Right between the Star and the Enquirer (and behind The Onion).
Impossible to find a media publication that doesn't spin things one way or another.
Your Thoughts: Iraq and war.
AZhitman wrote:Vim - I've figured out where you found that newspaper...
Right between the Star and the Enquirer (and behind The Onion).
Impossible to find a media publication that doesn't spin things one way or another.
I don't see much spin but I do see opinion in that article. There is a difference. However, W does have a ceratin style of oratory and an article like this gives an insight into the target audience W is trying to reach. The simple folk. Nothing wrong in being simple, though.
And as I said before, this paper does a pretty good job at reporting the facts. Did you check out the link in the upper right hand corner of that page? Something about how Bush interprets the world (or something to that effect). Pretty good description of opposing domestic historical foreign policy views.-
hannibal
- Posts: 9680
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
- Car: Red Line to Glenmont
- Location: Washington DC
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maineimport "]Often, the best time to buy stock is in a slow market. Also, a sure way to stimulate investing is to increase the money supply and put cash in the hands of those that spend it on investments.
If you follow the market at all, you may have noticed that the Dow is at its lowest level since 1998. Maybe its because the wealthy AREN'T investing. Sometimes things are so bad, the wealthy would rather hold onto thier money rather than invest.
Most of these people are wealthy BECAUSE of their investment behavior.... and would be sure to turn around and re-invest. As they say, the richest people in the world don't work for their money... their money works for them.
Good point, but once again, the market is at 5 year lows. Their money isn't working too hard for them. (Maybe that's why they're not investing more). They have a lot of something called disposible income. When the economy is good, they spend or invest it. When the economy sucks, the hold on to it. Simple enough?
Also, when given a tax break they often spend it on the latest game console.... or whatever the Jones bought last year. I'm all for a tax incentive that puts them to work.... but handouts get abused.
LOL......That's a joke, right???
If you follow the market at all, you may have noticed that the Dow is at its lowest level since 1998. Maybe its because the wealthy AREN'T investing. Sometimes things are so bad, the wealthy would rather hold onto thier money rather than invest.
Most of these people are wealthy BECAUSE of their investment behavior.... and would be sure to turn around and re-invest. As they say, the richest people in the world don't work for their money... their money works for them.
Good point, but once again, the market is at 5 year lows. Their money isn't working too hard for them. (Maybe that's why they're not investing more). They have a lot of something called disposible income. When the economy is good, they spend or invest it. When the economy sucks, the hold on to it. Simple enough?
Also, when given a tax break they often spend it on the latest game console.... or whatever the Jones bought last year. I'm all for a tax incentive that puts them to work.... but handouts get abused.
LOL......That's a joke, right???
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
IWannaS15 wrote:Good point, but once again, the market is at 5 year lows. Their money isn't working too hard for them. (Maybe that's why they're not investing more). They have a lot of something called disposible income. When the economy is good, they spend or invest it. When the economy sucks, the hold on to it. Simple enough?
Unfortunately, NO... it's not that simple. Using your logic, the economy would never correct itself. Simple 'nuff?
Over its nearly 100 year history, the NYSE has an average return of 12%. This takes into account highs and lows, conservative and risky investments... and all of the econmic recessions and booms since the beginning of the 1900's. Investor activity slows at times, usually hand in hand with other poor economic idicators. The POINT behind the tax cut is to STIMULATE activity. What part of that hasn't sunk in yet?
You are confusing consumer spending with investment activity. Yes, when the economic outlook is dim, CONSUMERS tend to hold on to their money. Investors slow trading activity, but when they have money to invest (a nice tax break) they do.... because holding onto it yeilds less than even the most conservative bonds (stocks are a slightly different story). Statisticlly, riding out the market will ALWAYS beat stuffing the money under the mattress
More war talk and the markets are down again today. I hope Powell can present some conclusive evidence that Iraq has WMD to the UN Security Council. Setting a precedent for unilateral first strikes is a dangerous game. The self defence agrument W uses is stretched to the breaking point.
I still view the dividend tax cut as a hand out to the rich. Certainly, corporations must pay taxes on profits and, if these co.s offer dividends on their shares, then people earning income from these shares should pay income tax on their earnings. Why not give every man, woman and child (including Bill Gates) a $1000 tax holiday? That would probably give the economy a bigger boost than allowing fat cats to hold onto their shares and earn dividend income.
