From: "Adam Flinton" 


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e10f6e9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3e101cc7{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > A) Most of this is assertion. If the intel is so good then where is Bin
> > Laden?
>
> Saudi Arabia
>

Ah right. I think the Saudis want him dead more than the US does.

> > B) Iran is full of Afghans running from the fighting (milllions of
them).
> > The phrase needle in a haystack comes to mind
>
> Gee the Afghans didn't have any problem telling the difference between an
> Afghan and an Arab. The Arabs were the dead ones.
>

Lots of dead Afghans so one has to assume they had their problems too.

> > C) While there may be officials sympathetc too & aiding in this process
it
> > isn't iranian policy.
>
> I think the real question is who is in control.
>

Yup.

> > D) Most seem to have gone to Pakistan. So I take it that would make
> Pakistan
> > even "guiltier"? Odd that When Musharaf is the West's
blue (ok brown)
eyed
> > boy.
>
> We work with both Musharaf and the some officials in Iran, however
musharaf
> is much more in control in Pakistan and the religious leaders are much
more
> in control in Iran. And don't think Pakistan isn't a problem, it is, just
> read any news clip about the US soldiers in Afghanistan who keep
complaining
> about not being allowed to cross the border into Pakistan while chasing al
> Qaeda. That's a fire in the making..
>

In the making???? Oh only since partition.....there are only 2 states which
gain their raison d'etre from religion, Pakistan & Israel. The Vatican
doesn't count as it is a remnant of when the Pope owned Europe.

> > However there is
> > 0 sign that the Gov of Iran supports Al-Qaeda.
>
> Being neutral isn't going to make much difference, Bush said it quite
> clearly, either with us or against us.
>

So? Frankly more & more are at best neutral as the war has expanded to
include Iraq (or is it OK to be neutral in that?) I wonder when Bush is
going to start bombing Germany....

> > Long slow recovery. Interesting how often economists are re-appraising.
> The
> > big problem is that now as globalization has spread the upturn is going
to
> > have to spread globally too to get the US back to where it wants
to be &
> > that may take a long time indeed.
>
> Yes and no, the US imports more than it exports so that's not as important
> as you might think.
>

Yes but on the assumption that you have local production to compete with
foreign, if the foreign is an area of low econ activiity they will be able
to keep prices down thus hurting the ability of US producers to do anything
with price at all & thus hurt their ability to make a profit etc.

> > OK then which President presided over the wall street crash / great
> > depression & was he voted back in?
>
> Lets look at all six depressions:
>
> 1873-79 Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) term limit,  Rutherford B. Hayes
> (1877-81)
> 1893-97 Grover Cleveland (1893-97)
> 1907-08 Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) term limit
> 1920-21 Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) term limit
> 1929-33 Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) Herbert Hoover (1929-33)
> 1937-38 Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45) term limit
>
> > People vote with their wallets more than you would like to believe.
>
> I do believe people vote with their wallets, but then why was Roosevelt
> re-elected?
>

Rosevelt came in as a result of the econ depression on the basis of
promises to sort it out.

Calvin Coolidge however did not get a 2nd term. Hoover ditto.

Look at the term dates & realise to preside over means that you are in
power before it starts. None of those who were in power when it kicked off
got re-elected after it had been in progress for a while.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4