Germany won ww2

[KNac]

Interesting thread as others said.

I will bring new discussion. IMO I think the EU is much united in many things than under the "Third Reich", maybe we are going to a Fourth Reich? Nah, Germany has more power than other countries but not that much. Off course talking about military actions is stupid, IMO.

However talking aout future "what-ifs" is more interesting. Eventually I think the EU will become some kind of USE (United States of Europe). We must realize, that during thounsands years many European nations have pretended to unite Europe in a military manner, and its destiny it´s to be united (for it´s surviveality sake, it´s neccessary). What wasn´t made by force will be made by other ways, but it will take a long time (probably all us will be death when it will be done, but who knows).

Off course UK will be excluded from the confederation, by it´s own deccission, and eventually will become an US state. Imagine that in the future there is a Cold War between USA and USE, UK will be the "Cuba" of USA

Thre is a possibility that UK will continue unalignated too.

And about future wars. Well I think that the next war will be between US, maybe EU included(Western Civilization) and Islamic countries. George W. "Asshole" Bush is inpatient of begining it. As a "Fourth Reich" citicen I hope our government decides to stick out. let them slughter alone (or let them US slaughter them alone ) they have enought power to do it w/o our help, let stick neutral, and once in History just "see" the film.

To conclude, the only war than noone will win in the greatest war in human history "The War of Self-destruction" that began long time ago, and anyone can predice the end, humanity detroys it´s home and it´s own spice.

Humans, what an strange animal.

The final war

[Gunslingr3]

Oh forgot to tell you all, I´m active in the swedish socialdemocratic party

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think

[Posted May 16, 2002]

One of the enduring myths of the "Third Way" welfare state is that a nation as a whole can have a high standard of living--even if no one really has to work--as long as government transfers massive amounts of wealth from those who are well off to those who are less well off. For the past four decades, we have been inundated with news stories, books, and public commentary, all of which have exhorted us to be like Sweden.

The Swedes, we have been told, enjoy free medical care, generous welfare benefits, time off from work, and subsidies for just about everything. When one counters that Swedes pay enormously high taxes, the standard reply is, "That is true, but look at what they receive for their payments."

According to a recent study, however, the cat is out of the bag. Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country.

The research came from the Swedish Institute of Trade, which, according to Reuters, "compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999."

The study used "fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data," and found that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." Furthermore, the study points out that Swedish productivity has fallen rapidly relative to per capita productivity in the USA.

In defense of the Swedes, let me first say that simple comparisons of income can be deceiving. While I have never been to Sweden (even though I have relatives there), I would think that even the poorest sections of Stockholm and other Swedish cities are more livable and attractive than what one finds in many U.S. cities. Even with the high taxes, I think I would rather live in downtown Stockholm than in downtown Detroit or Newark.

However, the study alerts us to something that is much more important, and that is that the European welfare states are not making their citizens wealthier. Over time, the cracks in these relatively wealthy nations are growing larger, and if the disease is not arrested, much of Europe will tumble off into real poverty in the not-so-distant future. Europeans--and, most likely, Americans--seem destined to learn the hard way that large, seemingly intractable welfare systems have their way of destroying the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.

While people can debate the present condition of Swedes in Stockholm versus blacks in Harlem, there is a deep issue here that people seem to forget when it comes to welfare states: they are destructive at their roots. Advocates of welfarism concentrate only upon distribution while vilifying production. Such a state of affairs cannot go on forever as governments are forced to cannibalize their own capital structure over time in order to make the system to continue to work.

The premises of the welfare state are as follows: (1) free markets, if not regulated by the state, lead to continuing inequality, as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, while more and more people become poorer; (2) the only way to combat this problem is for the state to take a large portion of earnings from the wealthy and distribute it among others; and (3) such distribution actually enables the economy to grow, since growing concentration means that fewer people will have the ability to consume the products that are created within a private-market system.

Karl Marx developed the first premise into his theories, calling this the "internal contradiction" of capitalism. However, the statement contains its own internal contradictions, as it creates an impossible scenario.

As Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard have pointed out, in a private-market society, individuals cannot gain wealth unless they produce goods that are demanded by large numbers of people. For example, it was Henry Ford who became rich producing cars, not the producers of early luxury automobiles that were accessible only to the wealthiest people in American society. Ford developed a method in which he could create cars that most people could afford, yet keep his costs low enough to where he could still make a profit. The most successful producers in our economy have been those people who make goods accessible to people across all socioeconomic levels.

Wal-Mart, which is another example, became the largest corporation in this country--and one of the most successful--by creating a retail system that would enable large numbers of people to conveniently do their shopping. In fact, Wal-Mart began its route to success by building discount stores in rural areas and small towns that were shunned by larger department stores and enterprises like the now-bankrupt Kmart.

Therefore, it seems that if producers are becoming wealthier, it can only occur if consumers are purchasing on a large scale what the the producers are producing. The first statement justifying the welfare state does not have a good causal mechanism, for it does not explain how this transfer of wealth from poor to rich takes place, especially since it makes the implicit assumption that the voluntary purchase of goods is actually a wealth transfer. Such a statement turns the age-old theory of exchange--that economic exchanges create mutual beneficiaries--upon its head.

If anything, wealth transfers inhibit economic growth, not increase it. For one, it violently penalizes entrepreneurs for being successful. By accusing those who create wealth of actually being the ones who destroy wealth, welfarists do violence to language itself. If enough people are punished for creating wealth, less wealth will be created in the future. The more government impedes the creation and distribution of wealth, the less that will be created, which means that those people who are on the margins--that is, those who are less productive--are the first to be hurt. Thus, the welfare state actually makes the poor worse off in the long run.

This notion that the welfare state actually "helps" an economy is also bogus. As I stated earlier, consumption of goods must first take place before producers can reap the rewards from creating them. Furthermore, welfare regimes that attack business enterprises by confiscating their profits also impede future capital formation.

