<a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021111&s=crowley111102"; target="_blank">An article from the New Republic</a> about Byrd's power and how much of a pain he is for Democrats and a blessing he is for Republicans. I think this "yeah but he's KKK" line in this thread epitomizes this. [quote]To Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who was desperate to change the subject from Iraq back to domestic issues, Byrd may as well have been dragging his nails across a chalkboard. The Iraq debate epitomized the West Virginian's increasingly fraught relationship with his Democratic colleagues. Although you won't often see him on "Hardball" or "Meet the Press," as chairman of the mighty Senate Appropriations Committee and a master of the Senate's Byzantine parliamentary rules, Byrd is widely acknowledged to be one of the most powerful men in Washington. That power is enhanced by the fact that, as an incumbent of 50 years who can behold a bronze statue of himself in the West Virginia state capitol, he is able to do and say as he pleases without fear of losing his Senate seat. As a result, one Senate leadership aide says, "He sometimes is the purest voice of the party's core principles." That purity has always had a tendency to veer off into shrillness and self-importance, but lately it has caused more and more headaches for the party--undermining Daschle's leadership, delaying politically sensitive legislation, and generally making the Democratic Senate look as though it's in disarray. Daschle ultimately succeeded in getting the Iraq resolution passed--but not before Byrd had spent days publicly excoriating his colleagues. Just a couple of months earlier Byrd managed to hold up passage of the Homeland Security Act--contributing to a delay that the GOP has been using to bludgeon Democratic senators in this fall's elections. And no one on Daschle's side of the aisle is much looking forward to the outsized role that Byrd, as Appropriations chair, will likely play when the Senate debates the budget later this year or early in 2003. As a senior senate GOP aide puts it gleefully, "Senator Byrd is a gift." <hr></blockquote>
Funny that you talk about facts when most of what you said is ether speculation or your own opinion.
Fact : economic conditions are cyclic.
Fact : the average american was doing much better before Bush.
Fact : Other countries had better relations with america before Bush ( and I don't expect it to get any better if we go over to Iraq and appropriate their oil wells ).
Fact : so far his ability to deal with terrorism has cost us 37 billion and what did it solve?
Fact : you have a closed mind and this proves it :
" I didn't bother reading it.
Was it fact-filled or rhetoric-filled. I'll bet on the second. "
So lets see now here we have a moderator commenting the subject of a thread when he hasn't even read the subject matter at hand. Further more he believes he doesn't have to.
Also while I didn't say that the dot com stuff was hilarious conservatives who try to down play the good times we had in the 90's use this excuse to discredit the last presidency and make Bush look better. To believe that it alone was responsible for the bull market in the 90's is just plain shallow.
And by the way I do think presidents can have an influence on the economy. Regan's deregulation of the federal savings and loans in the early 80's is generally accepted as the cause of all those scandals.
About the war being good for the economy some people believe that war has no place in our world any more. In primative times yes war has always been a bolster for the economy. But, situations in the world are much more complex nowadays. Seperate countries economies are dependant on each other. This makes things very different. When you attack your neighbor you attack yourself.
War in Iraq will only make certain parties rich ( like Viet Nam ) while the rest of us schumcks deal with the truth.
The fact that you asked if Byrd's speech was filled with " fact- filled or rhetoric -filled " should give you a clue. The key words there are " fact filled ".
Also the world isn't black and white. A person can be very right about one issue and very wrong about another. Turning this into a race issue is like what they tried to do in the OJ murder case in order to cloud the issue. Was it a race related issue? No, it was a murder case.
No, the last time we had a disagreement I PM'd you not just because you were being a troll but also because we had gone way off topic. And I was trying to let the air out of our dispute. Now I don't bother... And I only sent you two PM's. Somehow I doubt that falls under the heading of intimidation.
Yeah right. You mean now you can't. You only sent me two because I disabled it after that. This is after I asked you to stop and keep it on the thread. How was sending emails calling me a troll going to let the air out of our dispute? Rather I think you were fanning the flames.
