What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:57 PM
"Don't underestimate nationalism," "And don't exaggerate Shiite-Sunni differences, but remember that they are both Arabs. They have the same religion. There is no religion called Shiism and no religion called Sunnism. They are both Muslims."
. "There is no difference between Fallujah and us," says Ali Sa'addoun Abadi al-Shammari, a neighborhood sheikh. "They are Iraqis - there is no difference between Shiites and Sunnis." http://www.csmonitor...07s01-woiq.html
Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:05 PM
Making the well sounds as a solution, but it is not. It is more difficult to defense the higher civilization. For the higher civilizationhas is more difficult to survive.
US took only 78 days to brink Yugoslavia to surrender.
Serbs are people who can not survive without clan water, electricity.
When US bombed Beograd sewer system and created biological bomb against city citizens, Serbs gave up defense and Milosevic surrendered to stop further death the civilians.confused:
In contrary to Yugoslavia ; Afghanistan or Iraq where people learnt for 10 years live without running water or electricity, hungry and without medication as a result US sanctions, Iraq learn to survive without many contemporary life improvements , and might win war with US in hot temperature, sand storms and ameba. as like Hitler army lost in cold of Stalingrad.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 02:37 AM
Are you saying decentralized power is easier to beat? I'd argue for exactly the opposite. Hussein was the easy part; fighting decentralized guerrillas is another story. Best defense in the world: the Swiss. Even kibbutz have strong role in defense.
Economically, socially, they are even greater success.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:57 AM
set a model for the world to follow, so if any country in sundry were to leave the fold they would be stomped on but regards Russia it would be a very different story, they would have to plan how to weaken it first.
The bigger and wider the mess in the oil centre of the world the richer Russia will be through her oil.
The other point to Donq's argument remember which we have had
before is the example of the armed citizenry in Switzerland.
The UN has the answer to that they will if allowed to have the power, disarm all citizens of the world so they cannot be resisted.
In regards Iraq we have a contradiction in that the Jewish dominated press has told the world how bad Hussein was, and there is some truth in it, yet he allowed the public to be armed with automatic military weapons which should be in the guiness book of records for being the first dictatorship that allowed the
public to have the ability to wipe out the dictator! As the US are starting to realize. We know how true the mainstream press were regarding the Serbs.
I would like to see a poll taken on the net and promoted by all the many alternative news sites around the world, joining a network, encouraging people to spread it to friends etc as
a medium to bring people together. The objective should be to
form a mass protest against the media giants by getting a ground swell in all nations to cancell their newspaper subscription
in favour of the network of genuine reporting.
This will hurt much more than the protests against the IMF meetingd etc. THis could be the equivat of the Irish kneecappers.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:19 AM
Look in an old dictionary and you don't see currency being confused with money. They are two different terms. If they were the same thing we would only have one word for it.
If I write you a check and give it to you does that mean I have given you money? Why would you accept a piece of paper, a dollar bill, signed by a government official as money?
Why is it called a dollar bill? A bill is something you get that means you have to pay something! How does a bill become money? It is an interesting journey to see how the transformation is effected.
In common usage, people talk about money in loose terms, and it has been adopted as a defintion. They ask how much money someone has in their pocket. They aren't about to say how much currency do you have in your pocket. If I am talking about money from an economic point of view I use definition number one.
The definition of words are political tools and are changed for intended purposes. Politics and economics are intentionally kept confusing to the general populace. Take a look at any tax code.
They are designed as a tool to be able to keep people in line.
Every once in a while someone famous gets taken down by the IRS. Some friend gets audited and has to pay fines. Is it because accountants don't know the rules? Exactly! They are too complicated to fully grasp and should someone need to be taken down a notch the rules can and will be used against you.
The system you describe has a few wobbly definitions in my opinion. Credit for one. You say the system is based on credit.
Credit is debt. There can be good credit and bad credit but credit is basically an indebtedness. When you say the people own the credit what does that mean? They own the debt? If they controlled the debt or credit then wouldn't they just say, "I feel like some credit today or I think I'll eliminate this debt."
