SirLoins

Ralph, Thanks to Clinton's nice ecomomic work??? Please tell me more. But first read this article. Robert Novak's column last week proved, using the Commerce Department's revised numbers, that the economic books of the country were cooked in 1999 and 2000. Clinton-Gore lied about how much profit the government took in by almost one third so they could help Gore hold the White House. The Washington Times reports that Clinton-Gore claimed the economic growth rate on Election Day 2000 was 4.4%, but revised (read: truthful) numbers show it to have been less than 2.7% - and it fell to an abysmal 1.1% during the fourth quarter – when the Democrats were screaming at Bush for talking about an economic slowdown. A 1.1% growth rate around Election Day 2000 is key, because in the first three-quarters of 1992 it averaged 3.6%and rose to 5.4% during the fourth quarter that year. You'll remember how the Clinton-Gore team bashed the Bush 41 economic record without us reminding you. The revisions to the supposedly record levels of corporate profits for 2000 are even more shocking. We now know pre-tax profits for non-financial domestic industries peaked in 1997. Now, there's no paper trail proving that Clinton-Gore guided this deception, but no one at the Commerce Department would do this on their own - and we think we know who might have. While Donna Brazile was in fact Gore's campaign chair of the failed Algore 2000 campaign, the "honorary chairman" was Bill "Bugsy" Daley, Clinton-Gore's Commerce Secretary! There's a reason you put a vote-stealing, win-at-any-cost man without scruples at the head of a cabinet department. So Gore had to know what was going on. These numbers will keep being revised to subtract Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, etc., because those companies inflated profits in the last two years of Clinton-Gore. Now, if you tell the IRS you underestimate your income by 30%, and therefore you underpaid your taxes by 30%, you can't get away with saying, "Whoops." We shouldn't let Clinton-Gore off the hook so easily either. They lied and overstated all their economic numbers. There was no Clinton boom, and whether they knew about the inflated numbers then or not, they know now, so it's time to stop perpetuating the lie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I understand that we are not a true democracy, and I can't even say that the electoral college is a bad idea- Im just pointing out that we are indeed a democracy, even though it is carried out by proxy<span id='postcolor'> I'll give you that one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 25 2002,05:37 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- republic means states are bound more to central(federal gov't). the reasons why US is a republic is because Confederacy failed. and democratic means that the politics is decided by the masses. of course, Founding Fathers added a safeguard system called, electoral college. <span id='postcolor'> I know what democratic means, but you can't argue with the fact that we are a republic. That is undisputable. Thanks God for the founding fathers. The constitution was written long before the Confederacy failed. Plus, Florida had nothing to do with the election. All Gore had to do was win his home state, and he failed. They knew better.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me lecture you on some basic military knowledge.<span id='postcolor'> No thanks Ralph.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 25 2002,05:12 by Tex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You would think that in a democracy, the popular vote would decide the issue. It is true however, that Al Gore's political half-life has expired. Although I cant say he ever aroused strong feelings either way from me pre-election ,(I thought he was the political equivalent of oatmeal) he has obviously lost his popularity with moderates over his politicizing the Florida recounts, (even though both sides were at fault there) and of course the odd rush of support for Bush that followed September 11th. On the other hand, I didn't think his latest speech was an indication of insanity- I think you have just gotten too used to lukewarm opposition to the Bush Administration from the Democratic Party. Everyone has gotten used to all the politicians in the country knuckling under to the administration line wherever the WAR ON TERROR is concerned. <span id='postcolor'> First Tex, I owe you an apology. (don't even know if you saw it) Second, I hate to burst your bubble, but we don't have a democracy in the United States, we have a republic. We actually elect people to make our decisions for us, as crazy as that may sound. It's worked for over 200 years that way. As far as Gore's speech, he made numerous comments that were a complete flip-flop from 2 years ago. The guys a wingnut.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have a history of supporting regimes where the person who loses the popular vote in the elections gets the power. Like USA for instance <span id='postcolor'> Not to change the subject, but why do you all insist on bringing the popular vote up. I understand Gore got the popular vote, but in America, we do not elect our presidents by popular vote. Why is that so hard to understand? Plus, I would add that after Gore's speech last night in San Francisco, I truly think Bush would win by a landslide if the election were held today. Gore's lost his mind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I assumed you'd read enough pages of this topic to know that the mods don't want this thread used for discussing religion - and who can blame them? So, when you showed up with all your harsh rhetoric and no desire to discuss anything, I figured you might be in the same boat as Sam Samson and Duke_of_Ray. Sorry if I touched a raw nerve. <span id='postcolor'> You know what happens when you assume? You brought up religion, not me. What harsh rhetoric...you mean my opinions? No desire to discuss? Maybe not on your terms. I will be glad to jump on Sam's and Duke's boat anyday. My raw nerve is not religion, it's Bush bashing. sorry mods about continuing this little "discussion." my handbag is officially down.