I wish Greenspan had reduced margin borrowing while he had the chance. There was a lot of specualting going on in the 90's and now W wants to give the biggest speculators a break on their bad "investments". The average Joe is going to subsidize 10% of the population so that they may maintain their country club memberships if the tax plan goes ahead.
I still view the dividend tax cut as a hand out to the rich. Certainly, corporations must pay taxes on profits and, if these co.s offer dividends on their shares, then people earning income from these shares should pay income tax on their earnings. Why not give every man, woman and child (including Bill Gates) a $1000 tax holiday? That would probably give the economy a bigger boost than allowing fat cats to hold onto their shares and earn dividend income.
I wish Greenspan had reduced margin borrowing while he had the chance. There was a lot of specualting going on in the 90's and now W wants to give the biggest speculators a break on their bad "investments". The average Joe is going to subsidize 10% of the population so that they may maintain their country club memberships if the tax plan goes ahead.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
I just read an outline of the Bush tax plan, and I must admit it isn't nearly the gem I had assumed it would be. A dividend tax break will do very little to help the economy. I still contend that it will do more than putting an equivilant amount of cash bck in Joe tax payers hands. However, I was under the assumption that the tax break was going to be a drop in capital gains taxes.
The majority of corps. don't even pay dividends, and those that do are usually a small part of an investors' portfolio. They are income generating stocks, not growth stocks. People don't generally get rich off of dividends, they get rich from growth. That is where the Fed likes to take the biggest chunk of nearly 50% on capital gains.
Giving an investor a break on dvidends will definately put more money in their hands, but will hardly stimulate activity in a manner that could turn around a slumping economy. It will be better, dollar for dollar, than a tax handout to the rest of the tax payers would be. But nothing like it would be if they ACTUALLY helped out investors.
The majority of corps. don't even pay dividends, and those that do are usually a small part of an investors' portfolio. They are income generating stocks, not growth stocks. People don't generally get rich off of dividends, they get rich from growth. That is where the Fed likes to take the biggest chunk of nearly 50% on capital gains.
Giving an investor a break on dvidends will definately put more money in their hands, but will hardly stimulate activity in a manner that could turn around a slumping economy. It will be better, dollar for dollar, than a tax handout to the rest of the tax payers would be. But nothing like it would be if they ACTUALLY helped out investors.
The taxation rate on capital gains is 20% for long term (over one year) and the normal income tax rate for short term (under one year). I could be wrong about the short term rate but the tax system is weighted to favour long term investment over short term speculating. Because the market is suffering, W wants to give his big share holding buddies a break since there is nothing really to invest in at this time. Maybe W hopes that this will bribe the fat cats to hold onto their holdings and therefore stabilize the markets thereby protecting the fat cats again until the economy (or at least Wall Street) looks more promising. This plan doesn't do much at all to encourage capital spending but does let the holders of huge amounts of shares outside of IRA's to make money on their capital until the markets turn around.maineimport wrote: People don't get rich off of dividends, they get rich off growth and that's where the fed likes to take a HUGE chunk of nearly 50% on capital gains.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
Here's what I found. Short term rates are upto almost 40% not 50%. my bad.
If your ordinary income tax bracket is greater than 15%: Capital Gains on assets held for a year or less are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate (anywhere from 28% to 39.6%, depending on your specific ordinary tax rate).
Capital Gains on assets held for more than a year are taxed at a reduced tax rate of 20%.
Capital Gains on assets held for more than five years are taxed at a reduced rate of 18%, but only if the assets were purchased on or after January 1, 2001. Assets purchased before January 1, 2001 that fall into this holding-period range are still taxed at the 20% long-term rate. (More on this in a moment.) When you place an order to buy or sell a security with your broker, there will be a "trade date" and a "settlement date" recorded for the order. Which one counts for tax purposes? The trade date -- the date that the order was executed. The settlement date is immaterial for tax-reporting purposes.
If your ordinary income tax bracket is greater than 15%: Capital Gains on assets held for a year or less are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate (anywhere from 28% to 39.6%, depending on your specific ordinary tax rate).
Capital Gains on assets held for more than a year are taxed at a reduced tax rate of 20%.
Capital Gains on assets held for more than five years are taxed at a reduced rate of 18%, but only if the assets were purchased on or after January 1, 2001. Assets purchased before January 1, 2001 that fall into this holding-period range are still taxed at the 20% long-term rate. (More on this in a moment.) When you place an order to buy or sell a security with your broker, there will be a "trade date" and a "settlement date" recorded for the order. Which one counts for tax purposes? The trade date -- the date that the order was executed. The settlement date is immaterial for tax-reporting purposes.