No person can decide these things. Nor should they be allowed to. How can you say you want to give the people control of their currency when that is the basic fault with it today. Maybe to you it is the wrong people, and I can agree with that, but who is going to decide who are the right people. If I am in control I will be the first to eliminate all my debts and ensure I have a surplus.
If you say no, you can't do that, and others are going to dictate to me then how am I in control?
That is why I insist the value of any medium of exchange must be held within that medium and is subject only to supply and demand, not at the whim of any person or group of persons.
As regards your last post. Something definitely needs to be done.
I don't know how effective a protest against the media would be but let's start trading in some other form of currency than what is proscribed by our governments who operate in proxy to the international banker.
Inviting and encouraging change is one thing. I do not believe reason will bring about change, there is too much at stake for those with the most to lose.
Someone must come forward with the truth. Someone with enough weight that can stop the presses and announce the truth to the world. Someone who won't or can't be simply discredited as a right or left wing nut who left the fold and has an axe to grind.
The only other alternative is an out and out revolt against the establishment and I don't see that happening. Too many people are too comfortable to upset the applecart.
I believe, that if the whole plan were laid bare before us, for all to see, the majority would deny it.
How can you win against those odds? We aren't supposed to win but there's always a chance.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:40 AM
The reluctance of government to use alternative sources of energy can be understood by their loss in revenues in oil and gas.
Until they find some way to tax hydrogen we will be stuck with polluting vehicles.
Which makes me want to comment on the environmentalist. Damn, there are just too many issues.
The environmentalist is really not concerned with the environment if he is demanding solutions to retard the evolution of technological advancement. He demands people give up vehicles and take the bus. This is far from a productive solution.
We must cut emissions from aerosol cans. This has been done but I don't see any lessening of danger from those that demanded it. We have a long way to go yet.
The fact of the matter is, we do see problems and we do try and alleviate or resolve them. The environmentalist instead of trying to stop everyone from doing anything and reducing population should be encouraging and demanding the development of climate control technology. Whining about SUVs and current polluting activities is only an attempt to hold man down. That is the job of religion, politics and bankers. I suppose they enlist the aid of these do-gooders with the best of intentions for all of us.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:34 AM
I am not saying that decentralized power is easier to beat. I am saying that people living in dreadful living conditions far from standard of civilization is more difficult to subdue than these living in comfortable life condition.
**** Hussein was the easy part; fighting decentralized guerrillas is another story.*****
I have never heard that anybody from Saddam military signed capitulation , Iraqi lead defense the way that is the most advantageous for them.
And nobody believes that Hussein is in Americans hand, just another US trick to fight Iraqi fighting spirit.
Was Saddam bad ? I don
Posted 17 April 2004 - 02:03 PM
< I am not saying that decentralized power is easier to beat. I am saying that people living in dreadful living conditions far from standard of civilization is more difficult to subdue than these living in comfortable life condition. >
If you say so. But I've never seen any proof that "spoiled" Roman soldiers were unable to subdue poor Barbarians. The point remains that the best choice to fight a lion, is for the monkeys to fight the war on their own terms. Throw coconuts from treetops whatever, but don't face the big lion as a little lion.
Then it's the decisive point of the monkeys reaching to the little animals and explaining their case. The lion can only rule through the indifference of the little animals. *Ideally no violence should be required*.
<Trick with decentralization of competition has small chance, everybody knows that small country is unable to finance nuclear defense and this propaganda of blessing of decentralization has short legs.>
Do you really need nuclear weapons as defense? I think it would extremely dangerous that even the ones defending from the lion should have it. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE IT. A well armed militia should scare off even the biggest of predators...
(Notice this is written by a lion, which makes it even more valuable, though these commentaries would make him quite a good lion.)
"The people of Switzerland are to be envied for their many achievements, and the policy achievement of a plan for armed neutrality could be a model either in whole or in part for those seeking a rational approach to survival problems."
"The concept of armed neutrality was a policy favored by our Founding Fathers but the warnings and advice of Founding Father George Washington has been lost to Twentieth Century Americans."
