Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:06:50 AM by Kaslin
Health Reform: As major businesses lay out the impact of ObamaCare in dollars and jobs, two things are clear: the costs will be enormous, and the president's vow to focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs" can no longer be believed.
Early returns on ObamaCare are coming in, and they belie proponents' claims of job creation and cost reduction. The costs will increase. They are merely being shifted to the states and to America's businesses, large and small.
AT&T, the country's largest telephone company, announced Friday it will take a $1 billion first-quarter charge related to the new health care law. The noncash charge has been triggered by a change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies.
Bloomberg reports that health care charges may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Walton. That's $14 billion that will not be available for expansion, research and development, or the hiring of new employees.
On Thursday, Deere & Co. announced that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will adversely impact its expenses for fiscal 2010. As a result of the legislation, expenses for the farm equipment manufacturer are expected to be about $150 million higher on an after-tax basis, mainly in the second quarter.
At issue is the new tax the health care bill imposes on subsidies paid to corporations for 28% of their retiree prescription costs under a 2003 Medicare bill.
"The 2003 legislation encouraged companies to stay in the game and continue to fund their retirees' prescriptions," Deere spokesman Ken Golden said. "Otherwise, the retirees would go onto the Medicare prescription program, which would cost the government more money."
Now they're being punished for doing what the government asked them to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 111th; agenda; atandt; att; bendoveramerica; bho44; bhoeconomy; bhofascism; bhohealthcare; bhosocialism; bhotaxincrease; bhotyranny; boeing; brown; business; caterpillar; caterpillat; deere; democrats; dickdurbin; dingyharry; dirtyharry; djsob; donttreadonme; durbin; economy; exelon; fifth100days; givemeliberty; harryreid; healthcare; hopeandchange; hopeychangey; johndeere; killthebill; liberalfascism; livefreeordie; medicare; mediscam; metlife; nancypelosi; nannystate; navistar; nedtronic; obama; obamacare; othertaxshoes; pelosi; reid; rememberinnovember; repeal; repealthebill; scottbrown; smallbusiness; socialism; socialisthealthcare; socializednedicine; speakerpelosi; taxfairness; telecom; universalhealthcare; verizon; xerox; zoll; zollmedical
Click for TeaPartyExpress.org!
Click for Free Republic threads on the Tea Party Express!
1 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:06:50 AM by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
So folks. When the cost of your phone service increases exponentially, and the cost of your lawn mower or tractor goes though the roof; remember the blame lays at the feet of barry obammy, and the congressional and senatorial RATS! Thanks a billion you scum-buckets!
2 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:11:45 AM by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
I run a small technology company on the West Coast. I took the opportunity to layoff several workers. Somehow when the selection was complete they were all Democrats. OMG it was fun telling them how we had to adjust to the bad times that are coming down the road with Obama-care passing.
3 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:14:17 AM by kimoajax (Rack'em & Stack'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
More Maxism. Destroy the banks and the largest industries. Then, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
I bet the health insurance rates increase a lot before the ‘open enrollment’ for employees.
Just tell the employees ‘ Welcome to Obama Care’.
4 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:16:09 AM by RedMDer (0 = one D Ten T : Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: vpintheak
even my ignorant Obama loving lazy neighbors are finally getting it.
5 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:18:05 AM by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: RedMDer
He’s also destroying small business which employs far more people than big business.
6 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:19:11 AM by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: kimoajax
Is that what you call a “teachable moment”? LOL.
7 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:19:22 AM by grateful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: kimoajax
Good for you!
The guy I am working for and I have talked about him sub contracting to me. I want him to stay in business. So I am willing to sub job to save my job. We are both conservatives.
We still dont know how this is all gonna go coming down to micro business..he has a gross business at about the 2 million dollar level..that’s gross and not net.
8 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:20:27 AM by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
If you own a business, you better get out of it.
9 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:21:05 AM by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: RedMDer
My 82 year old mother got a notice day before yesterday that unless she signed a new agreement her GAP insurance rate would jump from $34 to $83 a month. If she signed the new agreement her rate would remain unchanged. However, the agreement essentially gutted her old policy and with two trips to the doctor, let alone a visit to the hospital would wipe out any savings. It was a deceptive and a trick.
All insurance companies will have little choice but to move in anticipation of the increase cost of health care insurance coming with Obama-care.
10 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:22:23 AM by kimoajax (Rack'em & Stack'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
Why was Omama’s word ever believed? This person is a liar without peer and has been forever.
11 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:25:45 AM by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: grateful
anyone know what kind of cigarettes nobama smokes...maybe we should start a nationwide movement and everyone sent him a pack at the same time, on the same day...just to let him know how we really feel...keep on amoking AH!
12 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:25:52 AM by ldish (Looking forward to Independence Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: kimoajax
All insurance companies will have little choice but to move in anticipation of the increase cost of health care insurance coming with Obama-care.
Just in time for the elections. This needs to be exposed BIGTIME!
13 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:29:51 AM by RedMDer (0 = one D Ten T : Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
To: sport
How about if I just quit making money? ....I’ve already quit
14 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:32:19 AM by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
To: RedMDer
Marxism...You've got this thing figured out quite well, 'cept for one thing.
"I'm from the government, I'm here ... " BANG BANG .... BANG BANG
Honey, can you bring me another box of them .45's out here, another gubmint car coming up the road ....
15 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:33:11 AM by exnavy (May the Lord grant our troops protection and endurance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: exnavy
yep
16 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:35:45 AM by RedMDer (0 = one D Ten T : Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: woofie
So did I.
17 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:37:35 AM by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]
To: mulligan
Remember the story of the pied piper of Hamelin? He promised the citizen who were plagued with rats to get rid of them. Instead he lead the children of Hamelin out of the gate of the town and into disaster. The citizen of Hamelin fell for a charlatan and the idiots who voted for 0bama, also fell for a charlatan
18 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:38:31 AM by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: driftdiver
Shame it has to take the Country going down the crapper for people to really wake up isn’t it?
19 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:52:41 AM by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: kimoajax
I will also be sacking a couple of Democrats at our office in San Francisco soon.
I’ll try to hold off saying that this is your “teachable moment”.
20 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:58:12 AM by Beaten Valve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
WHERE WERE THESE FOKKERS BEFORE THE BILL PASSED???
Thanks for nothing!
21 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:00:00 AM by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: sport
Why? Just curious because I own a small business.
22 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:04:18 AM by Tucker822
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
To: driftdiver
My 0 worshipping neighbors with severe attitude problems probably never will.
23 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:52:38 AM by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: kimoajax
I bet productivity and morale went up a notch after deep-sixing them.
24 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:54:13 AM by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Kaslin
While a tragedy, this may also be of some use in fighting the kenyan and his minions.
All employers just announce that you no longer provide health coverage for your employees; but, obama has passed this wonderful, new health plan to cover those who are uninsured...as you are effective today.
We will, of course, stop deducting the your share of your previous healthcare cost, and, increase your monthly pay by what we were paying as the employer's share.
The taxation and tax penalties imposed by the new "national healthcare" has made it financially impossible for us and many other major corporations, as well as small businesses, to offer health insurance any longer.
This bill was passed to make sure that the 15-million people in the US who are - at any given time - uninsured will have insurance. So since they get insured, then you won't have any problem either...the number just increases from 15-million to somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million uninsured people.
We would like to thank all those employees, and former employees, who cast their vote for barack obama and brought all this wonderful hope and change to us.
Oh, and one thing further, also due to the high taxes promised us, we are laying off 38% of our work force, those of you who are affected will find a pink slip in this Friday's paycheck.
Now comrades, get back to work or I will call the National Security Squads on you.
Have a nice day.
25 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:13:37 AM by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: driftdiver
He’s also destroying small business which employs far more people than big business.
He wants to destroy private business period. ‘ Welcome to Obama Care’.
And Marxism.
This one of the vehicles.
26 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:15:52 AM by RedMDer (0 = one D Ten T : Recycle Congress in 2010, 2012... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran - thinktank
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62O2HI.htm ^
Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott
Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran-thinktank 26 Mar 2010 11:03:37 GMT Source: Reuters
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM, March 26 (Reuters) - Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.
But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.
Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels".
But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.
In their study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program", CSIS analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman envisage the possibility of Israel "using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons" given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.
(Excerpt) Read more at alertnet.org ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: nucleariran
Click for TeaPartyExpress.org!
Click for Free Republic threads on the Tea Party Express!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-76 next last
What was once considered "tinfoil" is now making headlines on Reuters. CSIS is a fairly reputable strategic studies think tank and Cordesman is a fairly reputable analyst . . . interesting times
1 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Not surprised...
2 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:55:12 PM by Lurking in Kansas (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
3 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:56:44 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If nothing else, this is a reminder to all parties concerned (especially the US) that Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.
It isn’t some backwater nuke wannebe with 1st generation, dirty, gravity dropped nukes.
And, if anyone in the world would have a need for real suitcase nukes, Israel would be that anyone.
4 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
It is certainly a less risky military approach.
Deep penetrating nukes would work fine, and are well-deserved.
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
5 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Not good news for the folks working in these underground facilities. I say go for it.
6 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:43 PM by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
When it comes to self preservation, I would guess nothing is off the table.
7 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:45 PM by Jagdgewehr (We revolted against a king in England for much less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
PWposter.PoPE.nonukesiran.lg.C.jpg
8 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:58:03 PM by davidlachnicht ("IF WE ARE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
History has shown that going to war against Israel is a losing proposition.
9 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:31 PM by Personal Responsibility (Demcare checks in at 2700 pages: The longest suicide note in history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
With a "dial-a-yield", hardened, warhead on a Jericho III, the IDF can drop a 1-10kt nuke into a venilation shaft and go deep enough to avert anything like a mushroom cloud.
It will be like the finger of God streaking from the heavens touching the desert, a dull "whoomp", and a little dust out off the exits if deep enough.
In the words of "the one", I say..."GO FOR IT!". When the world condemns Israel, Bibi can simply say, "I travelled to the US to get its help in a conventional strike. When Obama put Iran ahead of Israel's existance, we decided that we are on our own and had to use nuclear weapons. Had Obama helped us, we would have not had to resort to low-yield, deep penetrating, special weapons". "You wanted change....you got it America".
10 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:56 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?
11 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:23 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
I am dead serious in saying this: I wish Israel would nuke Tehran & DARE the rest of the Muzzies to do anything about it...& if they try, then nuke THEIR capital cities as well.
12 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:41 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Jagdgewehr
Exactly. Israel will do what it feels it has to in order to survive, and that is exactly why our administration’s treatment of Israel lately is so destabilizing.
13 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:02:57 PM by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Iran’s Arabic neighbors wouldn’t be unhappy to see Israel take out the nuclear facilities. I don’t know where the reaction would come from. I do expect that Iran would attack any nearby US assets including naval forces.
Unless Obama gave our military the go-ahead to at least defend themselves, he would be absolute toast. The firestorm that would consume his administration would be unimaginable. Nothing he could say after wards would make a difference.
14 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:52 PM by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: xzins
Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.
IDF tested a Jericho II last year with a CEP of 25 yards, 2000 miles away into the middle of the Med. Thats close enough for a 1-10kt sub-surface nuke. Hell, the energy flying out of the atmosphere itself will bury the warhead tens of yards underneath the desert.....right where you want it to explode.
If the IDF is worried about a "second strike" from Arabs, they have their (possibly) nuclear armed subs with Penguin cruise missle hybrids ready for an airburst over some key targets...wink wink. Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.
15 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:53 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Lurking in Kansas
May God guide their aim true.
16 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:21 PM by cameraeye (A happy kafar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Genoa
“You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?”
Quiet blackmail is certain. Open intervention, quite possible.
17 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:30 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.
Oh my..... Please elloborate on the neutron. SADM?
18 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:37 PM by taildragger (Palin/Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
By contemporary standards, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “tactical” nukes. These hints and rumors are all part of the meta-diplomacy. The fact is, Israel is a moral nation and no moral nation will use nukes preemptively. As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike, at which point the Middle East will be changed forever. Their strategy is to make sure everyone knows just how high the price would be for such an attempted first strike.
19 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:43 PM by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
Maybe the US military commanders in Iraq could ignore the order, let the IAF fly over & back home, & say @ a later date that they never got the message?
20 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:07:19 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
25 yards at 2000 miles. That’s impressive!
21 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:09:24 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
More like: Israel *will* use nukes on Iran, no matter what the jive turkey lying wussie boy Obama and the DemoBackstbbers say/threaten.
22 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Its the President of the USA’s job to make SURE something like this does not have to happen.
The punk in the oval office is going to get one hell of allot of people killed because of his fanatic hold on his ideological ideas about justice.
All of this will be on HIS hands and will be HIS fault.
23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = suitcase nuke (really more like backpack nuke).
Davy Crocket was an exmple of these.
I was a Redleg in the Army and we mocked up with these as late as the 1980s (even though we were told we had no such weapons in our inventory). I really don't see them being all that useful on the ground.
They do create a massive horizontal wave of devastation, though, which, IMHO, would be a really easy way to USA destroy carrier groups from a bit of a distance, especially with a supersonic cruise missle, as the wave would utterly destroy shops in its path.
If China has not developed tactical nukes to blow apart our carrier groups, my name is Barack Hussein Yourmamma.
24 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:15 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
They know, like Britain now knows, like most of the world now knows, as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge..The U.S.of A, cannot be trusted. In either their promises, or their threats.
25 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:55 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR
Maybe.
I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.
26 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:08 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = Small Atomic Demolition Munition....misrepresented in the media as a "suitcase/backpack" nuke. W54 warhead, sub-kiloton yield.
Neutron weapons are nuclear weapons specifically designed with enhanced radiations to release more energy via radiation, rather than pure explosive (force) power. They are very small yield, no more than 5kt, that have limited (although powerful compared to conventional explositions) blast/thermo effects, but NOTHING in comparison to the damaging neutron flux.
For example. If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb behind the USSC building in Washington DC, the USSC building would sustain alot of damage, whilst the Capitol would have only broken windows.....but people would drop dead (some after several hours) all the way to the Washington Monument, with 100 percent immediate incapacitation and death within the Capitol complex due to fatal radiation doses.
In essence....it is more effective killing people than damaging buildings.
It was created during the cold war in case NATO had to use nukes in their own countri(es) in order to stop the 50,000 Soviet tanks. Kill the crews...spare the towns.
Hope that helps.
27 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:12 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Iranians have already proven they're incapable of self examination - a common flaw in counties that suppress women.
They'll nuke Israel when they can under the excuse that Israel is causing all the problems in the region. The truth is that Muslims are always at war with everyone - war and death are intertwined within the religion.
If Israel ceased to exist Iran would find a new group to hate and destroy - and if that group was destroyed they would find another. And another - and another...
28 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:55 PM by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?area=dam&lang=eng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If they can’t get conventional bunker busters, who knows what they would do?
29 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:31 PM by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: maquiladora; hennie pennie; SunkenCiv; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
ping
30 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:34 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
I know...just wishful thinking on my part.
31 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:23:08 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR
I'm thinking that nuking Tehran is not necessary and would make for a very ugly situation. I would decapitate the mullahs and the other leaders and then nuke the nuke sites.