-
hannibal
- Posts: 9680
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
- Car: Red Line to Glenmont
- Location: Washington DC
Originally posted by maineimport "]Using your logic, the economy would never correct itself.
I dont think you understand what's going on. The market is, in fact, a cyclical process. The lower the market goes, the harder it is to correct. The market is currently at a point where investors are afraid to invest for fear of losing the money. It needs help to correct itself. That's why we are discussing the need for an effective economic stimulus plan.
You are confusing consumer spending with investment activity
Both consumer spending and investment activity are directly related to disposible income. The more disposible income you have, the more you can spend or invest. If inflation is high, there is an incentive to spend rather than invest. (your money will be worth less in the future - why save or invest it, you would wanna spend it right now). When inflation is low (or, God forbid, we experience deflation), there is more of an incentive to invest or save rather than spend. This is where our economy currently lies. However, we looking at returns just slighty (sarcasm) below the historical 12% return you mentioned. This leads to a situation where investors (or consumers or John Q Public or whatever you wanna call them) AREN'T spending OR investing in significant amounts.
I just read an outline of the Bush tax plan, and I must admit it isn't nearly the gem I had assumed it would be. A dividend tax break will do very little to help the economy.Giving an investor a break on dvidends will definately put more money in their hands, but will hardly stimulate activity in a manner that could turn around a slumping economy.
Now we're getting somewhere!!!
With respect,Jay
I dont think you understand what's going on. The market is, in fact, a cyclical process. The lower the market goes, the harder it is to correct. The market is currently at a point where investors are afraid to invest for fear of losing the money. It needs help to correct itself. That's why we are discussing the need for an effective economic stimulus plan.
You are confusing consumer spending with investment activity
Both consumer spending and investment activity are directly related to disposible income. The more disposible income you have, the more you can spend or invest. If inflation is high, there is an incentive to spend rather than invest. (your money will be worth less in the future - why save or invest it, you would wanna spend it right now). When inflation is low (or, God forbid, we experience deflation), there is more of an incentive to invest or save rather than spend. This is where our economy currently lies. However, we looking at returns just slighty (sarcasm) below the historical 12% return you mentioned. This leads to a situation where investors (or consumers or John Q Public or whatever you wanna call them) AREN'T spending OR investing in significant amounts.
I just read an outline of the Bush tax plan, and I must admit it isn't nearly the gem I had assumed it would be. A dividend tax break will do very little to help the economy.Giving an investor a break on dvidends will definately put more money in their hands, but will hardly stimulate activity in a manner that could turn around a slumping economy.
Now we're getting somewhere!!!
With respect,Jay
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
Way to quote me out of context IWanna!
I am inclined to add that your theory of consumer spending and ivestment activity is wrong. Basic economics 101 here, inflation beyond 4% SLOWS consumer spending. And you also are using the terms "save" and "invest" interchangeably.... they are NOT the same thing. I'm not trying to make this a personal thing, but your economic theory is flawed.
What I have been trying to say, is that the NYSE has returned an AVERAGE of 12%.... So, no matter what the present state of the economy or stock market, it is generally wiser to conservatively invest "disposable" income, rather than stuffing it under the mattress or putting it in the bank. If it is money that you don't NEED right now, you will make more by re-investing it. I've said all I have to say on the issue and we still disagree, not a big surprise.
I am inclined to add that your theory of consumer spending and ivestment activity is wrong. Basic economics 101 here, inflation beyond 4% SLOWS consumer spending. And you also are using the terms "save" and "invest" interchangeably.... they are NOT the same thing. I'm not trying to make this a personal thing, but your economic theory is flawed.
What I have been trying to say, is that the NYSE has returned an AVERAGE of 12%.... So, no matter what the present state of the economy or stock market, it is generally wiser to conservatively invest "disposable" income, rather than stuffing it under the mattress or putting it in the bank. If it is money that you don't NEED right now, you will make more by re-investing it. I've said all I have to say on the issue and we still disagree, not a big surprise.
Buy low sell high. What could be easier than that? :dohmaineimport wrote:What I have been trying to say, is that the NYSE has returned an AVERAGE of 12%.... So, no matter what the present state of the economy or stock market, it is generally wiser to conservatively invest "disposable" income, rather than stuffing it under the mattress or putting it in the bank. If it is money that you don't NEED right now, you will make more by re-investing it. I've said all I have to say on the issue and we still disagree, not a big surprise.