This became quite apparent to me in 1982 when I went to Central Europe, including what was then East Berlin, the capital of the former communist East Germany. While East Berlin was likened to being the "Paris" of the then-communist world, it was more like a huge time warp in which one was placed back in 1948. The entire city was shabby, and what new construction there was had the appearance and attractiveness of a typical American public housing project.

While the western portion of Germany was better kept and more modern than its eastern counterpart, it was still like traveling back to the 1960s. West Germany had a well-developed welfare state by then, having shunned its earlier model as an engine of free enterprise. A close friend who is a dentist brought this point home to me.

Like other medical care, dentistry in Germany is run on socialist principles. That means that individuals do not pay directly for dental (or medical) care, which is provided by the state. My friends, who were vacationing in Germany, visited a number of dental offices and found that the facilities looked like dentist offices in the United States four decades ago. In other words, the German dentists are still depending upon old capital.

One of the worst aspects of socialism, economically speaking, is that it has the perverse tendency to turn new capital from an asset--as is the case in a free-market economy--into a liability. German dentists have no incentive to purchase more modern equipment, since it is expensive and patients have nowhere else to go. In fact, wherever socialist medicine has been practiced for a long time, one can readily see deterioration of capital stock.

For many years, Sweden, like its European counterparts, has been eating its capital stock instead of replenishing it. Some high-profile Swedish companies like Volvo have been able to remain well capitalized, but even those companies are now finding it more attractive to locate in other nations, where their profits are not so readily confiscated.

The Swedes and other northern Europeans are somewhat lucky in that they have had a relatively high standard of living. People in southern European nations like Italy and Spain--where high taxes and vast regulatory agencies abound--find themselves to be much poorer and with no prospects of real improvement.

Unfortunately, many Europeans (like our Canadian neighbors) believe that a vast welfare apparatus makes them morally superior to nations that do not have the same scope of benefits. (While one can point out that the United States has a huge welfare bureaucracy itself, it does not offer the same "generous," long-term benefits of the European states.) While they prattle on about their moral superiority and their egalitarianism, however, something else is happening. They are slowly becoming poorer and poorer, and the welfare state cannot save them. It can only accelerate their downward slide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Frostburg State University.

Gunslinger

[windstarz]

Gunslinger,

Your message will not be welcomed but I agree with you. When I was stationed in England in the seventies it seemed like I stepped back in time. The U.S. is headed down the same track but at a slower pace. The whole world suffers from a dearth of capable leadership. New ideas or refinements of old ones will eventually surface but only time will tell. Hitler types fill a vacuum , just got a hope it doesnt get that bad again.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think

[Posted May 16, 2002]

One of the enduring myths of the "Third Way" welfare state is that a nation as a whole can have a high standard of living--even if no one really has to work--as long as government transfers massive amounts of wealth from those who are well off to those who are less well off.

Right, enough said. The rest of this post replies to the boring what was already said here.

Mister Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, that teaches economics at Frostburg State University, cannot take pride in his work for he has not taken the time to do his homework. Or, he knows EXACTELY what he is doing, feeding mere lies to the American mass.

He is talking about Europe, taking Sweeden as an example, and suddenly using the Sovjet Union as an example to why the European welfare systems does not work. Make no mistake about it, this is brainwashing at a high level. The free democratic nations of Europe are not comparable to the communistic system used in the Sovjet Union.

Further, he is repeating that the bigger your salary is, the more you must pay in taxes. I dare anyone who is interested in what this mister Anderson hadto say, to take ANY nation of Europe, and study how much taxes it's citizens must pay at their different income levels.

You will find, that it is the working class that is taxed the highest. Once you earn a certain ammount of money, the taxes let go, thus enabling you to spend your money on investing in buisnesses and hence to create jobs in the nation.

I also notice the anti-Europeanism that is within his speech. "They think they are better than us, but they are not!" What exactely is this propeganda doing here Gunslinger?

<snip>

While they prattle on about their moral superiority and their egalitarianism, however, something else is happening. They are slowly becoming poorer and poorer, and the welfare state cannot save them. It can only accelerate their downward slide.

~Norse~

[Guest Mike]

Yeah, well, yawn....despite gunslinger's protestations it is Europe that is moving forwards, and the USA that's turning into something fromthe past - a Protectionist Pseudo-Capitalist Fascist Hereditary Fundamentalist Christian/Judeo Theocratic Oligarchy.

Don't like it?

Well that's how much of the world sees it - even much of the Western World.

And if Sweden is poorer then why is it that the writer would still prefer downtown Stockholm to downtown anywhere-in-the USA?

Could it be that the poor Swedes prefer their brand of problems to the extremes of poverty and violence that we associate with the worst of the USA?

Let's see - can walk down the street hapily, vs can make a fortune by exploiting anyone and anything....what a choice....

Of course your correspondant is naively simplistic and shows a recurrent right-wing bias against anything to do with socialism - many socialists are equally blind when it comes to teh benefits of free-enterprise and capitalism (mind you many right wingers are blind to the same benefits too - cf trade protection in the good ol' USA!!).

Not surprising - I don't really expect the zealots of either extreme to say anything good about the other.

They could all be safely ignored as irrelevant except that far too many people believe their simplistic popularist drivel.

Sigh - it's a sad world.

[windstarz]

Both views have problems. The U.S. can be very hypocritical in some of its actions, I will grant you that. Time will tell what how systems play out. I believe in less government but I think the Swedes or any other nation should do what they want. Nothing wrong with differing opinions. If that makes one an extremist so be it.

[Guest Mike]

no Statz, that dfoesn't make one an extremist at all. That makes one a realist - extrmists aer never realists!!