I'm not a general but I did once own General tires.
32 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:32 PM by Drill Thrawl (Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: Genoa; brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?
It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
The story came out earlier this week that the US has reneged on a deal to sell Israel 367 bunker buster bombs and has diverted them to our Indian Ocean stealth bomber staging base at Diego Garcia. In addition, hundreds more bunker busters are being shipped there from the US West Coast depots.
These bunker busters can just as easily be used to destroy Israel's hardened missile silos and command and control facilities as they could have Iran's. A pre-emptive attack against Israel would be entirely logical based on the demonstrated pattern of behavior of the Obama regime.
33 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:43 PM by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike,
Most of Israel's (supposed) nukes are at three facilities.....x1 naval base, x1 air base, x1 Jericho missile complex.
They use TEL launchers and mostly liquid fuelled missiles. They do not have hardened (+300psi) silos like we do. They store their IRBMS in horizontal caves which they have to extract the missile, download data (based on current satellite info), and fuel the missile, which takes up to half a day to complete.
Israel cannot and can NEVER be allowed to "absorb" a first strike. Even a crude nuke on a SCUD over their airbase or naval munitions complex at Eliat will negate about 1/3-1/2 of their nuclear weapons....which would be the end of Israel. Israel has proven time and time again, that they will strike first in order to gurantee their survival. Nuclear weapons are simply big explosives with some negative residual effects.
Remember, we exploded damn near 1000 nukes in, under, and above the United States, and the two (2) cities that have acutally been "nuked" are thriving metropolises today....in fact, I've know people in my local Koi club that buy Nagasaki raised Koi with pre-1945 lineages.....and guess what....they aren't mutants!
34 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:27:10 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike....
I don't think so. Israel is such a small nation it effectively IS a "one nuke" KZ. It would only take one nuclear weapon to effectively wipe out the majority of infrastructure and allow an easy land invasion and subsequent second Holocaust. What's their motto? "NEVER AGAIN!!! They won't take such a risk. Morals? That word and nuclear combat are mutually exclusive. As far as Israel is concerned, this fight is for their race. That means there are no options "off the table." Including a first strike with a tactical nuke. I would argue that they are fully justified in any military solution invloving Iran and if the rest of the world really wanted to forestall such an action they could have got up off the DIME and done something serious about Iran when it could have made a difference.
35 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:29:00 PM by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat
I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
God help us if you're right.
36 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:48 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Israel is way beyond worrying about political hazard, they are in this for their existence and inaction by the US has left them with few options.
37 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:52 PM by pb929
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
Israel is in a tough spot?
The U.S. and Israel are BOTH in a tough spot.
George W. Bush dropped the ball on many issues but the dropped ball with the most tragic future consequences may turn out to be his failure to strike Iran's nuclear program before Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Three weeks of U.S. Shock & Awe prior to Obama's inauguration and we would not now have the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear-armed ICBM's before the next Republican becomes Commander-in-Chief.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".
38 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:24 PM by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb
Oops....meant 0.1 kt.
Most Neutron weapons were sub-kiloton,usually a mine, controlled demo charge, or artillery shell.
39 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:33 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
To: Polybius
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".
Damn good point. Bears repeating, and why Iran MUST NEVER have a nuclear weapon.
40 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:40:46 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.
I'm sure the IDF has enough nukes in their inventory to deal with those other 'fronts' if need be. Remember that while Israel's Arab neighbors will scream bloody murder if Netanyahu drops nukes on Iran, the only ones who will mean it will be Syria and their sockpuppet Lebanon. The Russians MIGHT get involved, only because it will be their client who will have smoking craters where those nuke facilities and their vaunted air defense installations used to be.
If hostilities are inevitable, it is best to strike first and trust Providence.
41 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:46:53 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.
I don’t know, if I don’t have a nuke, and israel just proved it not only has them, but is willing to use them, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to pick a fight witht them.
42 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:05 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat; All
It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.
And that is no threat, that is a statement of what will likely happen.
If the Dear Comrade is stupid enough to overreach like that, he will reap the consequences as no one has ever seen or imagined in American history.
Take that to the bank.
43 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:25 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
Israel is prepared to endure a first strike
I submit that you do not know the mind of Bibi Netanyahu.
44 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:09 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
I hope we’re out of Iraq before they start tossing those things.
45 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:12 PM by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
“no moral nation will use nukes preemptively”
We’ve done it, TWICE! I consider myself to be a moral man, if I believe you are a serious threat to my family, and I have no other choice. I would strike first. I would not wait until you killed a loved one to respond.
I for one would not be at all suprised if Israel struck first.
46 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57:29 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
Maybe.
I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.
Could you repeat that. It was garbled.
47 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:00:19 AM by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian; ChrisInAR
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
The NK's reportedly zapped a South Korean frigate with a torpedo today -- potentially 100 lives lost on the SK side. If a second Korean War were to kick off then Israel has a window of opportuntity to deal with Iran.
48 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:04:51 AM by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If we don’t support an Israeli mission that involves conventional weapons, it will likely fail. Given the current administration’s abject hatred of Israel, that support looks less likely by the day. That sort of leaves Israel with no options except tactical nukes. They positively cannot allow Iran to get the Bomb, because Ahmadinejad will use it. He believes fervently that he has been chosen to usher in the Islamic messiah by annihilating Christians and Jews. He’s not pursuing nukes to increase Iran’s stature in the world; he’s pursing them to use them. Israel knows this.
As for the world reaction, Israel will stand totally alone, without U.S. backing for the first time since her rebirth in 1948. And I believe the result will be an attack on Israel prophesied in Psalm 83, Obadiah, and Isaiah 17. Israel will win the war and take back more of the promised land, but it will come at heavy cost. She will be weakened, alone, vulnerable. I believe this sets up the War of Gog and Magog, prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39. A massive invasion of Israel will fail when God intervenes directly.
We live in interesting, if painful, times.
MM
49 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:08:52 AM by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: mkjessup; All
I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.
You're simply, tragically, wrong. The upper levels of the US military chain of command are hopelessly politicized, and will obey whatever commands they are give. They have demonstrated, repeatedly in recent years, that their career viability is their most important priority.
At the operational level, plans and commands can be, and in fact are, compartmentalized, and the individual units will not have the big picture. Some individuals might refuse the orders, but not enough to matter.
Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott
Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran-thinktank 26 Mar 2010 11:03:37 GMT Source: Reuters
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM, March 26 (Reuters) - Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.
But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.
Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels".
But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.
In their study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program", CSIS analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman envisage the possibility of Israel "using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons" given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.
(Excerpt) Read more at alertnet.org ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: nucleariran
Click for TeaPartyExpress.org!
Click for Free Republic threads on the Tea Party Express!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-76 next last
What was once considered "tinfoil" is now making headlines on Reuters. CSIS is a fairly reputable strategic studies think tank and Cordesman is a fairly reputable analyst . . . interesting times
1 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Not surprised...
2 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:55:12 PM by Lurking in Kansas (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
3 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:56:44 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If nothing else, this is a reminder to all parties concerned (especially the US) that Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.
It isn’t some backwater nuke wannebe with 1st generation, dirty, gravity dropped nukes.
And, if anyone in the world would have a need for real suitcase nukes, Israel would be that anyone.
4 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
It is certainly a less risky military approach.
Deep penetrating nukes would work fine, and are well-deserved.
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
5 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Not good news for the folks working in these underground facilities. I say go for it.
6 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:43 PM by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
When it comes to self preservation, I would guess nothing is off the table.
7 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:45 PM by Jagdgewehr (We revolted against a king in England for much less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
PWposter.PoPE.nonukesiran.lg.C.jpg
8 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:58:03 PM by davidlachnicht ("IF WE ARE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
History has shown that going to war against Israel is a losing proposition.
9 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:31 PM by Personal Responsibility (Demcare checks in at 2700 pages: The longest suicide note in history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
With a "dial-a-yield", hardened, warhead on a Jericho III, the IDF can drop a 1-10kt nuke into a venilation shaft and go deep enough to avert anything like a mushroom cloud.
It will be like the finger of God streaking from the heavens touching the desert, a dull "whoomp", and a little dust out off the exits if deep enough.
In the words of "the one", I say..."GO FOR IT!". When the world condemns Israel, Bibi can simply say, "I travelled to the US to get its help in a conventional strike. When Obama put Iran ahead of Israel's existance, we decided that we are on our own and had to use nuclear weapons. Had Obama helped us, we would have not had to resort to low-yield, deep penetrating, special weapons". "You wanted change....you got it America".
10 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:56 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?
11 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:23 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
I am dead serious in saying this: I wish Israel would nuke Tehran & DARE the rest of the Muzzies to do anything about it...& if they try, then nuke THEIR capital cities as well.
12 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:41 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Jagdgewehr
Exactly. Israel will do what it feels it has to in order to survive, and that is exactly why our administration’s treatment of Israel lately is so destabilizing.
13 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:02:57 PM by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Iran’s Arabic neighbors wouldn’t be unhappy to see Israel take out the nuclear facilities. I don’t know where the reaction would come from. I do expect that Iran would attack any nearby US assets including naval forces.
Unless Obama gave our military the go-ahead to at least defend themselves, he would be absolute toast. The firestorm that would consume his administration would be unimaginable. Nothing he could say after wards would make a difference.
14 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:52 PM by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: xzins
Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.
IDF tested a Jericho II last year with a CEP of 25 yards, 2000 miles away into the middle of the Med. Thats close enough for a 1-10kt sub-surface nuke. Hell, the energy flying out of the atmosphere itself will bury the warhead tens of yards underneath the desert.....right where you want it to explode.
If the IDF is worried about a "second strike" from Arabs, they have their (possibly) nuclear armed subs with Penguin cruise missle hybrids ready for an airburst over some key targets...wink wink. Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.
15 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:53 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Lurking in Kansas
May God guide their aim true.
16 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:21 PM by cameraeye (A happy kafar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Genoa
“You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?”
Quiet blackmail is certain. Open intervention, quite possible.
17 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:30 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.
Oh my..... Please elloborate on the neutron. SADM?
18 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:37 PM by taildragger (Palin/Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
By contemporary standards, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “tactical” nukes. These hints and rumors are all part of the meta-diplomacy. The fact is, Israel is a moral nation and no moral nation will use nukes preemptively. As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike, at which point the Middle East will be changed forever. Their strategy is to make sure everyone knows just how high the price would be for such an attempted first strike.
19 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:43 PM by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
Maybe the US military commanders in Iraq could ignore the order, let the IAF fly over & back home, & say @ a later date that they never got the message?
20 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:07:19 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
25 yards at 2000 miles. That’s impressive!
21 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:09:24 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
More like: Israel *will* use nukes on Iran, no matter what the jive turkey lying wussie boy Obama and the DemoBackstbbers say/threaten.
22 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Its the President of the USA’s job to make SURE something like this does not have to happen.
The punk in the oval office is going to get one hell of allot of people killed because of his fanatic hold on his ideological ideas about justice.
All of this will be on HIS hands and will be HIS fault.
23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = suitcase nuke (really more like backpack nuke).
Davy Crocket was an exmple of these.
I was a Redleg in the Army and we mocked up with these as late as the 1980s (even though we were told we had no such weapons in our inventory). I really don't see them being all that useful on the ground.
They do create a massive horizontal wave of devastation, though, which, IMHO, would be a really easy way to USA destroy carrier groups from a bit of a distance, especially with a supersonic cruise missle, as the wave would utterly destroy shops in its path.
If China has not developed tactical nukes to blow apart our carrier groups, my name is Barack Hussein Yourmamma.
24 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:15 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
They know, like Britain now knows, like most of the world now knows, as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge..The U.S.of A, cannot be trusted. In either their promises, or their threats.
25 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:55 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR
Maybe.
I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.
26 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:08 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = Small Atomic Demolition Munition....misrepresented in the media as a "suitcase/backpack" nuke. W54 warhead, sub-kiloton yield.
Neutron weapons are nuclear weapons specifically designed with enhanced radiations to release more energy via radiation, rather than pure explosive (force) power. They are very small yield, no more than 5kt, that have limited (although powerful compared to conventional explositions) blast/thermo effects, but NOTHING in comparison to the damaging neutron flux.
For example. If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb behind the USSC building in Washington DC, the USSC building would sustain alot of damage, whilst the Capitol would have only broken windows.....but people would drop dead (some after several hours) all the way to the Washington Monument, with 100 percent immediate incapacitation and death within the Capitol complex due to fatal radiation doses.
In essence....it is more effective killing people than damaging buildings.
It was created during the cold war in case NATO had to use nukes in their own countri(es) in order to stop the 50,000 Soviet tanks. Kill the crews...spare the towns.
Hope that helps.
27 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:12 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Iranians have already proven they're incapable of self examination - a common flaw in counties that suppress women.
They'll nuke Israel when they can under the excuse that Israel is causing all the problems in the region. The truth is that Muslims are always at war with everyone - war and death are intertwined within the religion.
If Israel ceased to exist Iran would find a new group to hate and destroy - and if that group was destroyed they would find another. And another - and another...
28 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:55 PM by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?area=dam&lang=eng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If they can’t get conventional bunker busters, who knows what they would do?
29 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:31 PM by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: maquiladora; hennie pennie; SunkenCiv; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
ping
30 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:34 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
I know...just wishful thinking on my part.
31 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:23:08 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR
I'm thinking that nuking Tehran is not necessary and would make for a very ugly situation. I would decapitate the mullahs and the other leaders and then nuke the nuke sites.
I'm not a general but I did once own General tires.
32 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:32 PM by Drill Thrawl (Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: Genoa; brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?
It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
The story came out earlier this week that the US has reneged on a deal to sell Israel 367 bunker buster bombs and has diverted them to our Indian Ocean stealth bomber staging base at Diego Garcia. In addition, hundreds more bunker busters are being shipped there from the US West Coast depots.
These bunker busters can just as easily be used to destroy Israel's hardened missile silos and command and control facilities as they could have Iran's. A pre-emptive attack against Israel would be entirely logical based on the demonstrated pattern of behavior of the Obama regime.
33 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:43 PM by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike,
Most of Israel's (supposed) nukes are at three facilities.....x1 naval base, x1 air base, x1 Jericho missile complex.
They use TEL launchers and mostly liquid fuelled missiles. They do not have hardened (+300psi) silos like we do. They store their IRBMS in horizontal caves which they have to extract the missile, download data (based on current satellite info), and fuel the missile, which takes up to half a day to complete.
Israel cannot and can NEVER be allowed to "absorb" a first strike. Even a crude nuke on a SCUD over their airbase or naval munitions complex at Eliat will negate about 1/3-1/2 of their nuclear weapons....which would be the end of Israel. Israel has proven time and time again, that they will strike first in order to gurantee their survival. Nuclear weapons are simply big explosives with some negative residual effects.
Remember, we exploded damn near 1000 nukes in, under, and above the United States, and the two (2) cities that have acutally been "nuked" are thriving metropolises today....in fact, I've know people in my local Koi club that buy Nagasaki raised Koi with pre-1945 lineages.....and guess what....they aren't mutants!
34 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:27:10 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike....
