Fairplay, I wish you and yours a peaceful night as well, thank you. And I am relieved to know the Bali bombing was a shameful incident to you and most Indonesians. BUT, your reply to my post was very weak and ineffectual as you completely declined to rebutt (because you couldn't?) the issues of women, the American election process, and the question of if you have ever been to the US. If you have not been here, you are in no position to make the absurd claim that we have no culture. As far as Wild goes, I am virtually certain that he is not a student of Sun Tzu, and would recognize the name only if it came up on one of his internet searches so he could cut and paste it. I think you give him entirely too much credit, especially since he has not had the honesty to come forth and tell us his background. For all we know he could be Bin Laden himself!! I sure hope he is; knowing Wild and BL are one and the same would do much to allay my country that BL is no genius, twisted or otherwise.... Yes I've heard of Dien Bien Phu, the Vietnam War, So what? Your whole "this is a global conflict = decline of globalization" thing made no sense. The weakest part of your post was the excuse you made for the overwhelming corruption in your country: that it made Indonesia somewhat STABLE!! Good grief! That really is sad, Fairplay. Don't you think the corruption is largely what prevents Indonesia from advancing? This may be a shock to you, but it is possible to have a stable country without massive corruption in government, the judiciary, the military/police, and the corporate sector. Corruption afflicts many countries, including mine, but nowhere near the scale it does in Indonesia and elsewhere. As far as mentioning my country's drug problem, I must say I agree with you that our prevention/interdiction and enforcement policies are woefully inadequate. I do not think we should be going to drug-producing countries at all. What we should be doing, in my opinion, is two things: 1) We should do what Malaysia does and execute drug dealers and those caught smuggling drugs. Simple as that. You deal drugs or smuggle them, and you DIE. It would do much to clean out our prisons, reduce crime, and scare the crap out of those who use drugs. And no expensive lethal injections, court appeals, blah, blah, blah. Do what Malaysia does and hang 'em, or what the Chinese do and shoot them in the back of the head and then charge the family for the expense of the bullet. Cheap and quick. Drug addicts? Throw them into a cell and make them go cold turkey. Why pay for all these drug clinics when the recidivity rates are so high? What does Indonesia do with drug dealers and smugglers, and drug addicts? Maybe we can learn something from your methods. 2) Cut off aid to those governments that head countries that produce drugs for export until those governments eradicate the problem themselves. Your people are starving, need medicine, assistance with agriculture or whatever? Sure, the US will help you, but not until you've cleaned up your own house and gotten rid of the drug barons and producers. This has been tried to some extent, but not as strictly as it should be. Our country has given so much damned money, BILLIONS, in aid. We should have the right to expect something back in return. So yeah, my country has a drug problem. But your argument about the supply of law and demand being a justification for drug production is absurd. You can apply that to the manufacture of anything that is dangerous and validate it on the simple basis that, well, there's a demand for it. There's a demand for portable nukes by terrorists right now Fairplay. Does that mean they should be supplied with them?!? Basically if the biggest complaints against my country (besides that it has no culture) are that we have a drug problem and that back in the "colonial" days derogatory terms were used by SOME Americans to refer to the people of the Philippines, I'd say compared to the rest of the world we've been pretty successful.
10:05 ET Saddam rumor on trading floors Hearing that contributing to early gains is a rumor circulating trading floors that Saddam Hussein is going into exile in Syria. Reporting it because it is out there, not because we believe it.
I will respond to your laughable post in full when I have some free time tonight. In the meantime, please look at this page here on EliteTrader about formatting your posts so they will be easier to read and separate my words from yours: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode Take it easy.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 16 â A U.N. spokesman said Thursday that inspectors had discovered empty chemical warheads â not previously declared by Iraq â during a visit to a storage area in the country earlier in the day. Though a U.S. official the discovery was a âsmoldering gun,â Iraq dismissed the warheads as old items that were packed away and forgotten, not an indication of an ongoing weapons program. Also Thursday, a team of experts made an unprecedented search of the homes of two Iraqi scientists, prompting charges of provocation.