You're perfectly entitled to hold an opinion one way or the other (IMO of course!! ) - it's when the otehr guy is always wrong because his opinion differes from yours and has no merit at all that you start to become an extremist.

regretably extermism tends to drive people out of the "middle ground" - people holding reasonable positions tend to get attacked by both sides, and so they chose one extreme or another to at least avoid half the attacks!!

[iolo]

Look, _I'm_ gonna win WW2 if no one starts playing PBEM games. I'll win by default!

[ August 26, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: iolo ]

[Guest Mike]

Send me a setup ya pillock!!

[danscan]

The only way to truely stop the trend of the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, then the poor get a welfare state. Is to discourage corporations from laying off workers. Because I may get a product cheaper for the corporation now layed off 1000 people. I will now pay for it in higher taxes since not everyone that was layed off will get a good job. This also causes labor cost to go down. The guy making 40K a year will need money to eat much earlier then the guy who makes multi millions. Sad but true. My plan to halt this rapid descent into oblivion of a two teared society is to give benefits for actual employee salaries. Not so much to constitute them being there even if they do nothing but enough that its better to keep them then risk having to hire them(or contractors) back later. So they can claim 110% of the base salary on taxes. Get it? Next plan is that place the largest tax breaks in the middle(small to medium Business). Since the whole 8% saving rate for trickle down economics to work is actually an average of the whole. The person pulling in 30mil is not saving only 8% he will save 50%(non-business investments). As you go down the chain the percent of savings goes down. Till at the end where they don't save a dime. Just do the math. And instead of using 8% all the way down the trickle down chain use a varing rate. Start at 50% and take a few percentage points of each leg. See what level it should be at.

There has to be a way to put the money in the hands of the low to middle guy with out making being rich undesirable(very highly taxed). In saying that Any socialist society will eventually fail. Some safty catchs are good. Unemployment, Some welfare, and Oh Sh*t programs. They give people a sence of secruity and allow them to spend money instead of hoarding it.

P.S. savings is money kept in dead accounts. Even though the bank uses your money for loans the money is essentially dead.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

[QB]

Well that was a long reply, William

I don´t agree with you on many aspects. First of all I can´t recognize myself in your description of the welfare state. Good economic growth have always been an important factor in the swedish model, for almost 44 years the tradeunions and the employers worked tightly together. This is nothing new, I think your assumption about the welfare state is unjust. Looking at the total part of the economy you will see that the public sector for example is not higher than in other countries. Wealth-transfers indeed increases the public part of the total economy but it comes back to the state in form of taxes.

Secondly, I can´t understand your opinion that third way economies just focus on transfering wealth and not work for it. Nothing could be more wrong. Where did you get this from??? Full employment always been the MOST IMPORTANT goal for all socialdemocratic countries that enacts third way policies. And if you look at statistics you´ll find that never been done by putting the workers uncontrollingly in to the public sector. No growth and work has always been the most important(and is the reason that green partys have emerged as critics of this thinking) thats because all of the welfare is connected to your income. The downside with this third-way model is rather the problem to get full protection from the welfare state when you are out of a job.

One of the greatest projects of the swedish government has a massive education program to win the job of the future. Honestly don´t you think it´s more efficient for a country to let all it´s citizens get the right to study and educate them self instead of just the rich one as in the US? What a vast of talent!!!

Thirdly, the welfare state don´t just transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. This just would be very dangerous and only makes the wealthy classes wanna get out the system. Instead everyone gets something out of the system and therebye the rich dont create private alternatives in the same grade as we see in the US. At the same the tension between groups in the society decreases.

Fourthly;

Why would a system like this not enable good company-föresättningar? If you seen the latest reports Sweden

Fifthly;

Can you show me any kind of evidence that european welfare states are getting poorer? I wanna know because in my country the economic growth is priority one. How do you measure that we are getting poorer?

If you look at the latest statistics you will see that Sweden now got 0,5% HIGHER growth than the rest of the OECD-countries.

And you can also ask yourself if we should be retorical what we should be measuring with? Why not how many citizens that can read? How many newborn children that dies? How many citizens that are able to get an education at universities? How long people live? How many that can get a free knee-operation? How many percents of the citizens are in prison? Do the US citizens have the right to five paid weeks of vacations every year? We could go on and on...

SIXHTLY;

We in the northern countries been lucky in contrary to the southern europeans? Well did you notice the descritance in welfare-system? The social-insurance systems differs very much. Scandinavian countries have a system that all, not just the poorest benefits from.

Finally. The study you presented has been very much discussed in Sweden. Not to take anything away from you but you know as I that you should be very careful with measuring countries, as you also pointed at.

But do you honestly think that a country which got over 30 million people in absolut poverty, welfare just for the ones who can pay for it is the only way to go? I gladly pay fairly high taxes with if this makes my fellow countrymen have a fair chance in life and can avoid winding up in the gutter. In the end we only got eachother,

[Desert Dave]

To me, it is very simple.

Each living soul on our planet has equal value. I am the same as the President of Wherever, and likewise, the same as any homeless hobo. So are you.

Because all have equal value, then each needs receive -- at miminum, enough shelter from storms, and enough food so to sing & flourish, and enough healing attention so to ease the soul-wracking throes, regardless of "accidental" lot in life. (... so you have a Will, and so you have acquisitive, materially avid nature... well, so?)

If they are able (... and the Global Corporation hasn't laid them off -- all the while blithely pocketing obscene windfall profits, then! declaring bankruptcy and thumbing the nose from that fenced-off, snarling-dog-guarded, police protected mansion in Malibu) they should work for the common good.

Archaic, almost biblical notion isn't it? The COMMON good. Imagine that.

If they are willing to lend a hand -- even if merely the sweeper-upper at The Last Picture Show, then they should indeed receive what they need.

Marxism. Welfare (... when did this so kindly inclined word become -- perjorative?). Capitalism. Socialism. ALL such intellectual concepts are MERELY that, and NOT rationales or justifications for miserliness, no matter how finely or closely argued.