I don't think so. Israel is such a small nation it effectively IS a "one nuke" KZ. It would only take one nuclear weapon to effectively wipe out the majority of infrastructure and allow an easy land invasion and subsequent second Holocaust. What's their motto? "NEVER AGAIN!!! They won't take such a risk. Morals? That word and nuclear combat are mutually exclusive. As far as Israel is concerned, this fight is for their race. That means there are no options "off the table." Including a first strike with a tactical nuke. I would argue that they are fully justified in any military solution invloving Iran and if the rest of the world really wanted to forestall such an action they could have got up off the DIME and done something serious about Iran when it could have made a difference.
35 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:29:00 PM by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat
I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
God help us if you're right.
36 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:48 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Israel is way beyond worrying about political hazard, they are in this for their existence and inaction by the US has left them with few options.
37 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:52 PM by pb929
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.
Israel is in a tough spot?
The U.S. and Israel are BOTH in a tough spot.
George W. Bush dropped the ball on many issues but the dropped ball with the most tragic future consequences may turn out to be his failure to strike Iran's nuclear program before Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Three weeks of U.S. Shock & Awe prior to Obama's inauguration and we would not now have the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear-armed ICBM's before the next Republican becomes Commander-in-Chief.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".
38 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:24 PM by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb
Oops....meant 0.1 kt.
Most Neutron weapons were sub-kiloton,usually a mine, controlled demo charge, or artillery shell.
39 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:33 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
To: Polybius
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".
Damn good point. Bears repeating, and why Iran MUST NEVER have a nuclear weapon.
40 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:40:46 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.
I'm sure the IDF has enough nukes in their inventory to deal with those other 'fronts' if need be. Remember that while Israel's Arab neighbors will scream bloody murder if Netanyahu drops nukes on Iran, the only ones who will mean it will be Syria and their sockpuppet Lebanon. The Russians MIGHT get involved, only because it will be their client who will have smoking craters where those nuke facilities and their vaunted air defense installations used to be.
If hostilities are inevitable, it is best to strike first and trust Providence.
41 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:46:53 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.
I don’t know, if I don’t have a nuke, and israel just proved it not only has them, but is willing to use them, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to pick a fight witht them.
42 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:05 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat; All
It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.
I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.
And that is no threat, that is a statement of what will likely happen.
If the Dear Comrade is stupid enough to overreach like that, he will reap the consequences as no one has ever seen or imagined in American history.
Take that to the bank.
43 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:25 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
Israel is prepared to endure a first strike
I submit that you do not know the mind of Bibi Netanyahu.
44 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:09 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
I hope we’re out of Iraq before they start tossing those things.
45 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:12 PM by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
“no moral nation will use nukes preemptively”
We’ve done it, TWICE! I consider myself to be a moral man, if I believe you are a serious threat to my family, and I have no other choice. I would strike first. I would not wait until you killed a loved one to respond.
I for one would not be at all suprised if Israel struck first.
46 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57:29 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
Maybe.
I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.
Could you repeat that. It was garbled.
47 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:00:19 AM by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian; ChrisInAR
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.
The NK's reportedly zapped a South Korean frigate with a torpedo today -- potentially 100 lives lost on the SK side. If a second Korean War were to kick off then Israel has a window of opportuntity to deal with Iran.
48 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:04:51 AM by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
If we don’t support an Israeli mission that involves conventional weapons, it will likely fail. Given the current administration’s abject hatred of Israel, that support looks less likely by the day. That sort of leaves Israel with no options except tactical nukes. They positively cannot allow Iran to get the Bomb, because Ahmadinejad will use it. He believes fervently that he has been chosen to usher in the Islamic messiah by annihilating Christians and Jews. He’s not pursuing nukes to increase Iran’s stature in the world; he’s pursing them to use them. Israel knows this.
As for the world reaction, Israel will stand totally alone, without U.S. backing for the first time since her rebirth in 1948. And I believe the result will be an attack on Israel prophesied in Psalm 83, Obadiah, and Isaiah 17. Israel will win the war and take back more of the promised land, but it will come at heavy cost. She will be weakened, alone, vulnerable. I believe this sets up the War of Gog and Magog, prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39. A massive invasion of Israel will fail when God intervenes directly.
We live in interesting, if painful, times.
MM
49 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:08:52 AM by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: mkjessup; All
I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.
You're simply, tragically, wrong. The upper levels of the US military chain of command are hopelessly politicized, and will obey whatever commands they are give. They have demonstrated, repeatedly in recent years, that their career viability is their most important priority.
At the operational level, plans and commands can be, and in fact are, compartmentalized, and the individual units will not have the big picture. Some individuals might refuse the orders, but not enough to matter.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sec. Napolitano says airport full-body scanners 'do not see everything'
By Sean J. Miller - 03/26/10 06:14 AM ET
PHOENIX, Ariz. – Privacy concerns shouldn’t hinder the rapid deployment of controversial full-body scanners at American airports, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Thursday.
“Some have expressed concerns about these [advanced imaging technology] machines – that they infringe upon privacy,” Napolitano told students and faculty at Arizona State University. “But suffice it to say, many of those worries have been spurred by the continued publication of photos that were taken using older versions of the technology, not the technology that’s actually being deployed today.”
Critics of the machines have said they amount to a technological strip-search.
Napolitano insisted that her department does take privacy concerns “into account.” The Transportation Security Administration officer reading the image is now separated from the person being scanned, Napolitano said. “And I can confirm, no, the [scanning] machines do not see everything.”
She said the machines would be able to prevent the kind of attack organized on Christmas Day last year, when a Nigerian man wearing explosives in his underwear was able to board a Detroit-bound flight in Amsterdam.
The scanning machines "are an objective improvement in our ability to detect the kind of explosive used in the Christmas Day attack as well as other dangerous powders, liquids and gels that would not set off a medal detector,” she said. “And that is why we are accelerating their deployment to our domestic airports.”
Napolitano acknowledged that intruding on air travelers’ privacy could be interpreted as a propaganda victory for terrorists. Still, she said preventing another attack was the highest priority.
“We know that in times of war it’s been common place for the rights of Americans to be limited,” she said, noting history has harshly judged such measures. “But in a time of new and changing threats, we have to revise our traditional paradigms of how we think about rights and security.”
Liberty and security are not “opposing values,” she said. “You can not live freely if you live in fear."
ASU President Michael Crow introduced Napolitano, who was speaking as part of an annual lecture series, as an “architect of social change.”
A small group protested outside the theatre where Napolitano gave her address. They were speaking out against workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480250/posts
FAIL
1 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 8:56:27 PM by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Ugh. In her case that should be a relief.
Thanks Janet, for again letting our enemies know where the soft spots are.
2 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:00:31 PM by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Let's pray Sec. Napolitano does not release a photo of herself demonstrating what the new full-body scanners show. And I use the term “full body” advisedly.
3 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:08 PM by dblshot (Insanity - electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Not that I would want to see the image, but I think that the Secretary should alleviate our fears by being a public guinea pig and displaying exactly how much of our privacy is invaded, If she is willing to have her image publicly displayed with her name attached, only then will I believe her.
4 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:33 PM by madinmadtown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Her corncob remained hidden?
5 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:44 PM by LRS (Just contracts; just laws; just a constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
...SHE'S RIGHT,WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH HER
6 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:08 PM by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.
7 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:51 PM by indylindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
“We know that in times of war it’s been common place for the rights of Americans to be limited,” she said, noting history has harshly judged such measures. “But in a time of new and changing threats, we have to revise our traditional paradigms of how we think about rights and security.”
Liberty and security are not “opposing values,” she said. “You can not live freely if you live in fear."
What kind of Orwellian doublethink is this broad saying here?
8 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:51 PM by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Too bad we don’t have a mandatory intelligence and motive brain scan for her and the rest of the dumb asses in DC.
9 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:11 PM by WestCoastGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
If these new scanners provide a greater level of security and are monitored outside of the line of people going through security checks, then I say bring it on. Subject everybody including witless wonders like Napolitano to the same security procedures whenever they fly. I hope it actually sees everything as that would make me feel even safer and all flying would be safer.
Nothing to hide, like this administration.
10 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:22 PM by kevinm13 (Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. Manmade "Global Warming" is a HOAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SueRae
Seems to me that the “area of privacy” just happened to coincide with where the underwear bomber was wearing his bomb....
11 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:26 PM by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Specifically, they don’t see “intent.” We need to adopt the Israeli model.
12 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:05:37 PM by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
I guess it depends on your definition of "everything."
13 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:06:56 PM by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: kevinm13
My sister had to go through one, last time she took a plane trip. We decided the reason they have people viewing the scans from another room is to muffle the laughter. /sarcasm
14 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:08:05 PM by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: indylindy
“I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.”
While it may be nauseating to contemplate, the truth is that her assertions would carry far more weight were she to do just that. If they really don’t show anything that should concern everyday citizens, she should have no objections to volunteering to prove this in black and white, so to speak. Any inhibition on her part to provide such proof merely contradicts her claim: actions speak louder than words, etc.
15 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:15:05 PM by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Hey Nap, “YOU LIE”
16 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:16:48 PM by NeoCaveman ("workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore" SEIU's Andy Stern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Malsua
What war is she speaking of? She and her boss have both said there is not war on terror going on.
17 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:18:28 PM by hometoroost (Proverbs 8:36 - All those who hate me love death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dblshot
Let's pray Sec. Napolitano does not release a photo of herself demonstrating what the new full-body scanners show. And I use the term “full body” advisedly.
It takes two trips.
18 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:19:29 PM by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dawn53
OK ... so you're traveling to a vacation resort with the family, including your 9 or 15 year old daughter ...
19 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:19:39 PM by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
So what kind of marker can one use to write on your body so that it is reflected back to the security screener? One could write “HI” or draw a smiley face or ....
Of course it could not be an indelible marker.
20 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:21:17 PM by finish9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Janet, please publicly demonstrate your assurances of privacy by personally stepping into the machine
Let’s see if we can make out your bits
21 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:33:22 PM by silverleaf (Karl Marx was NOT one of America's Founding Fathers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
So, Madam Secretary, just as a sign of good faith, let’s round up all of the sex offenders within 50 miles of your home and then let you demonstrate this machine in front of them. We’ll be sure to tell them that no one will hurt them if they choose to comment on what they see.
22 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:40:06 PM by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts soooo good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
The resolution on the pictures from these scanners is muted when reported in the news. The pervs and pedophiles must be lining up for these TSA jobs.
23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:59:51 PM by SlaveNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Next up is a DSDF policy.
24 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:05:17 PM by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: silverleaf; All
Janet likes the Mexican approach of using Military resources to fight gangs (In other words, civilians rounded up by the military on their own soil)
25 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:06:29 PM by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dawn53
In 2006 two female Chechen suicide bombers blew up a pair of Russian passenger planes within minutes of each other.Semtex in bra cups.
26 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:18:36 PM by shanover (Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SlaveNoMore
Bad girl. You need a spanking.....
27 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:06 PM by scoobysnak71 (I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SlaveNoMore
IIRC that one is fake
28 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:06 PM by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Truth is a Weapon
Didn't Sony recall the First Night Shots because they functions as a body scanner? I saw an article on how this was was done. He demonstrated with a picture of a maniac and there were privacy concerns. it could also read documents blacked out with a magic marker.
barbra ann
29 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:36 PM by barb-tex (Obama Care ls spending part of the Half trillion on Logans Merry-Go-Round)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: barb-tex
>”Didn’t Sony recall the First Night Shots because they functions as a body scanner?”
I remember that. I also remember hating myself for waiting too long to buy one! Seems like by the time word got out, they had already pulled them from the shelves. Too bad. lol
30 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:29:54 PM by scoobysnak71 (I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: indylindy
I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.
I wish she would (goose/gander thingy). The headline photo on the Drudge Report would be priceless!
31 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:49:38 PM by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: OCC
Priceless and very very ugly. well...at least her face would be missing
PHOENIX, Ariz. – Privacy concerns shouldn’t hinder the rapid deployment of controversial full-body scanners at American airports, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Thursday.
“Some have expressed concerns about these [advanced imaging technology] machines – that they infringe upon privacy,” Napolitano told students and faculty at Arizona State University. “But suffice it to say, many of those worries have been spurred by the continued publication of photos that were taken using older versions of the technology, not the technology that’s actually being deployed today.”
Critics of the machines have said they amount to a technological strip-search.
Napolitano insisted that her department does take privacy concerns “into account.” The Transportation Security Administration officer reading the image is now separated from the person being scanned, Napolitano said. “And I can confirm, no, the [scanning] machines do not see everything.”
She said the machines would be able to prevent the kind of attack organized on Christmas Day last year, when a Nigerian man wearing explosives in his underwear was able to board a Detroit-bound flight in Amsterdam.
The scanning machines "are an objective improvement in our ability to detect the kind of explosive used in the Christmas Day attack as well as other dangerous powders, liquids and gels that would not set off a medal detector,” she said. “And that is why we are accelerating their deployment to our domestic airports.”
Napolitano acknowledged that intruding on air travelers’ privacy could be interpreted as a propaganda victory for terrorists. Still, she said preventing another attack was the highest priority.
“We know that in times of war it’s been common place for the rights of Americans to be limited,” she said, noting history has harshly judged such measures. “But in a time of new and changing threats, we have to revise our traditional paradigms of how we think about rights and security.”
Liberty and security are not “opposing values,” she said. “You can not live freely if you live in fear."
ASU President Michael Crow introduced Napolitano, who was speaking as part of an annual lecture series, as an “architect of social change.”
A small group protested outside the theatre where Napolitano gave her address. They were speaking out against workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480250/posts
FAIL
1 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 8:56:27 PM by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Ugh. In her case that should be a relief.
Thanks Janet, for again letting our enemies know where the soft spots are.
2 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:00:31 PM by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Let's pray Sec. Napolitano does not release a photo of herself demonstrating what the new full-body scanners show. And I use the term “full body” advisedly.
3 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:08 PM by dblshot (Insanity - electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Not that I would want to see the image, but I think that the Secretary should alleviate our fears by being a public guinea pig and displaying exactly how much of our privacy is invaded, If she is willing to have her image publicly displayed with her name attached, only then will I believe her.
4 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:33 PM by madinmadtown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Her corncob remained hidden?
5 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:01:44 PM by LRS (Just contracts; just laws; just a constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
...SHE'S RIGHT,WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH HER
6 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:08 PM by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.
7 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:51 PM by indylindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
“We know that in times of war it’s been common place for the rights of Americans to be limited,” she said, noting history has harshly judged such measures. “But in a time of new and changing threats, we have to revise our traditional paradigms of how we think about rights and security.”
Liberty and security are not “opposing values,” she said. “You can not live freely if you live in fear."
What kind of Orwellian doublethink is this broad saying here?
8 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:02:51 PM by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Too bad we don’t have a mandatory intelligence and motive brain scan for her and the rest of the dumb asses in DC.
9 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:11 PM by WestCoastGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
If these new scanners provide a greater level of security and are monitored outside of the line of people going through security checks, then I say bring it on. Subject everybody including witless wonders like Napolitano to the same security procedures whenever they fly. I hope it actually sees everything as that would make me feel even safer and all flying would be safer.
Nothing to hide, like this administration.