-
hannibal
- Posts: 9680
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:38 am
- Car: Red Line to Glenmont
- Location: Washington DC
ECON 102
Unfortunately, it is a little more complex than that. "High" and "Low" are relative terms. People gladly buy when they feel the market is at its lowest and its about to go up.VimyJ wrote:Buy low sell high. What could be easier than that? :doh
If you buy stock and the market continues to decline, the value of your purhcase declines. The market is so uncertain right now (and therefore, investor's confidence is low) that people aren't buying for fear of their investment losing value.
The point is investors currently feel the market may get worse, hence little investment activity.
To maineSettled...we agree to disagree...
Jay
Re: ECON 102
Really?IWannaS15 wrote:Unfortunately, it is a little more complex than that. Jay
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
I'm with Maine on this part: Those who are staying away from investing, fearing further declines are fools (unless they are within a few years of retirement). Look at the history of mutual funds since their introduction. They've continued to gain overall, so the long-term investor with an eye towards diversification is coming as close to a guarantee as he possibly can - The market has withstood FAR worse.
The other thing to remember is we're not talking about a global conflict here. We're talking about one country delivering an immediate and brutally efficient blow to selective strategic targets in another country with very few (if any) strong alliances. Consider WWII, the depression of the 30's, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, even the recession some of us experienced as youths - All had far more impact on the global economy than our current situation - And yet investments march on...
Matter of fact, I just DOUBLED my pre-tax deferred compensation, despite experiencing a 70% loss since the last week of September, 2001.
The other thing to remember is we're not talking about a global conflict here. We're talking about one country delivering an immediate and brutally efficient blow to selective strategic targets in another country with very few (if any) strong alliances. Consider WWII, the depression of the 30's, the Korean conflict, Viet Nam, even the recession some of us experienced as youths - All had far more impact on the global economy than our current situation - And yet investments march on...
Matter of fact, I just DOUBLED my pre-tax deferred compensation, despite experiencing a 70% loss since the last week of September, 2001.
You (and W) hope that this is the case. Frankly, I see the situation involving the US for many, many years to come. Selective strategic strikes were also delivered in the first Gulf War and did relatively little to shake Saddam from his tree. It is conceivable that the Muslim world will see this as another attack on Islam by the "Great Satan" which will further stoke the boiler of animosity between east and west. More terrorism will result. Remember too that Iraq is a secular state. The religeous fundamentalists would love to expand their power in Iraq. This war is going to be far from simple especially if the US decides to do it solo with little world support.AZhitman wrote:I'm with Maine on this part: Those who are staying away from investing, fearing further declines are fools (unless they are within a few years of retirement). Look at the history of mutual funds since their introduction. They've continued to gain overall, so the long-term investor with an eye towards diversification is coming as close to a guarantee as he possibly can - The market has withstood FAR worse.
The markets are still historically overvalued on a price to earnings basis despite a huge pullback. Still room to sink.
The other thing to remember is we're not talking about a global conflict here. We're talking about one country delivering an immediate and brutally efficient blow to selective strategic targets in another country with very few (if any) strong alliances.
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VimyJ "]Selective strategic strikes were also delivered in the first Gulf War and did relatively little to shake Saddam from his tree.True - But the intent of the Gulf War was not to remove him from power - It was to neutralize his offensive incursions into a defenseless country.
It is conceivable that the Muslim world will see this as another attack on Islam by the "Great Satan" which will further stoke the boiler of animosity between east and west. That animosity is going to exist regardless of our actions. Has been since Biblical times.
More terrorism will result. So your recommendation is we tiptoe around because we fear some psychotic unwashed heathen with a load of TNT strapped to his a$$? NO. Matter of fact, F*** NO.
Hear this clearly: NOW is the time to provide the oppressed peoples of these nations with HOPE for the future. To INTERVENE in a misguided mindset that has become so desperate that it actually honors the martyrdom of a son. To overthrow a regime that requires FEAR and FORCE to win the hearts and minds of its terrified followers. To RESTORE faith in a proud, valuable race of people who have known nothing for centuries but desperation, squalor and intimidation.
As with any worthwhile mission: Will it happen overnight? NO. Will it be without consequence? NO. Will it be popular? NO. Will it be without criticism? NO. Will it be worthwhile? YES.