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 23 2002,04:10 By Berdadette -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 23 2002,02:33) Bernadotte...... Thanks, I have a dictionary. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary that doesn't spell relevant with an " i ". I know... I know... spelling it " r e l i v a n t " is your prerogative. <span id='postcolor'> Now your starting to show your ass. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 23 2002,02:33) Look, I will not go back and forth with you on these issues. Why not? Are you a religious fanatic too? <span id='postcolor'> Your sarcasm is uncalled for. Where did my religon ever come up on this subject. You can't change my mind, so you try to insult me. Pity.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted on Sep. 23 2002,03:27 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 23 2002,10:33) Arafat is irrelevant.....he has had his chances and has failed. He has no control over his people. Good. Then you will agree with me that it is a bit stupid the Isralis sieging Arrafts HQ demanding him to hand over 'militiants' that he probably has no control over<span id='postcolor'> I didn't say the militants were irrelevant.

Bernadotte...... Thanks, I have a dictionary. Arafat is irrelevant.....he has had his chances and has failed. He has no control over his people. He is a roadblock to any hope of ending this mess. ir·rel·e·vant Pronunciation Key (-rl-vnt) adj. Unrelated to the matter being considered. As for my vocabulary, I will use whatever terminology I wish. If my president chooses to use the same, then so be it. Look, I will not go back and forth with you on these issues. These are my opinions, like it or not. To say they are flawed will accomplish nothing and certainly not change my mind. (mind Pronunciation Key (mnd) n. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.) I side with Israel. There is right and wrong with both sides. You may choose to side with the Palestines, that is your prerogative.... (pre·rog·a·tive Pronunciation Key (pr-rg-tv) n. An exclusive right or privilege held by a person or group, especially a hereditary or official right. The exclusive right and power to command, decide, rule, or judge)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 22 2002,16:49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (bn880 @ Sep. 22 2002,15:13) Well, I bring what I think is a logical observation to the warmongers: why is the United States not in Israel and Palestine now rescuing Arafat from this insanity, and why do they not set up guarded borders there? Please tell, since Americans and their supporters say the US is the police of the world, why is it always ignoring the Israeli military. (Note: setting up a guarded border would surely stop the attacks of both sides) Do you know the shape ofthis border? see, for US, damned if you do, damned if don't <span id='postcolor'> Well Ralph, we can agree on that.

Oh boy, a test. <span id='postcolor'>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) Just because some of us support Israel doesn't mean we support all the violence. If not all, then how much of the violence do you support?</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> What a sarcastic question. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) I would love a peaceful ending to this mess. Who here wouldn't? <span id='postcolor'> Do you really need me to answer that? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) All they have to do is stop the Homicide bombing. Seems reasonable to me. Is that all? Then why didn't it end before 1994 when suicide bombings started in Israel?<span id='postcolor'> I was talking about Homicide bombings. There's a difference. I can't answer your question execpt for the fact that "they" don't want peace. "They" want Israel pushed back to the sea. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) But they only understand one kind of reason. The reason of violence. If they had any wish to stop this caos, they would. But violence is the only language they understand, so that is why Israel retaliates with military force. Does "they" refer to all Palestinians? (By the way, anyone in this forum who has made any such general accusations against the Jewish community has been rightfully warned and often banned. You might want to think about your answer cuz so far it sounds quite racist.) <span id='postcolor'> Sounds quite racist? I'm not an audiologist. "They" are whomever you wish. All I know is after 9/11, all I saw on TV were the streets filled with cheering men, women, children, military etc. So you tell me who "they" are. Racism, has nothing to do with this issue, unless YOU make it one. The race card always seems to rear it's ugly little head. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) I can't support Arafat because he is irrelivant to any peaceful solution. What if he is re-elected next January? Do you really believe that ignoring him will help end the chaos? <span id='postcolor'> He will still be irrelivant. Will his re-election make him relivant? What will be different? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) He had the chance to get 90% of his demands with the Clinton administration and turned it down. Why should he accept losing more territory, especially when they've already lost 78%? <span id='postcolor'> That's what was negotiated. You have to start somewhere. He turned down the deal. Your living in the past. We have to deal with todays realities. <span id='postcolor'>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 21 2002,02:40) I don't have the solution. But until the Palestinians stop the bombings, Israel has no choice. No choice about what? ...Buiding more settlements on Palestinian land?</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> No choice in defending their people.