[Not a bad stratagy to defend America from "Terrorism"... And even better would be to learn from Switzerland...]
THE SWISS REPORT
A special study for Western Goals Foundation
by General George S. Patton, U.S.A. (Ret.) and
General Lewis W. Walt, U.S.M.C. (Ret.)
Copyright L 1983 Western Goals
While Americans wrestle with the defense matters of growing costs, manpower needs, volunteerism vs. the draft, and even the matter of a national will, it is refreshing to note that there is one country that has adopted a formula that has resolved those same vexations. That country is Switzerland, and amazingly, the Swiss have successfully applied this national defense formula for centuries without the problems of popular division. To the contrary, the Swiss concept has promoted unity among the people of that small but mature nation.
The people of Switzerland are to be envied for their many achievements, and the policy achievement of a plan for armed neutrality could be a model either in whole or in part for those seeking a rational approach to survival problems.
The concept of armed neutrality was a policy favored by our Founding Fathers but the warnings and advice of Founding Father George Washington has been lost to Twentieth Century Americans. Perhaps even at this late date, we could find many answers to our current problems by observing the Swiss way of a total defense concept.
Switzerland lies landlocked in Western Europe, a small densely populated nation of nearly seven million people. To the west lies France, to the south Italy and to the north and east, West Germany and Austria. By modern jet fighter, it is ten minutes from the Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. Since 1815 Switzerland has remained an inviolate island of peace in the midst of war. Even Adolph Hitler's Wehrmacht, which conquered all of Europe in the early months of World War II, chose not to attack Switzerland despite the fact that the small country was in the crossroads of Western Europe.
Switzerland is, of course, neutral, but it was not mere respect for its neutrality which kept the Nazi armies and others before it out of the tiny country. It was the determination of the Swiss people to defend their neutrality and the credibility of their means to do so. That determination remains alive today in the face of weapons of mass destruction. So, too, does the credibility of the means. Within 48 hours, the Swiss can field an army of more than 600,00 men, 100,000 more than the present army of West Germany. Today, it can provide shelter space for 85 percent of its civilian population and by the 1990s intends to have shelter space for the entire population. War supplies, medical supplies and food supplies are meticulously stored in more than 100 kilometers of tunnels. About 4,000 permanent obstacles and barriers and more than 2,000 demolition devices are now in place, ready to hamper and block an aggressor's progress. In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker.
Yet, there is _no_ standing Army, _no_ bunker mentality, _no_ enormous drain on the Swiss economy, _no_ militaristic threat to Europe's oldest and most fiercely independent democracy.
THE MILITIA SYSTEM
The purpose of the military forces of Switzerland are two-fold: (1) to deter war by the principle of dissuasion; and (2) if deterrence fails, to defend the territory and the population.
"Dissuasion is a strategic posture which should persuade a potential aggressor to avoid armed conflict, by convincing him of the disproportion existing between the advantages gained from an attack on the country and the risks entailed. The risks which a potential aggressor must be made to perceive consists in the loss of prestige, military forces, war-potential and time, as well as in running counter to his ideological, political and economic interests."
The Swiss have no illusions about their ability to defeat a major military power. They could not have defeated the Nazi army which for a time considered invading Switzerland. They mobilized, however, and made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the Nazi army invaded, it would be fiercely resisted and that the tunnels and passes into Italy would be destroyed. In a classic example of dissuasion at work, Hitler's general staff recommended against an invasion on the grounds that the costs would be disproportionate to the gains.
The Swiss military forces are composed almost entirely of the militia. Only 800 out of 50,000 officers are professionals. They, and the recruits which happen to be training at any given time, are the only people in Switzerland on "active duty."
The Swiss militia system is unique and is not comparable to the present Reserve and Guard forces in the United States. The basis for conscription is the constitution, which mandates military service for every Swiss male from age 20 to 50 (55 in the case of officers). There are no exceptions. Conscientious objectors are given a choice between Army non-combat units and jail. Those physically unfit for military duty but employable are required to pay a tax. Women are not included in the compulsory military service system, but small numbers of them are accepted on a volunteer basis for non-combatant positions.
