Saddam is Gone! What's next? [Archive]

N8CPA

12-14-2003, 04:47 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,07http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You got to love it!

Dave KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another Bush campaign commercial brought to you by KG6JTB.

Oh great, now maybe Saddam can join the dictator collection started by Bush 41 with Noriega.

Hmmmm, let's see. What other country can we invade and otherthrow the leader? Why not North Korea? China, France???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO! Canada! We got the oil, now we want the beer! Saddam today, Trudeau tomorrow!

The left coast is watching out for us? And I thought I was laughing at the 10 meter action this weekend!

I love that they got the guy. For the next 60 years, France won't be able to point at the mass graves and torture chambers accusing, "You knew and you did nothing!" like they have for the past 60 in regards to the Nazis.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

!!

kd5kfl

12-14-2003, 04:58 PM

Unemployment less than 4%? You would need press gangs. There are those who won't, or aren't worth a hoot. At 4%, you would have people working who would rather not, or really shouldn't be.

Heard he got turned in by an ex-wife. Where is the love?

KG6JTB

12-14-2003, 05:33 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unemployment less than 4%? You would need press gangs. There are those who won't, or aren't worth a hoot. At 4%, you would have people working who would rather not, or really shouldn't be.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're right. 4% has long been considered to be 0-unemployment.

Considering that we are at 5.9%, that is relatively insignificant compaired to other countries. During the dot.com boom, we were at 4%, and there were a lot of worthless people working back then.

I feel bad for those out of work, but there are many people working in sectors that are in decline, and have failed to move with the cheese. I don't pity anyone who could have taken another job, or relocated to survive.

Dave
KG6JTB

KC9CEW

12-14-2003, 06:25 PM

OK, start bombing France now! #they'll surrender within the hour.HAW....

VA7KBH

12-14-2003, 10:08 PM

Paul Martin is the Prime Minister of Canada, not Pierre Trudeau.

You can have him, we don't want him.

And P.S. - we've got beer. And it's good. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

w3sy

12-15-2003, 12:31 AM

He meant GARRY Trudeau, the talentless, far-left hack who writes a tedious, one-note, liberal/Dummycrat "comic strip" called Doonesbury.

Saddam Hussein's un-American activities are piddly-poo compared to Garry Trudeau's. Saddam Hussein is a goddam Signer of the Declaration of Independence compared to Trudeau.

HAW!!!!

n7wsb

12-15-2003, 12:50 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,10:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're right. 4% has long been considered to be 0-unemployment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This must be true for everyone else in the country http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif. I still know people here in Oregon who are out of work, and work still really hard to find (I've been looking for a new job for several months)

N8CPA

12-15-2003, 02:01 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (VA7KBH @ Dec. 14 2003,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Paul Martin is the Prime Minister of Canada, not Pierre Trudeau.

You can have him, we don't want him.

And P.S. - we've got beer. #And it's good. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's whom I meant! I couldn't think of his name so I used a previous PM.

And I like that beer, too!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

n7wsb

12-15-2003, 02:24 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w3sy @ Dec. 14 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Hussein's un-American activities are piddly-poo compared to Garry Trudeau's. Saddam Hussein is a goddam Signer of the Declaration of Independence compared to Trudeau.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I wonder who's more extreme - a guy who writes comic stips or someone who compares a guy who writes comic strips to Saddam Hussein.

Maybe its just the new wave of a bad trend. I talked to an angry customer a while back who compared me to Saddam Hussein because I couldn't fix his scanner the way he wanted.

AB8RU

12-15-2003, 02:40 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Dec. 14 2003,22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,10:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're right. 4% has long been considered to be 0-unemployment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This must be true for everyone else in the country http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif. I still know people here in Oregon who are out of work, and work still really hard to find (I've been looking for a new job for several months)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Got your Extra ? and a GROL ? heard that Bloomberg is looking for Experienced Engineers oh yeah I work a PT job and another PT job, and Cramming for my GROL anyway I just had a Ham friend got laid off as a Computer Insturctor and is a cashier PT at a Meijer store ( getting beaten by wal mart in sales )

my XYL & I we work PT jobs even though befefits are not there.

I will not mention what happened some time back which I feel it's not worth my time to post and would be inappropiate anyway. ( giving the circumstances helped me get my Extra anyway http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif === )

LOL ! I am really Playing a Possum trick just that I am not under liberty to discuss that. !

being this is the Internet anyway...

I still am happy the Military nabbed you know who ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 03:05 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5kfl @ Dec. 14 2003,09:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unemployment less than 4%? You would need press gangs. There are those who won't, or aren't worth a hoot. At 4%, you would have people working who would rather not, or really shouldn't be.

Heard he got turned in by an ex-wife. Where is the love?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Um, guys?

Perhaps you should check out what the 'unemployment' number is. It's the percentage of people still looking for work that don't have a job. You stop looking, they stop counting you.

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 03:07 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (VA7KBH @ Dec. 14 2003,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Paul Martin is the Prime Minister of Canada, not Pierre Trudeau.

You can have him, we don't want him.

And P.S. - we've got beer. #And it's good. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It has been a long time since Trudeau. But to be fair to those south of the boarder, Martin has only just become PM.

I was pleased to see that he was sanctified by someone of the first nations, and that he seemed pleased to have been.

About the beer: could you email a case or two of Moose Drool down this way? It's hard to get on the left coast.

Marty

KD7WHQ

12-15-2003, 03:22 AM

A couple of cases of Labatts sounds good.
That swill under that label down here is NOT the same stuff.

But, there is some merit in going after the Guiness.. Love the stuff..

ai4ep

12-15-2003, 04:16 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif based on his words, he knows quite a bit about that stuff.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

ki4bgo

12-15-2003, 04:20 AM

They're gonna keep ol' Saddam's hole open, so the troops will have a place to stick bush when he's out on his ass next November! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K0RGR

12-15-2003, 05:09 AM

Well, Saddam should be able to lead us directly to the "weapons of mass destruction" and since he is such a close ally of Osama Bin Laden, he should be able to give us the address of the hole where he is hiding, too. If Bush does manage to find either of those things, he will be re-elected by unanimous acclamation. No need for you Republicans to even show up for the election - your guy wins.