...I especially like the fact that they "forgot about them".....You know , the same way WILD forgets about the atrocities of Europe over the last 200 years
Direct action may become a necessity The UN is being used as a fig leaf for war in the face of world opinion Seumas Milne Thursday January 16, 2003 The Guardian If anyone could sell George Bush's planned war of aggression against Iraq, surely it should be Tony Blair, a politician whose career has been built on his ability to smoothtalk his way out of a crisis. He has been straining every nerve to do just that for the past week. The latest sales drive began with the prime minister's attempt to link the alleged ricin find above a north London chemist's shop with "weapons of mass destruction". And it culminated on Monday with his imaginative effort to construct a link between "rogue states" such as Iraq and Islamist terrorism. But all the signs are that his spin offensive simply isn't working. Such tales may find more of an echo in the United States, where half the population believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attacks, according to some polls. But in Britain - and even more so in the rest of the world - most people are now convinced that the opposite is the case: that the best way to boost support for al-Qaida and Islamist attacks on western targets is precisely to launch an Anglo-American crusade to invade and occupy Arab, Muslim Iraq. Not only does public opinion - along with key sections of the civil service, military, churches and trade unions - appear to be hardening against the expected war, but the Labour party itself shows every sign of risking rupture if that war goes badly. Labour anxieties will only have been heightened by the announcement yesterday of a "preliminary" decision to accept the US request to use the Fylingdales base in Yorkshire for Bush's son of star wars missile programme - a move which can confidently be expected to boost the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The same goes for the comments this week from Bush, the man who will actually make the decision about war, that he is "tired" of Saddam Hussein's "games" and "time is running out". But, if the polling evidence is to be believed, one factor would change all that and turn opposition in both Labour ranks and the wider public into majority support for war: a new UN security council resolution authorising an attack. Despite the weapons inspectors' failure to find their smoking gun, Blair and his entourage now seem almost smugly confident they will be able to prove that Iraq is hiding chemical or biological weapons and declare a "material breach" of its obligations to disarm under resolution 1441. Perhaps that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It isn't hard to imagine, for example, some of the 500 Iraqi scientists the US wants to spirit out of the country singing for their supper if the price and protection were right. The noises from the Blairite camp yesterday nevertheless suggested the government might abandon the attempt to win support for a new resolution and rely instead on 1441 and evidence of a material breach as its "UN route". But in reality this UN procedure has already been shown to be a fraud. It has been absolutely clear throughout that the US, and by extension Britain - explicitly confirmed this week by Blair when he declared that the UN could exercise no "block" on war - have only been prepared to use the UN if it guarantees the result they want. It is only necessary to imagine applying such a condition to other systems of rules - elections or laws, for example - to see its utter absurdity. Even if the US is able to bribe and bully its way to a new UN resolution in the face of world opinion - with oil contracts here and nods to ethnic repression there - that endorsement will lack any genuine international legitimacy. An invasion and occupation of a country which offers no credibly "clear and present threat" to any other state constitutes in any case a multiple violation of the UN charter. As the buildup to war continues, it will likely become ever clearer that the UN is simply being used as a fig leaf for aggression and the public opinion advantages of any security council deal may well prove less significant than they now appear. As things stand, there must be every expectation that Tony Blair is prepared to drag this country into a profoundly dangerous US imperial adventure in the teeth of mass public opposition without even the veneer of prior parliamentary endorsement. One result is that sections of what is already Britain's largest-ever anti-war movement will turn to civil disobedience. Last week, in the first such incident since Britain's war of intervention against the Soviet Union more than 80 years ago, two traindrivers based at Motherwell in Scotland refused to move a freight train carrying ammunition destined for British forces in the Gulf in protest against the threat of war against Iraq. More than a dozen workers at the depot have now supported the action. If this war goes ahead, many others are likely to follow their lead. In such circumstances, direct action will not simply be justified, it will be a democratic necessity. s.milne@guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,875672,00.html regards wild
How come there's no mention of the war heads they found today? or the fact that there top scientist refused to had over documents??????Getting nervous yet?....Or maybe you forgot much like baghdad "forgot about the chemical war heads"...What is even scarier is that the war heads are EMPTY.....I hope they don't find the chemicals sprinkled over europe.....because im convinced, that is where the thrust of the next terrorist attacks are going to go....You see they tried America, and we came at them with both guns blazing...But Europeans tend to be weak, feeble and cowardly ( except England of course)....The terrorists will use this...they will strike Europe hard and then hope that you will pressure th U>S and the UN....
It would make sense for the terrorists to strike Europe, hoping to sway public opinion against the US and Brits and "THEIR" war on terrosism. Where the Brits and Americans will fight back, it would seem that many of the socialist pacifict leftist euros would cry in terror: Please, please, please don't hurt us...we surrender!
They must be throwing a party in the oval office now This gives the administration's talking heads definite sound-bite supremacy - anxious to see what the security council says here. Which terrorists are you talking about, al qaeda? why would they hit Europe?