... from blueshark's post...
 

Yeah... too bad. Things like that happen when you globalize. Open doors, open trade (nafta, gatt, cafta, ftaa, etc.,...). Jobs go away, foreigners walk in.

From something I submitted to some op-ed's, SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE 'WAR' STARTED:

I’ve just heard another person say [he’s] glad our troops are defending our freedom.

Our troops? They ARE Americans, but…

I don’t know if they’re our troops or not. Bill Clinton signed PDD 25 during his first administration, giving command of OUR American troops, to the UN. Not NATO, but the UN. This is an abridgement of the Constitution of the United States of America. Some US soldiers are facing courts martial for refusing to submit to these foreign commanders too. But that’s another issue.

Defending our freedom? Who is trying to take away our freedom? Saddam Hussein? No. He was not spiritually inspired - he was materialistic, and was totally happy in his own little country, and would not do anything to incur our wrath and disrupt his personal machine. Yeah, he tried totake overa neighbor 10 years ago, but he wouldn't try that stunt again.bin-Laden? I don’t think so. Let us say for the sake of an argument thatany bad countryhad a dozen or so nuclear- or biological agent- tipped ICBMs that he could have launched at the U. S. We have satellites in orbit that can see an ICBM light up in a silo even before it leaves the dirt. We also have surface to air, and air to air defense capabilities to thwart any such action.

Regardless of how evil he might have been, he wasn’t such a fool that he would have attempted such foolishness, having incurred the wrath of [restrained] military action 10 years before. In fact, leaders of no nation would attack the U. S. Only stateless terrorists would conduct such acts without fear of reprisal. So why are our troops overseas? Let’s call their purpose ‘the war on terror’. Well, that argument doesn’t hold water either.

And here’s why.

When we get a cold, over 99% of the time it is from a bacteria or virus that we have had in our system for months, if not years. This is called a ‘sub-clinical infection’ - so called because the infection did not cause a problem. When it does get to the point that our body cannot keep it in check, it becomes a ‘clinical’ infection. When we get sick (09/11/01), we don’t extract our bodies’ defense mechanisms to sterilize our environment. We take medicine.

The ‘world body’ is full of these terrorist pathogens. They will be with us until the end of time. A wise man named Gamaliel once told persecutors of Christians that if a cause is of men, the cause will die when the men die. If a cause is spiritual, it will NOT die when the men-leaders die, like bin-Laden. A spiritual cause can’t be pacified with money, or any material thing, either.

So why are our troops trying to destroy something that will never go away? For humanitarian reasons? No. No politician does anything unless there’s something in it for him. Like money.

Our defense contractors want new contracts. They, and the ripple effects they create when they are awarded new contracts, are a driving force on Wall Street. And most of us don’t live on Wall Street. If your money does live there, you still will not get returns on your investment dollars equal to what you’ve paid in taxes, that are being spent on the war on terror. But to a few contractors, that means all the old weapons will be used up. Unfortunately, a few troops get used up with them. In Washington, that doesn’t matter. There are more politicians than doctors.

Let’s bring the troops home, and stop spending those tax dollars. And take our medicine, too.

Solution??? Isolationism. I've said it for many years... Then, the other night, I saw it was written 3,000 years ago (current application in brackets)...

Therefore he [the leader]said unto Judah [the colonists], Let us build these cities [America], and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars, while the land is yet before us [all the way to the Pacific]; because we have sought the LORD our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest [peace/security]on every side. So they built and prospered.

II Chronicles, chap 14 v 7

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Hmmmm.......:eek:......Let's just agree to disagree. You've touched on a few different issues here, and it would take some time to address each in turn. Not that I don't believe my "Opinion" or your's is not worthy, I just choose not to debate it here.
After all is said and done, you have the right to voice, I just reservemy right, not to. ;)
Ain't America great![sm=americanasmiley.gif]

PS
Since I have thrown my hat in the ring for president, I would gladly voice my opinion at a personal level, in a PM, but I won't drag CF through the muck of a presidential debate.
( My wife says dinner is ready, if I want to eat, I better get movin'. :DBye! )

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

How come?

Debate is good, as long as it is civil. It makes people think!

What do you not agree with?

That the 'war' is not about money for defense contractors?