I think it's beginning to look like "The Perfect Storm" for the Democrats next year. I can't help but think that Gore's wierd endorsement of Dean is really the kiss of death for the party in 2004. Gore and Hillary are both hoping that by 2008, people will have figured out Bush and his bunch, and they'll be itching to throw them out. I think the Democrats are about to desintegrate as a national party, so they can be 'reborn' a few years from now.

w3sy

12-15-2003, 06:11 AM

N7WSB sez: "I wonder who's more extreme - a guy who writes comic stips or someone who compares a guy who writes comic strips to Saddam Hussein."

Um, lighten up, Bucky. It was a "joke."

"Maybe its just the new wave of a bad trend. I talked to an angry customer a while back who compared me to Saddam Hussein because I couldn't fix his scanner the way he wanted."

That customer was WAY off base. It was HITLER who couldn't fix scanners worth a damn.

Out.

AlYeshima

12-15-2003, 07:06 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,07http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You got to love it!

Dave KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another Bush campaign commercial brought to you by KG6JTB.

Oh great, now maybe Saddam can join the dictator collection started by Bush 41 with Noriega.

Hmmmm, let's see. What other country can we invade and otherthrow the leader? Why not North Korea? China, France???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Kind sir, I should be most gratified, then, if you could provide some data to help resolve a perplexity in which I find my gray and white matters enmeshed...

Assuming that this capture is real and won't be later explained as an error, do you believe that Saddam's capture has in some way, made the world less safe? Made the US less safe? Made the Middle East less safe? Made any of those places less safe?

There is no doubt that you are waging a war of hate against the sitting president as you have made that quite prominent. Such is less than relevant in the main; what would be more enlightening is to know quite where you stand on "what is different" now that Saddam is in custody.

Blessings of the High One to you and yours.

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 09:39 AM

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 09:57 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DocRF @ Dec. 14 2003,21http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif7)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As it should be. #If people are not looking for work, then they are as employed as they want to be, hence they are not unemployed.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. That's right out of 1984.

So, if I'm making a quarter of a million a year, but I want Bill Gates' job, does that make me unemployed, because, after all, I'm not as employed as I want to be?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There is also an incorrect rumour that once an unemployed person stops collecting unemployment, that they are no longer counted as unemployed. #That is a surprisingly new rumour, less than four years old.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You may need to check on that. The "rumor" goes back to the 1970s. It's also not a rumor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The "unemployment' figure is not derived simply. #It is, rather a culmination of many statistics, and of course, some assumptions.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

For small value of "many". The number usually cited as the unemployment number is based in general on two basic statistics: the number of people considered legally employed by businesses, and the number of people looking for work, (called "unemployed".) The sum is called "the civilian labor force".

While correctors are applied, the number used by the fed is, essentially, the number of people collecting unemployment benefits.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The government's described intent for the figure is to represent the percentage of people who would LIKE to be employed, and are spending a fair amount of their time seeking work, who have not found it yet.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

"Being involuntarily out of work. The government defines unemployed as people who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work."

Check out The government's web site (http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/meta/long_58609.htm) for more details.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
A person who is only going through the motions to collect unemployment, but is expected to turn down a job offer if he gets it, is NOT counted as unemployed, but rather is counted as "satisfactorily employed", meaning he is as employed as he wants to be.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Um, no. Such a person is considered as being involved in fradulent behavior. (At least in the states I've worked in. Unemployment benefit law is a complicated mess of federal regulations and state law.)

A person who is not working and not interested in working is simply not counted. However, most states require that you be actively looking for work to collect unemployment benefits. As a result, most states use the number of people claiming such benefits, plus a correction for the number of people who, through being self employed, are not eligible for benefits.

N8CPA

12-15-2003, 10:45 AM

Sy, you'll probably like this. As Mason Williams might have said, if he were conservavtive,

"Dem Liberals"*

How 'bout dem liberals!
Ain' dey cute?
Dey say dey gonna gib
Dubya da boot.

Dey chantin' dem mantras
Dey spinnin' dem facts
And when dey prove wrong
Dey won' take it back.

How 'bout dem liberals!
Ain' dey cute?
For all dey common sense
Dey might as well be mute.

What is, it ain't.
What ain't, is so.
Jus' ask the liberals.
Dey'll let ya'll know.

If ya wanna be a liberal
It don' take a brain.
Ya jus' gotta talk
And be a real pain.

*After I wrote it, I realized it was a double pun!

KG6JTB

12-15-2003, 02:46 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I can tell, the capture of Saddam, that is the immediate event that happened this morning, makes no difference one way or the other to the safety of the world.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, he was funding terrorism in Israel and compensating the families of suicide bombers. Or perhaps Israel and the Jewish people don't matter anymore to the liberal left?

Perhaps we had Saddam in a bottle, in retrospect. Perhaps the status-quo was good enough with U.N. sanctions and oppression of the Iraqi people by the regime and the lack of free-trade. Perhaps...

However, there were folks upset with the Marshall Plan, and we had many road-blocks to overcome (the Berlin Airlift is just one example). We could have just gave up and went home. It's hard to imagine where the world would be today if the U.S. cut and run in the face of adversity.

As for the U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's terrible, but many Americans give their lives each day in the course of their employment (police, fire, construction, etc). We don't have a draft, this is not Viet Nam. Most of the attacks are hidden or unavoidable (road-side bombs), simply hazzards of doing business in Iraq. I suppose pulling our troops out of the more populated areas and into a T.A.A. in the desert might be a safer way to continue our occupation. I'm not sure we can be as effective that way.

I think one question has been answered with Saddam's capture. That all the recent violence was NOT coordinated directly by Saddam. I think the insurgents just want to "sucker punch" the U.S. troops as we sit there, and if that is the only military problem, then we need to leave, or draw down and keep a lower profile. Our absence may actually improve the situation. We got Saddam, we are effectively done.

