Implications of War

I can't agree with your assumption, so I can't build a conclusion based on such.

There will be no nuclear exchange, limited or otherwise, by or with North Korea. They're only rattling the old saber for the purpose of political posturing.

I blame the Clinton administration for mishandling the situation in the 90s, and for giving the North that “nuclear power plant technology” that the North Koreans could put on top of a missile. But George W. and Company will defuse the situation. (It will take some time and cost some $$$, however.) There could be an American threat to strike some targets in the North backed up by some muscle flexing by deploying a couple of rather large Naval battle groups to the area. And there could bea reciprocating threat by the North to invade the South by building up more of a presence at the 38th with that million-man army. (But what good is a million-man army if the rest of the population has to be starved to death in order to support it?)There may be an American threat of using battlefield tactical nuclear weapons since we only have around 40,000 troops at the 38th, but not to worry, diplomacy will ultimately prevail. (Senator Kennedy may have a cow on the Senate floor, however, buthe’ll only appear to be a bumbling idiot - as he always does.)

The situation will settle down; the United Nations will resume humanitarian aid; and in the long run, someone (from within?) will waste that little tyrant (a coup d'?tat) and amore reasonable leader will take his place. Talks of a reunification with the South will take place, as a united Korea will want to join the family of nations on the road to prosperity.

As far as the gulf, it's a forgone conclusion that Iraq will have a change of leadership and their weapons will be destroyed. It will happen in 2003, and as a result the uncertainty will be removed from the business climate. The stock market will recover - perhaps as much as 30% - in the second half of 2003 and into 2004, and the tech sector will be a big part of that recovery. I see a big economic upswing once Saddam is gone and the uncertainty is behind us.

The terrorism threat - of which Saddam is a big part - will remain with us for years (perhaps decades) to come. Parts of the world have learned to deal with it, Israel and Great Britain, for example, and America will have to learn as well. But we won't let it stop us from living our lives and achieving our dreams. The threat will be dealt with as a side-event to just getting on with life. However, just like Japan did in 1941, the terrorists have awakened a sleeping giant. Can you spell relentless pursuit? Believe it or not, that's what this Iraq business is all about. It's not about oil, per se, but about the fact that Saddam presents a "terrorist" threat.

As far as reservists, I know several who have been called up, one from my company, and another is a good friend of mine. All of them will have their jobs waiting for them when they get back. At our office, we did not hire someone to replace the missing reservist, but rather everyone else is picking up the pace a bit to make up for his absence. We will gladly yield his duties back to him when he returns - after the party, of course.

be as big a concern as the Columbia disaster. I Live and run my business out of Florida's space coast and my customers are plenty worried. If there is a significant hiatus in flight operations at Kennedy Space Center, then the contractors will be laying personnel off.

Local statistics say that the loss of each Cape Job costs the local economy 4 additional jobs, compounding the misery.

I've had a few customers delay pending contracts and adopt a "wait and see" posture.

As for the war effect on the economy, I think the effects of the fear of war will be greater than the war itself.

I think that once it is realized that Iraq will soon be exporting again, the rest of OPEC will be forced to lower prices. This drop in price reaching the pump will act as a stimulator of commerce in general.

I'm not as worried about Korea. I think that this is more of a cry for help than a precursor to war. N. Korea cannot use it's limited nuclear assets without overwhelming response fromus. They have to take S. Korea whole to extract anything of value to salvage their imploded economy.

I say, ignore them and when the misery level gets high enough, the Socialist government will collapse just as the Soviet system did.

If we can refrain from action / reaction, they will solve the problem on their own. We MUST NOT be threatened into foreign aid and trade agreements because it will only prompt greater threats later.

While I work for an aerospace firm, we do not expect any significant short term impact from a war action.

Our customer service department will likely have more business maintaining avionics.

Long term, the impact will depend on how funding changes as more funds are used for the war effort.

I personally am more concerned about the impact to the US and global economies that the increased cost of energy will have.

Those who remember the energy crisis of the 70's and 80's will recall the dramatic impact that was felt by the US economy for years.

$5 per gallon gas will drive the auto industry into a major recession.
Not to mention the reduction in consumer spending that will result when 1/2 of the family budget goes into the gastank of the SUV.

Chas

John Major has issued a grim warning that Saddam Hussein could try to "create Armageddon" if he is attacked by Britain and America.

Mr Major, who led Britain in the 1991 Gulf War, said there is a danger Iraq may try to drag the whole Middle East into region into a conflagration by attacking Israel.

He said Saddam had not used his weapons of mass destruction in the last conflict because the Americans had made clear the consequences for his country if he did.

However this time, with the Americans threatening his overthrow, he may decide that he has nothing to lose by using them.