It is conceivable that the Muslim world will see this as another attack on Islam by the "Great Satan" which will further stoke the boiler of animosity between east and west. That animosity is going to exist regardless of our actions. Has been since Biblical times.
More terrorism will result. So your recommendation is we tiptoe around because we fear some psychotic unwashed heathen with a load of TNT strapped to his a$$? NO. Matter of fact, F*** NO.
Hear this clearly: NOW is the time to provide the oppressed peoples of these nations with HOPE for the future. To INTERVENE in a misguided mindset that has become so desperate that it actually honors the martyrdom of a son. To overthrow a regime that requires FEAR and FORCE to win the hearts and minds of its terrified followers. To RESTORE faith in a proud, valuable race of people who have known nothing for centuries but desperation, squalor and intimidation.
As with any worthwhile mission: Will it happen overnight? NO. Will it be without consequence? NO. Will it be popular? NO. Will it be without criticism? NO. Will it be worthwhile? YES.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AZhitman "]True - But the intent of the Gulf War was not to remove him from power - It was to neutralize his offensive incursions into a defenseless country.
That was the UN mandate but it was also hoped that after the punishment inflicted upon his army that there would be a coupe or popular uprising.
That animosity is going to exist regardless of our actions. Has been since Biblical times.
Depending on how you look at history, this strife between east and west has been going on since ancient Greece. However, the struggle between the west and Islam has place taking place since about 800 AD which is post "biblical era" but caused by the bible/Koran nonetheless.
So your recommendation is we tiptoe around because we fear some psychotic unwashed heathen with a load of TNT strapped to his a$$? NO. Matter of fact, F*** NO.
I made no such recommendation. I thought that combatting tactics like that was the purpose of the "War on Terror".
Hear this clearly: NOW is the time to provide the oppressed peoples of these nations with HOPE for the future.
Winning hearts and minds is difficult. e.g. Viet Nam
To INTERVENE in a misguided mindset that has become so desperate that it actually honors the martyrdom of a son.
The suicide bombers don't come from Iraq although Saddam does provide money to the murderer's families in Palestine/West Bank. The most devasting murderers came from a supposed ally.
To overthrow a regime that requires FEAR and FORCE to win the hearts and minds of its terrified followers. To RESTORE faith in a proud, valuable race of people who have known nothing for centuries but desperation, squalor and intimidation.
Very noble sentiments. But, do you really think this is W's motivation or merely wrapping paper? There are plenty of despotic regimes that could use a thorough beating but Iraq has been singled out for some reason. Could it be because Iraq is located in a very strategic spot?
Will it be worthwhile? YES.
Without the world (read UN) behind the effort and conclusive convincing evidence one has to wonder about the real reason behind this proposed course of action. There is no way in hell that W is going to create a baseball loving nation in Iraq in a hundred years or even a thousand. The forces of radical Islam will have more reason to hate the US especially if there is no UN mandate for war.
Personally, I would like to see Saddam's head stuck on a pike on the main street of Bagdad. However, even if that were to come about the situation there WILL go from bad to worse and it will drag us down. This is going to be a black hole consuming US money and lives for decades.
My long term view is that there is going to be a monumental war between the west and Islam no matter what W does. European powers are hestitant to have this come to pass because they will be closer the battleground and there is living memory of the effects of total war.
This is not the simple issue W would have us believe although I believe he sees it as being simple. It's one thing to rattle a saber at a new phenomenom like Communism but it's another to shake it at a centuries old radical faith like Islam that believes it has the better way and god on its side. Remember, Muslims see the western concept of freedom as heresy. W is opening a gigantic can of worms. These are indeed "interesting times".
That was the UN mandate but it was also hoped that after the punishment inflicted upon his army that there would be a coupe or popular uprising.
That animosity is going to exist regardless of our actions. Has been since Biblical times.
Depending on how you look at history, this strife between east and west has been going on since ancient Greece. However, the struggle between the west and Islam has place taking place since about 800 AD which is post "biblical era" but caused by the bible/Koran nonetheless.
So your recommendation is we tiptoe around because we fear some psychotic unwashed heathen with a load of TNT strapped to his a$$? NO. Matter of fact, F*** NO.
I made no such recommendation. I thought that combatting tactics like that was the purpose of the "War on Terror".
Hear this clearly: NOW is the time to provide the oppressed peoples of these nations with HOPE for the future.
Winning hearts and minds is difficult. e.g. Viet Nam
To INTERVENE in a misguided mindset that has become so desperate that it actually honors the martyrdom of a son.