Dave
KG6JTB

AlYeshima

12-15-2003, 06:45 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 15 2003,02:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AlYeshima @ Dec. 15 2003,00<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kind sir, I should be most gratified, then, if you could provide some data to help resolve a perplexity in which I find my gray and white matters enmeshed...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If you relax the right muscle, you be able to remove them from that mess, er, I mean mesh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Assuming that this capture is real and won't be later explained as an error, do you believe that Saddam's capture has in some way, made the world less safe? #Made the US less safe? #Made the Middle East less safe? #Made any of those places less safe?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now there's a "have you stop beating your wife yet" sort of question.

As far as I can tell, the capture of Saddam, that is the immediate event that happened this morning, makes no difference one way or the other to the safety of the world.

On the other hand, let me ask you how many dead US soldiers have to be shipped back to the US before you recognize that the world, and even Iraq, is now less safe than it was before the invasion?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
what would be more enlightening is to know quite where you stand on "what is different" now that Saddam is in custody.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There's nothing different. #Anyone who thinks that the resistance in Iraq is going to stop because Hussain was captured hasn't been paying attention.

Anyone who thinks that the US is making the world a better place by ignoring what world-wide civilizing institutions are in place, and the basis of its own laws, is has not only not been paying attention, but probably doesn't understand why the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Blessings of the High One to you and yours.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The High One is dead.

(no, no, no, he's outside, looking in.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your response is noted. However, my query was to WX7B. I am curious about what elements, connected by what logic, leads him to some of his conclusions. It was not clear to me, but somehow it would seem that the capture of Saddam works, in some way, against WX7B's wishes, and I would be most interested in knowing why.

You have been abundantly clear in your reasoning.

Blessings,

ka5s

12-15-2003, 07:41 PM

What's next? More of the same.

IBM just announced it is sending 4,700 software jobs overseas.

More of the same.

Democrats won't win in '04 unless they come up with a better candidate than the President. Since neither party usually HAS good candidates, it looks like the incumbent wins again.

Inertia. You gotta love it!

Cortland

n0ov

12-15-2003, 07:46 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka5s @ Dec. 14 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's next? More of the same.

IBM just announced it is sending 4,700 software jobs overseas.

More of the same.

Democrats won't win in '04 unless they come up with a better candidate than the President. Since neither party usually HAS good candidates, it looks like the incumbent wins again.

Inertia. You gotta love it!

Cortland[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here's a QRZ Quizz.

Without looking at the first page -- what was the topic of the original post?

n0ov

12-15-2003, 07:46 PM

Hint -- it wasn't about Santa

ki4bgo

12-15-2003, 08:06 PM

4 more years of this bulls**t and Santa will be out of work too!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

n0ov

12-15-2003, 08:23 PM

What's next -- manditory code testing for...............

This should be good for one or two more posts http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

kc7jty

12-15-2003, 09:42 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4bgo @ Dec. 14 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're gonna keep ol' Saddam's hole open, so the troops will have a place to stick bush when he's out on his ass next November! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hip hip...Horay. Hip hip......

Looks like the media is not being good to Georgie boy. If that continues there is no way he'll be reelected. The people are like domestic animals with rings in their noses. All the media has to do is pull.

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 10:42 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DocRF @ Dec. 15 2003,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Then it has changed mightily from the days when I was a group chief in an organization within the Federal government which collected and analyzed the data.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, yes. The government has been playing games with the definitions of various statistical measures of the health of the economy, most notably the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, over the last 30 years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Different words that mean the same thing. #And, in very brief terms, "one who is not as employed as he wishes to be".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and yet, when I pointed out that someone making less than they wanted to fits the definition above, you suggested the definition does not apply. I would suggest that your terms are too brief to capture your intent.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If a person is not interested in working, do you think that person should be counted as unemployed? #I don't.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I think the word 'unemployed' is an unfortunate label for the statistic that you are interested in. One who is not working for pay is "unemployed". This term includes those not eligible to work, such as minors; those incapable of working, such as the invalid; and those unable to find work, either due to inability or disinterest.

I also think that the statistic that is gathered isn't particularly interesting as a measure of the health of the economy, because it doesn't account for the compensation for the work. If 1 million former high tech workers are displaced into 1 million jobs paying a quarter of what they had been earning, is the economy as healthy as previously?

AE6IP

12-15-2003, 10:54 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 15 2003,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as I can tell, the capture of Saddam, that is the immediate event that happened this morning, makes no difference one way or the other to the safety of the world.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, he was funding terrorism in Israel and compensating the families of suicide bombers. Or perhaps Israel and the Jewish people don't matter anymore to the liberal left?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You seem to have neglected to note that the number of suicide bombings in Israel increased after Hussain was out of power. His ability to fund terrorism seems to have ended the day he fled, and yet, terrorism in the middle east has increased.

Israel has blood on its hands in this matter as well. Perhaps the US should invade Tel Aviv in response to the Israeli oppression of the Palestine, in contravention of international law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Perhaps we had Saddam in a bottle, in retrospect. Perhaps the status-quo was good enough with U.N. sanctions and oppression of the Iraqi people by the regime and the lack of free-trade. Perhaps...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This is a specious argument. Of the nearly 200 countries on this planet, perhaps half have regimes that are more oppressive of their population that Iraq was. Why then this one, instead of one of those performing worse human rights abuse?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
However, there were folks upset with the Marshall Plan, and we had many road-blocks to overcome (the Berlin Airlift is just one example). We could have just gave up and went home. It's hard to imagine where the world would be today if the U.S. cut and run in the face of adversity.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The Marshall Plan was a good thing, and one welcomed by the population of the countries that it was applied to. These were countries, by the way, that had been defeated in war and had acknowledged that defeat.

A modern Marshall Plan would also be a good thing. Do you think there is any chance that a Republican administration would allow one?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As for the U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's terrible, but many Americans give their lives each day in the course of their employment (police, fire, construction, etc). We don't have a draft, this is not Viet Nam. Most of the attacks are hidden or unavoidable (road-side bombs), simply hazzards of doing business in Iraq. I suppose pulling our troops out of the more populated areas and into a T.A.A. in the desert might be a safer way to continue our occupation. I'm not sure we can be as effective that way.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, then this is all about doing business, is it? The whole purpose of the US military in Iraq is to provide security to Haliburton?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I think one question has been answered with Saddam's capture. That all the recent violence was NOT coordinated directly by Saddam. I think the insurgents just want to "sucker punch" the U.S. troops as we sit there, and if that is the only military problem, then we need to leave, or draw down and keep a lower profile. Our absence may actually improve the situation. We got Saddam, we are effectively done.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It seems from the above that you've joined those of us who have always understood that the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" pretext was a sham.