"This time of course, he is threatened, he is at bay, he knows that at the end of this war he is likely to be dead, or fled or on trial," Mr Major told the BBC.

"It is a possibility that on this occasion he may use all his arsenal and he has many targets that he could use them on. I think it is quite likely that he will try to create Armageddon."

He suggested Iraq may try to draw Israel into the war "in the hope that it would create a wider Arab coalition, muddy the water and create the maximum amount of chaos."

Mr Major said that he broadly supported the stance taken by Britain and the US on Iraq, however he warned that the difficulties would not stop once the fighting was over.

"The problems of winning the peace are going to be much more complex and probably take much longer than I think most people are yet imagining," he added.

The threat of a terror strike has left businesses racing to secure vital computer files in underground bunkers, it has emerged.

Demand has rocketed in recent months as more and more firms make contingency plans to combat the risk of terrorism, according to a company that specialises in safeguarding company data.

A L Digital, which runs The Bunker in a former RAF nuclear shelter near Sandwich, Kent, offers secure storage of computer network systems.

The site is 30 metres below ground, has three metre thick concrete walls, steel doors weighing more than two tons and 24-hour guards.

Companies are able to base their computer control systems there while continuing their business as normal at the office.

Following the September 11attacks many companies based in the World Trade Centre went bust because they had no back up or contingency plans in place to salvage business data.

Paul Lightfoot, operations manager for The Bunker, said "hundreds" of companies were now using the service, which can cost up to ?36,000 (US$50,000) a year.

He said financial, medical and e-commerce companies are among the main customers.

Well I'm going with what you said if a "small" nuclear exchanged happened...

First off there's no such thing in the world as a small nuclear exchange. By today's standards in warfare technology -- a small nuclear warhead would be about the capacity of the a-bombs dropped in WWII.

As far as the USA being far away from Korea (who I got a hint for the rest of Americans...Korea is more of a nuclear threat to US interests than Iraq is), possesses a type of ICBM; though I forget the exact name/model of it -- that is capable of reaching the west coast of the United States.

So demolish that thought of a few thousand miles of ocean keeping you safe from a nuclear exchange.

I use to actually know the ranges of the warheads (did a report on it for school a few years back) -- I recall ranges from as "short" as 1,500 miles to ranges extending 4,800 miles and beyond.

The world is shrinking in size as technology improves.

Anyway, if there is a nuclear exchange -- business is going to be the last thing on my mind.

LONDON (Reuters) - Armageddon is just 57 years away, by the calculations of Britain's most famous scientist, the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Saturday.

Sir Isaac Newton, the 17th century scientist and theologian, wrote thousands of pages of notes in his attempt to decode the Bible and pin down the date of the apocalypse, said the article.

"But until now it was not known that he ever wrote down a final figure," Malcolm Neaum, who has produced a BBC documentary "Newton: The Dark Heretic," was quoted as saying.

"What has been coming out over the past 10 years is what an apocalyptic thinker Newton was," he added. "He spent something like 50 years and wrote 4,500 pages trying to predict when the end of the world was coming."

The handwritten manuscripts bearing Newton's calculations were discovered by researchers in a library in Jerusalem, following their sale in London to collector Abraham Yahuda in the 1930s.

Newton, who died in 1727, is best known for discovering gravity -- supposedly when an apple fell on his head -- and is credited with being the forefather of modern physics.
---------
Perhaps the French want inspections to go on another half century based on these calculations?

should ditch tax advantages for any business vehicle, from bicycles to those huge Caterpillar dumptrucks. It is not the role of the tax code to be used to steer business toward or away anything. When this practice is removed, it will allow business to function within the constraints of budget and priorities.

Further, this will alleviate the lobbying and other BS relating to different companies trying to skew the tax code to bash the market in their favor.

The federal tax code is grosslyovercomplex and subjects us all to a huge amount of distraction and expense. If a simple flat tax were implemented, then budget and tax legislation would be greatly simplified. The loophole legislation lottery generates plenty of political contributions for politicians, but acts to the detriment of us all.

Let them bicker.

As long as it's easier on us, the payer of the taxes, who cares what the Government is whining about???

Personally, I can't stand our whole "tax system". I think it's more of a racket than anything. I mean, what happened to the whole double taxation thing??? I feel like I get taxed when I get my pay check, then I'm taxed again when I spend what's left. What's the deal with all of that???

Mrafrohead

As for the taxes, I think the Government, and I mean ALL branches of it, need to learn how to seriously budget and spend what they have, not try to get more...

I completely agree with you there Oldefar.

My father is in the Army. Been in for almost twenty years now.