The suicide bombers don't come from Iraq although Saddam does provide money to the murderer's families in Palestine/West Bank. The most devasting murderers came from a supposed ally.
To overthrow a regime that requires FEAR and FORCE to win the hearts and minds of its terrified followers. To RESTORE faith in a proud, valuable race of people who have known nothing for centuries but desperation, squalor and intimidation.
Very noble sentiments. But, do you really think this is W's motivation or merely wrapping paper? There are plenty of despotic regimes that could use a thorough beating but Iraq has been singled out for some reason. Could it be because Iraq is located in a very strategic spot?
Will it be worthwhile? YES.
Without the world (read UN) behind the effort and conclusive convincing evidence one has to wonder about the real reason behind this proposed course of action. There is no way in hell that W is going to create a baseball loving nation in Iraq in a hundred years or even a thousand. The forces of radical Islam will have more reason to hate the US especially if there is no UN mandate for war.
Personally, I would like to see Saddam's head stuck on a pike on the main street of Bagdad. However, even if that were to come about the situation there WILL go from bad to worse and it will drag us down. This is going to be a black hole consuming US money and lives for decades.
My long term view is that there is going to be a monumental war between the west and Islam no matter what W does. European powers are hestitant to have this come to pass because they will be closer the battleground and there is living memory of the effects of total war.
This is not the simple issue W would have us believe although I believe he sees it as being simple. It's one thing to rattle a saber at a new phenomenom like Communism but it's another to shake it at a centuries old radical faith like Islam that believes it has the better way and god on its side. Remember, Muslims see the western concept of freedom as heresy. W is opening a gigantic can of worms. These are indeed "interesting times".
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
While I agree that the implications of our actions, if we act alone, are far reaching.... they are not nearly to the extent of the apocalyptic outcome you have presented, Vimy. I think there are a lot of potential cohorts, even within the world's Islam community, that may not "support" our actions, but do not have the burning desire to retaliate. They may no like it, but it will hardly motivate them to act in the way you have described.... THEY know which side their bread is buttered on.
I think Hitman is right, the time to act is NOW... this situation wil only get more difficult to resolve with time. Like it or not, it WILL be too late at some point. You can't go around letting atrocities occur just because you don't want to piss of the enemy.
I think Hitman is right, the time to act is NOW... this situation wil only get more difficult to resolve with time. Like it or not, it WILL be too late at some point. You can't go around letting atrocities occur just because you don't want to piss of the enemy.
-
lessthanjakejohn
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 6:39 am
Hmmm who supplied Iraq with weapons in the 80's?
Other than that I'd like to say that the area around the Tiger and Euphrates rivers has been fought over since the beginning of time. I think that the truth is that their will never be complete stability because the Middle East is such a key area for trade.
In past centuries these wars we are seeing the aftermath of today started because of trade. It was(is) the key route between Europe and the spices of China.
I think that it is time for a new way of life in the middle east. We need something that binds the area together without corruption. I hope that Bush does not take the easy way out by leaving the Middle East a mess. That is just asking for another Radical Religion to step in place. Another thing that needs to happen is that we need to stay out of alliances and underhand dealings. These things bring on war and "terroism."
Finally I'd like to say that we need a tough leader who will leave no uncertainty in the minds of people. If he messes up it is time for a new person. The new person should n't be someone totally new but someone who will follow in the former ideas and mold new ideas that will build stability. There should be NO "giving people other chances"
Other than that I'd like to say that the area around the Tiger and Euphrates rivers has been fought over since the beginning of time. I think that the truth is that their will never be complete stability because the Middle East is such a key area for trade.
In past centuries these wars we are seeing the aftermath of today started because of trade. It was(is) the key route between Europe and the spices of China.
I think that it is time for a new way of life in the middle east. We need something that binds the area together without corruption. I hope that Bush does not take the easy way out by leaving the Middle East a mess. That is just asking for another Radical Religion to step in place. Another thing that needs to happen is that we need to stay out of alliances and underhand dealings. These things bring on war and "terroism."