I do not know what the US should do now. But I'm fairly certain it won't leave Iraq until Haliburton has made all the money they can from the project.

w5zzq

12-15-2003, 11:10 PM

What happened to Saddam?? Wasn't this supposed to be about him? I forgot.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

kd5kfl

12-16-2003, 12:36 AM

It'a about "What's next". Saddam is over, until the trial

ki4bgo

12-16-2003, 02:22 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5zzq @ Dec. 15 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What happened to Saddam?? # Wasn't this supposed to be about him? #I forgot.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I mentioned his hole! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

nx6d

12-16-2003, 02:46 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AlYeshima @ Dec. 14 2003,23http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,07<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You got to love it!

Dave KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another Bush campaign commercial brought to you by KG6JTB.

Oh great, now maybe Saddam can join the dictator collection started by Bush 41 with Noriega.

Hmmmm, let's see. What other country can we invade and otherthrow the leader? Why not North Korea? China, France???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Kind sir, I should be most gratified, then, if you could provide some data to help resolve a perplexity in which I find my gray and white matters enmeshed...

Assuming that this capture is real and won't be later explained as an error, do you believe that Saddam's capture has in some way, made the world less safe? #Made the US less safe? #Made the Middle East less safe? #Made any of those places less safe?

There is no doubt that you are waging a war of hate against the sitting president as you have made that quite prominent. #Such is less than relevant in the main; what would be more enlightening is to know quite where you stand on "what is different" now that Saddam is in custody.

Blessings of the High One to you and yours.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think the capture affects where or not the world is safe one iota. I do think the world is less safe now that we have destabilized a large country in a volatile part of the world.

Waging a war of hate, that's a good one. We had to put up with 8 years of neo-con nonsense about Clinton. The guy has been out of office almost 3 years and the talk show types are STILL talking about him on a daily basis. I know, because I do listen to these idiots while I'm driving around during the day.

I object to using foreign boogy-men for political purposes especially when we have supported them in the past. That was the reason for the Noriega reference. If the leader of the coup in Grenada had been more high profile, we would have heard more about him too. Saddam got money and support from us in the 1988 war against American boogy-man (country) d'jour Iran was on the other side. I also thought Bush's photo ops were in incredibly bad taste, and in the case of the Iraqi Thanksgiving, dangerous too, all for the opportunity to wave the flag and play military man dressup.

People try to compare this stupid Iraq exercise to WWII. Unlike WWII, we weren't attacked by the Iraqis, and no, 9/11 doesn't count, as I've said many many many times before, there is no evidence the Iraqis had anything to do with 9/11.

Many people are profiting from this manufactured culture of fear the administration has created with its over reaction to 9/11. #Big bucks (your money) are going to be made rebuilding Iraq. Do you think for a second 187 billion would have allocated that quickly for domestic expenditures? NO. The right-wing would spend their time screaming about "fraud and waste" and "tax and spend", mantras they've used for decades. Where is the outrage now? Since the money is benefitting THEIR special interests (and special interests they are) the silence is deafening.

WX7B

AlYeshima

12-16-2003, 02:56 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 15 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AlYeshima @ Dec. 14 2003,23<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WX7B @ Dec. 14 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,07<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You got to love it!

Dave KG6JTB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another Bush campaign commercial brought to you by KG6JTB.

Oh great, now maybe Saddam can join the dictator collection started by Bush 41 with Noriega.

Hmmmm, let's see. What other country can we invade and otherthrow the leader? Why not North Korea? China, France???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Kind sir, I should be most gratified, then, if you could provide some data to help resolve a perplexity in which I find my gray and white matters enmeshed...

Assuming that this capture is real and won't be later explained as an error, do you believe that Saddam's capture has in some way, made the world less safe? #Made the US less safe? #Made the Middle East less safe? #Made any of those places less safe?

There is no doubt that you are waging a war of hate against the sitting president as you have made that quite prominent. #Such is less than relevant in the main; what would be more enlightening is to know quite where you stand on "what is different" now that Saddam is in custody.

Blessings of the High One to you and yours.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think the capture affects where or not the world is safe one iota. I do think the world is less safe now that we have destabilized a large country in a volatile part of the world.

Waging a war of hate, that's a good one. We had to put up with 8 years of neo-con nonsense about Clinton. The guy has been out of office almost 3 years and the talk show types are STILL talking about him on a daily basis. I know, because I do listen to these idiots while I'm driving around during the day.

I object to using foreign boogy-men for political purposes especially when we have supported them in the past. That was the reason for the Noriega reference. If the leader of the coup in Grenada had been more high profile, we would have heard more about him too. Saddam got money and support from us in the 1988 war against American boogy-man (country) d'jour Iran was on the other side. I also thought Bush's photo ops were in incredibly bad taste, and in the case of the Iraqi Thanksgiving, dangerous too, all for the opportunity to wave the flag and play military man dressup.

People try to compare this stupid Iraq exercise to WWII. Unlike WWII, we weren't attacked by the Iraqis, and no, 9/11 doesn't count, as I've said many many many times before, there is no evidence the Iraqis had anything to do with 9/11.

Many people are profiting from this manufactured culture of fear the administration has created with its over reaction to 9/11. #Big bucks (your money) are going to be made rebuilding Iraq. Do you think for a second 187 billion would have allocated that quickly for domestic expenditures? NO. The right-wing would spend their time screaming about "fraud and waste" and "tax and spend", mantras they've used for decades. Where is the outrage now? Since the money is benefitting THEIR special interests (and special interests they are) the silence is deafening.

WX7B[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thank you kindly for the response. I fully understand your position now.