With all due respect to all you Bush haters on this forum. Your guys attitude makes me sick. I cannot continue to try to defend him. You may continue with you moronic attempts to belittle my president. It will have no effect on me other than reinforcing the fact that you guys just don't get it. You obviously lack the ability to recognize character. I won't play your little game. You guys pretend to play the righteous role of your better than everyone else club. Your bias is obvious. The mods here are like no others I've seen. You guys should get a job at Rueter. They could use more people that refuse to use the word TERRORIST. You speak of other peoples perspective, yet you fail to believe any but your own. Your bleading heart, socialistic, peacenik attitudes are quite frankly scary. I hope you guys are right, cause if we are right, it won't matter anymore unless we do something about it now. I guess the fact that George Bush is the object of your alls hatred is the fact that without the United States of America, the world would be in sad shape. Eventually, all of your countries come crying to the United States. Whether for money, military help, or our influence on world matters. Yes we are the policemen of the world. Aren't you lucky. Without us, Russia, or China, or God forbid, your beloved Hitler, may have ruled the world. Your little gang of about 10 or 12 guys here feed off of one another bias like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Your ignorance of America and George Bush is understandable. You can't understand what it's like being American, so I won't try to explain. The few Americans here that side with you guys are a minority in this country. Believe me. I pity your guys attitude, but I respect them. (Tex, your a fucking liberal. I used language you can understand) So have fun with you Bush bash. I have deep respect for the man. I know the man. I have met the man. I have talked to the man. I have seen him from a prospective you'll never be lucky enough to have. So I need not defend what I know is right. You guys have fun. Your bullshit bores me. Can't we talk about something important, like, what's your favorite color, or do you wear your penis on the left, or the right. Or do you have the balls to accept the fact that, with or without your countries, we will once again, save the fucking planet from a madman. The gloves are off boys.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi Sirloins. How many pages of this thread have you read? <span id='postcolor'> I didn't know I had to read ALL the pages of this forum to comment. I've read enough to know you and I do not see eye to eye on this subject

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the record... Clinton was every bit as much a twonk as Bush is The thing is, Clinton was engaged in padding his friends pockets (Something Bush does too... pork belly politics is not partycentric) and trying to get a little action. Bush is trying to make war on Iraw for a lot of half baked reasons, with virtually non existant rationale. Bash Clinton as much as you like, but boffing Monica Lewinsky is more a matter of bad taste. Unlike Bush pushing for an action that will kill thousands of innocent civilians, as well as many American servicemen. Considering how uptight the public gets when even one US serviceman dies, I cant imagine how fast a 70% approval rating will plummet when the pine boxes start coming home in greater numbers. Now...there is one concept that we may all be ignoring: How do we know that the US isnt in close contact with a cabal of high level Iraqi Generals? The US starts a token action against Iraq, and these generals bump Saddam and his whole family off in order to install a US friendly regime. That is about the only thing that I can remotely see that would rationalize the lunacy of the Bush administration. --------------<span id='postcolor'> I agree with some of that (Bill Clinton is a twonk) Warin, you and so many others underestimate the American people when it comes to bodybags. Yes, you hear the media spout that line over and over but this country has been through it before and it will endure again, if need be. Plus, I recall the great "Mother of all battles." As I recall, it was hourdes of Saddams army kissing the feet of American soldiers begging for their lives. Your last statement is a possibility, but lunacy? Maybe you underestimate our great leader

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who ever said that the great masses were intelligent? Also it is evident that there are many people in the States that disapprove of an invasion of Iraq. This includes many members of your congress. Edited by denoir on Sep. 21 2002,03:47 <span id='postcolor'> Just a point that if his ratings were in the sink you guys would make a big deal out of it. And of course nobody in Sweden is for going after Saddam? Do you think anyone on this forum is going to change anyone elses mind on this subject? An endless circle of babble........myself included

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly. Talk is cheap. When confronted with the real deal, like now, they took the higher moral road. I am very glad for that.<span id='postcolor'> When confromted with the real deal they stick their heads in the sand. By the way folks. GWB has over a 70% approval rating right now. I know if he had a 70% disapproval rating, you all would have a hayday.