At the end of the training cycle, the recruit, now a member of a militia unit with which he will stay in most cases for the duration of his obligation, returns home. *He carries with him his rifle, an allotment of ammunition, uniforms, military pack, and CBR mask*. He is responsible for the maintenance of this equipment and is inspected annually. Once a year he is also required to qualify with his personal weapon on a rifle range or face an additional three days of training. Once a year, he will report for three weeks of military training in a rugged field exercise set up as a problem the type of which his particular unit would face.
[As you see this can scare off the wildest of predators, but, even better, they pursue this kind of international relations, perhaps more attuned to the Founding Fathers than to Bush...:cool:]
Today Switzerland maintains its neutrality, but practices what it calls solidarity -- participating in international humanitarian projects, offering its good offices in the resolution of disputes, and providing technical assistance to Third World countries. The Swiss participate in those international activities and organizations which do not require it to violate its policy of neutrality. Neutrality is central to Swiss thinking and, in fact, is the determining factor in the Swiss security system.
[And then you can see the exact opposite approach from the bad lion. Instead of the Swiss abandoning the little people to their fate, their protection is the highest priority. It's like the lion instead of using the little animals and abandoning them, it would protect them...:cool:]
Some critics of the Swiss system have expressed the belief that the possession of nuclear weapons has made the strategy of dissuasion obsolete. These are, to be sure, those critics who view nuclear war as an offense for which there is no defense.
The Swiss do not agree. Recalling on of their strategic objectives as protection of the civilian population, the Swiss government has realistically assessed that objective in light of nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare. Their answer was to embark on an extensive civil defense program with the idea of accomplishing two of their strategic objectives -- protection of the population and maintaining freedom of action.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 10:24 PM
Here we go around the mulbery bush again.
Definitions and splitting hairs are of no importance. It is pointless discussing what I advocate in terms of the orthodox system or language. I am not there I am over here.
"credit is debt"
I have explained more than once that (real) credit in my system is the property of the people. Their intellectual, skill, technical, organisational and natural material resouces from which goods and services are created. Their culture and values etc are also
part of this, thus the global war on such, to reduce the real
substance of historical peoples who inherit certain values that must be destroyed to bring everyone into one fold of
inebriate hybrid slaves that have no past and no future.
Now we both agree that goods and services of today and tomorrow are the collateral of the debt when we borrow, or allow the govt or a private corp like the Fed to issue our money, are lent against.
Thus that debt-money represents debt, which is a claim on the future production of the borrowing nation - based on the real credit of the people.
The basis of my money system is exactly as Woj put it why borrow what you do can do yourself - after all based on what is yours not theirs. The real credit represented on
the one hand by goods and services (tangible) and on the other
by the money tickets (intangible in themselves) which are a cliam on the goods and services. It is not debt money it is credit money
of the people without which there can be no democracy.
You ask "who is going to decide who are the right people"
that make the decision regards the money etc. I can only suspect you dont believe that people should make their own decisions- you dont believe in democracy- that people should rule. You put gold above people just like some put the state above people, which is putting a regime above people making them the servants instead of the systems (eg money) serving the people.
Translate it another way, using DonQs parable- why live poor supporting a luxury life for a foreign fisherman to come and catch fish for you out of your rivers instead of learning to fish yourself?
And for every fish he gives you out of your river you own him more and more of your and your childrens future?
In practical terms what has gold got to do with anything other the a trick to dictate? That is Lion territory.
I am still waiting for you to answer my challenges I listed over how you can make yours a practical system.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:07 PM
They have a similar natural defence as Afghanistan. Lot harder for the likes of Poland or Rumania, even if they decentralized.
Those countries of the rest of Europe have prostituted themselves
for debt money and are like the British armies of the past now serving the internationalists in various parts of the world. They have already surrendered.
In fact they might go into huge further debt changing over into US
based military systems, from the Warsaw Pact system, helping to keep the miliatry industrial powers afloat.