Blessings,

ki4bgo

12-16-2003, 02:56 AM

WX7B...Excellent post! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KG6JTB

12-16-2003, 05:39 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a specious argument. #Of the nearly 200 countries on this planet, perhaps half have regimes that are more oppressive of their population that Iraq was. Why then this one, instead of one of those performing worse human rights abuse?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, for one, Iraq is a fairly developed country, with an infrastructure, that sits on a lot of oil... as opposed to other dirt-poor nations with $0 GDP and greater instability. The investment in rebuilding Iraq has a greater return, both economically and politically, plus it's quite do-able.

Iraq was pretty bad under Saddam, and his oppression was widely reported. I can't fathom buying oil-for-food with the likes of a "Hitler" figure benefiting from my dollars.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems from the above that you've joined those of us who have always understood that the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" pretext was a sham.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, to some degree. The first excuse to go into Iraq was the link to Al Quida, which was met with much doubt. Since this was hard to prove, Bush angled to simply go after Saddam for infractions of the U.N. cease fire to the '91 war. Bush built a pretty good legal case to use force as I see it. Iraq was firing missiles at our planes, etc. Even the U.N. believed there was WMD, since the Iraqis couldn't produce documentation that they destroyed their stockpiles. My guess, the Iraqi's probably poured the agents out into the desert over the past 12 years to avoid U.N. detection and kept shoddy records. Saddam probably thought that the sanctions would one day be lifted as long as the teams couldn't find WMD.

The U.N. gave Saddam one more chance with a formal resolution, but France threatened to veto any use of force since Iraq owed them billions. The way was clear for us to go forward, eh, sort of.

This will be debated for years. But as Iraq rises to become a model democratic society, history will strongly favor Bush's decision to invade and liberate. #

As for Halliburton and a "no-bid" contract, there is something wrong there, and it should be investigated.

I'm a biased 1991 veteran, just so you know.

Dave
KG6JTB

n7wsb

12-16-2003, 06:41 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AB8RU @ Dec. 14 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Got your Extra ? and a GROL ? #heard that Bloomberg is looking for Experienced Engineers oh yeah I work a PT job and another PT job, and Cramming for my GROL anyway I just had a Ham friend got laid off as a Computer Insturctor and is a cashier PT at a Meijer store ( getting beaten by wal mart in sales )[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I actually have a fulltime job but it doesn't pay well http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif.

GROL is a good idea - I wonder if its something I could take classes in or a matter of just studying on my own and taking the exams.

n7wsb

12-16-2003, 06:44 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE6IP @ Dec. 14 2003,20http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps you should check out what the 'unemployment' number is. #It's the percentage of people still looking for work that don't have a job. #You stop looking, they stop counting you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is a good point - Oregon's unemployment is here http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/OlmisZine - this really only counts people who are on unemployment. One thing to keep in mind is if you lost you job a year or two ago you benefiets are just starting to dry up - and once they do you're not unemployed anymore.

KD7VKR

12-16-2003, 08:42 AM

Does anybody know what the body count of innocent Iraqis was per week in Iraq before we went in. and what the body count of innocents per week is after we went in to stop the killing? Some how I can't seem to find that anywhere in the "news". Just wondering. Only seem to hear about the soldiers killed over there. I'm so sorry the soldiers are catching it, but I think there would be a LOT less soldiers bombed if the "news" would stop embolding the enemy with every anti American newscast. Seems that every news cast I see has a piece of propaganda in there somehow for aiding the terrorists.
Really, how many Iraqis were killed per week by the Saddam regime before we stopped them. Then, how many are being killed this week? Wondering.
N7SYY

12-16-2003, 12:10 PM

“As for Halliburton and a "no-bid" contract, there is something wrong there, and it should be investigated.” KG6JTB

Dave,
Thanks for your service.

I believe you should decide who gets the contract to repair/re-establish Iraq’s oil production. This is very important to Iraq as it will establish an income stream, and is a large project requiring a large number of experienced personal and a large amount of equipment.

Let’s take a look at the big three that provide the services necessary for this job.

Halliburton, a U.S. company, 96,000 employees working in over 120 countries, yearly income about $14 billion, 62% of income from overseas the rest from the US.

Schlumberger, a FRENCH company, 72,000 employees in about 100 countries, yearly income about $13 billion. (don’t know income split)

BJ Services, a US company, about 10,000 employees with services provided in most major oil producing areas worldwide, yearly income about $2 billion. (don’t know income split)

I have used each of these companies at various times and they are all technically competent. Although I have used BJ services probably the most domestically (they tend to underbid the other two), I don’t think they are large enough to handle a project of this size. They were for instance unable to provide services on a project I was doing in Turkey so I only got bids from Halliburton and Schlumberger.

Basically only Halliburton and Schlumberger are large enough to handle a project of this size and they may even subcontract to smaller regional companies in the area providing supervision and coordination to get this project done in a timely manner.

Since Schlumberger is a French company it is out of the picture. So why call for bids? Just hire Halliburton and make sure they do not overcharge for the services provided, compare to what was historically charged. BTW in Turkey, where only Schlumberger could provide competent geophysical well logging, they charged me $40,000 to log a 5000 ft well. Here in the states I can get that same job done for less than $5000. Do you think they were putting the screws to me because they were the only game in town?

So who will it be?

73, Marty WB2RJR

KG6JTB

12-16-2003, 01:24 PM

Marty:

Point well taken. I seem to recall there were 7 companies competing for the business, but I'll take your word for it.

I don't like "no bid" deals. This one especially stinks. If Halliburton is the only reasonable and competent vendor for services, then there should be close over-sight to the auditing that, I'm sure, are outlined in the Terms and Conditions of the contract. This is just good due diligence, and should be headed up by a NGO or watchdog group.

My guess is that the records be maintained for up to 6 years after completion or invoicing. Therefore, if there is any funny business, another presidential administration could review the transactions and raise objections.

Best,

Dave
KG6JTB

AE6IP

12-16-2003, 10:44 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7VKR @ Dec. 16 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anybody know what the body count of innocent Iraqis was per week in Iraq before we went in. and what the body count of innocents per week is after we went in to stop the killing? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. Ted Rall has commented on this recently. As of a few weeks ago, the average daily body count of Iraqis killed by US troops exceded the average killed by Hussein during his tenure.

This does not include the dramatic increase in civilian violence in Iraq resulting from the loss of civil authority in the country.