And no matter the amount of self-promoting papers or advanced degrees or claims on Wisdom there might everywhere all at once be. Even if... every human save ONE, says so.

I do not promote the Bible, though I have read it all the way through, and my favorite saying by Jesus the Carpenter, is this: "the way you treat the least of my brothers and sisters, is the way you treat me."

To me, it is very, very simple.

[ August 27, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Willard]

Hi all.

It has been interesting to see all your viewpoints about the status of the world over the past 50 years.

A couple of viewpoints I would like to add my $.02 to:

WTC and we (US) are at war?

If you want to understand the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, you have to look at the big picture--

1. Islamic terrorism wants to destroy Israel and the Jews---

That is what these terrorist say. But since when should we take everything a terrorist says as anything but the truth? The fact of the matter is in Israel, that it is a war between that haves and have nots. The Israelis have the better land, more money, better economy and better infrastructure. The Palestinians have nothing. However, it is difficult to rally a people to fight with the rally cry of "hey they have more than us, so lets take it!" Because that is no different than an organized riot. But if you told a people "lets kill them cause God says its ok" it is alright. WHY??? Because fundamentally people cant outright commit robbery and murder. But if you give them an out (aka God says you are doing the right thing) then the responsibility is shifted for such acts.

2. UBL and his freedom fighters

This is the biggest hoax someone has managed to pull of since Hitler at Munich. UBL is not a freedom fighter. You cannot negotiate with this man because he is just a common murdering thief.

How do we know this?

What does he want?

He wants the US out of the Middle East, specifically the US out of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic holy lands.

Why does he want this?

Other than Mecca and Medina in Saudi, what else is there for a Muslim? Nothing you might say. But that is wrong. The answer should be obvious and that is the world's largest proven reserve of petroleum. Who controls this? He who controls the land controls the oil. So your answer is the Saudi ruling family, who are universally despised as scum in Saudi Arabia and the regime is barely holding onto power. The only reason they have been able to last this long is because of all those US troops in the Saudi. Why do you think the US has those troops there to begin with? The US troops are there protected that oil for the entire world. If you dont think so, just look at the $10 billion check the Japanese goverment gave the US to underwrite the Persian Gulf war.

How is UBL trying to get what he wants?

UBL's Islamic fundamentalist Army has been pretty active.

Well lets what he has done-

1991- Gulf War (UBL happy cause US put whoopin on Iraq)

1992- UBL unhappy cause US decided that it isnt leavin all that oil.

1993- Khobar Towers in Dharhan (if they wont leave we will force em out)

1994-1997- That thing called the Bosnia-Serbian war going on. Where do you think all the Muhjhadeen got all their training? Since that time they have also been in Chechnya and other former Soviet Republics.

1998- US Embassy bombings in Nariobi and Dar (obviously the UBL didnt get our attention)

2000- USS Cole (US still not awake)

2000- Millenium Plot foiled

2001- WTC

2002- ????

So are we at war?

Well UBL and his cronies did issue a fatwa for jihad against the US. Now in secular terms, that has the same meaning for fundamentalists as a DOW by the US Congree has for Americans. As for the boxscore, i think over 3500 dead from the above listed attack and thousands injured should be enough evidence that the US is at war.

So, when you make comments regarding US foreign policy and such big academic terms as "coalition building, isolationism, globalization, etc" I ask you one question. How would your country (GB, France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, etc) act if they were the victims of such attacks?

[Kuniworth]

Immer Etwas;

Your reply made me very happy

Cause despite our diffrent political landscapes we can agree that we need a society where not the most, BUT EVERYONE should have a right to a decent life and a fair chance. Can we agree on that we have come a long way, weather or not which political party we lay our vote on.

Willard;

Of course there are many aspects of US foreign politics that you can point on that helped to make not just UBL-guys but also regular people quite angry. And this of course is one of the reason that recruiting of the Al Qaida and other terrorist-groups are so sucessful. But it´s not the whole truth as you say.

What I think is the problem here is that most countries seem to think that the actions against terrorism is over while the USA consider themself in a war. And in war you act brutally. So the perspectives are very diffrent on how serious you see on whats going on.

[Handsup]

Here some info from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements has recently been undermined by high unemployment, rising maintenance costs, and a declining position in world markets. Indecision over the country's role in the political and economic integration of Europe caused Sweden not to join the EU until 1995, and to forgo the introduction of the euro in 1999.

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole twentieth century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for only 2% of GDP and 2% of the jobs. In recent years, however, this extraordinarily favorable picture has been somewhat clouded by budgetary difficulties, high unemployment, and a gradual loss of competitiveness in international markets. Sweden has harmonized its economic policies with those of the EU, which it joined at the start of 1995. GDP growth is forecast for 4% in 2001.

GDP - real growth rate: 4.3% (2000 est.)

GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $22,200 (2000 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 2.2%

industry: 27.9%

services: 69.9% (1999)

[KNac]

Immer Etwas, I think equal as you. Sometimes I think we should get rid of politics and govern ourselves.

I´m hopeless, because not all the people things in the same manner

Just if I could govern the whole world

[Willard]

Of course there are many aspects of US foreign politics that you can point on that helped to make not just UBL-guys but also regular people quite angry.

Kuniworth-

I would like to see you expand on the above comment. My initial reaction is that you are condoning terrorism. However, I dont believe that is the case.

I disagree entirely with a liberal viewpoint that its US policy responsible for terrorism to happen.

Terrorists use whatever excuses are available to them (true or untrue) to mask their true goals.

Its amazing how this misconception of US policy is translated in liberal politics in the US and European politics.

There has been so much revisionist history concerning the recent history of the Middle East and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

The fact is that the modern Middle East is the product of two historical events that the US had NO part of.