Finally I'd like to say that we need a tough leader who will leave no uncertainty in the minds of people. If he messes up it is time for a new person. The new person should n't be someone totally new but someone who will follow in the former ideas and mold new ideas that will build stability. There should be NO "giving people other chances"
Imagine, if you would, some massive army of Muslims invading the US and forcing new traditions upon the population. Would we like it? No. Not one bit. This is what is going to be facing US troops in Iraq. Somehow, we in the west assume that we have moral superiority over the rest of the world. I think that the way of the western world is the best but my counterpart in Iran or Iraq feels that Islam is the only way to achieve true civilization. This is why we are facing the terrorlst threat. Radical religous extremists view the west and especially the US as their cultural opressors. Whether we agree with it or not, when they call the US the "Great Satan", they mean it and they have the zeal of their faith to back it up. Pride (or false pride) knows no boundaries.
PS AZ, that was way too arbitrary a call on locking down the poll I posted. The questions were different and had to do with the case the W administration is biulding against Iraq not feelings about war. Furthermore, I don't think that too many people are following this interesting but arcane thread anyway. I am curious (as I am sure other members are as well) as to how the general membership view the evidence. What is this? Iraq?!?!?
PS AZ, that was way too arbitrary a call on locking down the poll I posted. The questions were different and had to do with the case the W administration is biulding against Iraq not feelings about war. Furthermore, I don't think that too many people are following this interesting but arcane thread anyway. I am curious (as I am sure other members are as well) as to how the general membership view the evidence. What is this? Iraq?!?!?
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
LOL - Sorry Vimy - Sometimes those with the weapons of mass destruction and the moral superiority have to make difficult decisions. In this case, that's me. Just be happy I only targeted strategic sites and spared your collaterals.
I knew you'd understand.
Seriously - thanks again for all you do. Don't tell maine or repo but I learn something here every day.
I knew you'd understand.
Seriously - thanks again for all you do. Don't tell maine or repo but I learn something here every day.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
Oh come on Hitman.... you've got me all wrong!:D
But seriously, I learn as I go. Even if I don't agree, I'm not closed minded. I appreciate the efforts of Vimy and others to shed a different light on the issues. If it wasn't for intellectual banter, none of us would ever grow. I like the "cut of your jib" vimy, and as much as I dislike your view of the "W" and Iraq situation, I respect your opinion because of WHO it is coming from.
This one scares me a bit though;
vimyj says"]I think that the way of the western world is the best but my counterpart in Iran or Iraq feels that Islam is the only way to achieve true civilization. This is why we are facing the terrorlst threat.
It almost sounds as though you feel it is OUR fault that they hate us. Should we adopt their way of life to appease them, or should we stand up for what our fathers, grandfathers...etc....etc bled and died for. We are the greatest nation in the world, but it seems like that's not a popular thing to say these days. I think that's sad.
But seriously, I learn as I go. Even if I don't agree, I'm not closed minded. I appreciate the efforts of Vimy and others to shed a different light on the issues. If it wasn't for intellectual banter, none of us would ever grow. I like the "cut of your jib" vimy, and as much as I dislike your view of the "W" and Iraq situation, I respect your opinion because of WHO it is coming from.
This one scares me a bit though;
vimyj says"]I think that the way of the western world is the best but my counterpart in Iran or Iraq feels that Islam is the only way to achieve true civilization. This is why we are facing the terrorlst threat.
It almost sounds as though you feel it is OUR fault that they hate us. Should we adopt their way of life to appease them, or should we stand up for what our fathers, grandfathers...etc....etc bled and died for. We are the greatest nation in the world, but it seems like that's not a popular thing to say these days. I think that's sad.
maineimport wrote:
It almost sounds as though you feel it is OUR fault that they hate us. Should we adopt their way of life to appease them, or should we stand up for what our fathers, grandfathers...etc....etc bled and died for. We are the greatest nation in the world, but it seems like that's not a popular thing to say these days. I think that's sad.
Radical Muslims hate us because of what we are: free individuals. Am I going to change to appease them? No friggin way! They hate our civilization because it is secular (for the most part) and infidel. Should we change it? What ever its faults may be, our institutions beat the hell out of what they have. One must understand one's opponent. Radical Islam hates us for for just about everything we stand for. Adopt an ideology and civilization that is about 1000 years past its "best before date"? Fageddaboudit.
But realize that they too, are saying stuff about the blood of their grandfathers. That sentiment is also alive and well in Israel and N. Ireland today. (Makes for a nasty dirty fight, IMHO.)
You could get an argument from any patriotic national as to which maybe the greatest country in the world but for sure the US is the mightiest by far. Radical Muslims think they are not only the greatest but also superior because they are motivated to do god's work. They can't beat us face to face but they can destabilize the globe through sneak attacks. Bin Laden wants to spark a war of the worlds, IMHO, to create koas then rise to power through Jihad. It's an old tactic that Marx wrote about. Hey, it worked pretty well for the Bolsheviks, eh?, why not Bin Laden?