No doubt the US troops will not keep up this rate, but it is a sobering number to contemplate.

AE6IP

12-16-2003, 11:03 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 15 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, for one, Iraq is a fairly developed country, with an infrastructure, that sits on a lot of oil... as opposed to other dirt-poor nations with $0 GDP and greater instability. The investment in rebuilding Iraq has a greater return, both economically and politically, plus it's quite do-able.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

So the criteria, then, is invade only those countries you can make money out of rebuilding?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Iraq was pretty bad under Saddam, and his oppression was widely reported. I can't fathom buying oil-for-food with the likes of a "Hitler" figure benefiting from my dollars.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, the United States trades with England -- a country that starved six million people to death in India after WW-II.

And how about that international space station deal we've put together with Stalin's country?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Yes, to some degree. The first excuse to go into Iraq was the link to Al Quida, which was met with much doubt. Since this was hard to prove, Bush angled to simply go after Saddam for infractions of the U.N. cease fire to the '91 war. Bush built a pretty good legal case to use force as I see it. Iraq was firing missiles at our planes, etc.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes. Al Quida. Speaking of Arab countries with lots of oil, repressive government, and ties to Al Quida, wouldn't Saudi Arabi have been a better choice to attack?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Even the U.N. believed there was WMD, since the Iraqis couldn't produce documentation that they destroyed their stockpiles.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said that the UN had found no evidence of WMD, and that he should be allowed to continue to do his job -- which was working.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
My guess, the Iraqi's probably poured the agents out into the desert over the past 12 years to avoid U.N. detection and kept shoddy records. Saddam probably thought that the sanctions would one day be lifted as long as the teams couldn't find WMD.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Are you familiar with the size of infrastructure necessary to do the sort of research that you're suggesting? It's not something you do in a semi-trailer that you haul around the dessert.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The U.N. gave Saddam one more chance with a formal resolution, but France threatened to veto any use of force since Iraq owed them billions. The way was clear for us to go forward, eh, sort of.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The UN did not authorize the use of force. The United States operated without UN sanction. No way was clear. The precedent set by the US was so outrageous that even Iran, which has any number of reasons for wanting Hussein neutralized opposed such an invasion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
This will be debated for years. But as Iraq rises to become a model democratic society, history will strongly favor Bush's decision to invade and liberate. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You are, I take it, unfamiliar with the internal politics of Iraq, and the effect these politics have on neigboring countries, most notably Turkey and Iran.

The reason for invading Iraq can not be their large oil reserve, since Saudi Arabia houses more oil, and, in fact, the Iraq oil fields are thought to have been badly damaged by mismanagement.

The reason for invading Iraq can not be their ties to Al Qaeda, since Saudi Arabia and Egypt both have easy to demonstrate ties but there is no credible evidence of a tie to Hussein.

The reason for invading Iraq can not be their human rights record, since there are nearly a hundred countries with worse records, including some of the most financially successful in the far east.

The reason for invading Iraq can not be their imminent threat to the US through use of weapons of mass destruction. Even the CIA doubted that such weapons exist, and meanwhile, North Korea has both claimed to possess such weapons and stated a desire to use them on the US.

The question, then, is why Iraq and why now?

The answer is two fold. First, the administration wanted a way to draw people's attention from the failure of the "war on terrorism", and second, the current president Bush wished to "finish" the war his father had started, even though his father had built a real colition, had UN backing, and opposed his attack on Iraq.

Well, that and a couple of US companies with strong ties to the current administration stood to make billions off the "reconstruction."

12-16-2003, 11:04 PM

Ted Rall is a cartoonist, I'M IMPRESSED!

His stuff is sick, check him out!

I can see how he appeals to the "Hate America" liberals of the left coast.

Thank God I spend most of my time working in Wyoming
(64% for Bush in 2000) with rational people, no state income tax, 4.1% unemployment, and a $4 billion surplus. How are those Democrat states doing?

73, Marty WB2RJR

AE6IP

12-16-2003, 11:06 PM

WB2RJR,

With respect to your no bid comment: you seem to have missed four or five other companies capable of doing the job, at least two of which are American.

AE6IP

12-16-2003, 11:16 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ Dec. 16 2003,16http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ted Rall is a cartoonist, I'M IMPRESSED!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Find the cartoon in question. He cited actual sources.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
His stuff is sick, check him out!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not on a par with Mallard Fillmore, but out there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I can see how he appeals to the "Hate America" liberals of the left coast.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wouldn't know. I'm a Montana populist myself.

Although it flatters me to think that you'd classify my politics with those of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, two of my liberal heros.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Thank God I spend most of my time working in Wyoming
(64% for Bush in 2000) with rational people, no state income tax, 4.1% unemployment, and a $4 billion surplus. How are those Democrat states doing?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wouldn't know. California has a Republican govenor. Has had for most of the 20 years I've been here.

It also has high unemployment, high deficit, high sales, tax, high income tax and high property taxes.

nx6d

12-16-2003, 11:22 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ Dec. 16 2003,15:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ted Rall is a cartoonist, I'M IMPRESSED!

His stuff is sick, check him out!

I can see how he appeals to the "Hate America" liberals of the left coast.

Thank God I spend most of my time working in Wyoming
(64% for Bush in 2000) with rational people, no state income tax, 4.1% unemployment, and a $4 billion surplus. How are those Democrat states doing?

73, Marty WB2RJR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you would have bothered to look further, you would also see Ted Rall is columnist and a rather good one at that. His arguments make sense and are based on his own research, not talk radio nonsense like you get from the insulting, vitrolic, uncredible Ann Coulter.

As to Wyoming, beautiful state and a Democratic Governor. As to the 64% number for Bush, whoopee. What's the population there, 400,000?

Where do you guys get this "Hate America" crap? It seems like when anyone disagrees with the President, we're all lumped into that category. Another wacky talk radio lie that keeps getting repeated over and over and over again with absolutely no factual basis. Where you part of the "hate America" crowd when YOU disagreed with Clinton during his presidency?