Spaceman, Jimmac. If you don't stop i will close this thread. I am not interested by whom start this flamewar. Mod are not judges, but this discussion has to stop.
And by the way I do think presidents can have an influence on the economy. Regan's deregulation of the federal savings and loans in the early 80's is generally accepted as the cause of all those scandals.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd better get a different example for this one. It is nowhere "generally accepted" because Reagan had almost nothing to do with the deregulation of savings and loans. Check your facts -- that was a Democratic Congress, bought and paid for, and some Republicans along the way. One of the chief bills impacting the S & L crisis, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, was passed before Reagan took office. It and most of the following legislation had been in the works for years prior.
Study the S & L crisis, and live through it, and call me back.
If the rest of what you've got stands up this well...
If Byrd is a gift to the Republicans, he's also a gift to the Dems -- he can float trial balloons all day and no harm will come to the core Democrats. He can stand as an example of an extreme, and let Daschle and others play off of that. Don't underestimate his value to his own party.
Is he a moron? Sure. Is he a racist? Probably. Is he relevant in the current political environment? Yes, but mainly as a distraction.
You'd better get a different example for this one. It is nowhere "generally accepted" because Reagan had almost nothing to do with the deregulation of savings and loans. Check your facts -- that was a Democratic Congress, bought and paid for, and some Republicans along the way. One of the chief bills impacting the S & L crisis, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, was passed before Reagan took office. It and most of the following legislation had been in the works for years prior.
Study the S & L crisis, and live through it, and call me back.
If the rest of what you've got stands up this well...
If Byrd is a gift to the Republicans, he's also a gift to the Dems -- he can float trial balloons all day and no harm will come to the core Democrats. He can stand as an example of an extreme, and let Daschle and others play off of that. Don't underestimate his value to his own party.
Is he a moron? Sure. Is he a racist? Probably. Is he relevant in the current political environment? Yes, but mainly as a distraction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw this first on a PBS program and I think I'd believe them before I'd believe you. Funny how they disagree with you. They also noted that he promised to balance the budget 3 times during his term in office. They also noted that the national debt tripled during this same period. Deja vu? I'd say that has an effect on the economy. Military spending was up by record amounts during this same period. Also I'm going to be 50 in may so yes I lived through it. Did you?
True, and the stupid English colonial rule separated Kuwait from Iraq in the first place. What goes around comes around...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it wasn't separated form Iraq, since at the time Kuwait became a British protectorate in 1899, there was no Iraq for it to be separated from.
An explanation which I'll try to keep as short as possible, so forgive the lack of precision.
The emirs of Kuwait have been self-governing for a long time, paying no taxes to the Ottoman Empire which had no interst in it anyway. The emirate recognised the nominal suzerainity of the Ottomans in exchange for the right of its merchant daos to fly Ottoman flag, which was preferrable to a Kuwaiti flag in the pirate-infested Persian Gulf of the day. So, while it was, in theory only, part of the Ottoman wilaya of Basrah, it was in practice yet another isolated desert fiefdom having to fend for itself.
By the late 19th century, the British had already taken care of the piracy problem in the Gulf, for which they deserve much praise, and established some outposts in the Pirates' Coast (present day U.A.E.) to keep it thus.
The inner parts of the Arabian peninsula were at the time being transformed by the ambitions of the Kingdom of Nadjd, ruled by the House of Sau'd, already the proponent of virulent Wahhabism; it was to become Saudi Arabia in 1932 as a result of a very bloody war. Threatened by Nadjdi expansion, Kuwait sought a more reliable protector, and found one in the British, who in turn saw some interest in distancing it from the Ottomans who were getting cosy with the IInd Reich. The 1899 agreement between Britain and Sheikh Mubarak Al Sabba'h of Kuwait stipulated Kuwait's as a self-governing principalty while delegating defence and diplomatic representation to Britain: Kuwait was a de Facto British protectorate. Yet it lacked a clear treaty formalising this status (like Morocco had), given the tribal nature of the petty sovereignities of the area. From the Kuwaiti POV, the Al Sabba'h dyansty replaced Ottoman protection with a more effective British one.