When you say the sacrifice is harder on a personal level, I concur. I now have my own family and it's hard when my father is around when he see's my kids doing the stuff that he didn't get to see myself and my brother do. I think he has a very hard time with that. I partly think he may regret it, but at the same time, he is very proud of his career as he should be. He earned it!

Not to mention having to console my mom when he went to war. That's some difficult stuff, I would never want my family to have to go through for me.

But Bush challenges Saddam to a duel.

His weapon of choice:

The USS Theodore Roosevelt

is attainable simply by loading it on an aircraft. It doesn't even have to be dropped as the energy consumed by vaporizing the plane would be the smallest fraction of the energy released.

The optimal detonation from the standpoint of raw destruction (different from military strategic goals such as terrain denial) is a low altitude detonation. This is a scenario where the fireball touches the ground. The blast radius is maximal and there is a lot of fallout, as there is plenty of surface depris contaminated with radiation and disersed as dust. That is the goal of terrorism, to not only detonate, but max out the casualties.

I'm sure that Al-queda would have no compunction about a ground level burst, as it would still inflict huge casualties if deployed in an area of great population density.

Suffice it to say, that if we are to prevent such an eventuality, we must develop technologies where we can track radioactive materials from high altitude and discriminate between benign radioactive signatures such as hospitals. We need to be able to find signs of a nuke on board a ship or plane without a detailed search.

NEST can find radioactive emissions from the air, but they are spread too thinly to be everywhere.

We need to be able so screen hundreds of ships, aircraft, and personally owned vehicles daily. This will require sensitive and "smart" geiger counters that can be operated by cops, border patrol agents, customs officials, and private security personnel.

Ah, but here's where you implement a tax based on common sense. In MI, you don't tax food [unless it's prepared for you]. That saves a large portion of the lower income families' tax burden. The more wealthy tend to have theirs prepared.

Publications like magazines and newspapers are not taxed, while books are.

When you don't tax the necessities of life, but more so the luxuries, you get a better equality. In fact, you can tax the ultra-luxuries at an even higher rate... Like that yatch, the personal jet, first class tickets, front row seats, sky boxes, fuel-ineffiecient vehicles, an anything you can come up with that costs more than [arbitrarily] $200k.

As for stimulating the economy, tax cuts aren't the only way to do that. The most powerful stimulus is monetary, not fiscal. [Unless you're talking about fiscal responsibility within monetary confines.]

If you want to easily amplify the explosion's effect, take the elevator to the top of the skyscraper.

Or take a small plane or traffic-copter, just you and the bomb, and there you go.

These small efforts seem wholely within reason to expect from the terrorist who is going so far as to detontate the thing in the first place.

Some people, yourself included, trust Saddam Hussein.

Some people, myself included, trust President Bush.

You ask, “Why should they (U.S.) be one of the few nations that are allowed to have nuclear and chemical weapons?”

The answer is quite simple. Because America can be trusted to use them (or refrain from using them) in a responsible way, while other countries, on the other hand, cannot. Other countries would use them to kill their own people and/or to dominate and/or invade others. America has never used these types of weapons on its own people, while Saddam Hussein has used them to kill and control his own people. (He used chemical weapons on the Kurds, an ethnic group in northern Iraq.) Moreover, America, as well as other responsible countries, already has them. There was a UN non-proliferation agreement not too long ago that intended to maintain the status quo concerning who had them, but prevent further development by rogue nations (including Iraq).

So if the United Nations will not enforce its own policies and agreements, who will? Us - U.S.

I find it interesting that so many who oppose the US involvement in Iraq and accuse the US of trying to be in charge of the world will question the lack of involvement by the US in other regions and countries. Talk about being damned if they do anddamned if they don't!

The first world has done a poor job in its response to situations in second and third world countries. A large part of this is bias, but another aspect is lack of knowledge. When a nation is not a significant trading partner, a cultural homeland, or otherwise involved on the world stage then it is difficult to know which side to back. As was indicated in your post, there is no reason to think democracy is right for every nation. On the other hand, as nations become more democratic they are more likely to think about other countries perspectives. The history of the 20th century indicates this. Democratic governments fundamentally place the individual ahead of state, while other forms fundamentally place the state ahead of people.

The US has tried isolation in the past. It did not work. It will be even less successful in a world where we are only a day away from anywhere else, and where so many people still see the US as where they want to be.

While UN inspectors have not had a reason to look into the US arms, the US has been at least as open if not more open about its capabilities than any other nation.