However Iraq is proving what Switzerland didnt have to in recent
times. And Afghanistan is not captured, only the capital.
The ability to survive hardship - destroyed infastructure is part of the territory. Could Americans live amongst the rubble of their own homes for fifty years like the Palestinians while modern homes pop-up on the hills overlooking them with their lanscaping and lawn and garden watersprinkler systems in place owned by their colonial superiors?
If "terrorism" breaks out in the US, as they are almost being conditioned to expect, I expect one of the first things they will do is disarm the public.
This will generate fear as will the use of the Patriot laws, the exact opposite to the psychological effect of what the Switz, govt does. The Swiz people know they are Switz. The US is the Fed lion.
Russian history puts them closer to Switz- the size of the land the climate are proven natural defences apart from having the wmd
Notice also that Lebanon like Iraq had the makings of being
very progressive prosperous middle-eastern nations in the future and both have been destroyed. Whose future benefits most? Interesting that we arent thinking a certain other little country is the model for the world to copy as a impregnable country. I guess its a lot easier to talk about Switz.
Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:48 PM
>>>Thus that debt-money represents debt, which is a claim on the future production of the borrowing nation - based on the real credit of the people.<<<
>>>The basis of my money system is exactly as Woj put it why borrow what you do can do yourself - after all based on what is yours not theirs. <<<
Ok. I'm listening. Here is what Woj said:
****I in 100% share that Bader conviction that borrowed virtual money doesn-t have to be the foreign virtue money and every country can make them for itself to heat up national economy.
This way, country would be free from paying the interest rate to IMF, World Bank etc. The most important is here result.
Freeing the country from foreign dependency from foreign meddling etc. I am only afraid that such independent country might be bombed by US for human rights abusing-****
So what I understand from that, is that the central bank of every country, which is a private interest owned by world bankers who also own the World bank and IMF, should be eliminated. I can agree with that.
>>>The real credit represented on the one hand by goods and services (tangible) and on the other by the money tickets (intangible in themselves) which are a cliam on the goods and services.<<<
Goods and services = real credit
Money tickets (currency??) = claim to goods and services
So far, so good, I think?
>>>It is not debt money it is credit money
of the people without which there can be no democracy.<<<
Debt money? Credit money of the people? You will have to explain the difference to me.
Here is what I understand so far about your system. I have goods and services. I issue money tickets against those goods and services. The money I issue is a claim on my goods and services. It is credit, therefore the term credit money. Is this correct so far?
Here is what I understand is currently the practice. Governments tax the people to pay for it's operation. They have borrowed money from the central bank against our goods and services and if they borrow more money than what is available in goods and services they are borrowing against future goods and services of the people. The central bank prints the money and the government distributes it to the people. The money in circulation is a claim by the central bank on our current and future goods and services if the government runs a deficit. This, I think, is what you call debt money.
>>>You ask "who is going to decide who are the right people"
that make the decision regards the money etc. I can only suspect you dont believe that people should make their own decisions- you dont believe in democracy- that people should rule. You put gold above people just like some put the state above people, which is putting a regime above people making them the servants instead of the systems (eg money) serving the people.<<<
I don't put gold above people and democracy can stand some improvements but I'll discuss that later.
>>> I am still waiting for you to answer my challenges I listed over how you can make yours a practical system.<<<
Before I reply to that I want to ensure I have a good grasp of
your point of view so that I can express myself correctly in your terms and avoid going around the "mulberry bush".
Posted 18 April 2004 - 05:53 AM
Will get back to your last post, have to cook t, but before I forget again, I couldnt get onto that Greenspan article you recommended. The server said it couldnt find it and to go to home page and find it from there but couldnt do so (i can get to the home page) so can you give me direction from there?
Posted 18 April 2004 - 09:28 AM
Since only 3% of the money supply is notes and coins which are owned by the people via the govt and cost very little to produce, they sell them to the banking system obviously at a profit but given they are such a small percent of the money supply it isnt worth talking about. They are debt free money.
