'World Is Losing War On Terror' - UN

[DarkAce]

The worldwide war on terror is being lost with al Qaeda still posing as big a threat as ever, according to a damning United Nations report.

It says many countries are not doing enough to counter the threat of Osama bin Laden's terror network.


UN experts believe al Qaeda is still capable of carrying out major terror attacks because virtually no country has completely cut off its cash flow.

Efforts to block the sale of weapons and the movement of terror suspects "have not been effective," they say.

After the September 11 2001 attacks in the US, the UN Security Council passed a resolution requiring member nations to freeze assets, block arms sales and restrict the travel of any person or group believed to be linked to terror.

But not one nation has reported stopping either the travel or the sale of weapons to anyone on the UN list of those suspected of links to al Qaeda, said the experts.

Thet report: "There is no prospect of an early end to attacks from al Qaeda associated terrorists.

"Using minimal resources and exploiting worldwide publicity, they have managed to create an international sense of crisis."

The curb on weapons that can be sold globally does not cover the tools used in most al Qaeda attacks.

The March train bombings in Madrid relied on mobile phones and mining explosives which are not covered by the sanctions.

Link:http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1149233,00.html

[Donsun]

Well if the UN would actually help and do something instead of being a lame duck then we would be alot better off. They have no right to critizise when they dont enforce any of there resolutions. :uh:

[Thoughtful_one]

While it's true the UN doesn't do much or anything for that matter it's still an important organization. I believe the UN's role as a major world governing body is over but it's still quite effective in studying and looking for solutions to major world problems like drought, starvation and AIDS in Africa.

Besides the UN would be a stronger political body if the US paid more attention and actually took control of UN policy back in the 60s. The US has a HUUUUGE debt to pay off but they don't bother paying it. If the nation that created the UN doesn't give a damn about it then you don't really expect it to work now do you?

[humanhybrid]

We have Bush policies to thank for that both in the world community and enviromentally. He is the lame duck and his administration. The dollors and deaths are adding up daily ladies and gentleman. good day!

[DarkAce]

The UN is completly useless as an military presence, but no need to go into that, we have an older thread that discusses thoroughly the ineffectiveness of the UN already.
Keyword Thoughtful_One, United Nations. The US shouldn't be the forerunner and accountable in everything.

Do you even read and think of what you type HH? I've long given up being formal and answering back to your diatribe because it's clearly obvious to anyone that your nothing more than a propaganda tool.

US policies and terrorism has long existed before this adminstration gained office, you are aware of that much? But alas fudge it, it'd be a waste explaining anything to you.

[humanhybrid]

US policies and terrorism has long existed before this adminstration gained office, you are aware of that much? But alas fudge it, it'd be a waste explaining anything to you. LETS NOT FUDGE IT OK! There is no better time than now and I mean not to waste time to register to vote! If in fact what you say about policy making, you would be served to know what policies that this administration has placed before us that affect us. You must ask yourself how does this benefit me? Will it? Your answer will tell me a two fold thing of you. good day

[dutchie]

Now, now gentlemen... :hater:

Thoughtful_one has a point, though.. The USA refuses to pay up their contribution to the UN, and just stands on the sideline, criticizing the UN, an organisation they helped to initiate. To people from other countries this comes across as sheer annoying arrogance - yes, that includes me.

If you want to get good work done through a potentially great organisation like the UN, stop jerking about, pay up, and work along to build the UN you would want to have, in stead of playing world police. And cut out the veto-right, one of the most UNDEMOCRATIC and arrogant tools ever invented.

[mickydoolittle]

The USA refuses to pay up their contribution to the UN, and just stands on the sideline, criticizing the UN, an organisation they helped to initiate. To people from other countries this comes across as sheer annoying arrogance - yes, that includes me.
Bullshit, there was nothing thoughtfull there, and it's not annoying arogance. It's a simple fact that if we give sovereignty to the UN, we become as useless as the UN--and that's as useless as titts on a bull.


If you want to get good work done through a potentially great organisation like the UN, stop jerking about, pay up, and work along to build the UN you would want to have, in stead of playing world police. And cut out the veto-right, one of the most UNDEMOCRATIC and arrogant tools ever invented.
The UN ceased being effective between 20-15 yrs ago. If it ever had the capability of being an organization to be reckoned with, it was then. You forget that AMERICA has paid up--much ofthe money the world's countries operate on, are the result of AMERICAn taxpayer funding. Loans that have been in fact absolved.