The first was the Sykes-Picot treaty of 1917 between the English and the French. At that time, both were fighting the Turks in the Palestine/Syria area. If anyone screwed over the Arabs more, it was the English who screwed over their Arab allies. They divided the peninsular into spheres of influence for themselves, which provide the basic outline of Mideast politics today.

Palestine was a British protectorate. Syria/Lebanon was carved out for the French.

Transjordan was given to the Hashimite tribe as thanks from the British government.

Incidently, Hashemite tribal lands are actually located in Mecca and Medina, not Transjordan.

However, the Saud family (originally from Oman/Yemen) won the power struggle between the two warring tribes.

Iraq/Iran were traditionally British dominated.

The second historical event to effect the region was the English pulling out of Palestine after the mandate was up in 1948. This allowed the Jews to arbitrarily set up a Jewish state called Israel, without regard for the rights of the Palestinians. This is not to say that the Palestinians were all right either. The peace deal they were offered in 1948 is exactly the same as the one they agreed to in 1995. SO they fought 40 years and gained nothing. No wonder they broke the peace again.

Incidently, did you notice that there was no mention of US involvement in either of those events. The primary country responsible for this was Great Britian. Yet NO ONE blames them for any of this. Why?? Because they are no longer top dog. The Arabs recognize that the US is the preeminent power and expect the US to fix their problems caused by the British. They strike out at the Americans because of frustration, hoping that, like a pouting baby, mom while deliver the warm bottle of milk.

[Gunslingr3]

A host of interesting replies, bear with me for trying to address the important parts of several at once:

The free democratic nations of Europe are not comparable to the communistic system used in the Sovjet Union.

ALL governments, to the extent to which they expropriate and direct the wealth of their subjects by the hand of bureaucrats who do not pay a penalty for their mistakes, are akin to the Soviet Union.

And if Sweden is poorer then why is it that the writer would still prefer downtown Stockholm to downtown anywhere-in-the USA?

That would be downtown Newark and Detroit, not anywhere, and the problems there are crime (a large part of the violence being driven by pursuit of obscene profits to be reaped by circumventing the govt. prohibition of some drugs), not poverty. The ratcheting up of the War on Drugs since the early 70's has witnessed American homicide rates return to Prohibition era levels.

The only way to truely stop the trend of the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, then the poor get a welfare state. Is to discourage corporations from laying off workers.

Corporations must be free to lay off workers in order to maintain profitablity. If a corporation keeps unneeded workers to the detriment of it's bottom line for too long it will bankrupt the corporation and everyone working there will find themselves 'laid off'. Hoover encouraged your 'solution' at the outset of the 1929 market crash. It resulted in 25% unemployment, FDR, and the Great Depression.

Because I may get a product cheaper for the corporation now layed off 1000 people. I will now pay for it in higher taxes since not everyone that was layed off will get a good job

You're in effect saying capitalism can't work because we have socialism. Remove the socialism and let capitalism work.

Instead of having you pay less for the product and then make up the difference in taxes to pay someone to do nothing (welfare) allow capitalism to find use for the money you saved, and the laid off worker find employment providing the new product/service you can now afford with the money saved.

My plan...

Plan? Plan for yourself, let me plan for myself. This is capitalism.

Imposing your 'plan' for the economy puts you in league with Stalin, Lenin, etc. trying to dictate the lives of millions.

Unemployment, Some welfare, and Oh Sh*t programs. They give people a sence of secruity and allow them to spend money instead of hoarding it.

If these things genuinely concern you there are people willing to provide you a sense of security for less than the tax man. It's called insurance.

P.S. savings is money kept in dead accounts. Even though the bank uses your money for loans the money is essentially dead.

This is a fallacy, and what's worse is that you even recognize the money is not 'dead' because it's being lent. By putting money in savings in a bank you are forgoing immediate satisfaction of wants for the reward of interest. Someone who is willing to pay that premium on time (the interest) then attempts to find good use for that saved capital. This is the foundation of wealth creation. If he does find good use for the capital he repays the loan and something that did not exist before is brought into creation: wealth is created (and your loan is repaid). If he doesn't find good use for the capital wealth is destroyed (your savings disappears into miles of unused fiber optic cable for example). Banks charge a premium on the interest you demand (for deferring the meeting of your wants with your money) to cover these occassional losses and provide themselves a profit. Banks are encouraged by this reality to reduce exposure to bad loans and at the same time charge a low enough interest rate to encourage the risk taking that builds wealth.

Looking at the total part of the economy you will see that the public sector for example is not higher than in other countries.

In Sweden central government outlays account for nearly 2/3rds of GDP. Compare this to approximately 1/5th in the U.S. (state and local government expenditures in the U.S. bring the total over 2/5ths, but I did not include them because I do not know the comparable numbers for Sweden).

Wealth-transfers indeed increases the public part of the total economy but it comes back to the state in form of taxes.

So the govt. takes from person A to give to person B, but since they tax person B the govt. gets some of the money back. What does this do for person A? Just as importantly, do the bureaucrats required to take money from A, the bureaucrats required to give money to B, and the bureaucrats required to take money back from B actually increase the wealth of the country?

Honestly don´t you think it´s more efficient for a country to let all it´s citizens get the right to study and educate them self instead of just the rich one as in the US?

Get the right to study? Everyone in the U.S. has the freedom to study, the difference is whether or not someone is robbed to pay for your studying, or you foot the bill yourself. No one has a 'right' to force others to foot their bills.

Thirdly, the welfare state don´t just transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. This just would be very dangerous and only makes the wealthy classes wanna get out the system. Instead everyone gets something out of the system and therebye the rich dont create private alternatives in the same grade as we see in the US. At the same the tension between groups in the society decreases.

What are the ones who get robbed (the producers) getting that they couldn't buy without the wealth transfer? A promise from the non-producers to not riot and rob them to an even greater extent? Isn't that extortion? Isn't that a crime?

