It was my understanding that the coalition consisted of Americans, British, Canadians, Pakistanis, with support from Germany, France and one of "the stans" north of Afghanistan. I figured the US was the majority partner but I didn't think the others were irrelevant........at least, Rumsfield seemed to think they weren't.
The "Stans" with Pakistan to a lesser degree are ruled by unsavory characters not unlike Saddam in early 80s. You had a lot of criticism on that issue in your posts just today. And nobody was there when the bombing started, other than the British. Others showed up when it was more or less over.
So you are saying there was no coalition......that it was a figment of the administration's imagination?
What are you doing........the worst has yet to happen.
Let's see.......in August, the leading indicators were done for the 3rd straight month.....three months in a row is considered an indicator of a change in direction for the the economy; unemployment is up for the 4 straight week and is well over 400 k; retail sales have been flat with the exception of autos, and the fear is that auto companies are cannibalizing 2003 sales into this year; consumer confidence is dropping and is well below 100; the Production managers' ISM index is slipping down to 50....above 50 is expansion, below is contraction......the index had moved about 50 this past Spring but is sliding back down again, the markets have yet to bottom, the B2B is slowing......I mean what other evidence do you need......the collapse of JPM?
2 quarters of negative growth. Which of course is a lagging indicator, which is kind of stinks, but as I said, I would not be surprised to see Q3 negative, but I think Q4 will be positive.
I present all these indicators signaling trouble and that's the answer you provide with no support to validate your thesis. No wonder you guys think Bush is doing a great job.
Market rally after market rally keeps failing but you think everything is fine.
Excuse me.......I have no idea what you are talking about..... its my understaning that NATO peacekeeping units were there in full force.
First of all, I am not talking peacekeeping but bombing - things like power plants so that people can't turn their light on, water system, so that people can't drink clean water, gas distribution, so that people can't worm babies' milk or heat their homes, sewege system, so that diseases spread, civilian bridges, so that people can't see their relatives who live on the other side of the bridge.
Second of all, it may be a news to you, but NATO does not equal UN. NATO countries are a subset of the UN countries. And the UN Security Council, which is a subset of UN countries was against the Yugoslavia bombing, never approved it, for important reason that 2 permanent members of Security Council (Russia and China) were against it. I thing this should be very important to you, since you place such a high emphasis on the UN approval. As far as UN is concerned, it was an illegal war. And this is the war that you supported, so I find it surprising and inconsistent that you are now talking about UN approval of US actions.
That's not my understanding but I will check it out.
Schroeder's popularity was on the ascendency due to the way he adroitly handled the flooding in Dresden/E. Germany.
He was deep in a hole, and as you said, the situation around the floods helped him, but mainly, it seems that running against Bush (who I agree is not popular in Europe) seemed like the major theme, that helped him persuade the 1% that got him over the top.
Oh, BS.........read Speigal online or the BBC. Yes, it helped that Schroeder was anti Iraq but his position began to turn around due to his handling of the floods. In the end, the BBC felt his Defense Minister's comment hurt him more than his stance on Iraq helped him. In any case, the race was close.
Besides, why can't Schroeder disagree with Bush.....is that against the law......or is the problem because he is not conservative?!! Certainly. you don't seem too upset with Chirac's views on Iraq..........which are not all that dissimilar from Schroeder's.
Anyway, Europe is turning out to be such a peaceful trouble free part of the world, that the Europeans like to pretend that the rest of the world is like that. Gee, it would be easier for us in the US to bury our heads in the sand the same way, but someone has to be the responsible one, and the role unfortunately belongs to us. I would rather see Denmark and Luxemburg go out there and kick Saddam butt, but that's not going to happen.
Right! One out of 2 Americans can't tell you the capital of Germany but its the Europeans who are unaware of what's going on in the world. The only difference between the US and Europe is that God speaks directly to our president which allows us to be more enlightened.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