WX7B

12-16-2003, 11:26 PM

AE6IP,

Ever found any oil and gas? Know how to complete or recomplete a well? Ever built a pipeline? Ever drill a well yourself? Ever frac or acidize a well? Ever design a frac job? Do you know what a kelly is? How about an FMI tool, or a CNL. What's Pe? FDC? What's a 6ff40? Ever lecture for the PRC at the Daqing Petroleum Institute on the use of dipmeters in exploration and development drilling? How many gas wells do you own an interest in?

You're so knowledable about the oil and gas industry you must make $700 a day like I do.

Do you?

I wouldn't even remotely consider you as any kind of a reliable source to choose who does what related to oil and gas.

73, Marty WB2RJR

12-16-2003, 11:52 PM

"Where do you guys get this "Hate America" crap? "WX7B

From here!

http://uw2.ucomics.com/tedrall/index.phtml

So you think this fool is a good columnist? Well your opinion doesn't count for much with me. My son is in Afganistan with the 3-17 Cav part of the 10th Mountain Division. Are you and your jackass buddy Ted Rall suggesting my son is as the military is portrayed in this cartoon?

If you do you not only hate America but you're a jerk as well.

73, Marty WB2RJR

nx6d

12-17-2003, 12:21 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ Dec. 16 2003,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Where do you guys get this "Hate America" crap? "WX7B

From here!

http://uw2.ucomics.com/tedrall/index.phtml

So you think this fool is a good columnist? Well your opinion doesn't count for much with me. My son is in Afganistan with the 3-17 Cav part of the 10th Mountain Division. Are you and your jackass buddy Ted Rall suggesting my son is as the military is portrayed in this cartoon?

If you do you not only hate America but you're a jerk as well.

73, Marty WB2RJR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not sure your opinion counts for much either with that kind of post. Beside that, you obviously haven't read his columns, just looked at the cartoons.

The cartoon doesn't have anything to do with "hate America", it obviously (in your emotionally unstable state) indicates a criticism of America's leaders, specifically Bush.

Your son is not the target here. The target is the lying administration fools with an agenda who are you putting you son in harm's way FOR NO GOOD REASON.

You may not be a jerk, but you're sure acting like one. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "hate America" or be a jerk.

WX7B

KD7VKR

12-17-2003, 01:39 AM

WB2RJR Marty: I mudlogged a well back in '79 that the closest control we had was Powder River #1 (which blew out and burned the rig). Morning reports on the rig phone frequently had pushers reporting "sitting on the rams". I had fluorescence in some sands up hole and the hot wire kept going. Then we took a kick.
Wondering if you have any more info on what I heard that Halliburton put in origially most of the equipment that Saddam blew up, so its common sense to have them repair it.
I can't believe that the US troops are killing more than 14000 civilians daily (number that Saddam killed), just won't believe that. I guess the propagandists want us to believe it.
Oh yeah, the DST came up nothing and they plugged it I think. $40,000 seems high to log a 4000 foot hole, even for big Blue. Big Red probably could log it for $4000.
N7SYY

KD7VKR

12-17-2003, 01:46 AM

Marty, just looked up your profile. What were you gaging on that test, probably 10 mill at a few hundred pounds flow line, say 3000PSI shut in?

AE6IP

12-17-2003, 06:49 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DocRF @ Dec. 16 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to the UN, the population of Iraq was 60 million in 1990. #It was 30 million in 2000. #Amnesty international claims that less than 10% of that reduction was emigration, 5% due to malnutrition and health problems, and the rest killed by Saddam as people who were on the wrong side or obeyed the wrong religion.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Could you provide a pointer to the document where Amnesty Internation makes that claim?

Thanks,

Marty

AE6IP

12-17-2003, 06:57 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ Dec. 16 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AE6IP,
You're so knowledable about the oil and gas industry you
must make $700 a day like I do.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't recall making any claims to any oil and gas expertise. Apparently yours is lacking, since rather than addressing my comments and demonstrating their error, you have instead resorted to bragging and ad hominem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Do you?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... 700/8 = $87.50 / hour.

No, I can't say my wages have been that low in the last couple of decades.

By the way, since you brought the topic up, how many days do you work in an average year?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I wouldn't even remotely consider you as any kind of a reliable source to choose who does what related to oil and gas.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't recall inviting you to.

Would you care to enlighten me just what this ad-hominem attack of yours is in reference to?

AE6IP

12-17-2003, 07:06 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ Dec. 16 2003,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Where do you guys get this "Hate America" crap? "WX7B

From here!

http://uw2.ucomics.com/tedrall/index.phtml

So you think this fool is a good columnist?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I dunno. I don't read his column. I think he's a good satirist, and one that Franklin would have approved of, although Jefferson, who disliked to be ridiculed, would not have.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Well your opinion doesn't count for much with me. My son is in Afganistan with the 3-17 Cav part of the 10th Mountain Division. Are you and your jackass buddy Ted Rall suggesting my son is as the military is portrayed in this cartoon?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The satire is about the leadership, not the troops.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If you do you not only hate America but you're a jerk as well.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You didn't do well in civics class? It is one of the most important rights and responsibilities of Americans to criticize the leadership. It is this vigorous debate on which this country thrives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
73, Marty WB2RJR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Damn. First time in 30 years I've been in a forum with another Marty, and he had to turn out to be you. Oh well. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

AE6IP

12-17-2003, 07:26 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7VKR @ Dec. 16 2003,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wondering if you have any more info on what I heard that Halliburton put in origially most of the equipment that Saddam blew up, so its common sense to have them repair it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There seems to be some confusion here. Halliburtion was chosen for this job, supposedly, because they had purchased Brown and Root. It is Brown and Root, apparently, that has the expertise being employed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I can't believe that the US troops are killing more than 14000 civilians daily (number that Saddam killed), just won't believe that. I guess the propagandists want us to believe it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't take the 14,000 number too seriously, until we can track the source down. For one thing, a population of 60 million in 1990 seems wrong, given that most sources give the population as 12 million in '77 and 16 million in '87. Kinda hard to imagine where the other 44 million people came from between 87 and 90.

n7wsb

12-17-2003, 09:07 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DocRF @ Dec. 16 2003,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not understand the connection. #Are you saying that once your unemployment benefits run out, you stop looking? #The number represents, as AE6IP said, those who are looking, but not finding - whether they are receiving benefits or not is secondary. #Hard to measure when the benefits run out, but it is possible, and it is done.