This is a situation that is not easily remidied. We have a man who will at the bat of an eye unleash a fury that is far worse than any of us could imagine. We have a country implicated who has NEVER lost a battle. Isreal will decimate Iraq, they have always wanted to. Iraq will cease to exist along with its border nations because of contamination and biological residue and what is to be gained? Well there are two ways to look at this; 1) Saddam is gone and thus allows the healing process to begin. 2) The "hotzone" around Iraq will cool off in about 40 years depending on the tech of the nukes used by Isreal so maybe we will be able to glut on iraqi oil after that.
The intrinsic problem with all of this is we are on the brink. I hateto say it but war is inevitable at this point, too many lines have been drawn and too many postures taken. It is no longer a matter of if but when. The one player who has been silent throughout this whole matter is China, what are they going to do? The NOK situation is a problem right now, I agree Korea is rattling their sabres but uh Kim-jong has been in power for so long now that I really believe he is going to cause us some problems. If anything this will boil over into the rest of the world and we will end up with a WWIII scenerio on our hands.

-duck

There is a third possible motive and dispersion method that hasn't been touched yet here. A dirty bomb. If a terrorist wants to inflict Real damage they construct a dirty bomb, they then detonate said dirty bomb on the west coast in the early summer when the trade winds are surging across the nation at a brisk pace and voila instant fallout cafe! If the blast were large enough, and the detrious material expelled as both ash and whatever radiological matter would form as a result of the blast, were light enough, it is possible to blanket the entire nation in radioactive fallout. Case in point, I live in Indiana, my cousin lives in new york state, both of use have Mt St. Helens ash vials. neither of us has ever seen Mt. Saint Helens up closeand both of us got it from our back yards. Now I am not saying this is going to happen, but It is indeed a possibility.

-duck

96.5 % of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. A sales tax that exempts a primary residence, utilities, and unprepared food will exempt "survival" expenses and leave the poorest among us alone.

Such a sales tax would bring into the "white" market, tips, under the table income, and even drug money and other transferrals that are ignored by the current system.

When one considers that a dollar probably moves between half a dozen hands per year, then the tax revenue is increased.
The way I see it, why should all of us who do the W-2 thing have to pay everything, while the criminal element and the "cash only" crowd get a free ride?

I don?t want to get into a philosophical debate on the proper/improper use of the atomic bomb during World War II. That is another thread, on another day??

Contained China, you have got to be kidding. China is not contained, nor has it ever been. China is more of a sleeping giant than the US is, at the end of the day the US is scared of confrontation with China about the same human rights issues that they are screaming to protect in Iraq. If you are policing the world either by choice or by status, then you have to take into consideration all aspects of human rights violations (most are more horrific than past/present violations in Iraq) and confront those leaders and countries. So answer me this, according to the well-stated US policy on threats to their people (aggressions) does another country have the right to take pre-emptive action against the US if they feel their safety is at risk? North Korea is feeling threatened by the US, can the US swallow the pill that they are using as a shield for pre-emptive attacks if N. Korea launches a pre-emptive attack?

I am sounding anti-American in these posts, but am not even close. I just enjoy a good conversation??. :)

Who’s on which side? And whose side are you on?

http://tinyurl.com/6fiz

http://tinyurl.com/6fj3

http://tinyurl.com/6fk3

Is History repeating itself?

http://tinyurl.com/6fjg

The two Sides:

“In this conflict there are only two sides: On the one side stand Saddam and his regime, on the other the peoples of Iraq.”

-Amir Taheri
(Amir Taheri is author of The Cauldron: The Middle East behind the headlines)

http://tinyurl.com/6fjo

Bin Laden – Dead and buried????

http://tinyurl.com/6fka

Tony Blair is right:

http://tinyurl.com/6fkk

"Let us assume for the sake of argument that some form of military action WILL take place in the Gulf, and that some kind of incident,possibly involving a limited nuclear exchange, WILL happen in Korea.

What are the implications for YOU in YOUR business if conflict erupts."

Some kind of incident did happen in Korea. Powell announced that we are going to be supplying food and humanitarian aid that they have appealed for internationally. That's a good thing and hearing it benefitted me at my business a great deal. I like us helping people. It's cheaper and more effective when it's possible. I am glad that we go the political route as long as we can hold it.

Assuming Military action in Iraq, I can only say that I hope we held the line as long as we could,
and that even if we go to war in the next 21 days I am impressed by the amount of brinkmanship practiced by Bush to date.

I hope the action was short and was targeted at the military and government and minimal damage was done to the civilians living in Iraq. It will affect my business, as assistance is currently being actively cut in social work here in the USA, but increasingly we will take on the burden of funding social assistance in the Middle East. My understanding is that there is a lot of talk about a 10 year occupation, which I also think is a good idea. Although it will cost us a lot and take resources we could use here, putting another person into power here and leaving them, as I have clearly stated in other threads, is in my opinion a bad idea. This is, after all, how Saddam gained power.