Let's stop playing nice and recognize that the only :hater: around are those countries that want to take AMERICA down through the UN.

In short: They can tongue my grainy (Censored by the Supreme Censor Monger).

[dutchie]

Bullshit, there was nothing thoughtfull there, and it's not annoying arogance. It's a simple fact that if we give sovereignty to the UN, we become as useless as the UN--and that's as useless as titts on a bull."We" - that is the USA, or were you talking about the entire western world?
If I read between your lines correctly, you'd propose that world rulership should really be given to the USA, or am I now taking this one step too far?!?


The UN ceased being effective between 20-15 yrs ago. If it ever had the capability of being an organization to be reckoned with, it was then. You forget that AMERICA has paid up--much ofthe money the world's countries operate on, are the result of AMERICAn taxpayer funding. Loans that have been in fact absolved.
You can pinpoint the moment in time where you think the US lost relevance. Please provide me with the reason you're pointing towards that time, and the reasons why you think it's lost its status THEN. BTW, The Dutch also paid a lot of money to the development of 3rd world countries and absolved loans too - so I fail to see the relevance of that remark..


Let's stop playing nice and recognize that the only :hater: around are those countries that want to take AMERICA down through the UN.
I was educated to think that bilateral talks were the best way to solve any disagreement. Isn't the fact of the matter that you'd rather see no "organisation to be reckoned with" at all, from fear that it might slap the hand of the USA for their vigilante attitude? Just curious...


In short: They can tongue my grainy (Censored by the Supreme Censor Monger).They might, but your head is in the way. :devsmoke:

[DarkAce]

Which policies do you have in mind HH? My comment was sort of a sarcastic jab because I get the vibe that you think all of the problems we're experincing is a direct result of this adminstration alone which just isn't the case.

Al Qaeda didn't attack us all those years ago because they knew we'd be in Iraq today....
(A good read: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=2503)

A thread to continue our discussion on the UN: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=2217

[humanhybrid]

The Bush Economic Record: What a Difference Three Years Makes
Jobs

2,931,000


Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office.1

135,000


Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman.2

-79,189


Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush.1

2,447,000


Number of people who have become unemployed since Bush took office.1

37 percent


Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office.1

4.1 percent


Unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 2001.1

5.6 percent


Unemployment rate in March 2004.1

8,170,000


Total number of unemployed Americans.1

675,000


Number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) when Bush took office in January 2001.1

1,871,000


Number of Americans suffering long-term unemployment in March 2004.1

177 percent


Increase in long-term unemployment under Bush.1

11.8 percent


Percentage of consumers who believe jobs are plentiful.3

760,000


Number of workers who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 2002.4
Ballooning Deficits

$5.6 trillion


Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001.5

$5.2 trillion


Budget deficit over next 10 years if Bush's 2005 budget proposal is enacted.6

$2.4 trillion


Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years.6

$478 billion


Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted.6

$188 billion


Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father.6
Bush's 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan

$2.2 trillion


Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt.7

32.4 percent


Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8

8.5 percent


Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8

64 million


Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$30,127


Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$289


Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9

$4-5 billion


Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states.10

1 million


Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999.11

36 million


Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT.11
Lower Income, Rising Costs

1.1 percent


Decrease in real median household income in 2002.12

10 percent


Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office.13

1,625,213


Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003.13

24 percent


Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office.14

50 percent


Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office.15

14 percent


Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years.15

8.7 percent


Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003.16

61 percent


Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003.15

11.5 percent


Increase in gas prices since 2000.17

49


Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students.18

35 percent


Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation.19

Sources: 1Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/04; 2House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff, 3/04; 3Conference Board, 3/04; 4Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/25/04; 5Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, 1/01; 6Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/1/04; CBO, An Analysis of Bush's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2005, 3/04; 7Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04, 1/21/04; 8CTJ Fact Sheet, 1/8/03; 9CTJ Fact Sheet, 2/3/03; 10CBPP Fact Sheet, 1/10/03; 11Brookings Institute, Tax Policy Center, The AMT: Out of Control, 9/18/02; New York Times, 1/10/03; 12U.S. Census Bureau, "Money Income in the United States: 2002"; 13American Bankruptcy Institute, 3/04; 14Conference Board, 3/04; 15Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003; 16AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 17CNN.com, 2/23/04; 18Associated Press, 8/25/03; 19College Board, College Costs 2003