10 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:22 PM by kevinm13 (Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. Manmade "Global Warming" is a HOAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SueRae
Seems to me that the “area of privacy” just happened to coincide with where the underwear bomber was wearing his bomb....
11 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:03:26 PM by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Specifically, they don’t see “intent.” We need to adopt the Israeli model.
12 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:05:37 PM by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
I guess it depends on your definition of "everything."
13 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:06:56 PM by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: kevinm13
My sister had to go through one, last time she took a plane trip. We decided the reason they have people viewing the scans from another room is to muffle the laughter. /sarcasm
14 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:08:05 PM by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: indylindy
“I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.”
While it may be nauseating to contemplate, the truth is that her assertions would carry far more weight were she to do just that. If they really don’t show anything that should concern everyday citizens, she should have no objections to volunteering to prove this in black and white, so to speak. Any inhibition on her part to provide such proof merely contradicts her claim: actions speak louder than words, etc.
15 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:15:05 PM by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Hey Nap, “YOU LIE”
16 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:16:48 PM by NeoCaveman ("workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore" SEIU's Andy Stern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Malsua
What war is she speaking of? She and her boss have both said there is not war on terror going on.
17 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:18:28 PM by hometoroost (Proverbs 8:36 - All those who hate me love death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dblshot
Let's pray Sec. Napolitano does not release a photo of herself demonstrating what the new full-body scanners show. And I use the term “full body” advisedly.
It takes two trips.
18 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:19:29 PM by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dawn53
OK ... so you're traveling to a vacation resort with the family, including your 9 or 15 year old daughter ...
19 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:19:39 PM by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
So what kind of marker can one use to write on your body so that it is reflected back to the security screener? One could write “HI” or draw a smiley face or ....
Of course it could not be an indelible marker.
20 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:21:17 PM by finish9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Janet, please publicly demonstrate your assurances of privacy by personally stepping into the machine
Let’s see if we can make out your bits
21 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:33:22 PM by silverleaf (Karl Marx was NOT one of America's Founding Fathers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
So, Madam Secretary, just as a sign of good faith, let’s round up all of the sex offenders within 50 miles of your home and then let you demonstrate this machine in front of them. We’ll be sure to tell them that no one will hurt them if they choose to comment on what they see.
22 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:40:06 PM by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts soooo good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
The resolution on the pictures from these scanners is muted when reported in the news. The pervs and pedophiles must be lining up for these TSA jobs.
23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:59:51 PM by SlaveNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Sub-Driver
Next up is a DSDF policy.
24 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:05:17 PM by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: silverleaf; All
Janet likes the Mexican approach of using Military resources to fight gangs (In other words, civilians rounded up by the military on their own soil)
25 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:06:29 PM by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: dawn53
In 2006 two female Chechen suicide bombers blew up a pair of Russian passenger planes within minutes of each other.Semtex in bra cups.
26 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:18:36 PM by shanover (Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SlaveNoMore
Bad girl. You need a spanking.....
27 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:06 PM by scoobysnak71 (I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SlaveNoMore
IIRC that one is fake
28 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:06 PM by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Truth is a Weapon
Didn't Sony recall the First Night Shots because they functions as a body scanner? I saw an article on how this was was done. He demonstrated with a picture of a maniac and there were privacy concerns. it could also read documents blacked out with a magic marker.
barbra ann
29 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:24:36 PM by barb-tex (Obama Care ls spending part of the Half trillion on Logans Merry-Go-Round)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: barb-tex
>”Didn’t Sony recall the First Night Shots because they functions as a body scanner?”
I remember that. I also remember hating myself for waiting too long to buy one! Seems like by the time word got out, they had already pulled them from the shelves. Too bad. lol
30 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:29:54 PM by scoobysnak71 (I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: indylindy
I sure hope she doesn’t step in front of one of these scanners to prove it.
I wish she would (goose/gander thingy). The headline photo on the Drudge Report would be priceless!
31 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:49:38 PM by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: OCC
Priceless and very very ugly. well...at least her face would be missing
Monogamy bores me terribly
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7416327/Monogamy-bores-me-terribly.html
The two Parisians I rang for a gossip were dismissive. In my salacious, British way I was itching to discuss the rumours that Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy are both having affairs – she with heart-throb singer Benjamin Biolay, he with his stylish ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno. The possibility that their marriage could be over, just two years after the president made the Italian supermodel-cum-chanteuse his First Lady, has all the ingredients of a thrilling yarn – sex, power, glamour – but my French confidantes were not amused.
“The French think nothing of it,” said Agnes Poirier, a French writer. “It is only a rumour. It is a matter of privacy, and they can do what they want because it has nothing to do with politics. Because you cheat on your wife, it does not mean you will cheat on your country. That’s the common opinion over here.”
Crushed, I rang Lucy Wadham, British-born author of The Secret Life of France, based on 20 years’ experience on the other side of the Channel. As a newly-wed, she describes being shocked when frequently propositioned for a spot of cinq à sept by her now ex-husband’s friends. I felt sure she would enjoy chewing over the juicy details of the alleged Sarkozy indiscretions, not least the newspaper report that, a few weeks ago, Carla nipped off to Thailand with the singer and Sarko sent a private plane to bring her back.
Not a bit of it. “It’s a telling sign that I’ve gone native,” she said apologetically, “but these rumours were circulating in Paris two months ago. 'Do you know they have separated?’ people were saying, but I didn’t want to gossip about it because I believe, like the French, that people’s love lives – their jardins secrets – aren’t news.”
Even the French newspapers, long controlled by strict privacy laws, almost seem to believe that. On Sunday Le Journal du Dimanche broke with tradition and ran a story about the tweets that revealed the Sarkozys’ alleged infidelities; the following morning the article was removed from the website. Since then, pas un mot has been written in the French press. Online, it’s a different story and, happily for us unreconstructed Anglo-Saxon lovers of tittle-tattle, Carla Bruni gave an interview to Sky News, which aired last night, in which she said that: “[My husband] would never have an affair.”
Before the rumours started to circulate, that might have been taken as a sign of the seriousness of their vows to one another, despite her unwillingness in that interview to say whether marriage was “for ever”. Now it looks like a carefully judged thrust in a game of one-upmanship, meaning that any rumours her husband might circulate of his own indiscretions are an attempt not to appear the hapless cuckold. She, Carla, was the free spirit breaking away from the dreary protocol at the Elysée Palace, not to mention the need to wear flat shoes next to her diminutive, Cuban-heeled spouse.
We’ve always known the French are different to us, but it takes a story like this to demonstrate that the cultural gap is far wider than the 21 miles of water that separate us. In this country, David Blunkett ended up resigning as Home Secretary following his affair with Kimberly Quinn, a married woman for whose nanny Home Office officials were alleged to have fast-tracked a visa; Blunkett denied any involvement in the fast-tracking. To the French, it is acceptable for culture minister Frédéric Mitterrand to admit to sex holidays in Thailand, and keep his job.
Here, John Terry and Ashley Cole are subject to “love-rat” headlines for their away matches; in France, nothing a president, let alone a footballer, does is shocking. When staff revealed that former President Jacques Chirac’s many casual encounters were so brief that they took, according to staff, “three minutes, including a shower”, it enhanced his virility.
No one will be surprised if the Sarko/Bruni marriage turns out not to be built on rock. Both had previously displayed romantic ruthlessness – her former lovers include the father of the man
whose son she gave birth to, while Sarkozy’s courtship of Cecilia, his last wife, began when, as mayor of Neuilly, he married her to her previous husband. Nor was their relationship pretested before the wedding. Lonely, newly divorced Sarkozy married Bruni in February 2008, just four months after they met. Expectations of fidelity were always slight with a woman who, before her marriage, told an interviewer: “Monogamy bores me terribly.”
Delicious though the details may be, faced with French disapproval it now seems terribly unsophisticated to dwell on them. What is more, our gleeful delight in the fragility of others’ relationships may harm our own chances of happiness in marriage. As Poirier says: “If you are married, you swear fidelity, but it is not the end of the world if you have a few hiccups.” It is certainly hard to disagree when Wadham says that cultural context makes infidelity easier to bear in France because: “If you aren’t stigmatised by society for straying, it can’t hurt as much.”
We in the judgmental anglophone world may need to reappraise our attitudes to fidelity now that we are living longer and vows have to cover as much as half a century. Convenient mythologising of monogamy in nature have recently been exploded. Even swans, once believed to be models of fidelity, have been found to carry on outside the nest, even though they return to their partners.
Therapists increasingly believe that infidelity should not be condemned so much as analysed and discussed. Esther Perel, a New York counsellor, has led the way with her influential book Mating in Captivity, in which she advocates a more rational – indeed French – attitude to increase the chances of a happy marriage. Extra-marital affairs, she says, are a way for individuals to explore themselves and to revitalise a stale sex life. “Jealousy makes us value the other person.”
“That sounds like an excuse,” says clinical psychologist Roy Shuttleworth, whose own theory of infidelity is that couples stray because they need to maintain a distance from one another – essential for coping with the possibility of loss. He tells the story of a bride and groom who were unfaithful on the eve of their wedding – she with the best man, he with the bridesmaid – because they were about to become so close; subconsciously, they needed distance, or so the theory goes. It goes some way to explaining why many men stray when their wives are pregnant: “They know that the baby will bring them closer as a couple.”
Janice Hiller, also a clinical psychologist, takes a different view: “Feelings of abandonment or neglect lead people to stray. If society was more tolerant, it would be easier for couples to explore how that came about.”
Maybe, but straying is hardly recommended. However deep-seated the impulse, or universal the experience of being attracted to someone other than a spouse, infidelity causes great pain. Most people still see monogamy as the ideal. “We want someone special to us,” says Kate Figes, author of Couples. “Some people cope by making rules about what is and isn’t allowed. But with any sexual experience, there is the risk that you will become attached. 'Why do I need it?’ people should ask themselves. There must be something lacking.”
Nevertheless, even Paula Hall, spokesperson for Relate, believes there is something to be said for the French view of fidelity as desirable, but not always achievable. It may even be true that, according to Pamela Druckerman’s research for her book Lust in Translation, the French are actually less unfaithful than the British because they are more realistic about the difficulty of remaining faithful, especially when far from home. No French person would ever make a snivelling public apology like that of Tiger Woods. Not, at least, for straying.
To the French, the worst thing about the Sarko/Bruni rumours is that the couple have exposed themselves to ridicule, firstly by being so public about their private life and now by generating the scandalous stories that are racing around the internet. Discretion might be all. Gossip, though Anglo-Saxon, is hugely enjoyable.
The two Parisians I rang for a gossip were dismissive. In my salacious, British way I was itching to discuss the rumours that Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy are both having affairs – she with heart-throb singer Benjamin Biolay, he with his stylish ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno. The possibility that their marriage could be over, just two years after the president made the Italian supermodel-cum-chanteuse his First Lady, has all the ingredients of a thrilling yarn – sex, power, glamour – but my French confidantes were not amused.
“The French think nothing of it,” said Agnes Poirier, a French writer. “It is only a rumour. It is a matter of privacy, and they can do what they want because it has nothing to do with politics. Because you cheat on your wife, it does not mean you will cheat on your country. That’s the common opinion over here.”
Crushed, I rang Lucy Wadham, British-born author of The Secret Life of France, based on 20 years’ experience on the other side of the Channel. As a newly-wed, she describes being shocked when frequently propositioned for a spot of cinq à sept by her now ex-husband’s friends. I felt sure she would enjoy chewing over the juicy details of the alleged Sarkozy indiscretions, not least the newspaper report that, a few weeks ago, Carla nipped off to Thailand with the singer and Sarko sent a private plane to bring her back.
Not a bit of it. “It’s a telling sign that I’ve gone native,” she said apologetically, “but these rumours were circulating in Paris two months ago. 'Do you know they have separated?’ people were saying, but I didn’t want to gossip about it because I believe, like the French, that people’s love lives – their jardins secrets – aren’t news.”
Even the French newspapers, long controlled by strict privacy laws, almost seem to believe that. On Sunday Le Journal du Dimanche broke with tradition and ran a story about the tweets that revealed the Sarkozys’ alleged infidelities; the following morning the article was removed from the website. Since then, pas un mot has been written in the French press. Online, it’s a different story and, happily for us unreconstructed Anglo-Saxon lovers of tittle-tattle, Carla Bruni gave an interview to Sky News, which aired last night, in which she said that: “[My husband] would never have an affair.”
Before the rumours started to circulate, that might have been taken as a sign of the seriousness of their vows to one another, despite her unwillingness in that interview to say whether marriage was “for ever”. Now it looks like a carefully judged thrust in a game of one-upmanship, meaning that any rumours her husband might circulate of his own indiscretions are an attempt not to appear the hapless cuckold. She, Carla, was the free spirit breaking away from the dreary protocol at the Elysée Palace, not to mention the need to wear flat shoes next to her diminutive, Cuban-heeled spouse.
We’ve always known the French are different to us, but it takes a story like this to demonstrate that the cultural gap is far wider than the 21 miles of water that separate us. In this country, David Blunkett ended up resigning as Home Secretary following his affair with Kimberly Quinn, a married woman for whose nanny Home Office officials were alleged to have fast-tracked a visa; Blunkett denied any involvement in the fast-tracking. To the French, it is acceptable for culture minister Frédéric Mitterrand to admit to sex holidays in Thailand, and keep his job.
Here, John Terry and Ashley Cole are subject to “love-rat” headlines for their away matches; in France, nothing a president, let alone a footballer, does is shocking. When staff revealed that former President Jacques Chirac’s many casual encounters were so brief that they took, according to staff, “three minutes, including a shower”, it enhanced his virility.
No one will be surprised if the Sarko/Bruni marriage turns out not to be built on rock. Both had previously displayed romantic ruthlessness – her former lovers include the father of the man
whose son she gave birth to, while Sarkozy’s courtship of Cecilia, his last wife, began when, as mayor of Neuilly, he married her to her previous husband. Nor was their relationship pretested before the wedding. Lonely, newly divorced Sarkozy married Bruni in February 2008, just four months after they met. Expectations of fidelity were always slight with a woman who, before her marriage, told an interviewer: “Monogamy bores me terribly.”
Delicious though the details may be, faced with French disapproval it now seems terribly unsophisticated to dwell on them. What is more, our gleeful delight in the fragility of others’ relationships may harm our own chances of happiness in marriage. As Poirier says: “If you are married, you swear fidelity, but it is not the end of the world if you have a few hiccups.” It is certainly hard to disagree when Wadham says that cultural context makes infidelity easier to bear in France because: “If you aren’t stigmatised by society for straying, it can’t hurt as much.”
We in the judgmental anglophone world may need to reappraise our attitudes to fidelity now that we are living longer and vows have to cover as much as half a century. Convenient mythologising of monogamy in nature have recently been exploded. Even swans, once believed to be models of fidelity, have been found to carry on outside the nest, even though they return to their partners.
Therapists increasingly believe that infidelity should not be condemned so much as analysed and discussed. Esther Perel, a New York counsellor, has led the way with her influential book Mating in Captivity, in which she advocates a more rational – indeed French – attitude to increase the chances of a happy marriage. Extra-marital affairs, she says, are a way for individuals to explore themselves and to revitalise a stale sex life. “Jealousy makes us value the other person.”