From an IT point of view, I hope that military purchasing helps drive this industry out of it's current state, and that we see the benefit in keeping domestic chip making alive. I would like to see Micron etc. with some defense contracting similar to what was awarded to the airplane industry some years ago. Beyond IT, I see a lot more defense spending also going into the medical research system, which also should benefit all of us.

Basically, I think this will happen with or without a military action, but then, the further we take to get into this, and the more information we can disseminate in Iraq, the shorter this action is becoming. The predicitions are coming in at less than 3 weeks. In another month it will be half that again.

Make them think you'll take them out at any moment, let their lack of sleep build but never let them know when you are coming, and of course never fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

Oops, I gave away my strategy, something my Grandfatherurged me never to do. ;>

Oldefa has corrected my misreading of Mallardtoo's statement in that he was referring to Israel and not the USA which had never lost a battle.

However I have never heard of the Vietnam debacle being described as anything other than a war. Perhapsyou can enlighten me as to the subtle nuances between the various types of military interaction.

The proposed pre-emptive strike on Iraq should probably be referred to as an "onslaught" until such time as Iraq retaliates, when it will move on tothe classification of "war."

I am not trying to be smart. I just hate any statement that might lend itself to an ambiguous interpretation.

i will give a watch here about the situation on one of the arabic country .
Tunisia is one of the smallest country on arabic world , however is too far to the middle east but our economie here is to affected from the next war who will reduce the level of economy grouth and a possible war will stop deffinitly the computer activity becauseof the strike and a possible stop on hardware arrive
next tomorrow sorry no time

The American way of life, views, and beliefs are hated throughout the majority of the Middle East. Anti-American demonstrations are common place, and the safety of American civilians is constantly in jeopardy. Of course the Middle Easter heads of state are keeping their mouths shut, the US has publicly admitted that you are either with them or against them. If you are against them, then you run the risk of loosing US investment ( and being attacked ). If you are with them you risk that there will be retaliation against you by other Middle Eastern states. So if you want to keep your population safe, maintain your current economy, etc. you have to sit on the fence.

Thank you for enlightening me on the views of the Iraqi people. I find it amusing that someone that is pro-invasion/War would reference a council that?s mandate is to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.

How is murdering innocent civilians by using an atomic bomb nonsense? There were other ways that the targets could have been taken out, but the fastest way to the end the war was to use an atomic bomb to destroy two cities and over a hundred thousand lives.

In regards to your statement about China never attacked the US, either has Iraq. Iraq has never attacked the US, they only have defended themselves from attack from the US. Albeit, they invaded another country and knew the consequences of that action. But, they have never preemptively attacked the US. And please, don?t lay the POSSIBLE Bin Laden connection on me either

(continued)

So I should educate myself on the differences of using your power to invade smaller less powerful countries that are committing human rights violations, instead of invading larger more powerful countries that are committing even more human rights violations. That compares in theory to saying you are a heavyweight fighter, but you only box with flyweights.

As I have stated earlier, I have no issues with the US being the world police force. But, fulfil your duties?..size and might of the opponent should not come into play. It should only take more planning??.and you are right the two situations ( Iraq vs. China) are completely different. Iraq can be invaded and a new government put in place easily, and China (and other countries that are worse than Iraq) cannot be invaded without a large loss of life. So I guess LIVE and LET LIVE?? that is hypocritical

The US and other counties including Canada do not take a stand against China (and other Asian countries) due to the economic growth being seen in that country. Human rights violations are not about dollars, they are about people?..

By observation (not exact) I would say a U.S. national average would fall between $1.45 - $1.75 per gallon for low octane to 1.70 - $2.00 for high octane. It fluctuates 10% - 20% depending on how greedy those big-business oil executives may get at any given moment. They are, after all, out to “get” the little guy.

My gas guzzling, environmentally unfriendly, air polluting, wasteful, unnecessarily large vehicle uses high octane (and I wouldn't have it any other way since I obviously don't care about environmental issues - I LOVE dirty air), and I paid about $1.75 the last time I filled up (give or take - I don't pay that much attention to the price since I just pompously expect it to be there for me). And I leave it running to keep it nice and cozy inside, so I use a bunch of the stuff.

Sullyman, please forgive me. I don’t know how I could have been living my life so full of ignorance for all these years. I’ve only been an American for almost 50 years, and you, as something other than an American, certainly know more about who we are as a people more than I. You certainly know more about American history than I. You certainly know more about American foreign policy than I. You certainly know more about American politics than I. In fact you even know more about those things than anyone I could possibly hope to meet on any American street. How could I have been so misguided?