Here's a little more fodder about your tax bucks gettin' back into the hands of the defense contractors, who contributed to the election campaigns of the politicians... (and if you have high blood pressure, DO NOT READ THIS; for others of you, it might be over your heads)

Inside a War-Time Contract[/align]A timeline of Fuel Distribution Task Order 0005[/align]
By André Verlöy
WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 — Over a period of six months, the contracted value of one Iraqi task order of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root grew by a multiple of 36 and was modified 21 times, according to previously classified documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

The task order, which was part of the March 8, 2003, no-bid Iraqi oil restoration contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to KBR, increased from its original ceiling of $24 million to $887.37 million. Under task order 0005, which originally had a performance period of 90 days, KBR was responsible for importing fuel to Iraq. KBR did not break the $7 billion ceiling that had been specified for the sole-source contract, but the frequent modifications to the task order, which lays out specific work requirements under the contract, have some questioning the process.

The General Accounting Office, which did not specifically investigate the KBR oil contract, expressed concerns about revisions to contracts and task orders for work in Iraq. "Task orders were frequently revised. These revisions generated a significant amount of rework for the contractor and the contracting officers. Additionally, time spent reviewing revisions to the task orders is time that is not available for other oversight activities," David M. Walker, the comptroller of the General Accounting Office, told a June 15 Congressional hearing on contracting and the rebuilding of Iraq. "While operational considerations may have driven some of these changes, we believe others were more likely to have resulted from ineffective planning."

Dan Guttman, a government contracting expert who serves as a consultant to the Center for Public Integrity, said he understands the need for flexibility, but that it should also apply to oversight. "Where urgency is used to justify an order-of-magnitude increase in the costs of a single contract task only months after the task was assigned, officials must be able to show the President, the Congress and the public that the change reflects the legitimate exigencies of emergency, and not failure of planning or contractor oversight," Guttman said.

Lu P. Christie, a spokesman for the Army Corps, told the Center that the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and the Coalition Provisional Authority "defined the requirements and approved the funds. The $24 million and the 90 day performance period were based on an estimate of how much money and time it would take during which benzene and LPG [liquefied petroleum gas] would have to be imported to meet domestic needs on a temporary basis. The expectation was that the refineries would be working again in thirty days and be able to meet demands soon after."

The contract KBR received on March 8—contract DACA63-03-D-0005—had a ceiling of $7 billion and would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling. The company did work for just over $2.5 billion, and no additional task orders are being added to the contract, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.

On Oct. 29, 2003, the Center for Public Integrity filed suit against the Army Corps for failure to fully and promptly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. During the course of the Center's lawsuit against the Army Corps, the agency decided to declassify the KBR oil services contract and released a copy to the Center.

Task order 0005 provides insight into the way contracts can increase or decrease in value in a short time period. On May 4, 2003, the Army Corps expected KBR to complete all work on task order 0005 within 90 days and not exceed $24 million. The Statement of Work requires the company to develop plans and project schedules "showing each activity and duration and estimated costs." After submitting these schedules within a week of receiving the task order, the contractor is required to send weekly updates and work scheduled for the next week. Three weeks after being awarded, the ceiling of $24 million was reached. Another 20 modifications later and the task order was worth nearly $900 million. After that, task orders 0007 through 0010, totaling up to $619.8 million, were issued for work apparently identical to task order 005.
[align=center]http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/i...BRTimeline.png[/align]
Christie denied that the increases were arbitrary. "Sabotage and looting increased both the funding and the time required. The level of sabotage and looting were significant and continued over time—both to the oil infrastructure and to the electrical system upon which the oil system depended," Christie said. "As MOO/ORHA/CPA defined new requirements and approved funding for those requirements, the task order amounts were adjusted."

Halliburton, the parent company of KBR, has come under scrutiny because of allegations of overcharging on food service and fuel distribution, poor management and close ties to the administration. In June 2004, Time magazine reported that a March 5, 2003, e-mail written by an Army Corps official referred to the awarding of the oil restoration contract as having been "coordinated" with Vice President Richard Cheney's office, an allegation that was denied by the vice president's spokesman.

