there is no proof, it doesnt exist.

Its clear that they got it from the Governments army bases. Stolen stockpiles, and also chemical weapons from Lybia because the NATO and US' only interest was to ******* Gaddafi and the plans he had for Africa(see gold dinar).
While we're at the part of Terrorists using Other peoples weapons, Im pretty sure that currently ISIS is using US weaponry and has a lot of soldiers that are US trained.

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.
In Lybias case, it is the NATOs fault that Lybia is in the state it is in currently(which is horrible). I still dont get why the whole infrastructure was bombed and why a new banking system had to be installed the second the "revolution" started, but okay.

One might think that the issue wasnt Gaddafi but the potential economical and therefore political power his country would have had in the future. The Gold Dinar would have given the dollar a run for its money worth.


Otherwise the US would have attacked North Korea ages ago, but they havent.
The only difference between Iraq/Lybia/Syria/etc is that they have lots of oil and North Korea does not.
Otherwise I am open to hearing other explanations why North Korea isnt being attacked, militarily they should be far behind.


4. Could be, I honestly barely read into that article and Ive never been on that site before, I simply looked for another site that said the same, as I dont remember what site I originally read it from as I dont bookmark such things.

5. And this is a point I disagree with. The Propaganda BS that you read on a lot of official news sites is extreme. So why not check out the other side.
I actually dont use the site I linked, I just simply googled for the article.
I usually go to more "neutral" sites, TheGuardian probably being my favorite one.

Either way, this is why I called the Bush thing the Bush regime, Syrias government for example is being called the Assad Regime.
Every enemy of the US/Nato is always called a regime to give it an evil tone, so when a site calls the US/Nato the "western imperials" I dont bat an eye because that is the exact treatment the US/Nato is giving the rest of the world that doesnt agree with them.

When question whether something exists because it can't be found I generally point to the SCUD mobile missile launchers in the first Gulf war. This is a pretty big piece of hardware and Iraq doesn't have a lot of forests. Despite all our technology Saddam drove coalition forces crazy trying to find the launchers. Quite a few launchers were discovered and destroyed after the first Gulf war. Saddam was the one that implied he had nuclear capability. Nukes were a rather common veiled threat from him. The United nations would have been foolish not to take him seriously. If he has allowed inspections he would likely still be the despot of Iraq today. He really put himself in a no win situation. If he allowed inspections by Hans Blix's inspectors would have discovered no nukes but plenty of chemical weapons and if I recall correcting he had done some work weaponizing anthrax. If he ignores the UN he risks going to war with a ******* that already had handily handed him his ass on a silver plate. His only real hope of coming out on top was to defy the UN and hope public opinion would prevent a coalition from forming. George W. said fuck it I don't need Saudi air bases or coalition I will resolve the issue. Saddam rolled the dice and lost.

Libya under Gaddafi was a bit better off than most of Africa. Most of his support and wealth came from terrorism and the support of it. If Gaddafi hadn't been supporting and sponsoring terrorism nobody on this side of the Atlantic would have cared one way or another. Gaddafi's started problems for himself in about 1973 when he claimed the Gulf Of Sidra. Since the claim didn't meet accepted international standards the US navy continued to operate there. In 1981 a pair of Libyan SU-22 fired on a pair of F-14 Tomcats and got shot down for their trouble. The SU-22 weren't much of a mach for the Tomcats but the SU-22 is primarily a ground attack aircraft. Most variants have 8 to 10 or more hard points mounting ordinance. That could potentially be a lot of anti-ship missiles. If you want to motivate a carrier based pilot threaten his carrier.

In 1986 Gaddafi drew a "line of death" In the Gulf of Sidra and vowed to attack any foreign ship or air craft that he found in the claimed area. We sent an aircraft carrier and support craft across the line. He decided not to play with the US Navy

In 1989 in a third incident two F-14 Tomcats shot down two Mig-23's. The US navy pilots on 3 or 4 occasions veered off to indicate they didn't wish to engage and each time the MIGs re engaged. The MIG 23 was designed to fight the F-14 and was a much more dangerous adversary than the SU-22. Both MIGS were shot down, both pilots were seen to cleanly eject, the Libyan air ******* made no attempt to recover the pilots and they are presumed lost. Messing with the F14 wasn't a real bright idea. As I recall there win to loss ratio was around 164 to 1

This is just a smattering of the crap Gaddafi pulled. One thing he learned in the Libyan raid was maybe he should pull in his horns a bit.