You’ve shown me the light. Your knowledge of Americans, the American government, and American policy abroad is far above and beyond anything I’ve been exposed to in this pitiful little country I call home. Since you’ve enlightened me to such a degree, I’ll never again be proud to call myself an American. We're disgusting. We're pitiful. And we're worthless. You have a convert.

Now you can just go away.

Your sarcastic wit is about as sharp as a butter knife, and your knowledge of who I am, where I am from, and what I understand must have come from your questions to a magic 8-ball. How do you know I am not American? Just because I live in Canada, or because my view on US foreign policy is not the same as yours. How could you possibly know if I have a degree in American History or not or for that matter a masters in International Business? And I have never made reference to Americans being disgusting, pitiful, or worthless. Nor would I ever!

Just because I do not buy into all of the US foreign policies, does not make me anti-American. I was obviously wrong to think that you were capable of having an intelligent conversation in regards to US policy, and current world events.

Now can you just go away! :)

According to FM 100-7 (published by US Army)
DECISIVE FORCE:
The Army In
Theater Operations :

"Codified in the National Security Strategy (NSS) of 1994 and further developed by the SECDEF, the US military strategy is built upon the central components of engagement and enlargement... "to enhance our security by maintaining a strong defense capability and promoting cooperative security measures; work to open foreign markets and spur global economic growth; and promote democracy abroad." "
This has been pointed out well, that we're not trying to police the world, we are seeking to open foreign markets and promote democracy. This is our official policy. How we do it is under debate in this country right now, but even that is aligned with military view.

"Deterrence is preferable to war. Effective deterrence can prevent escalation of a crisis. Deterrent action can resolve a crisis on favorable terms. When the opportunity exists, the use of a deterrent action, such as a show of force, can send a clear signal of US resolve to intervene should the threat of unfavorable crisis resolution continue." is straight from the same fieldbook a short ways down.

Either way, our military objective is the same. No matter which of the 3official military conditions of Peacetime, Conflict, or War we are in.

I do not disagree that there are human rights violations going on in china even as I type this. No one could forget tieanimin square. But I am saying that to a degree we have done with china as we did with the ussr. We have contained china, we have kept china from spreading her borders and taking more. I do not think the US is afraid of china, nor do I think we will stay on great terms with china forever. But I do think that fighting a battle with china is counter productive and would only lead to Hardship in the US right now. With NOK rattling it's sabre we can not afford to get into a battle with china and korea at the same time. The old never fight a battle on two fronts, the winter in moscow is a killer to germans deal. If we aregoing to fight a battle with china it will have to wait until the other conflicts are resolved. You can bet if china starts something then the focus will shift to them, but until that day we must keep our priorities in line.
Pres. Bush is fighting a war on Tara (sorry terror but I do want to know who tara is) china has pledged to help, they are with us in this fight for now. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that rot. And Finally No do not just go away, I think you have a lot to say and that is what this is all about.

-duck

jul,
Today the national average on gasoline @89 octane is $1.83/us gallon the cost of diesel fuel is $1.98/us gallon. Gas is as high as $2.50/gal on the coasts and diesel is pushing $3/gal on the coasts. on Valentines day there was a 63% increase at the pumps and it has continued to increase since then. We are going to see regular fuel top out at around $2.15 national average before this whole thing is done. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the war breaks and the oilreally gets scarce.

-duck

I’ve learned that debating some people is tantamount to beating one’s head against a wall. You make such nonsensical assertions, draw a conclusion from that assertion, and make a point that’s borders on ludicrous. I’ll debatewith the best of them (but you’re not one of them), but to simply brush off a valid rebuttal and return to your nonsensical assertion shows your unwillingness to have an intellectual debate. It also shows a mind so narrow it could fit between the pages of a closed book. I have no desire to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose arguments are so unintelligible.

One example is your reference to the United States use of nuclear weapons during World War II as murder (your word, not mine). It’s silly. It has no basis in reality, and if you choose to think in such a skewed manner, which you’ve shown to do, there’s simply no point in continuing the discussion. Another brush off of a valid rebuttal is your continued assertion that Iraq has never attacked the United States. I provided a name of an Iraqi agent who did indeed plant a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993 in an attempt to bring the towers down. (That could have been posted in a different thread, however, but the fact remains that it’s happened.) And there’s also Saddam’s ties with terrorist cells who – again – have indeed attacked the United States many times over. Moreover, the whole Iraq issue is about finally – after 12 years – enforcing United Nations resolutions.