The rest of the money supply the banks create as you know by the push of a keyboard key on a computer, into borrowers,
indivduals and business, accounts. This is also debt money besides what Govt borrows. The Govt borrowed money is spent into the economy so it is largely a bebt money system based on borrowing someone elses "'money" which is all likely to have originated out of thin air somewhere.
Nations have the human, technological and natural resources
to produce goods and services, the main function of the economy,
through the medium of money - medium of exchange.
If you borrow for this your credit rating is your ability to repay,
obviously by sale of goods and services or by natural resouces,
eg oil, diamonds, buaxite, fertizer etc.
The human, technical and natural resources are the basis of their credit, just as over time ones house may have gone up in value and can be capitalised/monetarised by a bank loan to put it to work.
So given that the people have the value from which their credit
arises, they can monetarise it by borrowing it from some international banking corporation (debt money) or do it themselves through their own banking system thus it is credit money as one cannot be in debt to oneself.
Any nation in trade cpmpetition with other countries that have debt costs built into their prices cannot compete with countries,
everything else being equal, with a debt free monetary system, likewise the debt free country will become more prosperous with a higher standard of living. International bankers would want to
prevent it or loose their empires. This is why people like Lincoln
etc are assasinated.
I wouldnt be too interested in Govt being in charge is the distribution of the nations money supply, which is why some of us want a national credit authority that is autonomous from govt control and as much subject to public influence thus ensuring a
So the credit money supply is the property of the people as they collectively own the credit against which it is created- just like a miniture enity known as coops. Its (money) main purpose is for a distribution system- being a claim on goods and services- so people can chose the items/products they want- this is where the
competition of the market is natural not contrived and limited
(remember the statement about capitalism being based on scarsity) under false conditions of the debt money system.
A credit money system would require far less money in circulation
because it isnt playing catch-up with exponential debt. Thus not structurally inflationary as the debt money system is.
Circulation of the supply is A- via govt budget, authorised by the electorate, which is granted to Govt,
B- via national dividend as an inherant right of all citizens based on the national inheritance handed down/developed by past generations which obviously includeds the infrastructures, universities, tecnology, knowledge, the list goes on and these are all contributing into the economy but NEVER allowed to taken
into the national balance sheet!
Then there are wages etc,
And last but not least a reverse tax, like seed money grants for industry, coops etc, which is a compensted price mechanism that subsidizes costs which flow onto the consumer- all citizens. This is also anti-inflationary and will greatly reduce prices so the cost of living and demand for wages which are major problems under the existing system are no longer a problem.
The money is cancelled out by manufacturing/consumption. New money created for the next economic cycle.
Thus in summary the money system is a facilitator for the nation
to create and distrubute the wealth they are able to realize via their knowledge, skill, technology, raw materials/natural resources, just like the father and son in the sand on the beach with beach bucket and spade, they can go ahead and do what is natural and not have to borrow some arbitrary ticket from a stranger, authorising them to enjoy a little freedom momentarily, that the son will still have the burden to bare when he grows up.
Still sound much the same as the existing system?
Posted 18 April 2004 - 02:53 PM
a medium to bring people together. The objective should be to
form a mass protest against the media giants by getting a ground swell in all nations to cancell their newspaper subscription
in favour of the network of genuine reporting.
This will hurt much more than the protests against the IMF meetingd etc. THis could be the equivat of the Irish kneecappers.>
"If all nations possessed the same right as the Americans - to wage preventive wars without UN support - the law of the jungle would prevail in international affairs."
Worst, the snake media lends a hand to the lion in exchange for scraps. Time reading newspaper is time wasted. It's like reading fairy stories, only that the media claims to be honest and true. I can only find one good reason to read the paper: To have a laugh or two...
"To arouse public opinion in the preparation for war, the neo-conservatives around the US Administration frequently compared Saddam to Adolf Hitler and George Bush to Winston Churchill. Given that by 1939 Hitler's Germany was the most powerful military force in Europe and that by 2003 Saddam's Iraq was an impoverished tinpot tyranny, the comparison was laughable. Yet inside the Australian media virtually no one laughed."