Two audit reports from the Defense Contract Audit Agency on Jan. 13 and May 13 found several deficiencies in KBR's billing system. As a result, KBR is required to "provide all billings to DCAA for provisional approval prior to submission for payment." The agency is withholding $186 million in payments for food service until KBR provides additional data showing that the meals billed actually were provided, according to congressional testimony by William H. Reed, the director of DCAA.

[i]The Pentagon's Inspector General also launched a criminal investigation in February 2004 into whether KBR overcharged the government while it was importing fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Patrice Mingo, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, told the Center that the company has not received an official notification of an investigation by DOD's IG office. A Pentagon spokeswoman said the investigation is on-going. In a February press release the company said it welcomes a review of all its government contracts. "This is a step toward resolution of the issue. In the current political environment, it is expected," Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. According to media reports, initial findings by Pentagon auditors allege that KBR overcharged the<

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

I don't dispute the "money" issue, it is general knowledge for those who will seek out the info. But, that is only one aspect of the reasoning as to why we have gotten involved.
Like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. One had ahold ofa leg, another the tail, and the third the trunk. They gave completely different views as to what an elephant looked like. My meaning is, ya have ta look at the whole picture to really see the jist of what is taking place, and why. :)A global view, if you will.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Don't ya think we oughtta' make sure our own house is safe? Take some medicine maybe?

Sure don't seem wise to me to take our antibodies out of our blood to try to kill the germs on the outside, when the only bad ones are the ones inside your body.

The doc says don't scratch poison ivy - you'll make it spread. Even if you don't spread it, you'll make it bleed and ooze.

I'm not concerned each dayabout dying at the hands of a terrorist. If the troops came home today, I would not be concerned tomorrow about dyingat the hands of a terrorist. Not today, tomorrow,or before the attacks.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Forums are kinda' quiet now there, c3... (as is a pc tech forum I watch too).

I think ya' oughtta' come back with some points you disagree with, at least to keep some interaction goin' here...

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Pretty limited interaction, since you and I are the only ones whoare posting on this thread. :D

Understand this, these are points that I want to make clear, right from the git go.......
Anything I will say, is strickly my opinion. I feel no need to convert anyone to my way of thinking. Nor will I allow others to diswade me from my veiws. Pretty narrow minded of me, yes, but I feel the way I do , due to a lifetime of watching situations evolve, and studying the past results of certain actions.
If the issues we discuss can be reasonably brought forth, with no discord toward one another, I have no problem with an inteligent exchange. :)
Other wise, I will not continue. ;)

Agreed?:eek:

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Sure! As long as you see it MY way!:D

Really tho', if someone is clear about their beliefs, or their opinions, they'll get my respect, even if they are atthe opposite extreme from how I see it.The only ones who inflame me are the fence-sitters, the follow-the-crowd types, and the ones who speed behind another [bold] speeder, and try to be sneaky about it (without being bold themselves).

... and about two months ago, on I-40 near Greensboro, I saw one of those types pulled over. He had just passed me 10 minutes before, around 80+ mph, right on another's tail, also doin' 80+. Thought he was slick.:D"That's too bad there, buddy..."

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Since it's fresh on my mind, I'll address the "Bold" speeder.
I'll cruise at around 70, and when someone blows by, I'll give them about a 1 mile lead and run on up to match their speed, still holding the gap. I let them run interference. If "Smokey" takes them out, I'll drop back to posted speed and wait for another "Bold" speeder.Saves on the expence of a radar detector and tickets. ;)

I'm formulating, (gathering my thoughts),my veiws on the issue of "isolationism", and will post it in the next day or so. I want to be concise about this issue, and will not rush to a responce. So, bare with me. :)

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Isolation….
Throughout history, man has tried various types of “Isolationism” to protect from outside forces. Jericho had a great wall, they were conquered. The Chinese and their Great Wall, the Mongols still invaded. The English and their castles with moats, the Norsemen still invaded. (check out the Saxon Wars, there are no true “Englishmen” anymore)

If we had kept to ourselves during WWI, the Huns would have overrun Europe. If we had stayed home during WWII, the Germans would have most certainly taken England, Western Asia, and Africa. Most certainly developed the atom bomb, high tech rocketry, and invadedour east coast. The Japanese would have invaded the West coast, and the Germans and Japanese would have “had it out” in the Mid-west. With the Germans having “The Bomb”, they would have beaten the Japanese and taken control of the entire North American continent. Hitler would have realized his dream for world domination.