“That sounds like an excuse,” says clinical psychologist Roy Shuttleworth, whose own theory of infidelity is that couples stray because they need to maintain a distance from one another – essential for coping with the possibility of loss. He tells the story of a bride and groom who were unfaithful on the eve of their wedding – she with the best man, he with the bridesmaid – because they were about to become so close; subconsciously, they needed distance, or so the theory goes. It goes some way to explaining why many men stray when their wives are pregnant: “They know that the baby will bring them closer as a couple.”
Janice Hiller, also a clinical psychologist, takes a different view: “Feelings of abandonment or neglect lead people to stray. If society was more tolerant, it would be easier for couples to explore how that came about.”
Maybe, but straying is hardly recommended. However deep-seated the impulse, or universal the experience of being attracted to someone other than a spouse, infidelity causes great pain. Most people still see monogamy as the ideal. “We want someone special to us,” says Kate Figes, author of Couples. “Some people cope by making rules about what is and isn’t allowed. But with any sexual experience, there is the risk that you will become attached. 'Why do I need it?’ people should ask themselves. There must be something lacking.”
Nevertheless, even Paula Hall, spokesperson for Relate, believes there is something to be said for the French view of fidelity as desirable, but not always achievable. It may even be true that, according to Pamela Druckerman’s research for her book Lust in Translation, the French are actually less unfaithful than the British because they are more realistic about the difficulty of remaining faithful, especially when far from home. No French person would ever make a snivelling public apology like that of Tiger Woods. Not, at least, for straying.
To the French, the worst thing about the Sarko/Bruni rumours is that the couple have exposed themselves to ridicule, firstly by being so public about their private life and now by generating the scandalous stories that are racing around the internet. Discretion might be all. Gossip, though Anglo-Saxon, is hugely enjoyable.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Gay Dutch soldiers responsible for Srebrenica massacre says US general
telegraph.co.uk ^ | 19 Mar 2010 | Our Foreign Staff
Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:21:52 AM by neverdem
A former American general blamed "open homosexuality" in the Dutch army for the failure to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.
The Dutch government condemned the comments by Gen John Sheehan, a former Nato commander and senior marine officer, as outrageous.
Gen Sheehan made the remarks at a Senate hearing where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military.
Gen Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability."
He said this process included "open homosexuality" which resulted in "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said, referring to the UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them."
Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pressed him to clarify his comments.
"Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" asked an incredulous Levin.
"Yes," Sheehan said and added: "They included that as part of the problem."
Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.
Mr Levin vehemently rejected Sheehan's allegation, saying that drawing a connection between the massacre at Srebrenica and gays in the Dutch military was "totally off-target".
The failure of the Dutch...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; srebrenica
Mitt Romney is now claiming he was never pro-choice. He's a liar:
Romney Truth File
Free Republic's Rino Free America Project
1 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:21:52 AM by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: neverdem
Whether true or not, what a wonderfully un-politically correct thing to say.
Europeans are such group-thinkers and lemmings for control, they become highly agitated when someone doesn’t parrot the socially-accepted dogma.
2 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:25:09 AM by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded, my brains fell out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
>> handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls,
Ugh, handcuffs...
3 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:25:53 AM by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
Retired gen. Sheehan blames Dutch gay soldiers for Srebrenica
4 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:26:50 AM by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
General Sheehan did not blame the massacre on the homosexuals. The Dutch General he was referring to, did.
The Dutch government condemned the comments by Gen John Sheehan, a former Nato commander and senior marine officer, as outrageous.
Gen Sheehan made the remarks at a Senate hearing where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military.
Gen Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability."
He said this process included "open homosexuality" which resulted in "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said, referring to the UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them."
Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pressed him to clarify his comments.
"Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" asked an incredulous Levin.
"Yes," Sheehan said and added: "They included that as part of the problem."
Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.
Mr Levin vehemently rejected Sheehan's allegation, saying that drawing a connection between the massacre at Srebrenica and gays in the Dutch military was "totally off-target".
The failure of the Dutch UN troops to fend off an attack by Bosnian Serb forces had "nothing to do with sexual orientation" but was related to "their training and the rules of engagement," Mr Levin said.
The Dutch government angrily rejected the claim.
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," said Roger van de Wetering, the Dutch defence ministry spokesman. "I have never heard of a single statement by a Dutch political or military leader that drew a link between the fall of the enclave and the fact that there were Dutch homosexual soldiers."
Nearly 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed after Serb forces captured the eastern town on July 11 1995, in the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.
Thursday's hearing included testimony from both sides of the debate over the law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.
Two former US officers who were discharged under the 1993 law appealed to lawmakers to repeal the ban, saying it was preventing qualified Americans from serving the country.
Former air force officer Michael Almy said he had kept his homosexuality secret for years but was forced out after a commander ordered a search of his emails written to friends and family.
"'Don't ask, don't tell' failed me, despite the fact that I upheld my end of this law by never disclosing my private life," Almy said.
He said he believed a younger generation in the military was ready to accept openly gay members in the armed forces.
After his dismissal, when he asked former troops to write letters of reference for him, "it was a complete non-issue for my troops," Almy said.
"The young men and women that are coming into the military today, fresh out of high school or college, have grown up with gay and lesbian characters on TV ... know gays and lesbians in their schools, in their communities, on their sports teams and most assuredly in their military."
Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:21:52 AM by neverdem
A former American general blamed "open homosexuality" in the Dutch army for the failure to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.
The Dutch government condemned the comments by Gen John Sheehan, a former Nato commander and senior marine officer, as outrageous.
Gen Sheehan made the remarks at a Senate hearing where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military.
Gen Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability."
He said this process included "open homosexuality" which resulted in "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said, referring to the UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them."
Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pressed him to clarify his comments.
"Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" asked an incredulous Levin.
"Yes," Sheehan said and added: "They included that as part of the problem."
Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.
Mr Levin vehemently rejected Sheehan's allegation, saying that drawing a connection between the massacre at Srebrenica and gays in the Dutch military was "totally off-target".
The failure of the Dutch...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; srebrenica
Mitt Romney is now claiming he was never pro-choice. He's a liar:
Romney Truth File
Free Republic's Rino Free America Project
1 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:21:52 AM by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: neverdem
Whether true or not, what a wonderfully un-politically correct thing to say.
Europeans are such group-thinkers and lemmings for control, they become highly agitated when someone doesn’t parrot the socially-accepted dogma.
2 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:25:09 AM by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded, my brains fell out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
>> handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls,
Ugh, handcuffs...
3 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:25:53 AM by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
Retired gen. Sheehan blames Dutch gay soldiers for Srebrenica
4 posted on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:26:50 AM by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: neverdem
General Sheehan did not blame the massacre on the homosexuals. The Dutch General he was referring to, did.
The Dutch government condemned the comments by Gen John Sheehan, a former Nato commander and senior marine officer, as outrageous.
Gen Sheehan made the remarks at a Senate hearing where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military.
Gen Sheehan said that after the end of the Cold War, European militaries changed and concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability."
He said this process included "open homosexuality" which resulted in "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back."
"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs," he said, referring to the UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.
"The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone polls, marched the Muslims off and executed them."
Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pressed him to clarify his comments.
"Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" asked an incredulous Levin.
"Yes," Sheehan said and added: "They included that as part of the problem."
Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.
Mr Levin vehemently rejected Sheehan's allegation, saying that drawing a connection between the massacre at Srebrenica and gays in the Dutch military was "totally off-target".
The failure of the Dutch UN troops to fend off an attack by Bosnian Serb forces had "nothing to do with sexual orientation" but was related to "their training and the rules of engagement," Mr Levin said.
The Dutch government angrily rejected the claim.
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," said Roger van de Wetering, the Dutch defence ministry spokesman. "I have never heard of a single statement by a Dutch political or military leader that drew a link between the fall of the enclave and the fact that there were Dutch homosexual soldiers."
Nearly 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed after Serb forces captured the eastern town on July 11 1995, in the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.
Thursday's hearing included testimony from both sides of the debate over the law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.
Two former US officers who were discharged under the 1993 law appealed to lawmakers to repeal the ban, saying it was preventing qualified Americans from serving the country.
Former air force officer Michael Almy said he had kept his homosexuality secret for years but was forced out after a commander ordered a search of his emails written to friends and family.
"'Don't ask, don't tell' failed me, despite the fact that I upheld my end of this law by never disclosing my private life," Almy said.
He said he believed a younger generation in the military was ready to accept openly gay members in the armed forces.
After his dismissal, when he asked former troops to write letters of reference for him, "it was a complete non-issue for my troops," Almy said.
"The young men and women that are coming into the military today, fresh out of high school or college, have grown up with gay and lesbian characters on TV ... know gays and lesbians in their schools, in their communities, on their sports teams and most assuredly in their military."
Friday, March 19, 2010
Blair's fight to keep his oil cash secret: Former PM's deals are revealed as his earnings since 2007 reach £20million Read more: http://www.dailymail
By Jason Groves
Last updated at 10:53 PM on 18th March 2010
* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories
Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.
The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.
Mr Blair - who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 - also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq's neighbour Kuwait.
In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.
Money Money Money graphic
News of the secret deals fuelled fresh accusations that Mr Blair is 'cashing in on his contacts' from the controversial Iraq war in what one MP called 'revolving door politics at its worst'.
They will increase concerns that Mr Blair is using his role as the West's Middle East envoy for personal gain.
The revelations also shed fresh light on his astonishing earnings, which include lucrative after-dinner speaking, consultancies with banks and foreign governments, a generous advance for his forthcoming memoirs, as well as the pension and other perks he enjoys as a former Prime Minister.
The full extent of his income is cloaked in secrecy because he has constructed a complex web of shadowy companies and partnerships which let him avoid publishing full accounts detailing all the money from his commercial ventures.
Tony Blair cartoon
Critics also point out that a large proportion of his earnings comes from patrons in America and the Middle East - a clear benefit from forging a close alliance with George Bush during his invasion of Iraq.
Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair's links to UI Energy Corporation: 'This doesn't just look bad, it stinks.
'It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.
'Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.
'This is revolving door politics at its worst. It's not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.
'I'm afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It's no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive - we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.'
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: 'These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale - he is driven by making as much money as possible.
'I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.'
The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq's oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.
Mr Blair's fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.
Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was 'market sensitive' and could not be made public.
The committee agreed to suspend its normal practice and keep the deals secret for three months. Mr Blair then asked for a further extension.
When this ran out last year the committee repeatedly 'chased' Mr Blair about the issue without hearing anything. Eventually the committee's chairman, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Lang, reviewed the papers and ordered the deal to be made public, along with a separate deal with Kuwait which had been kept secret at the request of the Kuwaiti government.
Iraq Probe appearance graphic
The decision to keep the deals secret will fuel concerns about the effectiveness of the committee, which has been repeatedly criticised for its failure to halt the revolving door between politics and industry.
The committee is supposed to ease public concerns about former public servants using their contacts for private gain.
Ministers have to have all jobs vetted within two years of leaving office. But the committee is packed with former politicians and Whitehall grandees and is thought never to have banned a former minister or senior civil servant from taking up a lucrative job in the private sector.
Earlier this month the Government quietly rejected calls for the committee to be beefed up with more figures from outside the world of politics.
Gordon Brown has so far refused to answer questions about whether Mr Blair's arrangements breach his responsibilities under the ministerial code.
Mr Blair's office did not respond to calls yesterday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259030/Blairs-fight-oil-cash-secret-Former-PMs-deals-revealed-earnings-2007-reach-20million.html#ixzz0iaLBGvWJ
Last updated at 10:53 PM on 18th March 2010
* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories
Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.
The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.
Mr Blair - who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 - also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq's neighbour Kuwait.
In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.
Money Money Money graphic
News of the secret deals fuelled fresh accusations that Mr Blair is 'cashing in on his contacts' from the controversial Iraq war in what one MP called 'revolving door politics at its worst'.
They will increase concerns that Mr Blair is using his role as the West's Middle East envoy for personal gain.
The revelations also shed fresh light on his astonishing earnings, which include lucrative after-dinner speaking, consultancies with banks and foreign governments, a generous advance for his forthcoming memoirs, as well as the pension and other perks he enjoys as a former Prime Minister.
The full extent of his income is cloaked in secrecy because he has constructed a complex web of shadowy companies and partnerships which let him avoid publishing full accounts detailing all the money from his commercial ventures.
Tony Blair cartoon
Critics also point out that a large proportion of his earnings comes from patrons in America and the Middle East - a clear benefit from forging a close alliance with George Bush during his invasion of Iraq.
Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair's links to UI Energy Corporation: 'This doesn't just look bad, it stinks.
'It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.
'Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.
'This is revolving door politics at its worst. It's not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.
'I'm afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It's no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive - we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.'
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: 'These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale - he is driven by making as much money as possible.
'I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.'
The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq's oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.
Mr Blair's fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.
Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was 'market sensitive' and could not be made public.
The committee agreed to suspend its normal practice and keep the deals secret for three months. Mr Blair then asked for a further extension.
When this ran out last year the committee repeatedly 'chased' Mr Blair about the issue without hearing anything. Eventually the committee's chairman, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Lang, reviewed the papers and ordered the deal to be made public, along with a separate deal with Kuwait which had been kept secret at the request of the Kuwaiti government.
Iraq Probe appearance graphic
The decision to keep the deals secret will fuel concerns about the effectiveness of the committee, which has been repeatedly criticised for its failure to halt the revolving door between politics and industry.
The committee is supposed to ease public concerns about former public servants using their contacts for private gain.
Ministers have to have all jobs vetted within two years of leaving office. But the committee is packed with former politicians and Whitehall grandees and is thought never to have banned a former minister or senior civil servant from taking up a lucrative job in the private sector.
Earlier this month the Government quietly rejected calls for the committee to be beefed up with more figures from outside the world of politics.
Gordon Brown has so far refused to answer questions about whether Mr Blair's arrangements breach his responsibilities under the ministerial code.
Mr Blair's office did not respond to calls yesterday.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259030/Blairs-fight-oil-cash-secret-Former-PMs-deals-revealed-earnings-2007-reach-20million.html#ixzz0iaLBGvWJ
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Army drops bayonets, busts abs in training revamp
By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER, Associated Press Writer Susanne M. Schafer, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 16, 5:53 pm ET
FORT JACKSON, S.C. – New soldiers are grunting through the kind of stretches and twists found in "ab blaster" classes at suburban gyms as the Army revamps its basic training regimen for the first time in three decades.
Heeding the advice of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans, commanders are dropping five-mile runs and bayonet drills in favor of zigzag sprints and exercises that hone core muscles. Battlefield sergeants say that's the kind of fitness needed to dodge across alleys, walk patrol with heavy packs and body armor or haul a buddy out of a burning vehicle.
Trainers also want to toughen recruits who are often more familiar with Facebook than fistfights.
"Soldiers need to be able to move quickly under load, to be mobile under load, with your body armor, your weapons and your helmet, in a stressful situation," said Frank Palkoska, head of the Army's Fitness School at Fort Jackson, which has worked several years on overhauling the regime.