So, while the separation between Kuwait and the Ottoman Empire lacked the diplomatic clarity of say, the 1839 Treaty of London, by 1914 it already was as disticnt an entity as Belgium (whose invasion by Germany caused Britain's entry in WW1).
After ww1, the British invented Iraq, whose throne they gave to Prince Faysal bin-Hussain al-Hashimi whom the French had just ousted form Damascus (which a long story in itself).
However, the lack of clear diplomatic documents pertaining to Kuwait's status, and the fact that the borders remained unmarked, were pretexts for the Iraqi rulers for eyeing Kuwait, where oil was just being discovered.
So instead of becoming another petty fiefdom defined by its ruling dynasty like Monaco, Luxembourg, or Liechtenstein, Kuwait became a stinking oil-rich petty fiefdom defined by its ruling dynasty, and the envy of many neighbours.
Following WW2 and the decline of the British Empire, Kuwait accessed to full independence from Britain in 1961, independence which Iraq refused to recognise at first.
Deployment of British troops to protect Kuwait's independence, and the admission of Kuwait in the U.N., were followed by a full diplomatic recognition by Iraq of Kuwait's existence and independence (some M.E. countries still await similar treatment), and thus Iraq officially abandoned any spurious claim on Kuwait it held previously. However, the lack of a clearly marked border (not just on maps but on the ground as well) between the two countries still left the door open for border disputes.
Only after operation ?Desert Storm? would the border be marked and fenced, to the satisfaction of Kuwait's position on the matter.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
I saw this first on a PBS program and I think I'd believe them before I'd believe you. Funny how they disagree with you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
STILL OFF-TOPIC, WITH APOLOGIES:
From what you believe, I can tell that you didn't live through it -- maybe you were around and heard about it or something. Is it something that you have primary knowledge or experience with? Obviously not. As I said before: devote a couple of decades of full-time professional study to the financial services industry (or just read a few good books) and get back to me.
It's the first I've heard, in a long time, of someone trying to blame the S&L debacle on the Reagan Administration. Why not? Because it would be political SUICIDE for the Democrats. They were passing the laws and harassing the regulators (Jim Wright (D; TX) being a shining example of an S&L pocket regulator). The list is a pretty long one, and most Dem leaders just want to forget it.
Finally, PBS doesn't constitute "generally accepted." It constitutes "Leftist propaganda" on many occasions, especially with respect to Reagan and all those "evil" Republicans.
Congratulations on 50 years! But please try to find some info sources (for yourself) that aren't slanted toward rewriting history.
From what you believe, I can tell that you didn't live through it -- maybe you were around and heard about it or something. Is it something that you have primary knowledge or experience with? Obviously not. As I said before: devote a couple of decades of full-time professional study to the financial services industry (or just read a few good books) and get back to me.
It's the first I've heard, in a long time, of someone trying to blame the S&L debacle on the Reagan Administration. Why not? Because it would be political SUICIDE for the Democrats. They were passing the laws and harassing the regulators (Jim Wright (D; TX) being a shining example of an S&L pocket regulator). The list is a pretty long one, and most Dem leaders just want to forget it.
Finally, PBS doesn't constitute "generally accepted." It constitutes "Leftist propaganda" on many occasions, especially with respect to Reagan and all those "evil" Republicans.
Congratulations on 50 years! But please try to find some info sources (for yourself) that aren't slanted toward rewriting history.
Whatever. But I've seen quite a bit of rewriting history here lately that I know didn't happen that way. I'm assuming that you are saying you did live through it and have worked in the financial services industry then or since then? I was in my late twentys/early thirtys at the time ( early 1980's ).
By the way, this was on the news back then all the time and for a few years later. So I heard about it quite a bit. Millions of dollars leaving the country with phony companies is pretty big news.
