American idit, European idit... does not make much of a difference to me. I do think he is 15 though. That would explain why he does not discuss things, does not answer questions and does not see contradictions and lack of logic in his own convictions. He is too young and too silly for that.
Msfe is French/German/Swiss.......Kind of the same way my dog is a mix.....either way there just servant animals to me. Now...roll over my european bitch!!! if you are a good boy , i'll let you nuzzle my private parts!
America's $400bn war bill The US is spending more on this war than it raises in taxes, paving the way for a nasty surprise for its taxpayers, writes Randeep Ramesh Thursday March 20, 2003 War costs, but it is unclear who will pick up the tab. George Bush is not financing this campaign through taxation. Instead the president is cutting taxes - sending a welfare cheque to the wealthy - and raising military spending. The slowdown in the American economy has seen many states, who have to balance their budgets, cut back on social spending. The White House made it clear that there would be no federal bail out for these programmes. The president is reheating Reaganomics - cutting back on welfare, overcompensating with defence spending and offering big tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor. Mr Bush's strategy is risky, if not reckless. A $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut over a decade is by anyone's estimation a large sum even before the cost of a war against Iraq and its aftermath are added onto it. Thoughtful Republicans like John McCain have asked for the cuts to be delayed until "the administration has a better understanding of the costs of war and peace." In the last century, the cold war ended when the wall came down. In the new millennium, a hot one has begun. But the Soviet Union was a giant adversary. Iraq is a bomb-blasted state crippled by sanctions. Its military budget barely tops $1bn. America's, by contrast, is $400bn. As the Bush administration makes clear Saddam is just the start: Iran, North Korea are next and others will follow. To finance the new wars, the White House is spending more than it collects in taxes. The result is budget deficits. More government debt will push up long term interest rates - which is bad for growth. Despite the Bush White House's unilateralism, America relies on the rest of the world to finance its deficits. The rest of the world was happy to do so when the US economy was strong, but investors' cash might go elsewhere if America no longer looks as if it is booming. America borrows hundreds of millions of dollars from the rest of the world each day to cover its savings gap. The Bush plan envisages an even bigger hole in the coming years, but will the rest of the world want to lend more and more cash, and if so at what cost? The drip, drip of bad financial news and poor economic figures out of Wall St and Washington has already unsettled nerves. The internet bubble has burst and America's economy looks a little more ordinary again. Its hi-tech sector - once the country's biggest employer - now has fewer staff than the distinctly old-fashioned food products and transportation equipment manufacturing sectors. What if investors rush out of the dollar and dollar assets. The result is that the greenback weakens: it has already fallen by more than 10% in the past year. Exporters might like it, but a cheaper dollar will not see America return to trade surpluses. Instead it may fuel inflation - a worry in any war where oil is an issue. Mr Bush will then be left with rising interest rates and more expensive imports. Should Mr Bush continue in office, he might end up like his father and start raising taxes to reassure capital markets that the US was acting to reduce its borrowings. Seen in this context, the president's trillion dollar tax cut could end up as a political record: managing the greatest happiness possible for the smallest number of people. Perhaps worst is that the president's fiscal plan is a piece of bad politics masquerading as good economics. The administration aims to wage war and is buying more even arms for the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen. The increase in the defence department alone matches what the world spends on international aid every year. Ominously Mr Bush has pushed through the largest rises on weapons since Ronald Reagan faced down the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union in 1982. Then Washington had NATO and others willing to shoulder costs. In the last Gulf war, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Germany shared most of the $60bn costs of the conflict. This time the coalition of the willing does not have such large pockets. In fact the United States is trying to buy support with billion dollar sops. In the end, the American public will end up paying for war. Unfortunately they have not been told how just large the bill could be.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=996&e=3&u=/030321/170/3kseo.html In Iraq, a citizen defaces the hated ex-dictator Saddam with his shoe. In Ecuador, demonstrators trying to do Iraqis a "favor," make the ultimate sacrifice, carrying off Ronald McDonald and burning him. Wow! That'll really help the Iraqis.
Bin Laden's victory A political system that delivers this disastrous mistake needs reform Richard Dawkins Saturday March 22, 2003 The Guardian Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap. http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,919618,00.html
This is a rambling op-ed piece by a typically uninformed pundit. He says the Iraqi conflict is a recruiting poster for more MF's (Muslim Fundamentalists) to join Al-Quada. Then, which seems to be the major point of his rambling dissertation, is the tired and ridiculous premise that Bush stole the election. The fact is that Al-Quada is not going to be effective ever again; they will be hunted down for time immemorial. We are not afraid of Al-Quada and Bin Laden, they are sorely afraid of us.
Max401 statement reads : "This is a rambling op-ed piece by a typically uninformed pundit." In response Msfe responded by kindly providing us with a short biography of Mr Dawkins. Please note Msfe, none of that biography proves to me that Mr Dawkins isn't an uninformed pundit about the subject on hand. And, whilst we are at it, talking about reasoning ability, I saw this morning on T.V. several demonstrations in different Arab countries by people shouting that they support Iraq. Let us be clear about it that what this really means is that they support Saddam Hussein rather than it having the meaning 'We support the Iraqi people'. These mobs haven't got much ability to think for themselves so Msfe, you appear to be in good company. freealways
âPearl Harbor in Reverseâ Arthur Schlesinger, former JFK confidant and the countryâs preeminent liberal historian, views Americaâs war on Iraq with âdeep gloomâ By Brian Braiker NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE - NEWSWEEK: How would you describe Bush as a wartime president? Arthur Shlesinger: Well I think heâs made a fatal mistake. I think weâve made a fatal mis-turn in our foreign policy by abandoning the doctrine of containment-plus-deterrence (which won the Cold War peacefully), and adopting as the basis of our foreign policy preventive war. Preventive war, anticipatory self-defense, was the doctrine with which the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor. FDR, an earlier American president, said that it was a date that will live in infamy. And now the Bush doctrine is a doctrine of preventive war, which makes America the self-appointed worldâs judge, jury and executioner. However benign the motives, itâs bound to have a corrupting effect on our leadership. I think the whole notion of America as the worldâs judge, jury and executioner is a tragically mistaken notion. http://www.msnbc.com/news/889365.asp?0cv=KB20#BODY