"We geared all of our calisthenics, all of our running movements, all of our warrior skills, so soldiers can become stronger, more powerful and more speed driven," Palkoska said. The exercises are part of the first major overhaul in Army basic fitness training since men and women began training together in 1980, he said.
The new plan is being expanded this month at the Army's four other basic training installations — Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., Fort Sill, Okla., Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Knox, Ky.
Drill sergeants with experience in the current wars are credited with urging the Army to change training, in particular to build up core muscle strength. One of them is 1st Sgt. Michael Todd, a veteran of seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
On a recent training day Todd was spinning recruits around to give them the feel of rolling out of a tumbled Humvee. Then he tossed on the ground pugil sticks made of plastic pipe and foam, forcing trainees to crawl for their weapons before they pounded away on each other.
"They have to understand hand-to-hand combat, to use something other than their weapon, a piece of wood, a knife, anything they can pick up," Todd said.
The new training also uses "more calisthenics to build core body power, strength and agility," Palkoska said in an office bedecked with 60-year-old black and white photos of World War II-era mass exercise drills. Over the 10 weeks of basic, a strict schedule of exercises is done on a varied sequence of days so muscles rest, recover and strengthen.
Another aim is to toughen recruits from a more obese and sedentary generation, trainers said.
Many recruits didn't have physical education in elementary, middle or high school and therefore tend to lack bone and muscle strength. When they ditch diets replete with soda and fast food for healthier meals and physical training, they drop excess weight and build stronger muscles and denser bones, Palkoska said.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, the three-star general in charge of revamping all aspects of initial training, said his overall goal is to drop outmoded drills and focus on what soldiers need today and in the future.
Bayonet drills had continued for decades, even though soldiers no longer carry the blades on their automatic rifles. Hertling ordered the drills dropped.
"We have to make the training relevant to the conditions on the modern battlefield," Hertling said during a visit to Fort Jackson in January.
The general said the current generation has computer skills and a knowledge base vital to a modern fighting force. He foresees soldiers using specially equipped cell phones to retrieve information on the battlefield to help repair a truck or carry out an emergency lifesaving medical technique.
But they need to learn how to fight.
"Most of these soldiers have never been in a fistfight or any kind of a physical confrontation. They are stunned when they get smacked in the face," said Capt. Scott Sewell, overseeing almost 190 trainees in their third week of training. "We are trying to get them to act, to think like warriors."
For hours, Sewell and his drill sergeants urge on helmeted trainees as they whale away at each other with pugil sticks, landing head and body blows until one falls flat on the ground. As a victor slams away at his flattened foe, a drill sergeant whistles the fight to a halt.
"This is the funnest day I've had since I've been here!" said 21-year-old Pvt. Brendon Rhyne, of Rutherford County, N.C., after being beaten to the ground. "It makes you physically tough. Builds you up on the insides mentally, too."
The Marine Corps is also applying war lessons to its physical training, adopting a new combat fitness test that replicates the rigor of combat. The test, which is required once a year, has Marines running sprints, lifting 30-pound ammunition cans over their heads for a couple of minutes and completing a 300-yard obstacle course that includes carrying a mock wounded Marine and throwing a mock grenade.
Capt. Kenny Fleming, a 10-year-Army veteran looking after a group of Fort Jackson trainees, said men and women learn exercises that prepare them to do something on the battlefield such as throw a grenade, or lunge and pick a buddy off the ground. Experience in Iraq has shown that women need the same skills because they come under fire, too, even if they are formally barred from combat roles.
"All their exercises are related to something they will do out in the field," Fleming said, pointing out "back bridge" exercises designed to hone abdominal muscles where soldiers lift hips and one leg off the ground and hold it steady.
"This will help their core muscles, which they could use when they stabilize their body for shooting their weapon, or any kind of lifting, pulling, or something like grabbing a buddy out of a tank hatch," Fleming said.
Fleming said those who had some sort of sports in high school can easily pick up on the training, while those who didn't have to be brought along. One hefty soldier in a recent company he trained dropped 45 pounds and learned to blast out 100 push-ups and 70 sit-ups, he said.
"We just have to take the soldier who's used to sitting on the couch playing video games and get them out there to do it," Fleming said.
___
Associated Press writer Kevin Maurer contributed to this report from Wilmington, N.C.
FORT JACKSON, S.C. – New soldiers are grunting through the kind of stretches and twists found in "ab blaster" classes at suburban gyms as the Army revamps its basic training regimen for the first time in three decades.
Heeding the advice of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans, commanders are dropping five-mile runs and bayonet drills in favor of zigzag sprints and exercises that hone core muscles. Battlefield sergeants say that's the kind of fitness needed to dodge across alleys, walk patrol with heavy packs and body armor or haul a buddy out of a burning vehicle.
Trainers also want to toughen recruits who are often more familiar with Facebook than fistfights.
"Soldiers need to be able to move quickly under load, to be mobile under load, with your body armor, your weapons and your helmet, in a stressful situation," said Frank Palkoska, head of the Army's Fitness School at Fort Jackson, which has worked several years on overhauling the regime.
"We geared all of our calisthenics, all of our running movements, all of our warrior skills, so soldiers can become stronger, more powerful and more speed driven," Palkoska said. The exercises are part of the first major overhaul in Army basic fitness training since men and women began training together in 1980, he said.
The new plan is being expanded this month at the Army's four other basic training installations — Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., Fort Sill, Okla., Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Knox, Ky.
Drill sergeants with experience in the current wars are credited with urging the Army to change training, in particular to build up core muscle strength. One of them is 1st Sgt. Michael Todd, a veteran of seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
On a recent training day Todd was spinning recruits around to give them the feel of rolling out of a tumbled Humvee. Then he tossed on the ground pugil sticks made of plastic pipe and foam, forcing trainees to crawl for their weapons before they pounded away on each other.
"They have to understand hand-to-hand combat, to use something other than their weapon, a piece of wood, a knife, anything they can pick up," Todd said.
The new training also uses "more calisthenics to build core body power, strength and agility," Palkoska said in an office bedecked with 60-year-old black and white photos of World War II-era mass exercise drills. Over the 10 weeks of basic, a strict schedule of exercises is done on a varied sequence of days so muscles rest, recover and strengthen.
Another aim is to toughen recruits from a more obese and sedentary generation, trainers said.
Many recruits didn't have physical education in elementary, middle or high school and therefore tend to lack bone and muscle strength. When they ditch diets replete with soda and fast food for healthier meals and physical training, they drop excess weight and build stronger muscles and denser bones, Palkoska said.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, the three-star general in charge of revamping all aspects of initial training, said his overall goal is to drop outmoded drills and focus on what soldiers need today and in the future.
Bayonet drills had continued for decades, even though soldiers no longer carry the blades on their automatic rifles. Hertling ordered the drills dropped.
"We have to make the training relevant to the conditions on the modern battlefield," Hertling said during a visit to Fort Jackson in January.
The general said the current generation has computer skills and a knowledge base vital to a modern fighting force. He foresees soldiers using specially equipped cell phones to retrieve information on the battlefield to help repair a truck or carry out an emergency lifesaving medical technique.
But they need to learn how to fight.
"Most of these soldiers have never been in a fistfight or any kind of a physical confrontation. They are stunned when they get smacked in the face," said Capt. Scott Sewell, overseeing almost 190 trainees in their third week of training. "We are trying to get them to act, to think like warriors."
For hours, Sewell and his drill sergeants urge on helmeted trainees as they whale away at each other with pugil sticks, landing head and body blows until one falls flat on the ground. As a victor slams away at his flattened foe, a drill sergeant whistles the fight to a halt.
"This is the funnest day I've had since I've been here!" said 21-year-old Pvt. Brendon Rhyne, of Rutherford County, N.C., after being beaten to the ground. "It makes you physically tough. Builds you up on the insides mentally, too."
The Marine Corps is also applying war lessons to its physical training, adopting a new combat fitness test that replicates the rigor of combat. The test, which is required once a year, has Marines running sprints, lifting 30-pound ammunition cans over their heads for a couple of minutes and completing a 300-yard obstacle course that includes carrying a mock wounded Marine and throwing a mock grenade.
Capt. Kenny Fleming, a 10-year-Army veteran looking after a group of Fort Jackson trainees, said men and women learn exercises that prepare them to do something on the battlefield such as throw a grenade, or lunge and pick a buddy off the ground. Experience in Iraq has shown that women need the same skills because they come under fire, too, even if they are formally barred from combat roles.
"All their exercises are related to something they will do out in the field," Fleming said, pointing out "back bridge" exercises designed to hone abdominal muscles where soldiers lift hips and one leg off the ground and hold it steady.
"This will help their core muscles, which they could use when they stabilize their body for shooting their weapon, or any kind of lifting, pulling, or something like grabbing a buddy out of a tank hatch," Fleming said.
Fleming said those who had some sort of sports in high school can easily pick up on the training, while those who didn't have to be brought along. One hefty soldier in a recent company he trained dropped 45 pounds and learned to blast out 100 push-ups and 70 sit-ups, he said.
"We just have to take the soldier who's used to sitting on the couch playing video games and get them out there to do it," Fleming said.
___
Associated Press writer Kevin Maurer contributed to this report from Wilmington, N.C.
Intimacy during pregnancy
Wednesday March 17, 2010
THE DOCTOR SAYS By DR MILTON LUM
Numerous concerns often lead to a downturn in sexual activity when a woman is pregnant.
IT IS common for women who are pregnant for the first time, to wonder whether sexual intercourse will affect the developing foetus.
The common questions include whether sexual intercourse will harm the foetus or cause infection and whether it can lead to miscarriage or premature labour.
Another common question in the last trimester of pregnancy is what position to use and if any position is safer than others.
There are many bodily changes in pregnancy that affects a woman’s sex life.
Some women feel sexier. Others are not in the mood, especially when they have nausea and vomiting in the first trimester.
Some women report an increase in libido in the second trimester. When the third trimester comes along, many women report a decrease in libido.
The variation in feelings and experiences are normal. It is important to remember that there is no norm. The feelings and experiences may also vary in the same woman in different pregnancies.
There is an increase in the blood flow to the reproductive organs during pregnancy, causing them to engorge. This increases sensation in some women but is uncomfortable in other women, to the extent that sexual intercourse may be painful.
An orgasm can cause an increase in uterine activity with contractions felt especially in the third trimester. The contractions last a few minutes and then go away, just like the Braxton Hicks contractions.
There may also be changes in the spouse or partner. His interest may wane in the third trimester because of a variety of reasons. It may be because of concern about the health of the pregnant woman and/or fear of harming the pregnant woman and/or the foetus. There may also be anxiety about impending parenthood.
Normal pregnancy
The developing foetus lies in a fluid-filled sac within the uterus. The sac and the uterine muscles protect the foetus from harm. There is a plug of mucus in the cervix that prevents infection from ascending from the vagina into the uterus.
Orgasm may cause some uterine activity which, however, does not harm the foetus. This increased uterine activity is not the same as the contractions that one gets in early labour. So it is safe for women with a normal pregnancy to have sexual intercourse during pregnancy even right up to the time when labour starts.
There is no relationship between sexual intercourse and miscarriage and premature labour in women with a normal pregnancy. In fact, there are reports that women who had regular sex during pregnancy were less likely to go into premature labour.
Sex during pregnancy may also enhance the relationship with the spouse or partner during the pregnancy and after childbirth.
It is important to confirm with the doctor on a regular basis that there are no pregnancy problems and that the pregnancy is normal.
There are certain conditions which, if present, would result in the doctor advising to refrain from sexual intercourse.
The doctor should be consulted without delay if there is bleeding and/or pain during pregnancy, whether associated with sexual intercourse or not.
An obstetric examination and an ultrasound will usually be done to elucidate the cause of the bleeding and/or pain and reassure that the foetus is all right.
The placenta may sometimes lie on the cervix (placenta praevia). In such a situation, the doctor will advise refraining from vaginal intercourse altogether.
If there is recurrent bleeding and there is no placenta praevia, the doctor may advise a reduction in the frequency of sex. This does not mean that one cannot partake of other forms of sexual activity.
The risk of infection to the foetus is not increased if the man does not have a sexually transmitted infection. If he does, it should be treated and once cured, sexual intercourse can be resumed. However, if the man has herpes, it would be advisable to refrain from sexual intercourse. If a pregnant woman gets genital herpes for the first time, there is a small likelihood that the foetus would be infected.
The doctor would also advise the pregnant woman to refrain from sexual intercourse if there is leakage of the fluid in the sac (liquor) surrounding the foetus because of the risk of infection of the liquor and through it, the foetus, as well. If there is a history of weakness of the cervix, it would also be advisable to refrain from sexual intercourse.
As the abdomen increases in size with advancing pregnancy, the woman may be uncomfortable with the traditional man on top position. It is advisable to find alternative positions. By trying out various other positions, the couple will find one that they are both comfortable with.
It is safe to have sexual intercourse in a normal pregnancy. It is important to check with the doctor on a regular basis that there are no pregnancy problems.
The doctor may advise refraining from sexual intercourse when certain conditions are present. One would need to adapt as pregnancy advances.
■ Dr Milton Lum is a member of the board of Medical Defence Malaysia. This article is not intended to replace, dictate or define evaluation by a qualified doctor. The views expressed do not represent that of any organisation the writer is associated with.
THE DOCTOR SAYS By DR MILTON LUM
Numerous concerns often lead to a downturn in sexual activity when a woman is pregnant.
IT IS common for women who are pregnant for the first time, to wonder whether sexual intercourse will affect the developing foetus.
The common questions include whether sexual intercourse will harm the foetus or cause infection and whether it can lead to miscarriage or premature labour.
Another common question in the last trimester of pregnancy is what position to use and if any position is safer than others.
There are many bodily changes in pregnancy that affects a woman’s sex life.
Some women feel sexier. Others are not in the mood, especially when they have nausea and vomiting in the first trimester.
Some women report an increase in libido in the second trimester. When the third trimester comes along, many women report a decrease in libido.
The variation in feelings and experiences are normal. It is important to remember that there is no norm. The feelings and experiences may also vary in the same woman in different pregnancies.
There is an increase in the blood flow to the reproductive organs during pregnancy, causing them to engorge. This increases sensation in some women but is uncomfortable in other women, to the extent that sexual intercourse may be painful.
An orgasm can cause an increase in uterine activity with contractions felt especially in the third trimester. The contractions last a few minutes and then go away, just like the Braxton Hicks contractions.
There may also be changes in the spouse or partner. His interest may wane in the third trimester because of a variety of reasons. It may be because of concern about the health of the pregnant woman and/or fear of harming the pregnant woman and/or the foetus. There may also be anxiety about impending parenthood.
Normal pregnancy
The developing foetus lies in a fluid-filled sac within the uterus. The sac and the uterine muscles protect the foetus from harm. There is a plug of mucus in the cervix that prevents infection from ascending from the vagina into the uterus.
Orgasm may cause some uterine activity which, however, does not harm the foetus. This increased uterine activity is not the same as the contractions that one gets in early labour. So it is safe for women with a normal pregnancy to have sexual intercourse during pregnancy even right up to the time when labour starts.