Those who defected to the U.S., during WWII, helped us develop the technology, not only for the A-Bomb, but our very own missile defense and space programs.
The superior optics of Nikon cameras, came from German techs who escaped to Japan.

We can’t just hide in a hole in the ground, and hope that no one tries to dig us up. I really don’t want to fight a battle on our home ground, I’d rather take the battle to them. Let’s deploy devastation on their land, not ours. If I know that some one is gunning for me, I’ll meet them at their[/i][/b] front door, and take the first[/i][/b] shot. I’m not going to play any games![/i][/b]
We have military bases around the world, why? As a deterrent against those who would think of starting a take over of some type. We can be at any point on the planet within minutes, should the need arise.

Protect our borders? Most definitely! We should have implemented a strong system years ago. The laws are in place, we just need the collective backbone to enforce them. Our medical, education, and economy in general, is straining due to the burden of illegal immigrants from many countries tapping our system. Kick them out and lock the door.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

That's a good point. But do you really think the US would have been overrun?


Here you're makin' a point for isolationism - at least in one respect....

But havin' an action overseas UNDER WHAT GUISE??? Protection against terrorism? I don't believe many Americans worry each day about dying. Much less dying at the hands of a terrorist. Yeah, it happened once.I bet more worry about a car wreck, tho', orabout gettin' the bills paid, etc., ...

And what about global [free] trade? Surely you're not for free trade?

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

" illegal immigrants"is the key phrase here. I don't have a prob with "legal immigrants", those who contribute and not cause a drain on our sytem andway of life.

No, I'm not for "Free" trade, why should we haveto pay to export and other countries import at low or no cost? I've been against NAFTA and simular policies from the start.

"But havin' an action overseas UNDER WHAT GUISE???"

I'm still building my responce. I do have a strong view on this issue.
You may be surprised or maybe even enlightened. I already touched on it.
Yes, Hitler wanted to overrun North America, and at a time when we would have not been prepared. Our Military preparedness did not really kick into gear until we were already involved in Europe. D-Day was not the first action of our forcesin Europe during WWII.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

The guise is an anti-terrorism action. The only thing keeping it afloat is the 5threnewal last week of emergency spending legislation for this action.

EMERGENCY???How long does an emergency last??? Funding for this boondoggle would never get through the regular federal budget. Know why? Cause there's no objective. No obtainable objective. NONE. The elimination of terrorists will never, ever go away. Never. There are just as many incidents now as there were before the action began. London train. Spain train. Bali disco. etc., ...

You have no problem with legal immigrants, huh? You know the hijackers were legal.

Isolate. We can see everything we need to see from surveillance sattelites. Everything.

A legitimate action would be to let a nation, led by the government of that nation, become a genuine threat. THEN, allow armed forces to go in, and engage without restraint. Policing? Like cops on patrol? What a waste.:eek:

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

"You have no problem with legal immigrants, huh? You know the hijackers were legal."

I make adistinction between "immigrants" and "visitors". The highjackers were not in the process of becomming citizens, therefore they were not "immigrants", they were here on visas.
My great G-father was an immigrant. He went through the propper processes. We have become way too slack in our enforcement of our immigration laws. The laws are still on the books, they're just not enforced.

And to those who say that these "illegals" are law biding persons,..........
THEY BROKE THE LAW BY COMMING HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. DEPORT THE WHOLE LOT.
I'm sick and tired of giving handouts to these law breakers. They're nothing but free loaders.
Let our military deal with the World issues outside the US. The National Guard should be here at home, protecting our borders. Hence the name, "National Guard".

If the estimated 20 million illegals, were to join together in their own countries, they could make a difference in their own countries government and then wouldn'tfeel a needto leave.Think about it, 20 million people moving on their own government to invoke change. Rebellion?, you bet cha!

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Something for the sub topic of illegal immigrants.Illegals are nothing more than Criminal intruders.
As for the "war" ....right, wrong or indifferent,...The reason for being there is irrelevant at this point, we're there now and need to finish what we started before we leave.
Sorry for the intrusion into your discussion. Cheers


I have no evidence this is legit, but an interesting piece if true.