[quote]By the way, this was on the news back then all the time and for a few years later. So I heard about it quite a bit. Millions of dollars leaving the country with phony companies is pretty big news.<hr></blockquote>
OK, I apologize again to anyone who's still trying to follow this thread, but each of this little "tee-hee" parting shots has to be responded to. (Tee-Hee I have no specifics and I am just throwing something in to distract us from talking about what a jerk Sen. Byrd is. And Tee-Hee I can throw a sideways comment about Reagan in there too.)
Last time:
Whatever you heard, it was wrong. I have no f*cking clue what this last sentence refers to, but I ask you again to PLEASE find some other sources than the ones you're using, and please don't bring this up around people who know anything about it, or you'll appear misinformed then, too. Don't tell me what those sources are, this is about you. I already understand the S&L crisis from first-hand experience and several thousand pages of research.
I understand that it's not your fault -- it's a really popular thing to blame Reagan for all kinds of stuff and you're just going along with something you heard or read. But I think you can do better for yourself to find out the truth. Really.
OK, I apologize again to anyone who's still trying to follow this thread, but each of this little "tee-hee" parting shots has to be responded to. (Tee-Hee I have no specifics and I am just throwing something in to distract us from talking about what a jerk Sen. Byrd is. And Tee-Hee I can throw a sideways comment about Reagan in there too.)
Last time:
Whatever you heard, it was wrong. I have no f*cking clue what this last sentence refers to, but I ask you again to PLEASE find some other sources than the ones you're using, and please don't bring this up around people who know anything about it, or you'll appear misinformed then, too. Don't tell me what those sources are, this is about you. I already understand the S&L crisis from first-hand experience and several thousand pages of research.
I understand that it's not your fault -- it's a really popular thing to blame Reagan for all kinds of stuff and you're just going along with something you heard or read. But I think you can do better for yourself to find out the truth. Really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It refers to the fact that a lot of the money taken in by companies supported by the deregulated S&L's left the country never to return. I remember seeing the picture of a company president ( I think she was a dancer or something ) posing on the hood of a corvette.
Deregulation gave people with very little real business background a chance to set up a company just by having someone sign their name : " I didn't know what I was signing he just told me it ment a lot of money ".
So you're saying you were alive then ( adult ) and did research? Or you did historical reasearch?
<strong>long and impressive history lesson, as usual.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course there was no Iraq. But there was a region of the Ottoman Empire that was officially governed from Bagdad. Kuwait was on of its 19 provinces, until 1899 when the English took over. My point was to point out that this is yet another border drawn by the colonial powers.
Kuwait's history is more that of a isolated region than a state, compared to nations like Qatar and Oman. While the Iraqis tend to see themselves in the 4000 year perspective of Mesopotamian history. So, while the Iraqi claims to Kuwait are illegitimate, it doesn't hurt to know that there is some historical beef here.
As a side-note, in 1931, some crazy Norwegian hunters tried to claim the east coast of Greenland from Denmark on historical grounds and actually got the backing of the norwegian government. They stayed there until the International Justice at The Hague invalidated the silly occupation two years later.
The Chinese use a similar rhetoric in their occupation of Tibet, without even having any historical backing behind their claims.
<strong>Of course there was no Iraq. But there was a region of the Ottoman Empire that was officially governed from Bagdad. Kuwait was on of its 19 provinces, until 1899 when the English took over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, by this logic, the entire former Ottoman Empire could be claimed as part of Iraq. Like I said in another thread about denying accepted facts, we should simply know better than to try to attack something so ludicrous just to attempt to gain some footing in the argument. We could go back to Salladin and the Crusades to deny Iraq's wrongdoing, but is it even relevant? Why bring up this stuff? Because some loony thinks it's our fault for what happedned 100 or 100 years ago? I got in trouble for saying that I simply don't care what this type of person thinks, but well, I don't care. Nobody else should care either. Their ridiculous grudges and biased account of history, the bogus rationale they use deems it dumb, plain and simple. Don't bother to rationalize dumb stuff, it's their problem, it's in their heads.