There is no relationship between sexual intercourse and miscarriage and premature labour in women with a normal pregnancy. In fact, there are reports that women who had regular sex during pregnancy were less likely to go into premature labour.
Sex during pregnancy may also enhance the relationship with the spouse or partner during the pregnancy and after childbirth.
It is important to confirm with the doctor on a regular basis that there are no pregnancy problems and that the pregnancy is normal.
There are certain conditions which, if present, would result in the doctor advising to refrain from sexual intercourse.
The doctor should be consulted without delay if there is bleeding and/or pain during pregnancy, whether associated with sexual intercourse or not.
An obstetric examination and an ultrasound will usually be done to elucidate the cause of the bleeding and/or pain and reassure that the foetus is all right.
The placenta may sometimes lie on the cervix (placenta praevia). In such a situation, the doctor will advise refraining from vaginal intercourse altogether.
If there is recurrent bleeding and there is no placenta praevia, the doctor may advise a reduction in the frequency of sex. This does not mean that one cannot partake of other forms of sexual activity.
The risk of infection to the foetus is not increased if the man does not have a sexually transmitted infection. If he does, it should be treated and once cured, sexual intercourse can be resumed. However, if the man has herpes, it would be advisable to refrain from sexual intercourse. If a pregnant woman gets genital herpes for the first time, there is a small likelihood that the foetus would be infected.
The doctor would also advise the pregnant woman to refrain from sexual intercourse if there is leakage of the fluid in the sac (liquor) surrounding the foetus because of the risk of infection of the liquor and through it, the foetus, as well. If there is a history of weakness of the cervix, it would also be advisable to refrain from sexual intercourse.
As the abdomen increases in size with advancing pregnancy, the woman may be uncomfortable with the traditional man on top position. It is advisable to find alternative positions. By trying out various other positions, the couple will find one that they are both comfortable with.
It is safe to have sexual intercourse in a normal pregnancy. It is important to check with the doctor on a regular basis that there are no pregnancy problems.
The doctor may advise refraining from sexual intercourse when certain conditions are present. One would need to adapt as pregnancy advances.
■ Dr Milton Lum is a member of the board of Medical Defence Malaysia. This article is not intended to replace, dictate or define evaluation by a qualified doctor. The views expressed do not represent that of any organisation the writer is associated with.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The price of advice ARTICLES OF LAW By BHAG SINGH
There are many factors to consider before seeing your lawyer.
WHEN we have a problem, we don’t think twice about going to see our lawyer in the expectation and hope that everything will be attended to.
On some occasions, however, this may be an extremely simplistic way to look at the situation at hand.
In business, life has become more complex both in commercial transactions and when it comes to the commission of offences.
Therefore, the role of the lawyer is not confined to appearing to defend a person in court alone but also to advise the individual as problems arise.
This is not to suggest that before a person commits a crime, he must or should consult a lawyer to see how to best carry out the crime. Should such a situation arise, it would make the lawyer involved an accomplice or “abettor” in the crime.
Such a role is clearly appropriate in business and commercial transactions where a party should consult a lawyer on how to structure the transaction. Advice to avoid disadvantages and to put oneself into a more advantageous and stronger position is in fact recommended.
Similarly, it is advisable for the other party to resort to his own lawyers and to seek advice on how he should best protect his interest and well-being.
Sometimes parties may have the same lawyer to act for both or all of them. This is because they think it will expedite the transaction. At other times, they think that they may be able to save on fees by sharing the same lawyer.
If what is involved are mere formalities and an absolute understanding and agreement of the entire transaction, and that it merely needs to be recorded, sharing a lawyer may work out well.
However, what may appear straightforward during negotiations may not always be so. Problems can crop up at the implementation or in the latter stages of a project.
Should differences arise due to legal or quasi-legal aspects that have not been addressed, considered or highlighted, the lawyer puts himself in a difficult situation for not having foreseen the situation that is now the cause of discord. It may appear in hindsight that he was not able to give objective advice expected and even expose himself to allegations of breach or possible ethical shortcomings.
If parties were separately represented, there would be independent advice, and when any party is dissatisfied by what happens, it is not because of the wrong legal advice but a business decision.
Some lawyers are engaged based merely on friendship, while others are blamed for not attending to work in a proper manner or to the level expected or providing the desired result. But this depends on the decision of those who appointed the lawyers in the first place.
What is important is how much effort is actually put into the preparation and conduct of the matter. The outcome also depends on the merits of the case. It is not the car driven by the lawyer or how posh his office is that will always determine the outcome.
Individual should not go to court to “fight”. They should first get advice on whether the claim ought to be pursued.
I remember someone whose parents had purchased property many years earlier for RM20,000 that was eventually worth RM250,000. The individual concerned was agitated when the property was auctioned off.
The banks were not to be blamed and the developer had in the meantime become a bankrupt. In his state, he was prepared to pay a substantial amount to sue those he was agitated against.
However, the lawyer he approached did not want to take the entire fee he was prepared to pay to file a suit but advised him to pay 10% so that the matter could be studied from all angles and the client be advised of the merits and pitfalls if he was unsuccessful.
After careful study, the client was advised that it was not in his interest to pursue the matter due to the applicable facts and the law as it then stood. The aggrieved person was unlikely to succeed and he would have ended up paying his own lawyer and the costs of the other party.
Thus, the matter was not pursued which in the end was a benefit to the aggrieved person. The cost to him was a small legal fee to get advice.
Of course, the lawyer would have received a much larger fee had he encouraged his client to litigate, but at least he was fair and ethical.
The public often thinks that lawyers always advise litigation just to earn fees, but many lawyers do not do this. It is important for the individual to be rational. What they end up with also depends on how they manage their affairs.
WHEN we have a problem, we don’t think twice about going to see our lawyer in the expectation and hope that everything will be attended to.
On some occasions, however, this may be an extremely simplistic way to look at the situation at hand.
In business, life has become more complex both in commercial transactions and when it comes to the commission of offences.
Therefore, the role of the lawyer is not confined to appearing to defend a person in court alone but also to advise the individual as problems arise.
This is not to suggest that before a person commits a crime, he must or should consult a lawyer to see how to best carry out the crime. Should such a situation arise, it would make the lawyer involved an accomplice or “abettor” in the crime.
Such a role is clearly appropriate in business and commercial transactions where a party should consult a lawyer on how to structure the transaction. Advice to avoid disadvantages and to put oneself into a more advantageous and stronger position is in fact recommended.
Similarly, it is advisable for the other party to resort to his own lawyers and to seek advice on how he should best protect his interest and well-being.
Sometimes parties may have the same lawyer to act for both or all of them. This is because they think it will expedite the transaction. At other times, they think that they may be able to save on fees by sharing the same lawyer.
If what is involved are mere formalities and an absolute understanding and agreement of the entire transaction, and that it merely needs to be recorded, sharing a lawyer may work out well.
However, what may appear straightforward during negotiations may not always be so. Problems can crop up at the implementation or in the latter stages of a project.
Should differences arise due to legal or quasi-legal aspects that have not been addressed, considered or highlighted, the lawyer puts himself in a difficult situation for not having foreseen the situation that is now the cause of discord. It may appear in hindsight that he was not able to give objective advice expected and even expose himself to allegations of breach or possible ethical shortcomings.
If parties were separately represented, there would be independent advice, and when any party is dissatisfied by what happens, it is not because of the wrong legal advice but a business decision.
Some lawyers are engaged based merely on friendship, while others are blamed for not attending to work in a proper manner or to the level expected or providing the desired result. But this depends on the decision of those who appointed the lawyers in the first place.
What is important is how much effort is actually put into the preparation and conduct of the matter. The outcome also depends on the merits of the case. It is not the car driven by the lawyer or how posh his office is that will always determine the outcome.
Individual should not go to court to “fight”. They should first get advice on whether the claim ought to be pursued.
I remember someone whose parents had purchased property many years earlier for RM20,000 that was eventually worth RM250,000. The individual concerned was agitated when the property was auctioned off.
The banks were not to be blamed and the developer had in the meantime become a bankrupt. In his state, he was prepared to pay a substantial amount to sue those he was agitated against.
However, the lawyer he approached did not want to take the entire fee he was prepared to pay to file a suit but advised him to pay 10% so that the matter could be studied from all angles and the client be advised of the merits and pitfalls if he was unsuccessful.
After careful study, the client was advised that it was not in his interest to pursue the matter due to the applicable facts and the law as it then stood. The aggrieved person was unlikely to succeed and he would have ended up paying his own lawyer and the costs of the other party.
Thus, the matter was not pursued which in the end was a benefit to the aggrieved person. The cost to him was a small legal fee to get advice.
Of course, the lawyer would have received a much larger fee had he encouraged his client to litigate, but at least he was fair and ethical.
The public often thinks that lawyers always advise litigation just to earn fees, but many lawyers do not do this. It is important for the individual to be rational. What they end up with also depends on how they manage their affairs.
trader_dante Legendary Member & GladiatorX Veteran Member
Attracting investors
First things first.
Make sure you know what you are getting into. Investing other peoples money is advantageous in the fact that it offers no capital risk of your own and plenty of upside (fixed fees, profit splits) but its not that cut and dried. Some people may think its much easier when its someone elses money on the line but you may find that investing/trading other peoples money may affect you adversely (it did with me when I was prop) when you realise that you are responsible to someone else not yourself which can create all kinds of pyschological/emotional issues.
Second to this, depending on your backers you may find you get levels of interference that are not desirable. e.g. What are you in at the moment? What?! You're short the S&P??! It's been going up for weeks?!"
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly there are all sorts of logistical and regulatory nightmares. In the UK, trading for others is highly illegal under a profit share arrangement unless you work under an umbrella company or you have the necessary regulatory certificates to do it. (In the UK it costs £1,500 to submit an application form to the FSA to trade others money and there is no guarantee that you will be accepted as they take experience etc into account... with the application fee being non-refundable for starters...a lot of people probably think they won't get caught...until they produce a 30% drawdown and bear the brunt of some disgruntled investors wrath...first rule of business is (or should be) never trust anyone!
I have been offered as much as £1m backing in total in the last year or so and refuse to accept it for the above reasons, I won't even look at trading a mini account for a family member but based on my experience and knowledge here are your best bets if you are set on the idea and you are legally able to do it...
1. Get a track record. If you are any good and in a position to return money to investors, you should be able to make money for yourself. Start small and build a track record that you can show to people. Your account may be small but its consistency and percentage returns, plus awareness of maximum drawdowns etc that investors look for. In this game, word of mouth quickly spreads. It depends on your circumstances but for smaller traders and even some that have become huge (e.g. the market wizards) investment often started at home. If family see you making money, they may come forward and ask you to manage some for them...this can lead onto close friends who then spread the word to other friends that they are doing well with you etc and you can get an entry in this way.
2. Get a presence in the community. This and the point above are closely related but adding this will boost your chances ten fold. If you look at the entries for Top 100 Traders (Trader Monthly) a large majority come recommended. That is to say, someone has come forward and said "I know a great trader who has produced massive returns..." and then they are assessed and featured. I was once contacted by the Financial Times because of a Dow position I had posted on a thread on here! So, easiest way is to start a thread on a board like this one or FF is good for investment also and show people what you are doing. You can clearly stipulate you are not going to give your edge away but entry and exit points or even screenshots of account statements on a consistent basis will get people pm'ing you often after as little as a few weeks. If you go one step further and become a frequent poster and a helpful one you will get a lot of opportunities and see a lot of doors open that you will literally not believe. With a board like this you not only have scouts from firms, funds etc but you also have "tired" investors that cannot make money and are quick to latch onto someone that can.
Sorry if these are obvious but they really are the easiest ways. Many people have been burnt in life and there is a lot of notoriety surrounding traders (Madoff ponzi scheme all the way down to the sh*t system you buy that doesn't make money etc) so simply posting a message saying "I make X% a week, anyone interested in backing me?" is almost 100% destined to get you nowhere.
The best way to get money thrown at you is to just be yourself and don't ask anyone for it.
Actually, it's a lot like getting a beautiful girl to fall for you: play it cool, do your thing and of utmost importance: act like you don't need it or want it.
Always remember the legal side though. It really is key. If you don't do things properly and you are caught, you can be fined, imprisoned and banned from trading for life. Is the risk worth it? That's something only the individual can answer.
__________________
Trading Price Action: An absolute insult to the amount of time some people have spent studying financial mathematics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by trader_dante; Aug 9, 2009 at 2:25pm.
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/us-stocks/89046-us-stock-picks-4.html
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all seems a bit nooby to me;
What is the purpose of this thread ?
Winning traders aren't interested in other stock picks; and losing traders; aren't going to win trying to follow others.
Cheers.
All i see so far is:
- Some rubbish charts on excel
- Mocking of Technical Analysis
- A short interest graph copy & Pasted from a free website
- A tradestation graph that says 'Come fly with me' ... With no reason attached; therefore leaving me to guess you think the chart looks bearish; making your mocking of TA ironic
? Seriously, ? What are you doing.
Its all so nooby ... Its so ironic that you said 'educational material'. I doubt you have anything educational to say; and i'm starting to see that you have a lot of gloating; but it seems to me its a facade than a fact. In this thread you actually asked someone what the short interest was ? Don't have a regular place to check for that, you obviously don't use it often, so why you bringing it up?
Pretending to act all knowledgeable and i've noticed you've mentioned short interest several times ... But when it comes down to it; you didn't even have an immediate link to check the figures, and when you did it was a free website, and i know its the first one that comes on google from past experience - Really credible dude.
Why don't you cut the crap and we can have some serious discussion about stocks. Seriously; Fresh start, no more nonsense and we can all learn from eachother (maybe).
I REALLY hope i'm wrong; just don't **** these people about and manipulate their trading with 'advice' - if the advice isn't founded in proven success...
Cheers.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Mar 12, 2010 at 9:10am.
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Expert
NP GX,
The stage is now ALL yours
TE
I don't know why i said ' Lets get some serious discussion going ...'
Because i'm totally uninterested in sharing my analysis, trade ideas and entries on a forum, just as i'm pretty comfortable with how i trade and very confident in what i do; and even less interested in hearing others 'picks'!
Sorry... I'm willing to tell you my view on the market;
Its a bull market don't ye' know.
The point of my previous post was to point out that you were maybe misleading readers; and actually, that can have much worse affects on that user that the 'misleader' has thought about.... And i came to that conclusion from the amount of noobness Vs gloating ratio you display. (no offence seriously)
Cool, but good luck guys!
LTT i can tell your enthusiastic about sharing your thoughts, trades and just interacting with other traders so; i'd be happy for you to join our skype room of Futures/stock traders - We mostly doss around while we aren't trading, talk banter and talk about how gay some members are; but every now and again we have serious discussion. Right now everyone in the room is a winner; but as long as you know your stuff, then we'd love the company even if you aren't rollin' in the dollar right now I personally get pretty quiet at the open but some of the others actively contribute what they're doing.
Sweet.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Mar 13, 2010 at 11:36am.
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Expert
Mr GX, you are what is called a useless dumb Mr & Mrs Gullible seeker.
Tell you what, send us a link to a live chat + screens, like Paltalk or similar, and we will quickly show the world what you lot really know about trading, and that is very little
I would imagine you lot DOSS around all day, Doh Ohh Shiit Shiittttt
You lot must think everyone are fools, which most are of course
The Expert, aka, TE
I genuinely don't know what your on about.