The little toad in North Korea doesn't get attacked because he is an artist of knowing where the line is and not crossing it.

The Gold Dinar replacing the dollar? I hate to tell you but that is so funny that it really doesn't warrant a reply

 

[Torpedo]

Gadhaffi was not a good man to be sure. He orchestrated the Lockerbie bombings and was a megalomaniac, hell bent on Islamizing the world. He even hosted dinners, billeted as auditions, with models in Europe in which he would insult Christianity and try to convince them to convert to Islam. He did this in Europe constantly. He also used his people's money to convince African leaders to Islam. He succeeded with Omar Bongo, president of Gabon. He would hand bags of $100 bills to Mugabe. That was with his people's money.

But he kept stability, invested in infrastructure, and made the country safe. He also made peace with the world and paid a $1.3 million compensation to the families of the deceased for the Lockerbie bombing, even though he did provide shelter to the terrorist who was responsible for it afterwards. The world recognized him as the legitimate leader of the country and the US and all EU countries had full and normalized relations with him. But we still broke our peace agreement and bombed all areas under government control while also supporting Al Qaeda terrorists against him. We even bombed a church full of Coptic Christian Egyptian migrant workers! We criticized him for his savagery. But what about the savagery of our Al Qaeda friends who beheaded and butchered him without trial while he was begging for his life? Why did we never condemn that? What gives us the right to do this to a sitting and recognized head of state?

Right on with Syria! The Al Qaeda/Al Nusra terrorists who behead people and forcibly convert Christians to Islam are "rebels" and "activists," while the Government, which is led by President Bashar Al-Assad, is called "the regime." It makes no sense! Assad's election may have not been fair. But neither was Bush's, especially the first time.

Gold is not a good currency. It can simply be dug out of the ground and can fluctuate wildly in value, just like other commodities. Greenbacks and Euros are still the best reserve currencies out there because they're fully convertible, support large economies that are well integrated with the rest of the world, and because they are run by independent central banks. Plus, Gadhaffi wasn't trying to use gold for pricing oil. I'm pretty sure that he wanted to do it in Euros. It wouldn't have happened though. He was really just grandstanding. Plus, America is still far more loved and respected by people in Africa than Libya. It's easily the most pro-America continent in the world! At the end of the day, they would have stuck with us.

Precious metals are the best hedge against inflation. I tend to prefer silver over gold, it doesn't fluctuate as wildly. I got rid of my platinum a year and a half ago. I still haven't figured out where the price will end up. Gold is handy you can move a lot of money in a pretty small package. Things like Federal Reserve Notes are worth something as long as everybody agrees they are. They are backed by a smile and a handshake from the Federal Reserve which is independent of the US government and is only subject to congressional review which it does a good job of avoiding. As long as everyone agrees a Federal Reserve note, which is back by nothing, is legal tender then it is legal tender. The only substantial thing backing the dollar is the US economy which isn't so hot right now.

 

[bm_from_southjersey]

3. As shocked has pointed out, the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country, therefore the US.

Either way, this is why I called the Bush thing the Bush regime, Syrias government for example is being called the Assad Regime.
Every enemy of the US/Nato is always called a regime to give it an evil tone, so when a site calls the US/Nato the "western imperials" I dont bat an eye because that is the exact treatment the US/Nato is giving the rest of the world that doesnt agree with them.

So any discussion of Afghanistan and the chaos and death there, should there be one, has to revolve around the former Soviet Union, since "...the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country..." therefore the former USSR for destabilizing the country in 1979.

Also, the word regime is universally used to describe the current government in power. The Assad regime would be an apt description so long as Assad stays in power, Bush regime, Obama regime, etc, etc.

 

[Torpedo]

So any discussion of Afghanistan and the chaos and death there, should there be one, has to revolve around the former Soviet Union, since "...the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country..." therefore the former USSR for destabilizing the country in 1979.

Also, the word regime is universally used to describe the current government in power. The Assad regime would be an apt description so long as Assad stays in power, Bush regime, Obama regime, etc, etc.

One thing that often gets forgotten in Afghanistan is that killing invaders has been their nation sport for at least 3,000 year. Add the poppy industry, the Soviet Union adventures, the Taliban, ISIS and a multitude of warlords who's loyalties can change on a whim. I would defy anyone to arrive at an accurate tabulation of who is responsible for killing who.