Doc[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not at all - when your employment benifiets run out you cease being a statistic.

My benefiets ran out about the same time I starting working for SGS - so I got lucky http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Stats on when benefiets run out shouldn't be too complex - I mean the state does have data on that. At least Oregon does have data on that.

N7CPC

12-17-2003, 04:53 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Whats next?...KD5ZGT gets his advanced in 01/04! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

ki4bgo

12-20-2003, 01:42 PM

Just look back to the topic title, "bush wins in '04 , Dow 12,000+, unemployment <4% ...and remember ONE thing...If the first thing happens (God forbid!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif the next two definately WON'T!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

K3XR

12-20-2003, 02:09 PM

take a look at www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/091003.htm
she says better than i can, and is much better looking.
dan,k3xr

KA8NCR

12-20-2003, 05:25 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6JTB @ Dec. 14 2003,10:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Considering that we are at 5.9%, that is relatively insignificant compaired to other countries. During the dot.com boom, we were at 4%, and there were a lot of worthless people working back then.

I feel bad for those out of work, but there are many people working in sectors that are in decline, and have failed to move with the cheese. I don't pity anyone who could have taken another job, or relocated to survive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
First off, government unemployment statistics are nonsense. They are a measure basically of those receiving unemployment compensation. They FAIL to measure those who have their benefits expire or those who do not qualify for unemployment benefits like the self-employed or principals of companies that fail.

Doesn't it bother you in the least bit that "sectors in decline" include the manufacturing base of this country? Our government sits idle while we ship our wealth overseas at rates that astonish even the casually observant.

Furthermore, this economic recovery has largely been a jobless one -- just like GWB's daddy. It'll cost him dearly in the election. It should, because worse than the short-term econmic blunders is this incredible bill he's saddled on generations yet unborn. That is, if we make it that far before the government ponzi schemes of social security and the debt owed to foreign holders comes crashing down upon us.

Yeah, he's done a terrific job of not only pushing us further in the hole, but taking a shovel and pushing dirt into the hole.

nx6d

12-21-2003, 01:54 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3XR @ Dec. 20 2003,06:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">take a look at www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/091003.htm
she says better than i can, and is much better looking.
dan,k3xr[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ann Coulter is a complete fool,and Dan, take a close look at her. I don't think she's ever been all girl. Her old name was probably Bill, or maybe even Dan.
"she" is complete piece of amphibian sh*t, to quote r. lee armey. How you could take that pile seriously speaks to your own less than strong brain power.

It figures though. :Your posts are always below the curve on the smart scale....

KC8QMU

12-21-2003, 03:14 AM

....... spoken like a true intellectual....... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

n7wsb

12-21-2003, 08:01 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3XR @ Dec. 20 2003,07<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">take a look at www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/091003.htm
she says better than i can, and is much better looking.
dan,k3xr[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced View of the Right" does a good job discrediting her latest book in the fact that a) she lies in the text in the book itself and b) she lies in the endnotes in the book

There are actually many flaws in Ann's article posted above. She somehow blames the French for the Berlin Wall by claiming the British carved out a section a section for them and that because of infighting leaps to the point the Soviets blockaded Berlin... This is a hard argument to make. The Soviets stopped the trains because there were far to many people escaping East Germany through Berlin. The wall served as a checkpoint after they started the trains again. The cold war the ensued was more the result of ideological differences between the Soviet Union and the west.

Second flaw: "The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan."

(I won't even touch the socialism thing - while what she says is fundamentally wrong, Germany - one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with some of the highest worker compensation for worked hours as well is primarily (and has been for a long time) run by the SDP - Social Democratic Party)

While its true Japan had no Marshall Plan they hardly pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. The US government was very reluctant to finance their recovery - since they got themselves into the mess they were in. However it was General MacArthur who convinced them otherwise (a lot of that can also be traced to keeping the communists away from Japan). We sent tons of advisors to Japan to give them technical advice, gave them financial assitance and sponsered Japan on loans from the IMF.

Third flaw: she leaves the reader with the distinct impression that the way Iraq is being handled is better than all of the above. I for one will believe it when I see it. For that promise to hold true we'd have to be driving Iraqi designed and made cars, and Iraqi designed and made TV sets within the next 10-20 years. Thats a hard thing for anyone to imagine. Frankly someday if the oil is all gone the middle east will cease being an issue and no-one will care about them anymore.

I won't even look, but I doubt MacAuthor complained about Japanese insurgents bombing American troops every other day after declaring victory over Japan.

Ultimately if she shows that much ignorance in the history of western civilization its really hard to take anything she says about current affairs seriously.

K3XR

12-21-2003, 03:09 PM

it's always fun to see the response from the mindless libs, who, when they have no intelligent response to the message, attack the messenger.
dan,k3xr

n7wsb

12-21-2003, 09:57 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3XR @ Dec. 21 2003,08<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's always fun to see the response from the mindless libs, who, when they have no intelligent response to the message, attack the messenger.
dan,k3xr[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I did have an intelligent response - the summary is here really - </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Third flaw: she leaves the reader with the distinct impression that the way Iraq is being handled is better than all of the above. I for one will believe it when I see it. For that promise to hold true we'd have to be driving Iraqi designed and made cars, and Iraqi designed and made TV sets within the next 10-20 years. Thats a hard thing for anyone to imagine. Frankly someday if the oil is all gone the middle east will cease being an issue and no-one will care about them anymore."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I simply read her article and made an arguement against it - which is in my opinion not an attack.

Her entire article revolves around notion that the way Iraq is being handled is better than the way the end of WW2 is handled. And she uses made up historical evidence to prove this. I personally think history itself proves this. Germany and Japan are now peaceful countries. Where it is honestly really hard to imagine any peace coming out of Iraq - or the middle east in general. The notion that President Bush can do something no other president in the history of the US has been able to do is frankly laughable.

The only notion of an attack I made was the mention of Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced View of the Right" - and the only reason he went on to discredit her is because she makes serious claims that all liberals are "treasonous". However - he made the attack not I.