Hm, by this logic, the entire former Ottoman Empire could be claimed as part of Iraq. Like I said in another thread about denying accepted facts, we should simply know better than to try to attack something so ludicrous just to attempt to gain some footing in the argument. We could go back to Salladin and the Crusades to deny Iraq's wrongdoing, but is it even relevant? Why bring up this stuff? Because some loony thinks it's our fault for what happedned 100 or 100 years ago? I got in trouble for saying that I simply don't care what this type of person thinks, but well, I don't care. Nobody else should care either. Their ridiculous grudges and biased account of history, the bogus rationale they use deems it dumb, plain and simple. Don't bother to rationalize dumb stuff, it's their problem, it's in their heads.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree, but you obviously haven't been following our prior discussions on Isreal and palestine.
Comments
<strong>
Good on ya.
Funny that you talk about facts when most of what you said is ether speculation or your own opinion.
Fact : economic conditions are cyclic.
Fact : the average american was doing much better before Bush.
Fact : Other countries had better relations with america before Bush ( and I don't expect it to get any better if we go over to Iraq and appropriate their oil wells ).
Fact : so far his ability to deal with terrorism has cost us 37 billion and what did it solve?
Fact : you have a closed mind and this proves it :
" I didn't bother reading it.
Was it fact-filled or rhetoric-filled. I'll bet on the second. "
So lets see now here we have a moderator commenting the subject of a thread when he hasn't even read the subject matter at hand. Further more he believes he doesn't have to.
Also while I didn't say that the dot com stuff was hilarious conservatives who try to down play the good times we had in the 90's use this excuse to discredit the last presidency and make Bush look better. To believe that it alone was responsible for the bull market in the 90's is just plain shallow.
And by the way I do think presidents can have an influence on the economy. Regan's deregulation of the federal savings and loans in the early 80's is generally accepted as the cause of all those scandals.
About the war being good for the economy some people believe that war has no place in our world any more. In primative times yes war has always been a bolster for the economy. But, situations in the world are much more complex nowadays. Seperate countries economies are dependant on each other. This makes things very different. When you attack your neighbor you attack yourself.
War in Iraq will only make certain parties rich ( like Viet Nam ) while the rest of us schumcks deal with the truth.
The fact that you asked if Byrd's speech was filled with " fact- filled or rhetoric -filled " should give you a clue. The key words there are " fact filled ".
Also the world isn't black and white. A person can be very right about one issue and very wrong about another. Turning this into a race issue is like what they tried to do in the OJ murder case in order to cloud the issue. Was it a race related issue? No, it was a murder case.
But, see no evil, hear no evil.......
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
No, the last time we had a disagreement I PM'd you not just because you were being a troll but also because we had gone way off topic. And I was trying to let the air out of our dispute. Now I don't bother... And I only sent you two PM's. Somehow I doubt that falls under the heading of intimidation.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah right. You mean now you can't. You only sent me two because I disabled it after that. This is after I asked you to stop and keep it on the thread. How was sending emails calling me a troll going to let the air out of our dispute? Rather I think you were fanning the flames.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>enough, discuss this elsewhere or with the mods.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine by me but I thought as long as he was in the business of character assasination I just thought I'd let you know a little about his.
Thanks in advance.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
And by the way I do think presidents can have an influence on the economy. Regan's deregulation of the federal savings and loans in the early 80's is generally accepted as the cause of all those scandals.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd better get a different example for this one. It is nowhere "generally accepted" because Reagan had almost nothing to do with the deregulation of savings and loans. Check your facts -- that was a Democratic Congress, bought and paid for, and some Republicans along the way. One of the chief bills impacting the S & L crisis, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, was passed before Reagan took office. It and most of the following legislation had been in the works for years prior.
Study the S & L crisis, and live through it, and call me back.
If the rest of what you've got stands up this well...
If Byrd is a gift to the Republicans, he's also a gift to the Dems -- he can float trial balloons all day and no harm will come to the core Democrats. He can stand as an example of an extreme, and let Daschle and others play off of that. Don't underestimate his value to his own party.