It’s obvious that we are coming from a totally different place. You said, “Let me first say that I do think that Hussein is a madman”. Well I do think he is. You don’t understand why the U.S. has to choose its battles. Well I do understand. So for these and other reasons, any further debate or discus

I can see your point about containment, and can somewhat agree with it. But, containing China or the USSR was a LONG term strategy of dialogue and politics. The containment happened over decades, and I don't think that the US would have invaded either country ( although I believe that there were strategies to try and accomplish this ) if tensions mounted ( unless there was no choice ). Military buildup and invasions are not the answer in all cases. World opinion is against military action in Iraq, preferring to belive in a solution based on dialogue and political pressure. The countries expressing their concern are being viewed as being anti-American, which is ridiculous. Yes, I do think the US doesn't get the respect that they have EARNED as a world leader. But, some of it was brought on by themselves.

Iraq is in a dammed if you do, or dammed if you don't perdicament. If Saddam admitts that they have WMD's ( which I belive they do ) he will be invaded, if he has destroyed them ( which I don't belive ) then there is no evidence he will be found guilty of hiding them and be invaded. I will stick with my previous opinion, that this possible war is more about Oil and democratic governments in the Middle East.

WHendoes a war on terror end? Probalby never, but caution must be used not to rely on the war on terrorism as a crutch......

I think it’s time I put an end to my off-topic, political, foreign policy, etc. discussion comments. (However, I reserve the right to change my mind. After all, I didn’t say I wouldn’t continue reading them.) Not that I’m frustrated, PO'ed, or anything like that, but I think I’ve said all that I can. (And I’ve got work to do.)

I want to thank Thamer, Duck and Guru for opening these threads, which gave me (and others) the chance to voice opinion and engage in honest debate. It’s been a fun experience. To those with whom I’ve disagreed, I hope we can end the discussion respectfully agreeing to disagree. To those with whom I agree, I’m glad to see that you see things in the correct light (yuk yuk). If anyone wants to continue discussing any of these (or any other) issues with me (for whatever reason), feel free to email me. I’ll gladly reply. (But be warned, I do have a tendency to ramble.)

See ya' at the next discussion and/or at the Q&A.

maxwell_t_edison@yahoo.com

1 US Gallon = 3.785 Liters

1 US Gallon = 0.8327 Imperial Gallons

Here in the US "Mid-West", petrol went from $1.539 on Tuesday morning to $1.779 per gallon (for 'regular') Tuesday evening.

$1.779 works out to $0.47 US per liter.

In my state, about $0.60 of the cost is state and federal taxes.

Don't ask about the 0.009 this 9/10th of a cent has been part of gas prices for as long as I can remember.
At a minimum, it is part of the marketing strategy of greatest integer pricing.
The consumer pays the most attention to the largest integer of a price.
99 cents just looks a lot cheaper than $1.

Your 95 cents AU per liter works out to $3.60 AU per US gallon.

So, yes, on a global scale, gas in the US is cheap, even now.

We consider $1.25 to be the 'normal' cost of fuel.

So, $2 per gallon is high, and $5 per gallon would be outrageous.

Chas

In 2000, when the price of crude oil averaged $28.23 per barrel, crude oil accounted for about 46% of the cost of a gallon of regular grade gasoline (Figure 1). In comparison, the average price for crude oil in 1999 was $17.51 per barrel, and it composed 37% of the cost of a gallon of regular gasoline. The share of the retail price of regular grade gasoline that crude oil costs represent varies somewhat over time and among regions.

Taxes (not including county and local taxes) account for approximately 28 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Within this national average, Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon and State excise taxes average about 20 cents per gallon. Also, some States levy additional State sales taxes, some of which are applied to the Federal and State excise taxes. 2 Additional local county and city taxes can have a significant impact on the price of gasoline.

Refining costs and profits comprise about 14% of the retail price of gasoline.

Distribution, marketing and retail station costs and profits combined make up 12% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

Source - http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html

The average of 95 cents per litre refers to standed unleaded petrol. Leaded petrol is no longer available in NSW (I don't know about the other states). It has been explained to me that a primary function of the lead was to lubricate the valve seats.Thus cars designed to run on leaded petrol (about pre 1983) have a lubricant added to compensate for the absence of lead.
Those of us who have older cars are punished by paying more for petrol.
So the choices are (and this varies by up to 10 %either way, according to the dictates of the oil companies) 95 cents for standard unleaded; add say 7 cents for "lead replacement" (lubricant already mixed in with the petrol); or add 10 cents for high octane (96 to 98) unleaded (the lubricant can be added manually from little syringes which are purchased separately).
Some taxis, especially, have been converted to run on LPG (Liquified petroleum gas?) which results in a 50% saving in the cost of fuel).

I suspect that there would be a hierarchy of hits that would 'satisfy' a terrorist group.

The lowest level would be the detonation of any nuclear device in any place where it damages the enemy.