Here is a "REAL INTERVIEW" with an illegal Mexican at a protest march in Texas.


Trying to reason with an Illegal Mexican:


This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic. Don't be logical, don't respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend. On the streets of downtown Houston, May 1, 2006.

Jim Moore reporting for a Houston TV station:

Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching in the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?

Juan: We want our rights!. We will show you how powerful we are. We will bring Houston to its knees!

Jim: What rights?

Juan: Our right to live here...legally. Our right to get all the benefits you get.

Jim: When did you come to the United States?

Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other friends.

Jim: Why did you come?

Juan: For work. I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security. Nothing like that in Mexico!

Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you came?

Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a right to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.

Jim: How did you acquire those documents?

Juan: From a guy in Dallas. He charged me a lot of money too.

Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged?

Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.

Jim: What is the "right" you speak of?

Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!

Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about rights for Aliens.

Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights, like the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico, so I came here.

Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and that document speaks to unalienable rights .. Not Alien rights.

Juan: Whatever.

Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are you carrying a Mexican Flag?

Juan: Because I am Mexican.

Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... to become a US citizen.

Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful owner.

Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After wining the war with Mexico, Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was not stolen from Mexico.

Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New Mexico and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like oil and babies. You are a country of thieves.

Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?


Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over the place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out. How is this fair?

Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then.

Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another thing we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish . Teachers must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak Spanish than English. It is our right!

Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?

Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different.

Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live wherever they please.

Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want Mexico too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why would you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, or welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my country. Stay in the country of your birth.

Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. Thank you for your comments.

Juan: Viva Mexico!

You will not see this heart-stopping photo on the front page of the NY Times or on the lead story of the major news networks. The protesters put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in California.


I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington. The image of the American flag subsumed to another and turned upside down on American soil is already spreading on Internet forums and via e-mail.


Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be "redistributed" to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values. One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one........


The battle for our secure borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.

If this ticks YOU off...PASS IT ON!

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Great post Bro. [sm=icon_rock.gif]
You are in no way invading the discussion here. Anyone is welcome to join in and state their views. ;)

Like cwb stated, he, and I agree, hate "fence sitters". [:@]

In the words of Arron Tippin, "You've got ta stand for somethin', or you'll fall for anything".

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

The immigrant problem in my opinion is less a concern than globalization issues. Latino immigrants are hard workers. I have a problem with resources that are made available to them, and allotments of tax dollars to cater to them - language labels, signs, etc., but I see enough of them working hard to marginally offset my tax 'loss'.

The war, as I stated before, has no objective. It can't be 'won'. Victory has no definition over in that place.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Please clarify this statement for me. :eek:
"The immigrant problem in my opinion is less a concern than globalization issues. Latino immigrants are hard workers."

I hope you mean the legal ones.
If not, let's call them what they are, "Illegal Immigrants". There is a big difference.

Granted, most "immigrants" are hard workers.

"Illegal immigrants" are law breakers from the start. Laws are on the books that state this to be so. Fact is fact, if you break the law, you break the law. How can I expect someonewhobreaks a law to not be guilty of a crime. I can't!
Laws have been put in place, due to the fact that the majority of people agreed that something was just plain wrong. If your car doesn't pass a smog test that may be required by law, you are technically a law breaker, but it's alright to break the law of illegal entry and bennifit from the hard work and taxes of law biding citizens? Sorry, that just doesn't wash with me.
Why should an "illegal" bennefit from "FREE" programs that I, as a natural born US citizen have no right to? Sorry again, but my hard earned money is used tosupport these law breakers, who continue to break the law. I don't care if they are Latino, Asian, Europian, or what ever,get their damn hands outa my pocket.
I know many fine people from many races, who are legal citizens, that help me carry the load. If we don't pay out our moneys to support the programs now tailered toillegals, WE are thelaw breakers and subject to jail or even prison. Where is the justice in that?
You just watch, and mark my words, our taxes are about to take a large upswing, and why? To pay for more governmental programs. Our government is supposed to work for us, but as it turns out, we are working for them.
I used to own my own business. 3/8 of my income went to taxes and other fees that just had other names for taxes. Another 1/8 went for legitimate business expences. Do the math, that's 50% of my gross went somewhere else. And I'm suppesed to be happy about owning my own business? Our government encourages small business, why? Look at the income we generate for 'Them".
(so they can support "illegals", and throw us a bone that is void of meat. Ex. Social Security Retirement. They spent my and your funds years ago. )
Medicare, I've got news for ya......you will still have to pay for that, no matter how old ya get. My Mother has worked hard all her life, and a full 1/3 of her retirement goes to pay for Medicare. By the way, she's 84 years old, and worked for over 70 of those years. But ya, let's giver her's and all of our money to some "illegals". We should feel sorry for them.Heck, let's just invite them right into our very homes and support their whole dang familly. After all, they have rights too.[:o]
GO THE F#$% HOME, AND FIX YOUR OWN HOUSE, QUIT LIVIN' IN MINE AND EXPECTIN' ME TO PAY YOUR BILLS.