[substand]

USA refuses to pay up their contribution to the UN, and just stands on the sideline, criticizing the UN

Actually, the US began a payment plan quite a while back to pay our overdue membership fees. However, there is a lot of resentment in the US (I wouldn't say widespread, but it is there from many of us here) that we are paying way more money and a larger percent of our gdp to the UN than any other country.

Ability to pay is one thing, but when the US was paying almost 1/3 of the entire budget, its a bit ridiculous. We're still paying over 20 percent, and I beleive its almost 1/4 of the entire budget.

Then, you add on top all of the extra-UN aid we give to countries, and you can see why to many of us in the US, the UN doesn't deserve our willingness to give sovereignty away. This is especially true when many of the new "aims" of the UN are aimed against us (or that these things seem to more often hurt us more than help us, regardless of intention). It gets worse when the UN is not even seemingly trying very hard to fulfill its initial obligations, and giving extremely oppresive rogue nations membership when the bylaws say that such countries should not have membership until they initiate reforms.

[substand]

As for the war on terror being lost, I think either the UN came to the wrong conclusions (if they indeed came to any) or the writer of the article came to the wrong conclusions about the report.

Terrorism still exists, to be sure. But we have captured many terrorist leaders and have ridded the world of at least 3 safehavens/sponsors of international terrorism. There is much yet to be done, such as getting the countries to "comply" with the UN resolution that required them to freeze accounts. I'd be interested in seeing how many countries refuse to comply vs those that simply have not been able to freeze all the assets.

There is no question that assets have been frozen and terrorists have been denied material and non-material support in places they used to have it. There is also no question that they still exist. I'm not so sure I'd call that "them winning," since they have been crippled at least in some ways. We've been crippled in ways as well, but I dont think to the extent they have. It'd be like "since everton was still existed in the game with arsenal in the 89th minute, they were winning." or like how Saddam said he had won the Gulf War I since he was still in power. There is some truth to that, but this game is not near over, and I would be hard pressed to find any evidence that considered our "gains" that would lead me to beleive that the terrorists are "winning" at worst it would be a stalemate, I would think.

On another note, has anyone actually seen the UN report or know where it can be found?

[humanhybrid]

Actually, the US began a payment plan quite a while back to pay our overdue membership fees. However, there is a lot of resentment in the US (I wouldn't say widespread, but it is there from many of us here) that we are paying way more money and a larger percent of our gdp to the UN than any other country.

Ability to pay is one thing, but when the US was paying almost 1/3 of the entire budget, its a bit ridiculous. We're still paying over 20 percent, and I beleive its almost 1/4 of the entire budget.
Im impressed, now entertain us Substand with an administrative source to substantuate your calculations! As well the other countries payment into the UN. And last but not least, would you favor a poor country paying the same as a wealthy country??? And Substand, your reply doesnt mean that its only for me because some one very important is now looking over your shoulder. good day!

[mickydoolittle]

"We" - that is the USA, or were you talking about the entire western world?
If I read between your lines correctly, you'd propose that world rulership should really be given to the USA, or am I now taking this one step too far?!?
Opening your response with melodramatics isn't going to accomplish much. We've been through this before my friend. :toast:

AMERICA doesn’t like being the world policeman. We don’t like sending our boys to die fighting for the freedom of a nation of impoverished ppl who hate us for helping them while ungrateful pieces of fundamentalist shit shout how great their imaginary friend is and how many virgins they are going to receive for killing a busload of innocent ppl with improvised explosive devices.

We are not the Yankee Cowboys you foreign idjits are so keen on referring to us as.


You can pinpoint the moment in time where you think the US lost relevance. Please provide me with the reason you're pointing towards that time, and the reasons why you think it's lost its status THEN. BTW, The Dutch also paid a lot of money to the development of 3rd world countries and absolved loans too - so I fail to see the relevance of that remark.

No—I can offer my opinion as to the moment(s) in time where the UN lost all relevance as a force to be reckoned with regarding influencing countries to behave.