A step up from that would be the detonation of the same device in a sensitive place like a capital or a major city.

Several steps up from that would be the simultaneous detonation of several devices in different places around the world.

At the highest level would be the simultaneous air burstdetonation of the most powerful nuclear devices available in the maximum number of high 'value' places possible.

I would hope that terrorists never achieve the highest level of this hit 'parade'. At the same time, even the lowest level would be a hit that would be extremely painful.

ANY sales tax does not look at ability to pay, only the requirement to spend!

In total dollar terms, the upper middle class in the US pays the most sales tax.
The rich pay less because they hoard their money.

As a percentage of income, the lower middle class pays the most sales tax.

Yes, the poorest of the poor are somewhat exempt from Michigan's sales tax.
So long as:
They don't use any paper products,
New clothing,
Over the counter medications,
Gas,
and a whole list of other non-food items.

The burden of ANY sales tax is predominantly placed on the upper poor, and lower 2/3rds of the middle class.
In fact, the people who pay the most sales tax are those who can least afford it.
I am referring to families with young children.
A young family may spend 50% or more of their 'disposable' income on tax-able items.

Now, look at upper income families.
On average, they spend less than 10% of disposable income on tax-able items.
Where does the rest go?
To investments. Many of which generate only income tax revenue (if they are not tax shelters).

The BEST way to reduce the tax burden on the rich, is for ALL companies to pay ALL workers a living wage.

Indexing the minimum wage to the poverty level +15% would go a long way to equalizing the tax load.

Chas

I understand your point. However, a look south from Miami gives a possible time frame we would be dealing with. Fidel came to power in 1957 I believe.

Unlike Fidel Castro, Saddam poses a threat and can be expected to pursue WMD as long as he remains in power, and to use them once he has them. Your proposed solution could make the current state an bi-annual affair for decades. If his clandestine operations are missed, he could unleash death on the entire human race via biological warfare.

Here is a challenge to those who think a sales tax would be a good way to replace the US income tax.

Keep ALL of your receipts for a month.
Don't forget utility bills, and gas.
Add up the total spent, and the total sales tax.
Estimate your annual state sales tax.

Now, calculate your estimated federal sales tax.
Remember, any change in the tax structure needs to be revenue neutral.
If you include food, calculate the federal sales tax at 20% of total purchases.
If you leave food out, calculate the tax at 30%.

Remember, you will still be paying your state and city income taxes, local sales taxes, and property taxes.

See where that places your tax load versus your 2002 federal return.

20 years ago, when there was talk of changing from our graduated income tax to a flat tax, the idea died rapidly when the calculations for revenue neutrality came out at over 17% with NO income excluded.

Chas

NO tax 'system' is going to be fair. And I will delve a bit about the indexed minimum wage with you...

Though I believe it should be periodically reviewed [and raised], I don't htink you can flat out index it like that across the board, with repsect to the poverty level. This will cause some hardship on employers at first, but is not my main concern with this... What it WILL do is raise inflation and thereby raise the poverty level. If you want to get more into this, we should probably get a new thread somewhere else... It gets a lot more complicated than my simple declaration...

The argument for [aying all worker higher wages, thereby taking some tax burden off of the rich won't float with the rich, either. The total wages THEY can give themselves is reduced when they pay others what they're 'worth'.

A Marxian axiom is that in order to become more wealthy, one must exploit one's workers. That because of the total costs in production, the wages of the worker will never be enough to purchase that which s/he makes.

In capitalism, someone has to lose.

This is where we disagree, especially when it comes to Cuba. Living in Canada we have been trading, vacationing, importing, and exporting from Cuba for decades. The trade embargoes that currently exist in Cuba are archaic, and pointless. The political pressure on Cuba from countries other than the US is extremely weak or non-existent. Why are there still trade embargoes on Cuba anyway? Anyway different thread, different day?

Is removing Saddam the answer? Is there not going to be another person who knows where the Iraq WMD?s are hidden, and use them on their enemy? I think that part of the solution has to be finding them, and this is where the time investment has to come into play. Send a 1000 more inspectors in, start bribing (yes, I mean bribing) some of the scientists, and military personnel. Offer witness relocation programs, etc.

Now, I do agree with you that he could ( I emphasize could ) ?unleash death on the entire human race ? but the chances increase by putting his back up against the wall. Saddam has most likely had WMD?s for over a decade, and not used them globally (albeit on his own people). But, if there is a US led invasion of Iraq do you not think that the chances of him using WMD?s are going toincrease because he is going to die anyhow (so might as well take out as many people as possible). I am no military analyst, but crunching the numbers in a ?does he or doesn?t he? scenario I think they go up drastically when the scenario is INVASION vs. Time.