I think I've pretty much covered my opinion on this subject, all I can do now is just come up with more examples, but I think ya see from where I'm commin'.
Man, ya really got me wound up on this one. ;)

Next post, I'll change the my subject.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Well....My take on it is that the war has perhaps several objectives. Some may not be as noble as others but one that is meaningful for me is to give the Iraqi people the freedom of choice. Their God given right of "Free will"! That would be a huge "Victory".

As for ifit can be "won" or not. It depends on your definition of "Won". I don't think it can be "won" in the idealistic meaning of complete obliteration of undesirables but I do believe it can be "won" if the Iraqi government can become self sufficient and and strong enough to police themselves. And become a respectable and honorable participant in the global economy. They'll need to stop fighting among them selves with guns and start using words and votes. I think the biggest hurdle over there is to instill respect for human life and free choice. They need to realize that everyone has the right to choose for them selves what they want to believe, and pushing their views on others is not their "right". I don't think Islam on a whole is quite so fanatical with their hatred for "the infidels". I believe like someone said early on that the fanatics hijacked the religion. It's not something that will happen over night as they have been doing this for thousands of years. But I do think it is doable. That is why the insurgents are doing what they are doing, to create havoc and chaos and keep the government from organizing and establishing itself. They must fear this as hard as they are trying to keep it from happening. iI you notice most of their attacks are on the Iraqi people and not the coalition (US) troops.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Ya saved me some typing on this one Bro. I whole heartily agree.
Great post! ;)

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Thanks!

Yes, I meant the legal ones, even tho' they pay miniscule tax, if at all.

Immigrants' money stays at least in North America, and stays in circulation. Outsourced manufacturing means no export taxes on our cotton, to go to china, to sew into a shirt, and no import taxes, whenthe shirtcomes back. But some consumers' $$$ goes to china in the process.

That's why I believe globalization is more a threat to US taxpayers.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

I think most illegals are so, because not every elected representative would get to add a proportionate share to his own constituency base. You can count on that they're fightin' each otherfor it, to get more tax $$$.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Isolationism....

To be a true form of "isolationism", we would have to make a complete withdrawl from the world scene.
One of the big drawbacks would be the effect on our economy. Without the world wide trade, many of our products would not have the market that is now available. Prices would skyrocket, availability would go down, and an economic calapse would ensue. A depression of catastrphic proportions would make the '29 depression seem like a holiday.
No more travel to exotic places of the world, and no more monies from the foreign tourist trade.
I can forsee the collapse of our culture into anarchy. Intime, we would be prime subjects for a political takeover, most likely to be in the form of a dictaitorship. Forget what rights you have now, everything would be restructured to the point of enslavement.
I'm not going to quote the history books here, but if you will read the history of the Romans, Egyptian, Chinese and Japanese dynasties, the Incas, and let's not forget Eastern Europe and Russia, you will find the results of a political breakdown.
That's about all I'm going to go into. We have the best system going, we just have to be very aware of internal changes.
Like a mouse eating a cake. Very small bites don't seem like any prob, but before you know it, the whole dang cake is gone. Now you're sitting there with no desert, and can't figure out why.
Be aware, be very aware!

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Hello All,
On the contrary, I have been doing research and reading parts of the Quran. If you are Muslim and adhere strictly to it as a faithful follower, then you would be what we call a "terrorist". The "passive" Muslims that adhere to peace are also considered "infidels". The Quran is very fanatical.