 

[shocked]

So any discussion of Afghanistan and the chaos and death there, should there be one, has to revolve around the former Soviet Union, since "...the huge body count is a direct impact from the war, therefore it is the fault of the attacking country..." therefore the former USSR for destabilizing the country in 1979.

Also, the word regime is universally used to describe the current government in power. The Assad regime would be an apt description so long as Assad stays in power, Bush regime, Obama regime, etc, etc.

Even a routine can be called a regimen, I agree. But why aren't the Bush and Obama administrations referred to as regimes?

There was indeed a large body count in Afghanistan during that war. But the Russians also poured a lot of money into the infrastructure and social services of the country. Even the Bamiyan Buddha statues that were destroyed by the Taliban were originally restored by the Russians. Part of the problem was the Brezhnv Doctrine. It declared that if there was a communist revolution anywhere in the world, the USSR would intervene to support it. When a communist revolution did happen in Afghanistan in 1979, the Soviet Union reluctantly got involved. And they quickly crushed any opposition. But then the arms started flowing in from the West and the jihadists from everywhere else, just as we see in Syria and Iraq today. With regards to our war in Iraq, I remember a former Soviet Spetsnaz commander saying "you may think that you're giving the Iraqi people a better life. But you should know that we built schools and hospitals and lowered ******* and maternal mortality, and we also believed that we were providing a better life for the Afghan people. But even with the best of intentions for Iraq, you may find yourself unwittingly destroying their country while badly scarring yours." We should have listened.

Afghanistan is a shared responsibility. The Soviets did invade. But we funded the construction of Wahabbist madrassas all over the Muslim world to create fanatical soldiers to fight against the Soviets. And we sent all kinds of advanced weaponry to them as well. One of those soldiers was named Osama Bin Laden. 15 years later, we would find that he wasn't so grateful. I'd say that in using Islamic fundamentalism and arming jihadists all over the world, we actually bear far more responsibility than the Russians do.

 

[Torpedo]

Afghanistan is a shared responsibility. The Soviets did invade. But we funded the construction of Wahabbist madrassas all over the Muslim world to create fanatical soldiers to fight against the Soviets. And we sent all kinds of advanced weaponry to them as well. One of those soldiers was named Osama Bin Laden. 15 years later, we would find that he wasn't so grateful. I'd say that in using Islamic fundamentalism and arming jihadists all over the world, we actually bear far more responsibility than the Russians do.

There is the old adage that "My enemies enemy is my friend" We supported the enemies of the Soviet Union until their enemies became our enemies. We gave the Afghans Stinger missiles to use against the Soviet helicopters and other air craft. Some of those same missiles became a concern when we had troops in Afghanistan.

Most war are fought with little thought about what everyone was going to do when the shooting stopped.

 

[LukeAdams]

One of the problems is is accountability. A lot that the Nazi's did during WWII they did because they didn't think they would be held responsible. Stalin likely murdered more people than Hitler he was just better than hiding the bodies. There is a good argument for a benevolent dictatorship however the key word is benevolent. China and North Korea are very corrupt. Take a look at the little toad running North Korea and then look at a typical North Korean and tell me that he doesn't live a privileged life. Their only advantage is that they allow no opposition the cast their sins into the light. Freedoms that are lost in a democracy happen because the citizens get complacent and give their freedoms away. A lot of what is in the U.S. Bill of Rights has simply been ignored by the politicians and we just let them do it.

Google the Stanford Experiment and you will get a good insight into human nature. Years ago there was a TV series called "Perry Mason". At the beginning they make a comment that Democracy is a bad form of government but we should remember that all the others are so much worse. I still find this statement to be true.