Why would a system like this not enable good company-föresättningar?

Not familiar with the term. Is there an approximate English translation?

Can you show me any kind of evidence that european welfare states are getting poorer? I wanna know because in my country the economic growth is priority one. How do you measure that we are getting poorer?

Poorer in more relative than absolute terms (at present). The point of the article is that Sweden's socialist system has created a middle class that is comparable to the poorest segment in American society. The wealth destroying activities of socialism undercut growth, and worse undercut sustaining the status quo. The Soviet Union didn't just wake up bankrupt, it worked it's way there for better than 70 years.

And you can also ask yourself if we should be retorical what we should be measuring with? Why not how many citizens that can read?

Is socialism necessary for literacy? Could the same literacy rates not be achieved without compulsory confiscation of income? Do you think parents would suddenly have no interest in seeing that their children learn to read if someone from government didn't come along, take their money, and force them to enroll their children in state schools?

How many that can get a free knee-operation?

Free? To whom? There is no free lunch. Scarcity is not magically negated when you introduce bureaucrats to the problem. The difference is instead of the person wanting a knee operation and the person willing to do it agreeing on terms a third party is put in the mix who will determine who gets knee operations but doesn't have a stake in the outcome. A horrific example the unavoidable consequence of socialized medicine is when a couple pays taxes into the 'free' healthcare system only to learn that a bureaucrat has determined their 8 year old daughter wouldn't have the proper quality of life to justify a heart operation. Why? She's mentally retarded. This actually happened in England.

Maybe you don't want your money spent on someone's retarded daughter, but why can't they be allowed to keep their money and spend it on her if they want instead of your 'free' knee operation? Maybe you do think your money should be spent on the little girl, but an unaccountable bean counter has decided otherwise. You've put him in charge of your money, and now are stuck with his (sometimes stupid) decisions. What is his impetus in this process to make better decisions? Are you hoping he's blessed with some kind of vision and understanding that you lack, and thus you are better off under his decision making than your own?

The article touched on how damaging socialized medicine is to improvement of medical care. How long is the waiting list for your 'free' knee operation?

In the U.S., where everything isn't free, there are more Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines in Orange County, California (population ~2.9 million) than in the whole of Canada (population ~31 million).

How many percents of the citizens are in prison?

The U.S. has an enormous prison population, but this is predominantly the result of prohibition of drugs, and the pursuit of the inordinate profits that result from govt. prohibition.

Do the US citizens have the right to five paid weeks of vacations every year? We could go on and on...

No one has a 'right' to not work and get paid. The average American could work 5 less weeks a year and still make more than the typical Swede. That was the point of the article. How much you are compensated is best determined by the parties involved (the one offering work and the one offering pay), not a third party (bureaucrat) who does not suffer from making a miscalculation.

Scandinavian countries have a system that all, not just the poorest benefits from.

"For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but the united power of the people, organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the the contrary, to secure to every one his own, and to cause justice and security to reign."

"There are people who think that plunder loses all its immorality as soon as it becomes legal. Personally, I cannot imagine a more alarming situation."

-- Frederic Bastiat

Because all have equal value, then each needs receive -- at miminum, enough shelter from storms, and enough food so to sing & flourish, and enough healing attention so to ease the soul-wracking throes, regardless of "accidental" lot in life. (... so you have a Will, and so you have acquisitive, materially avid nature... well, so?)

"A single question added to each of the… above clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation, homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values - goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers [of the United States]: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness - not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property"

- Ayn Rand

Archaic, almost biblical notion isn't it? The COMMON good. Imagine that.

It is an archiac device, but more importantly it's definitely a deliberately imprecise one. Who can determine what constitutes the 'common good'. There may well be shared pursuits between you and I, but who makes the determination of what is for the 'common good'? Do you decide what's good for everyone? Do I get to? I propose instead you decide for you and let me decide for me. By this method are we more likely to achieve our 'individual good' and thus promote the 'common good' you are so interested in.

Welfare (... when did this so kindly inclined word become -- perjorative?)

When it ceased being an act of benelovent, individually determined charity and became a 'right' guaranteed by the State through coercive extortion.

Gunslinger

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

-Frederic Bastiat

[Gunslingr3]

I disagree entirely with a liberal viewpoint that its US policy responsible for terrorism to happen.

The viewpoint is not simply 'liberal'. There are plenty of people who are not liberal in any sense of the co-opted word, but still oppose the burden of a U.S. Empire. UBL attacked the U.S. because he views our military as an occupation force in his holiest land, and views himself as a warrior for god. This happened because we forgot George Washington's farewell address, and gave up a Republic for an Empire.

Gunslinger

"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

-John Quincy Adams, 1821

[Casaria]

USA are #1, no doubt about this, but this do not mean their system is better all the way !

I lived and worked in San Francisco some months for a french company and what I see is an industrious and friendly nation. However they way of thinking is often quite reduced, as if they were no other options, sometimes I even felt like they do live in a kind of autarcy. There are a lot of nations which decide that economy was not the absolute ending of every human activities and that some money can be spent to help the poorest to access to minimum services and dignity.

France is quite a nice country to leave in, and is close to the Sweden system. The social services are taken in charge by the state, hospitals are free (even for heavy disease) as well as universities, there are paid vacations, the economy is good, the taxes not so high (33% for the vast majority of french people). Private insurance are not very helping the poorest, as they never save enough money to pay it. Actually I run my own company, and even with the taxes, I make confortable profits. Overall the french system is not perfect, but quite equitable For the WW2 part, of course France lost a lot of its power but that the way things are, and the youngest generation has no problem to live in a medium size country, as long as it is nice to live in for everyone. And the European Union give us a new opening.