Is he a moron? Sure. Is he a racist? Probably. Is he relevant in the current political environment? Yes, but mainly as a distraction.
<strong>
What the US really needs is a nice, long anger management course, as well as a quick brush-up on sociology 101.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we just need a legitimate president, that's all.
<strong>
You'd better get a different example for this one. It is nowhere "generally accepted" because Reagan had almost nothing to do with the deregulation of savings and loans. Check your facts -- that was a Democratic Congress, bought and paid for, and some Republicans along the way. One of the chief bills impacting the S & L crisis, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, was passed before Reagan took office. It and most of the following legislation had been in the works for years prior.
Study the S & L crisis, and live through it, and call me back.
If the rest of what you've got stands up this well...
If Byrd is a gift to the Republicans, he's also a gift to the Dems -- he can float trial balloons all day and no harm will come to the core Democrats. He can stand as an example of an extreme, and let Daschle and others play off of that. Don't underestimate his value to his own party.
Is he a moron? Sure. Is he a racist? Probably. Is he relevant in the current political environment? Yes, but mainly as a distraction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw this first on a PBS program and I think I'd believe them before I'd believe you. Funny how they disagree with you. They also noted that he promised to balance the budget 3 times during his term in office. They also noted that the national debt tripled during this same period. Deja vu? I'd say that has an effect on the economy. Military spending was up by record amounts during this same period. Also I'm going to be 50 in may so yes I lived through it. Did you?
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
True, and the stupid English colonial rule separated Kuwait from Iraq in the first place. What goes around comes around...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it wasn't separated form Iraq, since at the time Kuwait became a British protectorate in 1899, there was no Iraq for it to be separated from.
An explanation which I'll try to keep as short as possible, so forgive the lack of precision.
The emirs of Kuwait have been self-governing for a long time, paying no taxes to the Ottoman Empire which had no interst in it anyway. The emirate recognised the nominal suzerainity of the Ottomans in exchange for the right of its merchant daos to fly Ottoman flag, which was preferrable to a Kuwaiti flag in the pirate-infested Persian Gulf of the day. So, while it was, in theory only, part of the Ottoman wilaya of Basrah, it was in practice yet another isolated desert fiefdom having to fend for itself.
By the late 19th century, the British had already taken care of the piracy problem in the Gulf, for which they deserve much praise, and established some outposts in the Pirates' Coast (present day U.A.E.) to keep it thus.
The inner parts of the Arabian peninsula were at the time being transformed by the ambitions of the Kingdom of Nadjd, ruled by the House of Sau'd, already the proponent of virulent Wahhabism; it was to become Saudi Arabia in 1932 as a result of a very bloody war. Threatened by Nadjdi expansion, Kuwait sought a more reliable protector, and found one in the British, who in turn saw some interest in distancing it from the Ottomans who were getting cosy with the IInd Reich. The 1899 agreement between Britain and Sheikh Mubarak Al Sabba'h of Kuwait stipulated Kuwait's as a self-governing principalty while delegating defence and diplomatic representation to Britain: Kuwait was a de Facto British protectorate. Yet it lacked a clear treaty formalising this status (like Morocco had), given the tribal nature of the petty sovereignities of the area. From the Kuwaiti POV, the Al Sabba'h dyansty replaced Ottoman protection with a more effective British one.
So, while the separation between Kuwait and the Ottoman Empire lacked the diplomatic clarity of say, the 1839 Treaty of London, by 1914 it already was as disticnt an entity as Belgium (whose invasion by Germany caused Britain's entry in WW1).
After ww1, the British invented Iraq, whose throne they gave to Prince Faysal bin-Hussain al-Hashimi whom the French had just ousted form Damascus (which a long story in itself).
However, the lack of clear diplomatic documents pertaining to Kuwait's status, and the fact that the borders remained unmarked, were pretexts for the Iraqi rulers for eyeing Kuwait, where oil was just being discovered.
