White Doors

I don't see how this speaks to my point, which is how Saddam preceived the U.S.'s threats and reacted to them. My point is simply that we cannot control how our messages are interpreted by others, so counting on them to interpret the message in precisely the way we mean it and responding accordingly is a recipe for disaster. WRT Iran, we may think that sending a message that a military strike is iminent will force Iran to acquiese to our demands, but they may decide on a different course of action such as digging in their heels and preparing to counter military action. Which could result in us not only failing to acheive the objective of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also having our interest in the region placed in greater danger. Well my point was that Saddam reacted the way that the American thought he would. You disagree? Also, I think we are just talking semantics. preparing for and imminent are miles apart. I said 'credible' not imminent.

I disagree. I think they underestimated how many troops it would take to maintain security. They won the war easily but so far have lost the peace. Disbanding the Iraqi army outright comes to mind. I mean that the USA didn't want Saddam to go into hiding and surrender. They wanted combat to show their power off along with other reasons.

When was the last non-muslim suicide bomber... hmmm.....

I don't need you to worry about me but thanks anyways.

This is what happens when we don't teach history in school.

Why are you worried abotu WE? You can use the godl backed currency if you want. If you really believe it then you should.

You can still use gold and silver in transactions if you wish. No one is stopping you.

Projecting a credible threat is far easier said than done. The fact that a military strike against Iran is not guaranteed to end their nuclear program and that such a course of action would probably do more harm than good to western interests in the region and abroad complicate matters. For one thing: Iran would be aware of those factors, which and would no doubt have contingency plans in place to mitigate the threat. I would also dispute that notion that a threat is neccesary for diplomacy (or other methods) to work: Iraq is a good case study on the dangers and complexities of counting on someone reacting to your actions in the way you want or expect them to. Well it worked well when Israel took out Saddam's nuclear plant many moons ago. No one in the USA is looking at a full scale invasion of Iran with any seriousness. (they would have to institute a draft for sure) They need to be prepared to take out the program and planning for it is wise especially because they knwo Iran is trying to protect their program from just such a strike. PS: Are you saying that the USA was hoping that Saddam chose exile? i think events unfolded just the way the USA wanted as far as having a war with Iraq goes.

really? I must have been missed on that memo! too bad, sounds like a good party.

No. Private banks create money. Ask your economics professor. I create money too. My house has doubled in value in 2 years. i will sell it in the spring. Where did that money come from??? And I'm not even a Rockefeller!

Would you people PLEASE stop replying to this nutbar?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/...main/index.html The same type of propoganda has been used throughout history to get the public revved against a perceived foe or threat. So you are saying that the report is 100% false? ie: It's not propaganda if it's true.

I agree 100%. It is the last resort. You have to project a certain image that a strike is actually a credible threat on the Iranians however otherwise the preferable method of diplomacy will likely not work and ironically make the military strike more likely. neat how that works eh? Walk softly and carry big stick.

"many within the Bush Administration are itching for a war with Iran to serve their Zionist masters." Nice! We may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and we should be making plans for it if Iran continues to refute the mandate the the UN. You disagree and think that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? If so, to what end?

You are against eh Afghan war and now you like this article? holy shit. That was as much a bombast against you than anyone else. You have compared our sodiers to Nazi's etc etc. Much worse than anything Noreen said. You are such a flake.

Yes enough of this smoke and mirrors. Increase the index of the rates and decrese the amount already. Also increasing the tax free amount would help too. 1% reduction on all the rates. Maybe 2% off the lowest bracket and up the exemption to 10k already. Cripes, income taxes in the country are criminal. Come on Harper, this is why you were voted in!

RRSP's are still a wise choice for the vast majority of people. The rationale is that you will withdraw them at a lesser rate than the income you made when you contributed TO them. This should be the case except for irresposible people who still have a mortgage payment at age 65. Don't blame the system, blame your own stupidity. IMO everyone should max out their RRSP allowance and only then make investments outside of RRSP's.

Anyone ever read about the mystery of Oak Island? Much more interesting and credible than this. check it out.

Patrick Swayze was in red Dawn? no shit!

That's it. PN's officially crazy. Creating litle 'Jenna's' to talk to himself with!

Uhh... shareholders hold the board of governers and CEO's accountable. You obviously have never been at a shareholders meeting. They punish by selling their shares and getting out or by demanding resignations. Warren Buffet has already railed against high CEO salaries and you better believe that his voice carries clout and that compaies will listen.

The military needs to get a real job, come home, politicians too! Not until they can learn what their own lives are about, are they qualified to live one, and then they will realize they don't need to force themselves on others, while stealing everyone's money. Hey, well at least you put alot of thought into the situation... ~sarcasm off~

On that, there was a commentary on CBC The Current yesterday morning. A prof from US was essentially suggesting a kind of a "salary cap" on renumeration of execs (like 100% tax on personal earnings above 50 times the minimum wage). His arguments are that rewards paid to execs have reached "grotesque" levels which reward and inspire "grotesque" behaviours counter-productive for the economy in the long run. It would also make exec directly interested in the well being of the lowest paid category. Sounds interesting, I wonder if anything like that has been tried? I agree that they are obscene but let the market sort it out. Shareholders will punish those companies that do this and indeed have already started doing so.

So that just basically means that there is nmore opportunity for people as they age. That is good news all around of you ask me.

Excellent initial post August