In 1971, the UN voted to recognize and seat representatives of the People's Republic of China. Why would you open the door to a country with as many blatant Human Rights violations as China? Why allow them the opportunity to be part of the club when they place no value whatsoever on human life? And how are they enforcing compliance with China? They AREN’T.

In 1974, the UN voted to recognize the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". How fuct up is this? I’ll write just how fuct up it is: Why bother to have an organization like the UN if they are going to negotiate with terrorists? This only emboldens the terrorists to continue their ridiculous jihad.

In 1981, the UN passes the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. The UN should be served a nice big warm glass of STFU over this horseshit mandate. Another asshole policy paving the way for anyone to shout discrimination when someone like me tells someone to shut their yammering hole and keep their all powerful deity in their pants. Your god is awesome and fierce—so what? I don’t care and I don’t want to hear about it, so STFU already.

In 1984, the UN adopts the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This is simply a piece of paper that no country recognizes—and is then used against the US for its alleged mishandling of prisoners.
1) Where was this when Saddam was feeding ppl feet first into wood-chippers?
2) Where was this when the gov’t of China was (well, they still are actually) harvesting human organs from prisoners PRIOR to executing them? Yeah, it still happens.
3) Where was this when Fidel was torturing his prisoners at the same time as this was passed?

From this year moment onward, further frivolous mandates are passed into action by the UN--all the while choosing known violators of these very mandates to represent the UN in its summit meetings. In short, (and I repeat myself) the UN has become as useless as titts on a bull.

If the US were to pas its sovereignty over to the UN, then the citizens of this country could take their cases to a UN court—this would create a slew of litigation that would ultimately clog the floor of the UN from ever hearing cases with actual violations.

While the Dutch may have indeed paid much of their earned wages to other countries in aid and subsequently absolved those loans with little to no demands for why such behavior occurred, doesn’t mean that I can’t piss, bitch, and moan about my hard earned wages being taxed and sent to help countries whose leaders pilfer the coffers instead of spending it to strengthen the infrastructure to help the people—the very same people who would rather fight over sand and other petty such horseshit instead of living their lives and improving the overall standing of their country’s economy. Why send money in the first goddamn place?


I was educated to think that bilateral talks were the best way to solve any disagreement. Isn't the fact of the matter that you'd rather see no "organisation to be reckoned with" at all, from fear that it might slap the hand of the USA for their vigilante attitude? Just curious...

Yes yes yes…Oh, we’ll talk about our problems. Oh, we’ll talk about our issues. We’ll talk things out. Well talking is only good for those countries that understand mature approaches to resolving problems. We all saw and heard warning after warning after warning given to Iraq for compliance—Saddam kept stalling. Korea will do the same—as will Syria. Libya saw what happened to Iraq and folded like a US$2 whore—they’re pretty smart, ehh?

Further more, the UN wouldn’t the slap the hand of AMERICA for your perceived vigilante attitude. Jeebus H. Cristos…..The UN would however slap the hand of the US for being the superpower that it currently is and wants nothing more than to see AMERICA crumble and become dependent upon lesser unworthy countries and their economies. If we are equally poor and useless, then the UN can impose whatever sanctions/control they want upon whomever they want as long there is no country or power (like AMERICA) to moderate the UN.


They might, but your head is in the way.
Touché. But they could lick around it….this would be no different from the current actions by the UN. :devsmoke:

[AngelTV]

Kudo Mickey.
If you don't think there has been significant complications to terrorist and their supply of weapons, and I am talking weapons that are supplied by governments, then I don't think you see what has been achieved. Not one Country in the world is willing to deal with terrorist under the present surviellence and retailiation tactics used by the US. Being caught is regime suicide. Just ask Libya how scared these nations are. I feel huge indentations into the infrastructure of terrorist groups has been acheived.
"But not one nation has reported stopping either the travel or the sale of weapons to anyone on the UN list of those suspected of links to al Qaeda, said the experts."
This is the most absurd comment I have heard.
To report stopping the sale of weapons, you must first confess to selling. I think this statement alone gives no creedence to the above article.