So instead of becoming another petty fiefdom defined by its ruling dynasty like Monaco, Luxembourg, or Liechtenstein, Kuwait became a stinking oil-rich petty fiefdom defined by its ruling dynasty, and the envy of many neighbours.
Following WW2 and the decline of the British Empire, Kuwait accessed to full independence from Britain in 1961, independence which Iraq refused to recognise at first.
Deployment of British troops to protect Kuwait's independence, and the admission of Kuwait in the U.N., were followed by a full diplomatic recognition by Iraq of Kuwait's existence and independence (some M.E. countries still await similar treatment), and thus Iraq officially abandoned any spurious claim on Kuwait it held previously. However, the lack of a clearly marked border (not just on maps but on the ground as well) between the two countries still left the door open for border disputes.
Only after operation ?Desert Storm? would the border be marked and fenced, to the satisfaction of Kuwait's position on the matter.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
I saw this first on a PBS program and I think I'd believe them before I'd believe you. Funny how they disagree with you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
STILL OFF-TOPIC, WITH APOLOGIES:
From what you believe, I can tell that you didn't live through it -- maybe you were around and heard about it or something. Is it something that you have primary knowledge or experience with? Obviously not. As I said before: devote a couple of decades of full-time professional study to the financial services industry (or just read a few good books) and get back to me.
It's the first I've heard, in a long time, of someone trying to blame the S&L debacle on the Reagan Administration. Why not? Because it would be political SUICIDE for the Democrats. They were passing the laws and harassing the regulators (Jim Wright (D; TX) being a shining example of an S&L pocket regulator). The list is a pretty long one, and most Dem leaders just want to forget it.
Finally, PBS doesn't constitute "generally accepted." It constitutes "Leftist propaganda" on many occasions, especially with respect to Reagan and all those "evil" Republicans.
Congratulations on 50 years! But please try to find some info sources (for yourself) that aren't slanted toward rewriting history.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
<strong>
STILL OFF-TOPIC, WITH APOLOGIES:
From what you believe, I can tell that you didn't live through it -- maybe you were around and heard about it or something. Is it something that you have primary knowledge or experience with? Obviously not. As I said before: devote a couple of decades of full-time professional study to the financial services industry (or just read a few good books) and get back to me.
It's the first I've heard, in a long time, of someone trying to blame the S&L debacle on the Reagan Administration. Why not? Because it would be political SUICIDE for the Democrats. They were passing the laws and harassing the regulators (Jim Wright (D; TX) being a shining example of an S&L pocket regulator). The list is a pretty long one, and most Dem leaders just want to forget it.
Finally, PBS doesn't constitute "generally accepted." It constitutes "Leftist propaganda" on many occasions, especially with respect to Reagan and all those "evil" Republicans.
Congratulations on 50 years! But please try to find some info sources (for yourself) that aren't slanted toward rewriting history.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever. But I've seen quite a bit of rewriting history here lately that I know didn't happen that way. I'm assuming that you are saying you did live through it and have worked in the financial services industry then or since then? I was in my late twentys/early thirtys at the time ( early 1980's ).
By the way, this was on the news back then all the time and for a few years later. So I heard about it quite a bit. Millions of dollars leaving the country with phony companies is pretty big news.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
OK, I apologize again to anyone who's still trying to follow this thread, but each of this little "tee-hee" parting shots has to be responded to. (Tee-Hee I have no specifics and I am just throwing something in to distract us from talking about what a jerk Sen. Byrd is. And Tee-Hee I can throw a sideways comment about Reagan in there too.)
Last time:
Whatever you heard, it was wrong. I have no f*cking clue what this last sentence refers to, but I ask you again to PLEASE find some other sources than the ones you're using, and please don't bring this up around people who know anything about it, or you'll appear misinformed then, too. Don't tell me what those sources are, this is about you. I already understand the S&L crisis from first-hand experience and several thousand pages of research.
I understand that it's not your fault -- it's a really popular thing to blame Reagan for all kinds of stuff and you're just going along with something you heard or read. But I think you can do better for yourself to find out the truth. Really.