My link apparantly doesn't work so here it is. Question....what has changed in the last four years. European Leaders' Statements Supporting U.S. Position on Iraq Tuesday, February 17, 1998 BALTIC STATES Joint statements of the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: "We believe that strict compliance with international commitments, including United Nations resolutions, is an uncontested obligation of every country of the world community. "We unequivocally support the United Nations resolution of destroying chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission should be allowed to continue its work without any limitations. "We believe all diplomatic avenues should be exhausted to solve the current crises, but we also support other actions of the international coalition that are necessary to guarantee compliance of Iraq with its international commitments and demolition of weapons of mass destruction. "The Baltic States are ready, if necessary, within their means to provide support to the international coalition to ensure implementation of United Nations resolutions." BELGIUM Foreign Minister Erik Derycke spoke in favor of a settlement of the crisis between the United Nations and Iraq by diplomatic rather than military means. He called on the United Nations to take initiatives in this direction. He pointed out that full responsibility for the present crisis lay with Iraq. However, he stressed that during the present "interim" situation all diplomatic initiatives must be supported. He expressed the hope that Great Britain and the United States will go back to the UN Security Council to heat the opinion of other Security Council members. If these initiatives fail, the use of force should not be ruled out as an ultimate solution to make the Iraqi government give way. "The Iraqi situation is very different from what it was in 1991 when there was a war involving the international community as a result of the invasion of Kuwait, a war conducted in accordance with a UNSC resolution. "In the present situation, Belgium will asses requests as they are made. As a member of NATO it has obligations, but no requests have been made at that level either." [Rush's tip: focus on Canada, the EC, France and Germany] CANADA 1) Prime Minister Chretien told Parliament on February 9 that, "If we do not act, if we do not stand up to Saddam, that will encourage him to commit other atrocities." He continued that "the choice is clear (for Canada). It is a choice dictated by the responsibilities of international citizenship, by the demands of international security and an understanding of the history of the world in this century." 2) Defense Minister Eggleton explained that although Saddam says he does not have chemical or biological weapons, the UN believes otherwise. As such, Eggleton prefers, "to believe the UN and its multilateral inspection team. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past that we cannot trust his word." On Feb. 10, Eggleton said that if a number of countries join the US-led military coalition, "this might be enough for Saddam Hussein to back off and to comply with UN resolutions." 3) Foreign Minister Axworthy at the UN Feb. 11 told reporters that "This whole thing could be solved in 10 seconds if Saddam Hussein lives up to the commitments made in 1991." EUROPEAN COMMISSION President Jacques Santer: "Iraq must execute in an unconditional manner all the UN resolutions" or face "grave consequences." FRANCE Office of the French President Jacques Chirac: "France repeats that Iraq must scrupulously respect all the UN Security Council resolutions. This is the only route that could enable Iraq to be readmitted, when the time comes, into the international community. The President of the Republic made this clear to the Iraqi Foreign Minister. He stressed "the extremely grave risks that will result from a refusal by Iraq to accept the inspection of the 'presidential sites.' Now time is running out." GERMANY Mr. Rudolf Scharping, Chairman of the SPD Bundestag Group: "I would like to state the central issues once again. First, there is only one individual who bears the responsibility for the current confrontation with the United Nations, and that is Saddam Hussein. Second, he has to see to it that Iraq satisfies all the UN resolutions. Third, every possible political effort has to be made to arrive at a peaceful solution. Fourth, the danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is a matter that no one can view with indifference, and that is the case for all the other states in the region, especially Israel, as well as for the Europeans and the Americans. (applause) That is why Iraq should stop refusing to cooperate, and if all the political efforts that are being made do not result in success, a military operation cannot and should not be ruled out in this case. (applause) The United States and Great Britain can absolutely count on German solidarity." Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel: "Incidentally, I believe that we Germans in particular have good reason to work toward preventing a dictator from causing something terrible yet again. There was one dictator who was stopped too late. This one has to be stopped in good time. (applause) "I personally pin hopes on Russia, Turkey, and France. At the moment, if anyone has the connections making it possible to help, it is undoubtedly these three countries. I hope it still proves possible to arrive at a diplomatic solution. "We are maintaining intensive contact with the United States and with our partners and friends in the EU. However, our experience of Saddam Hussein to date, and I believe that this is also of key importance, shows that, unfortunately, he is only prepared to observe UN Security Council resolution when he is under pressure. The international community cannot simply accept always being made a fool of. That is why the military option must remain available. He who wants a peaceful solution in particular cannot waver in this regard." [End of Rush's focus area] LITHUANIA Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Political Director Usackas: "The Lithuanian Foreign Ministry condemns the refusal of (the) Iraqi leadership to comply with resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and allow UN weapons inspectors in to objects that are thought to contain weapons of mass destruction." THE NETHERLANDS Prime Minister Kok: "We all know how Saddam Hussein operates. We know that the diplomatic-political channel should be matched with the threat of sanctions and pressure.... We cannot wait indefinitely until Saddam Hussein is finally again brought to reason. We must exert pressure." NORWAY Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek: "Compliance with a binding resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council must be an absolute requirement. Norway has on a number of occasions strongly deplored the lack of willingness on the part of Iraq to fulfill its obligations and cooperate with UNSCOM. The government considers it important that respect for the Security Council as a guarantor of international peace and security is maintained." "If attempts at a peaceful solution are not successful, and military action should be taken against Iraq, the government considers that, taking everything into account, such action can be justified within the framework of the Security Council's resolutions. The international community has the right to ensure that Iraq complies with UN resolutions." SPAIN President Aznar: "This is the Spanish position. This crisis will be solved if Iraq's government clearly complies with its obligation and does the right thing. If not, the duty of the Spanish government is to let it be known that other means might be used -- a possibility we do not look forward to. But if these other means are finally used, Spain, I repeat, will obviously live up to its commitments and side with its partners and allies." SWEDEN Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen: "The government hereby warns that the United Nations will take firm, unanimous action in Iraq. The resolutions passed by the Security Council have to be respected, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated." UNITED KINGDOM Prime Minister Blair at the White House Joint Press Conference with President Clinton on Friday, February 6, 1998: "And what we agreed was that we had to do three things in particular. We have first of all to make sure that our own public opinion was properly educated as to why it's so essential that the UN inspectors are able to do their work, the amount of weapons that they have already uncovered in the six or seven years that they have been doing this task, and why it is therefore absolutely essential that Saddam Hussein is brought back into line with UN Security Council resolutions and the inspectors can go about their tasks unhindered. "Secondly, though, in relation to Iraq, it is important that we stress all the time, of course we want a diplomatic solution, but it must be a diplomatic solution based on and fully consistent with the principles that we have set out. The question of whether there is such a diplomatic solution rests ultimately with Saddam Hussein. He has the choice. He can bring himself back into compliance with the agreements he entered into, and then that diplomatic solution can be fulfilled. "Thirdly, however, we have of course to prepare in case diplomacy cannot work. In view of the situation, we in Britain have been looking at our own military readiness in case a diplomatic solution does not in the end prove possible. We have decided to base eight Tornado GR-1 aircraft in Kuwait, with the full agreement of the government of Kuwait. "Remember, he agreed -- he undertook to destroy any weapons of mass destruction capability, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological. Now he's in breach of that. We've got to make sure he complies one way or another with it." Foreign Secretary Cook: Cook said that Kofi Annan has got to go to Iraq with two things. "First of all, he has to go with the message that Saddam must carry out the undertakings which he himself actually signed up to do, namely to allow the UN inspectors to carry out their work without obstruction, without refusal to get into certain sites, without any no-go areas. "... Secondly, he has got to go with the clear understanding of what would be an acceptable outcome to the Security Council." "... We are proposing a precise, specific military strike to carry out by military means what Saddam is currently preventing us from doing through the UN inspection regime, namely to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. But ... we would prefer a diplomatic solution." Doorstep interview with UK Foreign Secretary Cook and Mr. Salman Rushdie in London: "We have always stressed that we want to explore all diplomatic avenues before any military action is taken, and we are very supportive of the idea that Kofi Annan should visit Baghdad, provided we are clear that Baghdad will treat him seriously...; the objective must be effective inspection by UNSCOM that stops Saddam Hussein (from) acquiring chemical and biological weapons."