[mickydoolittle]

I feel huge indentations into the infrastructure of terrorist groups has been acheived.
"But not one nation has reported stopping either the travel or the sale of weapons to anyone on the UN list of those suspected of links to al Qaeda, said the experts."
This is the most absurd comment I have heard.
To report stopping the sale of weapons, you must first confess to selling. I think this statement alone gives no creedence to the above article.

Intriguing.

You must recognize that the largest supplier of weapons to terrorists is Saudi Arabia. While they are our one of our best *friends*, they still have a major underlying hatred towards any and all AMERICAn and those allies of AMERICA.

Couple the financial supply provided by Iran and Indonesia(like we all weren't aware of this), and you have quite a large network of support for the terrorists to continue their fight against western decadence.

It(financial support and arms) all trickles down to every group willing to take up arms against the great satan--"I don't feel like satan, but I am to them."

So, what are we gonna do?

We're gonna "keep on rockin' in the free world!"

Simply because governments don't announce their stoppage of support for terrorists groups doesn't meant that they haven't actually stopped. But don't think that those who still supply them are so afraid of AMERICA that they though twice about cutting off their support.

Great angle and thoughts ATV! :toast:

Where the hell were you? I traveled to the West Coast several times, but I never heard from you. :2fu:

[dutchie]

Micky,

I see your point(s) - and - admittedly - I must say they are quite convincing. Maybe I am naive in thinking that some organisation could indeed have some effect in the attitude of rogue nations around the world, a world where most things are governed by cultural and religious backgrounds. :Bow:

Sorry for my UN/US typo mistake, BTW...

Still... I can not see how the US can be hypocritical about taking away arms from countries where they first supplied them; for waging war against former best friends etc. etc. Shouldn't the World Police have just one steadfast POV, i.e. justice and human rights for all?! I am suspicious that economics still make up an important part of US foreign policy, and that feeling is still fed by what is taking place on a global basis. Look what happens in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, some countries in Africa - enough evidence on wrongdoings there... Why not interfere in those countries? Might it be because there are "interests" at stake? :burger:

Melodramatics DID draw your attention.. Bringing a POV across with some added sparkle is not the bastards sole prerogative... :devsmoke:

[mickydoolittle]

Micky,

I see your point(s) - and - admittedly - I must say they are quite convincing. Maybe I am naive in thinking that some organisation could indeed have some effect in the attitude of rogue nations around the world, a world where most things are governed by cultural and religious backgrounds. :bow:

Sorry for my UN/US typo mistake, BTW...

Still... I can not see how the US can be hypocritical about taking away arms from countries where they first supplied them; for waging war against former best friends etc. etc. Shouldn't the World Police have just one steadfast POV, i.e. justice and human rights for all?! I am suspicious that economics still make up an important part of US foreign policy, and that feeling is still fed by what is taking place on a global basis. Look what happens in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, some countries in Africa - enough evidence on wrongdoings there... Why not interfere in those countries? Might it be because there are "interests" at stake? :burger:

Melodramatics DID draw your attention.. Bringing a POV across with some added sparkle is not the bastards sole prerogative... :devsmoke:

Firstly: :toast: I tip back a scotch to you & ATV.

Second: Absolutely the interests & economics of certain countries plays an enormous role in the foreign policy of AMERICA. However, when the time comes--the oversights of certain countries will no longer continue and AMERICA will call for accountability--regardless of the amount of involvment AMERICA had in the wrongdoings--the burden of proof for such will rest on the countries we call on the carpet.

Now, the only reason we're going after those that we considered to be our friends is because they turned and bit the hand that fed them.

What do you do to your dog that bites a family member or a postman? You warn it with a slap to the snout. We did this a couple of times (USS COLE / MARINE BARRACKS TRUCK BOMBED / etc.)

What do you do if that dog bites again? You muzzle it or put it down. I opt to put it down every time--no matter how much affection I have towards my pet. I have more devoution towards my family than my pet.

I think you understand the differences as well as the similarities.

[humanhybrid]

Second: Absolutely the interests & economics of certain countries plays an enormous role in the foreign policy of AMERICA. However, when the time comes--the oversights of certain countries will no longer continue and AMERICA will call for accountability--regardless of the amount of involvment AMERICA had in the wrongdoings--the burden of proof for such will rest on the countries we call on the carpet.