Rofl.
Were u implying i'm selling something ??? Because that would be brilliant, i'd be one step closer to my vendor badge.
Can you explain why i am a 'gullible seeker' ?
' Hi; come join our skype room were we are going to try to sell you our EMA crossover system '
Haha, thats me isn't it lads! rofl
As for posting a video of trading; I'm literally doing that at the moment for a friend who is in the skype room...
Then i can sell him my EMA system hopefully.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Today at 9:17am.
DionysusToast
Veteran Member
Life can be easy when you pick your battles.
__________________
The promise of a high return has a funny way of clouding perception.
80% of retail traders use technical analysis. 95% of retail traders fail.
elitejets
Veteran Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon guys,
We are not still reading this thread cos we're hoping to learn something here, surely?
Here is a guy who won't even name the title of a book to study (in case "the generals" read this thread ffs) and who attacks members like MrC who have contributed so much to this forum.
Really this thread is a joke.
__________________
"Give a man a fish, lose a fish. Teach a man to fish, lose your monopoly in fishing."
Mr Flibble
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres the deal TE it would be great if you used your analytical approach to life however I doubt this very much. You know little about me and if you did you'd certainly not suggest for one moment that I am similar to the populace. Far from it I am very different and have never just been another sheep following the flock. Trading is a tiny part of life and money is not important. What is important is to have the social skills to interact with your fellow mankind in an affable way and build your family to be upright people. Your friends too are very important people.
Maybe your attitude is such because you assume your intellect is far greater than the populace as you call it. I never assume such things as I have humility and don't push an argument when I know I'm wrong.
Mr charts is a giver and I try to give to. Whatever my limits I do feel the need to keep giving to help my brothers in trading. I do so to help and that is my only intention. You don't give you just take and constantly require people to express how great your intellect is.
Your arrogance will lead to your ultimate downfall and will not make you a happy person. Perhaps in your life you are a big man amongst your community. I have seen those communities in my travels and it is a class system as such. If you were to come to my country with that attitude you would be treated like the ignoramous you almost certainly are.
You will not be judged on the contents of your wallet but by your actions in this world. Address that first then come back here and give with good intentions.
Goodnight.
Mr Flibble
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spent a huge chunk of last night reading through every post on here. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and it gave me a bit of a headache to be honest. In my youth I would have suggested that this chap was an attention starved freak with a serious case of middle child syndrom. DT what you have to understand is that people in Britain really hate the flash harry type. The type who boastfully calls himself an expert. If he knew the culture in which his posts were aimed at he may have toned it down. The fact that he isn't aware of the fact above leads me to believe that he is less sharp than even me.
Its quite easy for anyone to leave cryptic clues and its a LOT harder for others to solve them. Now the best of mankind could sum up anything in 2 sentences or less and anyone could understand him. I like that person a whole lot more than TE.
I'm very much impressed with your intellect DT and another poster. Can you rise to the challenge and explain what this chap was getting at in 2 sentences or less>?
The Expert
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Flibble
I spent a huge chunk of last night reading through every post on here. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and it gave me a bit of a headache to be honest. In my youth I would have suggested that this chap was an attention starved freak with a serious case of middle child syndrom. DT what you have to understand is that people in Britain really hate the flash harry type. The type who boastfully calls himself an expert. If he knew the culture in which his posts were aimed at he may have toned it down. The fact that he isn't aware of the fact above leads me to believe that he is less sharp than even me.
Its quite easy for anyone to leave cryptic clues and its a LOT harder for others to solve them. Now the best of mankind could sum up anything in 2 sentences or less and anyone could understand him. I like that person a whole lot more than TE.
I'm very much impressed with your intellect DT and another poster. Can you rise to the challenge and explain what this chap was getting at in 2 sentences or less>?
Mr F, you my good Sir, are one backwards individual, much like the rest of the populous
DT will not sum up anything for you and your useless lazy brain, as he is indeed no fool.
Now to deal with the others
Mister CV, the one who knows everything about nothing, and one of the best mods on t2w
T333 seems OK and somewhat genuine.
Split, well the name does say it all
Trendie, again I see some potential here, but he must work on it.
Mr C, well, lets just say it is like pulling teeth
If all above ask me nicely, I might pick up where I left off, and who knows, maybe another 1 will get some valuable information about trading.
The Expert, aka, TE
First things first.
Make sure you know what you are getting into. Investing other peoples money is advantageous in the fact that it offers no capital risk of your own and plenty of upside (fixed fees, profit splits) but its not that cut and dried. Some people may think its much easier when its someone elses money on the line but you may find that investing/trading other peoples money may affect you adversely (it did with me when I was prop) when you realise that you are responsible to someone else not yourself which can create all kinds of pyschological/emotional issues.
Second to this, depending on your backers you may find you get levels of interference that are not desirable. e.g. What are you in at the moment? What?! You're short the S&P??! It's been going up for weeks?!"
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly there are all sorts of logistical and regulatory nightmares. In the UK, trading for others is highly illegal under a profit share arrangement unless you work under an umbrella company or you have the necessary regulatory certificates to do it. (In the UK it costs £1,500 to submit an application form to the FSA to trade others money and there is no guarantee that you will be accepted as they take experience etc into account... with the application fee being non-refundable for starters...a lot of people probably think they won't get caught...until they produce a 30% drawdown and bear the brunt of some disgruntled investors wrath...first rule of business is (or should be) never trust anyone!
I have been offered as much as £1m backing in total in the last year or so and refuse to accept it for the above reasons, I won't even look at trading a mini account for a family member but based on my experience and knowledge here are your best bets if you are set on the idea and you are legally able to do it...
1. Get a track record. If you are any good and in a position to return money to investors, you should be able to make money for yourself. Start small and build a track record that you can show to people. Your account may be small but its consistency and percentage returns, plus awareness of maximum drawdowns etc that investors look for. In this game, word of mouth quickly spreads. It depends on your circumstances but for smaller traders and even some that have become huge (e.g. the market wizards) investment often started at home. If family see you making money, they may come forward and ask you to manage some for them...this can lead onto close friends who then spread the word to other friends that they are doing well with you etc and you can get an entry in this way.
2. Get a presence in the community. This and the point above are closely related but adding this will boost your chances ten fold. If you look at the entries for Top 100 Traders (Trader Monthly) a large majority come recommended. That is to say, someone has come forward and said "I know a great trader who has produced massive returns..." and then they are assessed and featured. I was once contacted by the Financial Times because of a Dow position I had posted on a thread on here! So, easiest way is to start a thread on a board like this one or FF is good for investment also and show people what you are doing. You can clearly stipulate you are not going to give your edge away but entry and exit points or even screenshots of account statements on a consistent basis will get people pm'ing you often after as little as a few weeks. If you go one step further and become a frequent poster and a helpful one you will get a lot of opportunities and see a lot of doors open that you will literally not believe. With a board like this you not only have scouts from firms, funds etc but you also have "tired" investors that cannot make money and are quick to latch onto someone that can.
Sorry if these are obvious but they really are the easiest ways. Many people have been burnt in life and there is a lot of notoriety surrounding traders (Madoff ponzi scheme all the way down to the sh*t system you buy that doesn't make money etc) so simply posting a message saying "I make X% a week, anyone interested in backing me?" is almost 100% destined to get you nowhere.
The best way to get money thrown at you is to just be yourself and don't ask anyone for it.
Actually, it's a lot like getting a beautiful girl to fall for you: play it cool, do your thing and of utmost importance: act like you don't need it or want it.
Always remember the legal side though. It really is key. If you don't do things properly and you are caught, you can be fined, imprisoned and banned from trading for life. Is the risk worth it? That's something only the individual can answer.
__________________
Trading Price Action: An absolute insult to the amount of time some people have spent studying financial mathematics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by trader_dante; Aug 9, 2009 at 2:25pm.
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/us-stocks/89046-us-stock-picks-4.html
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all seems a bit nooby to me;
What is the purpose of this thread ?
Winning traders aren't interested in other stock picks; and losing traders; aren't going to win trying to follow others.
Cheers.
All i see so far is:
- Some rubbish charts on excel
- Mocking of Technical Analysis
- A short interest graph copy & Pasted from a free website
- A tradestation graph that says 'Come fly with me' ... With no reason attached; therefore leaving me to guess you think the chart looks bearish; making your mocking of TA ironic
? Seriously, ? What are you doing.
Its all so nooby ... Its so ironic that you said 'educational material'. I doubt you have anything educational to say; and i'm starting to see that you have a lot of gloating; but it seems to me its a facade than a fact. In this thread you actually asked someone what the short interest was ? Don't have a regular place to check for that, you obviously don't use it often, so why you bringing it up?
Pretending to act all knowledgeable and i've noticed you've mentioned short interest several times ... But when it comes down to it; you didn't even have an immediate link to check the figures, and when you did it was a free website, and i know its the first one that comes on google from past experience - Really credible dude.
Why don't you cut the crap and we can have some serious discussion about stocks. Seriously; Fresh start, no more nonsense and we can all learn from eachother (maybe).
I REALLY hope i'm wrong; just don't **** these people about and manipulate their trading with 'advice' - if the advice isn't founded in proven success...
Cheers.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Mar 12, 2010 at 9:10am.
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Expert
NP GX,
The stage is now ALL yours
TE
I don't know why i said ' Lets get some serious discussion going ...'
Because i'm totally uninterested in sharing my analysis, trade ideas and entries on a forum, just as i'm pretty comfortable with how i trade and very confident in what i do; and even less interested in hearing others 'picks'!
Sorry... I'm willing to tell you my view on the market;
Its a bull market don't ye' know.
The point of my previous post was to point out that you were maybe misleading readers; and actually, that can have much worse affects on that user that the 'misleader' has thought about.... And i came to that conclusion from the amount of noobness Vs gloating ratio you display. (no offence seriously)
Cool, but good luck guys!
LTT i can tell your enthusiastic about sharing your thoughts, trades and just interacting with other traders so; i'd be happy for you to join our skype room of Futures/stock traders - We mostly doss around while we aren't trading, talk banter and talk about how gay some members are; but every now and again we have serious discussion. Right now everyone in the room is a winner; but as long as you know your stuff, then we'd love the company even if you aren't rollin' in the dollar right now I personally get pretty quiet at the open but some of the others actively contribute what they're doing.
Sweet.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Mar 13, 2010 at 11:36am.
Re: US Stock Picks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Expert
Mr GX, you are what is called a useless dumb Mr & Mrs Gullible seeker.
Tell you what, send us a link to a live chat + screens, like Paltalk or similar, and we will quickly show the world what you lot really know about trading, and that is very little
I would imagine you lot DOSS around all day, Doh Ohh Shiit Shiittttt
You lot must think everyone are fools, which most are of course
The Expert, aka, TE
I genuinely don't know what your on about.
Rofl.
Were u implying i'm selling something ??? Because that would be brilliant, i'd be one step closer to my vendor badge.
Can you explain why i am a 'gullible seeker' ?
' Hi; come join our skype room were we are going to try to sell you our EMA crossover system '
Haha, thats me isn't it lads! rofl
As for posting a video of trading; I'm literally doing that at the moment for a friend who is in the skype room...
Then i can sell him my EMA system hopefully.
__________________
Me = Teh Future of Futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by GladiatorX; Today at 9:17am.
DionysusToast
Veteran Member
Life can be easy when you pick your battles.
__________________
The promise of a high return has a funny way of clouding perception.
80% of retail traders use technical analysis. 95% of retail traders fail.
elitejets
Veteran Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon guys,
We are not still reading this thread cos we're hoping to learn something here, surely?
Here is a guy who won't even name the title of a book to study (in case "the generals" read this thread ffs) and who attacks members like MrC who have contributed so much to this forum.
Really this thread is a joke.
__________________
"Give a man a fish, lose a fish. Teach a man to fish, lose your monopoly in fishing."
Mr Flibble
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres the deal TE it would be great if you used your analytical approach to life however I doubt this very much. You know little about me and if you did you'd certainly not suggest for one moment that I am similar to the populace. Far from it I am very different and have never just been another sheep following the flock. Trading is a tiny part of life and money is not important. What is important is to have the social skills to interact with your fellow mankind in an affable way and build your family to be upright people. Your friends too are very important people.
Maybe your attitude is such because you assume your intellect is far greater than the populace as you call it. I never assume such things as I have humility and don't push an argument when I know I'm wrong.
Mr charts is a giver and I try to give to. Whatever my limits I do feel the need to keep giving to help my brothers in trading. I do so to help and that is my only intention. You don't give you just take and constantly require people to express how great your intellect is.
Your arrogance will lead to your ultimate downfall and will not make you a happy person. Perhaps in your life you are a big man amongst your community. I have seen those communities in my travels and it is a class system as such. If you were to come to my country with that attitude you would be treated like the ignoramous you almost certainly are.
You will not be judged on the contents of your wallet but by your actions in this world. Address that first then come back here and give with good intentions.
Goodnight.
Mr Flibble
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spent a huge chunk of last night reading through every post on here. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and it gave me a bit of a headache to be honest. In my youth I would have suggested that this chap was an attention starved freak with a serious case of middle child syndrom. DT what you have to understand is that people in Britain really hate the flash harry type. The type who boastfully calls himself an expert. If he knew the culture in which his posts were aimed at he may have toned it down. The fact that he isn't aware of the fact above leads me to believe that he is less sharp than even me.
Its quite easy for anyone to leave cryptic clues and its a LOT harder for others to solve them. Now the best of mankind could sum up anything in 2 sentences or less and anyone could understand him. I like that person a whole lot more than TE.
I'm very much impressed with your intellect DT and another poster. Can you rise to the challenge and explain what this chap was getting at in 2 sentences or less>?
The Expert
Senior Member
Re: How To Trade: Full Stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Flibble
I spent a huge chunk of last night reading through every post on here. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and it gave me a bit of a headache to be honest. In my youth I would have suggested that this chap was an attention starved freak with a serious case of middle child syndrom. DT what you have to understand is that people in Britain really hate the flash harry type. The type who boastfully calls himself an expert. If he knew the culture in which his posts were aimed at he may have toned it down. The fact that he isn't aware of the fact above leads me to believe that he is less sharp than even me.
Its quite easy for anyone to leave cryptic clues and its a LOT harder for others to solve them. Now the best of mankind could sum up anything in 2 sentences or less and anyone could understand him. I like that person a whole lot more than TE.
I'm very much impressed with your intellect DT and another poster. Can you rise to the challenge and explain what this chap was getting at in 2 sentences or less>?
Mr F, you my good Sir, are one backwards individual, much like the rest of the populous
DT will not sum up anything for you and your useless lazy brain, as he is indeed no fool.
Now to deal with the others
Mister CV, the one who knows everything about nothing, and one of the best mods on t2w
T333 seems OK and somewhat genuine.
Split, well the name does say it all
Trendie, again I see some potential here, but he must work on it.
Mr C, well, lets just say it is like pulling teeth
If all above ask me nicely, I might pick up where I left off, and who knows, maybe another 1 will get some valuable information about trading.
The Expert, aka, TE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