All countries in Europe gain considerable advantage with the Union. Of course it becomes a threath to the US economy and there is a struggle between the two of them on many points. Sometimes it is US that are the bad guys (the tax on steel is the last I remember), and sometines it is the EU. But thats all fine overall, both entities growth, no ?

The system is in no way similar to the soviet communism. The european deputy are elected, they are not bureaucrats with no control !

Ciaooooo

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Gunslingr3:

Who can determine what constitutes the 'common good'. There may well be shared pursuits between you and I, but who makes the determination of what is for the 'common good'? Do you decide what's good for everyone? Do I get to? I propose instead you decide for you and let me decide for me.

You are apparently asking for a prolonged anarchy. :eek:

Social survival of the fittest. King of the tree-dwindling jungle. Fastest damn draw at the ol' OK Corral, oh, all that -- free form, fast blast discordant, spontaneous and loose-shoe, blue blue blue! horn... Jazz.

The "common good," is easily determined. You look all around and in places other than your own 4-square, Nature-hacked homestead. You notice whether there are emaciated or leprous, or otherwise torn & afflicted souls.

Then, you do something, anything at all, that you possibly can, about it.

To do otherwise -- all the while paying slave wages to your intellectual conceits, is understandable, but weak. Very, very weak.

Just as you have the right to speak freely (... well, Ashcroft hasn't had quite enough time to completely undermine that little bothersome Constitutional "right" ... ) BECAUSE -- others have, and are, fighting your overseas military battles, and OTHERS are maintaining the roads that you drive or ride -- mighty stallions! on, and OTHERS are insuring that the red meat that you eat is safe and relatively germ-free, etc, ad infinitum.

Or, do you like to pretend that you can do those sorts of things and many mundane more, all by yourself?

Sure fire, the Wild Wild West mentality is now -- just as ee cummings' beautiful blond & blue-eyed Buffalo Bill, utterly defunct.

To counter biological imperatives (... shelter, food, sex) requires some dedicated effort. It CAN be done, else we would yet be swinging the broad axe at the drop of every venemous grunt or syllable.

ANYONE can swell up at the neck and strike maddened blows. I would imagine that it takes an enlightened individual to forego all that salivary blood lust, and just -- trust in the Greater Power (or, do you suppose that you are Immortal, and know all there is to know, and can turn flailing hail storms into a gentle, flower-misting rain?).

All right, you have Ayn Rand to keep you company. I have Marcus Aurelius and Soren Kierkegaard et al, who very often come calling on me, and sure! We share in my personal blend of bark-sweetened, herbal tea!

Fair enough. I am satisfied, and so, apparently, are you.

[ August 27, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Willard]

Gunslingr-

There are plenty of people who are not liberal in any sense of the co-opted word, but still oppose the burden of a U.S. Empire.

Once again, please provide some examples of the "U.S. Empire." Are you talking about a military empire with colonies or bases? Are you referring to NATO? Are you talking about a cultural empire? An economic one?

To make a general statement like that doesnt support you opinion. It sounds good, but you havent defined it.

UBL attacked the U.S. because he views our military as an occupation force in his holiest land, and views himself as a warrior for god.

Your description of UBL is what the liberal press has described him as. Do you subscribe to that belief also? Do you believe this bulls$%t?

He is not a holy warrior, but he uses the Koran to shield his actions. He wants his followers to believe the jihad and holy war crap, but even he doesnt subscribe to it. How could he? We supported him and others against the Russians. Was that not a holy war? We supported him and his followers in Bosnia. Was that not a holy war? Who was the enemy? The US is not an occupation force but based in Saudi AT THE INVITATION OF THAT SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT. The US military is not an occupation force defiling the holy lands--although thats what UBL wants his followers to believe. UBL views the US military as an obstacle for what he really wants--that is the oil in Saudi. With the US there, he knows his "holy warriors" cannot overthrow the Saudis, cause the US would never let it happen. He claims he wants the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state in Saudi--but that is for his followers consumption. The Islamic Fundamentalist state is but a tool for him to control the population, the land and hence, the oil!

[Gunslingr3]

You are apparently asking for a prolonged anarchy

Anarchy is a kind of loaded word. You never know what exactly someone means by it.

an·ar·chy Pronunciation Key (nr-k)

n. pl. an·ar·chies

Absence of any form of political authority.

Political disorder and confusion.

Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

I do not seek 'anarchy' in the sense I desire the absense of any cohesive principle. I hold that man's rights are an absolute principle that it is the purpose of government to protect.

The "common good," is easily determined. You look all around and in places other than your own 4-square, Nature-hacked homestead. You notice whether there are emaciated or leprous, or otherwise torn & afflicted souls.

Then, you do something, anything at all, that you possibly can, about it.

'Something'? 'Anything'?

Hitler looked around Germany and saw retarded children. In pursuit of his vision of the 'common good' for Germany he did something about them. He put them in concentration camps.

Instead of putting someone in power with the authority to violate our rights in pursuit of 'doing something' for the 'common good', why not let me live my life and you yours as best we see fit, abiding by one another's rights?

Imagine you break your leg. Because you decided whiskey was more important than insurance, should I have to denude my savings to help you? What if those savings, one month hence, were needed by me for a life saving appendectomy? Why do I, who had the good sense to save my money, have to die while you hobble around on the cast and crutches I paid for? Has the 'common good' thus been elevated?

Just as you have the right to speak freely (... well, Ashcroft hasn't had quite enough time to completely undermine that little bothersome Constitutional "right" ... ) BECAUSE -- others have, and are, fighting your overseas military battles,

Please point me to the overseas battle currently being fought to protect my right to free speech? As you correctly pointed out, the threat to that right is centered in Washington, D.C., not overseas...