Ironically, Allah is the same God that the Jews, Christians, etc pray to. Islam does not recognize the Trinity of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

CG

"I don't think Islam on a whole is quite so fanatical with their hatred for "the infidels".

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

....and where did it all originate?
The sons of Abraham, Isacc and Ishmal. Isacc, the rightfull heir, and Ishmal, the bastard son.
Ishmal, being the father of the Arab nations. They seek to seize the lands of Isreal, in a misbelief that"they" have the right to ownership of the "Holy Lands".The battle continues to this very day, and shall continue until they have rid the Middle East, and the world,of all infidels. I feel that we must, as a Christian nation, continue our fight in the name of Christ in order to defend the downtroden of the world.
Mohamad is the "Christ", if you will, of the Muslims. This is who I see as an "Anti-Christ". (not the Anti-Christ of Revelations)
I really don't want to go deeper at this time. We are now at a point where this thread could go into religious controversy, the subject of manyconflicts throughout time. We have seen Christian against Christian and Muslim against Muslum. There will only be one solution, that is the promised return of Jesus Christ and the vanquishing of "Evil" from the world.
I have pretty much made my statementsreguarding the original post.
As I stated before, I do not intend to change anyone's veiw, nor will I allow others to change mine. Ihave simply put forth my opinion. ;)
May God Bless, as He sees fit. :)

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

You had a few good points at the beginning...

many of our products would not have the market What products? Nothing is made here. There is only consumption here.

Prices would skyrocket, Yes, they would, because we would have to make our own stuff, (like we did before) and labor costs would increase prices.

political takeover??? I got a scoop for ya' there c3... local, county, state, and federal governmentsare already being absolved.
Small town street addresses are gone here in NC. The street #'s are now counted from the COUNTY seat, not from the small town's downtown 0, 0 block.
Counties have been merged into 'economic trade zones', of 4, 5, or 6 counties (although the county names are still used).
States' representativeshave lost the right to vote in many foreign trade agreements. They are supposed to be called 'treaties', by the US constitution. But they're now called 'agreements' - NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, FTAA, WTA, etc., ... The A's stand for agreement. The T's don't stand for TREATY. And there's ONE VOTE for the US, in these AGREEMENTS. Representative government is in dissolution.

Yup, isolation would be painful. We'd actually have to become 'producers'. Mr. GM, Mr. Nike, Mr. Dell wouldn't have the benefit of tax/tariff free trade. Wall street would hurt. (and speaking of wall street, what do you think drove the DOW to unheard of #'s in the '90's - B Clinton? hahaha. Try GATT. They said the cost of your Volvo would go down by GATT, since Mr. Volvo wouldn't have to pay import tax to the US. Unfortunately, I didn't see penny one in price drop. Mr. Volvo'sprice stayed the same, and his increased earningswent to Wall Street. If you're a high roller in wall street, you STILL probably didn't see dollar per dollar return there.)

Yup, isolation would be painful. Medicine always is, if it works.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Where did the religious stuff come from???[&:]

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

"Where did the religious stuff come from???[&:] "

Answer 1.
The Holy Scriptures. (Christian)

Answer 2.
There has been mention of Muslums, infidels, and terroristsin previous posts, and I expanded on the issue due to the fact that "religion" is where most of the war issues get their start, and fuel.

You have to include "religion" in these issues, sinceit is the foundaton of all cultures.
Reguardless the culture, reguardless the religion.

The cultures of the world go to war for "God" and "Country".
And history backs up this veiw. Whether it be a "supremebeing", or an individual as aself proclaimed "God".

BTW, as far as a political takeover, I was reffering to the collapse and emergence of a totally new form of government for the U.S.
You are on track though, our current governmental system is being restructured, for the bennefit of government, not the people.

It's a mouse thing. A nickle here, a dime there. A right here, a right there.

RE: ... from blueshark's post...
 

Oops, I must make a correction. :eek:
My mother retired at 70. She started working at 14, so she worked outside the home for 56 years. She started working on the family ranch at around 4 years old, feeding animals and working in the garden. So I guess, in reality, she worked for 66 years. ;)