You guys will hate the source. He didn't make this stuff up. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home....st.html All your illustrious European leaders were right behind the "let' s act now before it's too late" crowd when Bill Clinton was president. Reason: because you knew he would never do anything about it. Now we have a man that has the balls to take the bull by the horns and actually do something about the terrorist situation. The days of reactive military responses are over. Deal with it. Someday you'll thank this guy for standing up to the spineless UN. Why don't you just call this the "I hate George Bush forums"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 20 2002,15:17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 20 2002,13:26) Quote Col. Kurtz Posted on Sep. 20 2002,053 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there are a few people here who seem very dedicated to the Israli state, why dont you move from America to Israel so you can go and help Israelis cause by joining the IDF? That way youll be able to administrate a heavy handed justice upon the Palestinians as your posts seem to make out like you want to. And you will be moving to Arafat's neighborhood to help the coward terrorist out I presume? Lord. Lions, read through this thread and look to see if I have ever posted a post that has said 'I support the actions of Palestinian terrorist orginisations'. I have not. I have also not said 'I support Israli gunship attacks on civilian areas'. I think both sides are both right and wrong. I would prefer to join a peace keeping force to help keep order in the two countries<span id='postcolor'> Hi Kurtz. What the hell kind of comment was that for then? Just because some of us support Israel doesn't mean we support all the violence. I would love a peaceful ending to this mess. All they have to do is stop the Homicide bombing. Seems reasonable to me. But they only understand one kind of reason. The reason of violence. If they had any wish to stop this caos, they would. But violence is the only language they understand, so that is why Israel retaliates with military force. I can't support Arafat because he is irrelivant to any peaceful solution. He has proved that by doing nothing year after year. He had the chance to get 90% of his demands with the Clinton administration and turned it down. He is irrelivant. Hamas know only violence. I don't have the solution. But until the Palestinians stop the bombings, Israel has no choice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Col. Kurtz Posted on Sep. 20 2002,053 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there are a few people here who seem very dedicated to the Israli state, why dont you move from America to Israel so you can go and help Israelis cause by joining the IDF? That way youll be able to administrate a heavy handed justice upon the Palestinians as your posts seem to make out like you want to. <span id='postcolor'> And you will be moving to Arafat's neighborhood to help the coward terrorist out I presume?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from the article.......Daeubler-Gmelin, who is a lawyer by profession, later issued a statement said she had never put Bush and Hitler on the "same level" and said the newspaper's report was incorrect.<span id='postcolor'> Typical ploy to retract a statement knowing that it will still make headlines.

Avon is on the right track. Yes, you should pay or reward for the following reasons. Paying for good grade show the child that he is rewarded for his efforts. This will set a foundation for good work ethics. Meaning that you reap the rewards for your effort. Isn't that what we all do? Go to work and get a paycheck. The sooner a kid learns his hard work will pay off, the sooner he will accept the sad fact of life that we all have to work to make it in this life. I think to have to give money back, or do extra chores etc. for bad grades is also a good idea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> by SamSamson the had fragments of info. this is precisely the reason why we should now move on iraq. p.s.: I won't bother replying to your silly fragmentation of my last post. sheeeshh, your voice was flipping. and about bn880's reply to avon's long list: did you see how looong the list was? nobody is as blind as the guy who doesn't want to see. with all the different patrols on guard in this thread posting here is an exercise in futility. we have dot's bias-patrol, always smelling bias + racism, forever bound to the modern newsroom culture, bn880's source-patrol, trusting only bbc. colkurtz's history-patrol, can't use history, just present day, paratrooper's political correctness-patrol, can't really side in with any party, except maybe the british government, religion-patrol, religion is a no-no in discussing the region, let's argue only along secular lines, denoir's theology-patrol: can't use the f-word, as in faith. we have creativity-patrol, can only say "realistic" things... we can do better than that. let's bar no holds. be creative in proposing a solution. (the terrorists are creative in killing! just saw a show about an israeli family who got bombed by pipebombs. the nuts and bolts in the charge (for increased damage) were treated with rat poison! surgeons operated rat poisoned 8 bolts out of the brain of a boy, now handicapped.) <span id='postcolor'> Well said!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> by Tex...As for Madeline Albright and the Clinton administrations abortive foreign policy<span id='postcolor'> Well we do agree on that. Tex, chill out with the four letter words, it's not very becoming.