I just finished reading They Thought They Were Free, by Milton Meyer. This was published in 1954, and written by an American. The book starts with his interviews in the early 1950s of 10 Germans in a small German town, and their views of the Nazis, from 1932 on. It was the typical German view that yes, what the Germans did was bad, but the WW1 reparations imposed by the Allies started all of this. I read in another book that as late as the mid 50s, a majority of Germans supported Hitler, but agreed that his execution of the war was his and the Germans' downfall. Hitler made some right calls in '38 and '39 and decided he was a military genius.
A Wash Post column this week that stated that the Germans would rather give humanitarian aid to Greece than debt relief causes me to go in another direction with the rest of this.
I know a real West Texas young cowboy that knew he would eventually spend the rest of days on the family ranch. But first he spent a couple of years with a Buffalo Bill Wild West-type Show that toured Europe ,but was centered in France. He mainly did a lot of trick riding and roping. I talked to him shortly after he returned. He was about 24 then. He was still apolitical but supremely aggravated by something that he had encountered. He claimed that the Wild West-type Show was required to hire a certain amount of prop hands, etc. that were French citizens. No trouble with that. The problem he said that under French law, it was almost impossible to fire people, once you hired them. He said this the French workers that were not good but could not be fired caused extra work for everyone else, including him. He returned not a fan of anything French.
Margaret Hatcher said the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. That is what happened to Greece. True, there was some irresponsible lending. But that does not mean the lender is still not entitled to his money. Greece has a pension system that is not sustainable, and a farce of a tax collection system. Spain, Portugal and even France have socialist systems that are not sustainable. They will all eventually run out of other people's money.
On Friday the 10th you could read the latest Greek proposal for debt relief, with a link on the front page of the Washington Post. The Greeks are proposing to meet cuts that go beyond what they rejected last Sunday. It will be interesting to see if the Germans accept this.
President Obama, Pelosi, and their apologists look across the ocean and think the U.S should be more like socialist Europe- a Europe where the Socialist countries, which is most of them, cannot much longer sustain its socialism, at least unless some draconian cuts are made.
I have read the NY Times Paul Krugman for years. His political views definitely drive his views as an economist.
JOKE- A middle aged lady was at the Bonn, Germany airport.
"What is your name?" the ticket lady asked.
"I am Angela [sp] Merkel , Prime Minister of Germany."
"Destination?"
"Athens, Greece. I am going to personally direct the talks with Greece."
"Occupation?"
"No...not yet."

 

[Torpedo]

What is happening in Greece and Puerto Rico should be a wake up call for the majority of the Western world. Especially the United States. The United States Federal Government spending is not sustainable. At most we are 10 years away from being where Greece is

 

[Torpedo]

2) Because those weapons weren't found doesn't mean they didn't exist. There was art looted during WWII that has never been recovered, does that mean it didn't exist. Furthermore, if the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons, as the Chicago Tribune article suggests, where do you think they got it from? It very well could be that they have scientists on their payroll, but it's just as likely that they acquired those weapons from Syrian government stockpiles or from stockpiles smuggled in from Iraq.

I understand that Chlorine gas has been used in the Mideast on several occasions. There really isn't much technology required to produce a chlorine based weapon. Chlorine is extremely toxic even in low concentration and kills in a very painful nasty manner. It's extremely lethal and has a significant psychological impact on survivors. It can be transported as binaries that are relatively safe. On site they simply need to be allowed to mix. And I am not going to go into any more detail than this.

 

[Torpedo]

I just finished reading They Thought They Were Free, by Milton Meyer. This was published in 1954, and written by an American. The book starts with his interviews in the early 1950s of 10 Germans in a small German town, and their views of the Nazis, from 1932 on. It was the typical German view that yes, what the Germans did was bad, but the WW1 reparations imposed by the Allies started all of this. I read in another book that as late as the mid 50s, a majority of Germans supported Hitler, but agreed that his execution of the war was his and the Germans' downfall. Hitler made some right calls in '38 and '39 and decided he was a military genius.
A Wash Post column this week that stated that the Germans would rather give humanitarian aid to Greece than debt relief causes me to go in another direction with the rest of this.
I know a real West Texas young cowboy that knew he would eventually spend the rest of days on the family ranch. But first he spent a couple of years with a Buffalo Bill Wild West-type Show that toured Europe ,but was centered in France. He mainly did a lot of trick riding and roping. I talked to him shortly after he returned. He was about 24 then. He was still apolitical but supremely aggravated by something that he had encountered. He claimed that the Wild West-type Show was required to hire a certain amount of prop hands, etc. that were French citizens. No trouble with that. The problem he said that under French law, it was almost impossible to fire people, once you hired them. He said this the French workers that were not good but could not be fired caused extra work for everyone else, including him. He returned not a fan of anything French.
Margaret Hatcher said the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. That is what happened to Greece. True, there was some irresponsible lending. But that does not mean the lender is still not entitled to his money. Greece has a pension system that is not sustainable, and a farce of a tax collection system. Spain, Portugal and even France have socialist systems that are not sustainable. They will all eventually run out of other people's money.
On Friday the 10th you could read the latest Greek proposal for debt relief, with a link on the front page of the Washington Post. The Greeks are proposing to meet cuts that go beyond what they rejected last Sunday. It will be interesting to see if the Germans accept this.
President Obama, Pelosi, and their apologists look across the ocean and think the U.S should be more like socialist Europe- a Europe where the Socialist countries, which is most of them, cannot much longer sustain its socialism, at least unless some draconian cuts are made.
I have read the NY Times Paul Krugman for years. His political views definitely drive his views as an economist.
JOKE- A middle aged lady was at the Bonn, Germany airport.
"What is your name?" the ticket lady asked.
"I am Angela [sp] Merkel , Prime Minister of Germany."
"Destination?"
"Athens, Greece. I am going to personally direct the talks with Greece."
"Occupation?"
"No...not yet."