Iraq: our media are culpable
April 19, 2004
The Howard case for war was not adequately tested, writes Robert Manne.
"The events of this extraordinary week have been more than a military victory for a coalition of Western nations determined to disarm a vicious dictator . . . it was the jubilant crowds welcoming the coalition troops into Baghdad that signalled something deeper was going on . . . even on your ABC, the whining has not been loud enough to drown out the cheering from Iraq. Remember the quagmire? Remember the bloody campaign in which we were going to get bogged down . . . only to end up in a bitter intifada?"
Editorial in The Australian, April 12, 2003.
We have just witnessed the most disastrous fortnight in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad. During April a militant Shiite rebellion erupted. Forty foreigners were taken hostage. In the siege of Sunni Fallujah, more than 80 Americans and 700 Iraqis were killed. In a potent piece of reverse symbolism, the square where the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled had to be closed to Iraqis by US troops.
Almost everything the Anglo-American leaders told us about the invasion has, thus far, proved to be false. Iraq was invaded to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. Almost everyone - except George Bush and John Howard - now concedes that such weapons did not exist. Such weapons were especially dangerous, we were told, because of Saddam's links with al-Qaeda. Almost everyone now knows that no such links existed. We were told that the invasion of Iraq would help solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The prospects of a genuine Middle East peace have never been so remote. We were told that the invasion would help solve the threat of Islamist terrorism. Nothing has given the ideology of Islamism a greater fillip than the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. We were told the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces as liberators. Iraq is now a tinderbox.
Most serious commentators knew that the Iraq adventure was liable, as one put it, "to end in tears". Such thoughts were uncommon in the Australian media. They were forbidden to the editors of our overwhelmingly most powerful newspaper group. If we want to learn from the failure of judgement with Iraq it is over the questionable performance of our media and not of our intelligence services that a searching national debate should now begin.
recommended article and cartoon...
Posted 18 April 2004 - 03:41 PM
Iraqi jungle though is getting a tough bone to chew on, in light of unpredictable competition. Either you are a big cat or you band together to be a winner. Those are lessons to learn from the jungle.:confused:
Small animals meanwhile are asking when it's going to be their turn. Perhaps it's a matter of breaking with indifference and deciding to run the jungle, the way it should be...
Posted 18 April 2004 - 05:51 PM
Congressman Tauzin reintroduced National Retail Sales Tax Legislation this
week and here is his statement, which includes the new bill number.
- - - - -
"Today, April 15th, is a day that many Americans unsurprisingly dread - Tax
Day. As of 2001, the Internal Revenue Code contained 1,685,000 words- a 13%
increase since 1995 and nearly 380 times the number of words in the U.S.
Constitution, and IRS regulations contained almost 9 times the number of
words in the
King James Bible. This year, Americans will spend an average of 13 hours to
complete their federal tax returns, and it will cost them an estimated
billion in 2003 just to comply with the tax code. America's tax system is
obviously broken, and I believe the time has come for Congress to take
action to fix it.
I recently introduced HR 4168, the Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2004, which
provides Americans the tax relief they deserve. My bill repeals the income
tax, abolishes the IRS and enacts a national retail sales tax to be
primarily by the states. I believe that now, more than ever, Congress is in
a position to and must move to consider fundamental tax reform that would
benefit the taxpaying public. Because it is needlessly complicated, the tax
is inefficient and inequitable, threatening both America's economic
competitiveness and the freedom of individual taxpayers. Although we are
well on our
way to economic recovery, the tax system remains an impediment to full
and we must continue to work together for fundamental tax reform."
Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
- - - - -
Posted 18 April 2004 - 05:55 PM
No. Sounds like how the system was supposed to be before the bankers stole everything.
There are some points I have to think about yet but the information was valuable to my gaining insight into where you are coming from.
Posted 18 April 2004 - 07:05 PM
If you can't get it from that go to www.mises.org, click on "Daily Articles" located in the header, then scroll down to March,2004 and find "How healthy are the Banks?" by Frank Shostak.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users