<strong>
OK, I apologize again to anyone who's still trying to follow this thread, but each of this little "tee-hee" parting shots has to be responded to. (Tee-Hee I have no specifics and I am just throwing something in to distract us from talking about what a jerk Sen. Byrd is. And Tee-Hee I can throw a sideways comment about Reagan in there too.)
Last time:
Whatever you heard, it was wrong. I have no f*cking clue what this last sentence refers to, but I ask you again to PLEASE find some other sources than the ones you're using, and please don't bring this up around people who know anything about it, or you'll appear misinformed then, too. Don't tell me what those sources are, this is about you. I already understand the S&L crisis from first-hand experience and several thousand pages of research.
I understand that it's not your fault -- it's a really popular thing to blame Reagan for all kinds of stuff and you're just going along with something you heard or read. But I think you can do better for yourself to find out the truth. Really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It refers to the fact that a lot of the money taken in by companies supported by the deregulated S&L's left the country never to return. I remember seeing the picture of a company president ( I think she was a dancer or something ) posing on the hood of a corvette.
Deregulation gave people with very little real business background a chance to set up a company just by having someone sign their name : " I didn't know what I was signing he just told me it ment a lot of money ".
So you're saying you were alive then ( adult ) and did research? Or you did historical reasearch?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>long and impressive history lesson, as usual.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course there was no Iraq. But there was a region of the Ottoman Empire that was officially governed from Bagdad. Kuwait was on of its 19 provinces, until 1899 when the English took over. My point was to point out that this is yet another border drawn by the colonial powers.
Kuwait's history is more that of a isolated region than a state, compared to nations like Qatar and Oman. While the Iraqis tend to see themselves in the 4000 year perspective of Mesopotamian history. So, while the Iraqi claims to Kuwait are illegitimate, it doesn't hurt to know that there is some historical beef here.
As a side-note, in 1931, some crazy Norwegian hunters tried to claim the east coast of Greenland from Denmark on historical grounds and actually got the backing of the norwegian government. They stayed there until the International Justice at The Hague invalidated the silly occupation two years later.
The Chinese use a similar rhetoric in their occupation of Tibet, without even having any historical backing behind their claims.
<strong>Of course there was no Iraq. But there was a region of the Ottoman Empire that was officially governed from Bagdad. Kuwait was on of its 19 provinces, until 1899 when the English took over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, by this logic, the entire former Ottoman Empire could be claimed as part of Iraq. Like I said in another thread about denying accepted facts, we should simply know better than to try to attack something so ludicrous just to attempt to gain some footing in the argument. We could go back to Salladin and the Crusades to deny Iraq's wrongdoing, but is it even relevant? Why bring up this stuff? Because some loony thinks it's our fault for what happedned 100 or 100 years ago? I got in trouble for saying that I simply don't care what this type of person thinks, but well, I don't care. Nobody else should care either. Their ridiculous grudges and biased account of history, the bogus rationale they use deems it dumb, plain and simple. Don't bother to rationalize dumb stuff, it's their problem, it's in their heads.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
Hm, by this logic, the entire former Ottoman Empire could be claimed as part of Iraq. Like I said in another thread about denying accepted facts, we should simply know better than to try to attack something so ludicrous just to attempt to gain some footing in the argument. We could go back to Salladin and the Crusades to deny Iraq's wrongdoing, but is it even relevant? Why bring up this stuff? Because some loony thinks it's our fault for what happedned 100 or 100 years ago? I got in trouble for saying that I simply don't care what this type of person thinks, but well, I don't care. Nobody else should care either. Their ridiculous grudges and biased account of history, the bogus rationale they use deems it dumb, plain and simple. Don't bother to rationalize dumb stuff, it's their problem, it's in their heads.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree, but you obviously haven't been following our prior discussions on Isreal and palestine.
I found a great little quote from November 14, 1998.
"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."
- Senator Robert Byrd.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>On-Topic:
I found a great little quote from November 14, 1998.
"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."
- Senator Robert Byrd.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's the context?