We accept a lot in life simply because we are used to it. I think back to 1960's and some of the things I saw and did and I think I must have been nuts. But at the time it all seemed so normal. We were fixing things so they could be better for our children. Between the Viet Nam war and the Civil Rights Movement the country was insane for a decade or more, but at the time it seemed so normal at least to me.

 

[Orion Pax]

What is happening in Greece and Puerto Rico should be a wake up call for the majority of the Western world. Especially the United States. The United States Federal Government spending is not sustainable. At most we are 10 years away from being where Greece is

Not ten years.... About two years!

 

[Torpedo]

Not ten years.... About two years!

I think they can shuffle the deck for at least 5 years. A lot depends on whether we get a liberal or conservative in the White house and how liberal or conservative Congress is. Liberal across the board possibly 5 years. Conservative maybe 10 years. For long term success the Federal Government's roll needs to be completely rethought and then shrunk considerably. Neither party has any chance of success with their current platforms.

 

[MacNfries]

."Don't Mess With Texas"
"j viva Texas"

 

[Worshypper]

I AM, 100% CAPITALIST ... I WILL NOT ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO TURN HERE INTO SOME THIRD WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC MY GRANDFATHER CAME FROM

Sweetheart Black Guy,

I know you understand the world in that way. I respect your opinion. I love your culture. But society in Africa was created by colonialists. I think we must do a peaceful world today. Let's tal in places to public debats. All civilizations are annoying each other, unfortunately. But people can follow the correct way.

DUDE LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AND HOW DEMOCRATS ARE INVITING THIRD WORLDERS IN ... (MANY RADICAL MUSLIMS TOO IN MINNESOTA) ... TO TAKE AWAY ""BLACK JOBS""" AND THOSE PPL GET BUSINESS LOANS AND WE CANNOT

Parties are wrong. All nations will be with own networks.

 

[Torpedo]

There has been considerable what has been done by he government and who is responsible. The only time that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House since World War II was the 108th and 109th Congress with the younger Bush.

However both houses of congress and the White House were all under Democratic control for the 79th, 81st and 82nd under Truman. Then again under Kennedy\LBJ for the 87th, 88th, 89th, and 90th. The 95th and 96th under Jimmy Carter were under Democratic control. The Democrats controlled both houses in the 103rd congress under Clinton. and finally the Democrats controlled both houses for the 111th Congress under Obama.

Mac just loves to rattle on about the Reagan and "Trickle Down". What he never mentions is that during Reagan's tenure as President the Republicans never controlled both houses. In the 97th, 98th and 99th Congress the Republicans only controlled the Senate. In the 100th Congress the final one under Reagan the Democrats controlled both houses. So maybe Mac you need to spread around a little of the blame for "Trickle Down Economics" if it really bothers you that much.

 

[MacNfries]

It seems that the fact of WHO controlled Congress only is important when its a Democratic congress and the conservative's point is to be negative ... here are the FACTS that some HERE fail to provide.
Ultimately, the President puts his signature on what comes out of Washington DC ... as with the skyrocketing National Debt. The Deficit Spending and Nat'l Debt started with the Walks On Water Reagan. The reason I continue pointing this out is because Republicans have endorsed Supply Side "Trickle Down" as their party platform, even to this day, and even as 35 years of history has proven its failure. All they do is shift tax revenue away from the wealthy & the corporations to the middleclass & poor ... its history, easy to prove.



One thing I do know, of all the Presidents that have held office, none have been as disrespected as President Obama. And Congress can't say they've tried to work with the President, not after 310+ filibusters (more than all the other Presidents added together), 61 Congressional votes to stop ACA, and closing down the government twice to stop debt ceiling increases & damaging the country's credit rating ... Reagan only raised the debt ceiling 18 times and never was treated by Democrats like Obama has been treated by Republicans.

 

[MacNfries]

.......