Probably, the only thing they like about America is the capricious way some threads get locked down.
-
Stoneage_Turbo
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:33 am
- Car: 1994 Caddy Deville 4.9
Just about anything
"Couldn't agree with that post more, buddy."
yup another asset to our community
yes ive been reading all of it , just not my arena to comment ,im far too ignorant or nieve to make a good thought/comment on it i guess
threads provided some good reading , kinda backs up what ive been thinking all along
yup another asset to our community
yes ive been reading all of it , just not my arena to comment ,im far too ignorant or nieve to make a good thought/comment on it i guess
threads provided some good reading , kinda backs up what ive been thinking all along
Does that mean you're going to reopen that thread because you want to thwart the enemy at every turn?AZhitman wrote:I honestly didn't realize this was Vimy's post until the very last sentence...
Couldn't agree with that post more, buddy.
Is W properly prepared for a world of the worlds? I don't think that he is and at the least he hasn't convinced me that this is an investment I want to spend money on. The fundamentals don't look right but the Bollinger bands are contradictory. The Bollingers say that's time to buy at this level of support but the fundamentals could suffer gravely if the business model is questionable. The fundamentals are always right. Technicals sometimes a quicker (and riskier) way to speculate profitably (or not).
A Canada Perspective
This post could also be called a Canadian's perspective but there is a subtle difference. I was sitting there watching a Discovery channel biography od Saddam. This guy is a cruel tyrant of the worst order. So I think, "Why isn't Canada getting on board to go kill this guy?". Then I think of Brittain getting on its knees to be buddy buddy with the mighty US for the sake of influence (and Australia and Italy) in order to get a seat at the table. Canada would be doing itself a favour by bellying up to the bar.
I think that Canadians were as horrified as Americans on 9/11. Canada lost over 50 citizens that day, fourth highest among the nationals murdered. Canada fully and expertly cooperated with US authorities to "lockdown" the continent. They fed and housed 25,000 people from US flights grounded for 3 to 4 days (there are amazing stories of small communties mobilizing their complete resources to show the strangers all out hospitality and welcome).
Then, the speech W made to the US in congress where he thanks everyone El Salvador yet doesn't mention Canada at all. Canada did more to help the US at the most crucial timethan any ally or friend. They even played and sang the "Star Spangled Banner" on Parliament Hill where thousands had turned out to pay respect and solidarity. There was a big fuss in Canada about that slight but Harry Fliescher explained it away as "an oversight". Talk about insults!
When W got appointed President, there was well founded talk in Canada that W holds a big grudge against the Canadian Prime Minister because Cretien thought W Sr. was a goof too. W holds grudges. He holds a personal grudge against Saddam for trying to kill his dad as he admitted on TV. (Character flaw?)
I don't trust W one bit. However, if Powell's evidence is convincing then I'm sure that Canada will be elbowing it's way to the bar and buy a round as we get down to business but I still don't trust W or his handlers. No Sir. How does the joke go? "W is only a heart beat away from the presidency."
I think that Canadians were as horrified as Americans on 9/11. Canada lost over 50 citizens that day, fourth highest among the nationals murdered. Canada fully and expertly cooperated with US authorities to "lockdown" the continent. They fed and housed 25,000 people from US flights grounded for 3 to 4 days (there are amazing stories of small communties mobilizing their complete resources to show the strangers all out hospitality and welcome).
Then, the speech W made to the US in congress where he thanks everyone El Salvador yet doesn't mention Canada at all. Canada did more to help the US at the most crucial timethan any ally or friend. They even played and sang the "Star Spangled Banner" on Parliament Hill where thousands had turned out to pay respect and solidarity. There was a big fuss in Canada about that slight but Harry Fliescher explained it away as "an oversight". Talk about insults!
When W got appointed President, there was well founded talk in Canada that W holds a big grudge against the Canadian Prime Minister because Cretien thought W Sr. was a goof too. W holds grudges. He holds a personal grudge against Saddam for trying to kill his dad as he admitted on TV. (Character flaw?)
I don't trust W one bit. However, if Powell's evidence is convincing then I'm sure that Canada will be elbowing it's way to the bar and buy a round as we get down to business but I still don't trust W or his handlers. No Sir. How does the joke go? "W is only a heart beat away from the presidency."