For further evidence look at the 'campaign finance reform' bill that recently emerged from the same place. It makes it illegal for me to advertise faults I find with a politician seeking office during the 60 days prior to an election - when most people start to pay attention. We'll see if it survives the courts, but it is currently the law.

and OTHERS are maintaining the roads that you drive or ride -- mighty stallions! on, and OTHERS are insuring that the red meat that you eat is safe and relatively germ-free, etc, ad infinitum. Or, do you like to pretend that you can do those sorts of things and many mundane more, all by yourself?

No, I expect to pay for those I choose to use, and no more.

It's easy to look out the window and point at the things that tax money has purchased, what is more difficult is to envision how things would be without this forced expenditure. What if, instead of govt. (federal, state, and local) reaping ~43 cents for a gallon of gasoline in my state to build roads the govt. stayed out of the road building business. What alternatives would have arisen when people with an actual stake in the outcome, instead of bureaucrats, had the opportunity to make decision on where those funds, that they earned, were allocated. Might we already be 'driving' to work in these:

http://www.moller.com/skycar/

Should a vegetarian, opposed to the slaughter of animals in the first place, be forced to pay for the inspection of said carcasses for someone else? I propose an absense of coercion, not an absense of liablity. When I hear on the news that Jack in the Box is being sued for millions because some people were poisoned by spoiled meat purchased from their burger stands it makes me realize I don't even want to chance going there for food. Liability and market forces (individuals deciding where they want to allocate their money) are effective stimuli to business.

Having someone show up from Occupational Safety & Health Administration and fine a business because their stairwell hand rail is 2 inches too short isn't helping any of us.

I highly recommend Bastiat's 'The Law', for a better understanding of how mankind can best be served by government. It's not very long, and available for free on the web: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2a.html

Gunslinger

[Gunslingr3]

Once again, please provide some examples of the "U.S. Empire." Are you talking about a military empire with colonies or bases?

Yes. You know, the bases and colonies in Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia. That U.S. Empire.

He is not a holy warrior, but he uses the Koran to shield his actions. He wants his followers to believe the jihad and holy war crap, but even he doesnt subscribe to it. How could he?

He's an avowed Mystic. I have no reason to doubt he believes what he professes to believe: that infidel non-believers should be kept out of Islamic lands.

We supported him and others against the Russians. Was that not a holy war? We supported him and his followers in Bosnia. Was that not a holy war? Who was the enemy?

We used him while he was using us. What is your point? Or were you trying to make mine?

The US is not an occupation force but based in Saudi AT THE INVITATION OF THAT SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT.

I was deliberately precise in what I wrote: "UBL attacked the U.S. because he views our military as an occupation force in his holiest land, and views himself as a warrior for god."

He doesn't want the Russians in Afghanistan and he doesn't want the U.S. in Saudi Arabia.

UBL views the US military as an obstacle for what he really wants--that is the oil in Saudi. With the US there, he knows his "holy warriors" cannot overthrow the Saudis, cause the US would never let it happen. He claims he wants the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state in Saudi--but that is for his followers consumption. The Islamic Fundamentalist state is but a tool for him to control the population, the land and hence, the oil!

So his master plan is really to get rich? Then why did he forsake his family fortune (millions of dollars), go live in caves, and fund militant muslims in regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo? Your analysis doesn't add up with the known facts.

Add this information, from an August 22, 2001 Asia Times article, to your analysis:

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH22Df02.html

"Prince Abdullah has good relations with bin Laden as both are disciples of slain Doctor Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian scholar and former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Organization (Al-Iqwanul Muslamoon). Azzam was the main motivational force in the Arab world for the Afghan jihad (holy war) against the former Soviet Union. Bin Laden fought, and helped finance, opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."

"Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, meanwhile, wants bin Laden to stand trial in his country. He is said to believe that any trial against the fugitive would see him acquitted as no case has been registered against him in Saudi Arabia. In addition, there is no precedent of Saudi Arabia ever handing over one of its citizens to the United States (even though bin Laden has technically lost his Saudi citizenship), so the crown prince considers that bin Laden will be safer in Saudi Arabia than in Afghanistan. Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1991. He was asked by the Saudi government to return, but he refused, so they withdrew his citizenship, cancelled his passport and froze his assets. Bin Laden is believed to have amassed a fortune with his family's construction business.

Prince Abdullah made a clandestine visit to Pakistan a few months ago and met senior army officials, and he visited Afghanistan with the director-general of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant-General Mehmood. According to sources, Prince Abdullah met Taliban strongman Mullah Omar and tried to convince him that the United States was likely to launch an attack on Afghanistan and insisted bin Laden be sent to Saudi Arabia, where he would be held in custody and not handed over to any third country. Mullah Omar apparently rejected the crown prince's proposal, saying that despite the threat of US attacks the question of bin Laden had become one of honor and he would not be handed over in any circumstances."

Even if UBL wants to control the oil in Saudi Arabia, how does that involve American armed forces who are established to defend the Constitution of the United States?

Gunslinger

[husky65]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

No, I expect to pay for those I choose to use, and no more.

The classic absurd cop out, to take the obvious counter example what if nobody chose to fund the military, education or long term research?

And without some pretty major road funding, gasoline engines would never have progressed to the stage where the Moller skycar was even approaching feasible.

From your statements, it seems that you choose to be an uneducated serf, you are lucky that the evil Govt has denied you your freedom of choice in this matter.

Having someone show up from Occupational Safety & Health Administration and fine a business because their stairwell hand rail is 2 inches too short isn't helping any of us.

Except for the people who might have been hurt had the fault not been rectified, they actually research these things and settle for a cost effective level of safety, which you now propose should be compromised.

Even if UBL wants to control the oil in Saudi Arabia, how does that involve American armed forces who are established to defend the Constitution of the United States?

See how long your country lasts without oil.

Your economy took a nosedive last time OPEC pushed up the price, if they turn off the flow of oil completely the USA can't even provide enough oil to move sufficient goods internally.