Now, the only reason we're going after those that we considered to be our friends is because they turned and bit the hand that fed them.

What do you do to your dog that bites a family member or a postman? You warn it with a slap to the snout. We did this a couple of times (USS COLE / MARINE BARRACKS TRUCK BOMBED / etc.)

What do you do if that dog bites again? You muzzle it or put it down. I opt to put it down every time--no matter how much affection I have towards my pet. I have more devoution towards my family than my pet.

I think you understand the differences as well as the similarities. Yes I would agree with your similarities in that the way we treat other countries is much like we would treat a family dog, not like a fellow human that inhabits the same world with the same needs. We will only deal with certain countries that have a economic intrest to us. I can tell you that dogs bite when the are hurt, scared, and hungry! Are humans any diffrent if so, shouldnt we stop treating them as family dogs? good day! RUFF!

[dutchie]

HH, while I agree with you the imagery was chosen poorly, I can see Micky's point. We invest millions and millions in a seemingly bottomless pit, and the only ones who are getting fat and rich are the corrupt leaders of those poor countries. Only the crumbs are reaching the ones we would like to see being reached. If and when those countries reward us by harvesting criminals and low life that stab us in the back, I see no alternative than either rooting out both the corruption AND the criminals by invading such a country/imposing economic sanctions OR stopping all financial aid. How would you go about solving this?

[mickydoolittle]

Yeah, since I care so much about what HH has to contribute--I still have that member on ignore. :smokin:

:ohmy:

[Defiant Noquisi]

If the war on terrorism is being "lost", this kind of lying bs doesnt help turn it...

Ghost Prisoners (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/10ABUSE.html?ex=1252468800&en=a309804033bcedda&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) :uh:

[AngelTV]

Hi Guys, Sorry Micky I had to go to Asia. I am sipping the 10 yr old Glen Morangie single malt as I type this. Tipping to you and Dutchie.
DN, Dutchie and Micky Now we are getting to the crux of the battle. Profit driven private enterprise involvement in national security. Personally I think war should not allow financial benefits to seep down. War should be non Profit driven. If your country is at war then how can you justify profitability. War Bonds and the like are so unconscionable. Making a profit from the death of soldiers is just plain disrespectful to the Honour Code. Any Profit should go directlty to the soildiers or the families. If war actually cost (personally) the rich then I guarantee you that war would be the last choice.
Terriorism is finally fought in the minds and not the battlefield. More money should be spent in the field of propaganda. I also cannot believe that media has not been censored in the Middle East. Putting speeches from terriorist leaders across to the masses is irresponsible and is a major cause of concern. Freedom of speech. Yes. Although the arabs are showing only one sided opinions.; At least the West shows differing opinions.

[lotrfan55345]

IMHO, there should be more investments in the poor countries for new call-centers or factories.

It may not directly help the starving people right away, but in the long run, isn't that the best choice?

[dutchie]

Bravo, Lotrfan!!

If ALL the money that has been spent on the war in Iraq had been spent on Iraq's economy, Iraq would now be a prosperous country, of which all inhabitants would adore the USA. In stead many thousands have died, the country is in ruins, and all extremists in the world are sharpening their knives to go to battle..

Seems to me that JUST overthrowing the Saddam administration wasn't the best of ideas in hindsight.

[MacRasta]

Seems to me that JUST overthrowing the Saddam administration wasn't the best of ideas in hindsight.

C'mon Dutchie, you knew this before this whole BS started, right?...
(that is if I understand the word hindsight correctly, that is, man)

BTW, nice read ppl!

I think, that if we cut donw our use of oil to the minimum, we already solve a big problem. If we can get it in our heads that diamonds are nothing but rocks, we solve another big problem, and so on...

What needs to be done?

Put a windmill in your garden, or on the roof, and harvest the winds energy.
Put solar panels on the roof, and harvest the suns energy.
Install a water tank underground, and harvest the rains energy.
Put a freakin' windmill on your car if you want.
And don't give a diamond ring when you wed someone, get a tattoo..

All of a sudden, the most expensive things on earth aren't worth a bit anymore. So why fight for it??

It'll only work if everybody switches over at the same time, off course

[dutchie]

Yeah, but that last little sentence harbours the venom in the tail, doesn't it?!? :uh: