It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This may change your mind about the Iraq war

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zife
Before any one calls the U.S.'s effort in Iraq a failure, you should first call U.S.'s effort in Germany and Japan after two years of American occupation a failure too.


This is not a comparison that can be made, the occupations of Germany was a bigger coallition lead equally by the US, British and USSR administrations. They resulted in a country being split in half for almost half a century. In addition it created political, economic and military tension for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Nor is Japan a comparison that can be made either, the local governement and leadership of the country was left intact. Local Administration decisions were made by the Japanese.

A better analogy would be the occupation of South Veitnam by US forces in the Sixties and Seventies; and the subsequent attempts to quell the insurgency by the Veit Cong.


The most recent succesful foreign policy decisions by the US have been under the Clinton adminsitrations. These saw: a reduction of American involvment in world affairs, a growth in the US economy, low unemployment and a drastic reduction in the budget deficit.

All of this was throw away when the current adminstration seized power on 26th Nov 2000.


-----




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
i wouldnt have minded if:

A) I didnt think the US knew Perl Harbour was coming and let it happen to give them an EXCUSE to go to war. WW1 was started with the rather dubious sinking of the Lucitania...

B) The Gufwar 2 was started be cause of Saddam being a terror supporter, no Coz of WMD, no coz of the fact that he was a terrible dictator.
A Terrible dictator who was removed from the black list in 1980 something so the US could sell him some guns..


no the reason was OIL and $$$

The US can only go to war under false pretenses... thats WRONG!

Any reason fo war is WRONG... ESPECIALLY false reasons!!



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
That was a refreshing change from most of what I see on ATS. It's good to know other americans hold the same basic attitudes and opinions I do. I have yet to talk to a veteran of the war in Iraq that believes we aren't doing the right thing.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This is what war is people. It is not some patsy going after a super state who without incident defeats the enemy. There are body bags, lost limbs, demolished homes. These senators calling for a withdraw and saying we went in on a ground of false pretences are nothing but hypocrites who cringed at the first glance of a dead US soldier and wanted out.
They knew what they were doing when they voted to give Bush authority to enact a war.

If Bush's claim of false information on WMD's is correct, why cannot these senators be held as acountable as Bush if this is true?

Cry me a river with that false pretence bull #...It is a false pretence to believe that we are looking for WMD's while gangs of Syrians, Iraqis, and Saudis shoot at our Marines.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
That was a refreshing change from most of what I see on ATS. It's good to know other americans hold the same basic attitudes and opinions I do. I have yet to talk to a veteran of the war in Iraq that believes we aren't doing the right thing.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Astronomer68]


Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.

Some Pics



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme


Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.

Some Pics


so why were u standing there looking happy with thumbs up next Saddams sacred picture. u look more like a tourist than lookin mad that u are in the middle of hell.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zife

"""
Originally posted by The time lord
More people have died in wars between 1990-2000 than the WW2 apparently. The world has not improved that much its just the wars are scattered and solitary.
"""

BS, you should recheck your information, less people die per year then they did years past. [/quote

Medicine has helped reduce death but the toll from war conflics over the 90s has killed more people than WW2.

I also read the world population is going down for the first time in ages, i read it somewhere. Then again what ever one reads its always second or hundreth hand information. Who do you believe unless you compile the evidence your self?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
You were in Iraq curme? Props.




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
you could say the same exact thing the anti-war lads. Point out all the most terrible things in the conflict, much of isn't even the truth. Ahem, the war on terrorism board is an great example. From US soldiers use children as shields to 100,000 dead civilians.



As an "anti-war lad" I know that the above statement about US soldiers using childeren as shields is as absurd as it is untrue. Just because someone of the same ideology (an anti war lad) as myself says something, doesn't necessarily mean I will believe it. I believe the member who started this thread needs to take some of that advice.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.


Baghdad "fell" during the 1st Gulf War, curme?
Which war you a 'veteren' of?
Clarify please?





seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Baghdad "fell" during the 1st Gulf War, curme?
Which war you a 'veteren' of?
Clarify please?





seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]


The most recent time a Bush started a war there.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
[The most recent time a Bush started a war there.


You might get away with claiming GW started the lastest war in Iraq, but you're going to have to make a case for GHW starting the Gulf War.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by curme


Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.

Some Pics


so why were u standing there looking happy with thumbs up next Saddams sacred picture. u look more like a tourist than lookin mad that u are in the middle of hell.


He isn't giving thumbs up he is pointing at the camera, in nearly every picture. Instead of belittling him, perhaps you should be thanking him for serving while you can stay home and play your splinter cell games in safety.

Or is praise reserved for veterans who shut up and tout party line?

[edit on 29-7-2005 by cargo]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote

Medicine has helped reduce death but the toll from war conflics over the 90s has killed more people than WW2.


Are you kidding me, your trying to convince me that more people died in the all of the 90s conflicts combined than the Second World War!

Here are some sites with figures
en.wikipedia.org...
around 66 million dead

www.hitler.org...
around 56 million dead

www.historyplace.com...
around 52 million dead

the minimum figure that I have seen was 50 million dead in WW2. All the conflicts of the 90s could not amount to the death toll that humanity suffered in WW2. If you have some kind of evidence that more people died in conflicts in the 90s than WW2, please post it. If its in a book, give me the title of the book, author and page number.


Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote


I also read the world population is going down for the first time in ages, i read it somewhere.



Maybe in First world countries such as Japan, where people have less children and the population get older every year, by 2015-20, 1/3 of the population will be over 60 years old. Plus because of Japan's strict immigration policy, only limited amount of immigrants are allowed to work there, but can't get citizenship, it is extremely hard to get a citizenship's in Japan. Real growth in populations is happening among poor third world countries, most notable India, where it will surpass China as the largest population in a few decades.

And the population will hit 9.1 billion by 2050
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Also I don't see how your comment has anything to do with the amount of deaths coming from conflicts in the 90s.


Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote

Then again what ever one reads its always second or hundreth hand information.




Ahhh, no. There something called Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. Example of a Primary source, government records of somebody that did the actual survey. Secondary source, a book someone wrote about the second world war and used another book than used a figure from that Primary source.



Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote

Who do you believe unless you compile the evidence your self?



That is the most ridicilous comment I ever heard someone say, trying to find primary information such as figures from the second world war. You could, if you could built a time machine and see every single death and record it, then you could compile your own evidence. Also, its called (to see if the sources are accurate and trustworthy) checking out the primary and secondary sources of the author, thats how you find out if it belieable. Honestly some of the comments you made seem to come from a grade school kid with a limited knowledge of world history who is trying to BS his way through a debate.


If your so passionate about confirming that more people died in the 90s, even with medical advances, I ask you to post some evidence, thats all. Please and try to defend your arguement.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expositor

Originally posted by Zife

Before any one calls the U.S.'s effort in Iraq a failure, you should first call U.S.'s effort in Germany and Japan after two years of American occupation a failure too.



Originally posted by Expositor

This is not a comparison that can be made, the occupations of Germany was a bigger coallition lead equally by the US, British and USSR administrations. They resulted in a country being split in half for almost half a century. In addition it created political, economic and military tension for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Nor is Japan a comparison that can be made either, the local governement and leadership of the country was left intact. Local Administration decisions were made by the Japanese.






Originally posted by Expositor
"""This is not a comparison that can be made, the occupations of Germany was a bigger coallition lead equally by the US, British and USSR administrations. They resulted in a country being split in half for almost half a century. In addition it created political, economic and military tension for most of the latter half of the 20th century."""



So your saying that Germany was in a much worst situation than Iraq. I don't see Iraq having such major problems next to the limited insurgency that only really effective in the 'Sunni triangle'.


Originally posted by Expositor
Nor is Japan a comparison that can be made either, the local governement and leadership of the country was left intact.


You conventily left out post-war Germany, their leadership and government, cough cough, were tried and executed


Originally posted by Expositor
'Local Administration decisions were made by the Japanese'

under American supervision just like in Iraq. A lot of the Japanese Administartion were tried as Class A and B war criminals. Your local Administration were local, not head officials, just like in Iraq. You got dozens of local officials that kept there job and have been doing since the Americans came, because they are the only ones qualified.



Originally posted by Expositor
"""A better analogy would be the occupation of South Veitnam by US forces in the Sixties and Seventies; and the subsequent attempts to quell the insurgency by the Veit Cong."""


No it would be the easy analogy to get out of a debate about Iraq. Everytime some one mentions Iraq, they bring up Vietnam, both which are two completely different situations. For example Vietnam had the support of both the Soviet Union (A Superpower) and China (A conntinental Power) which supported the Viet Cong with both training and weapons, neither which the Iraqi insurgency is getting from nobody. Also it was a war in Vietnam, it was not an insurgency, because there were north vietnamese soldiers helping the Viet Cong to fight against the Americans, so you have a nation fighting a war against a nation with conventional and unconvential troops, the insurgents in Iraq are criminals, not freedom fighters nor soldiers. By the way, the Viet Cong were a inefficient force when the Americans left, the Americans had beaten the Viet Cong, but public pressure on the Administration changed American Foreign policy to withdraw the American troops from South Vietnam which was a corrupt government anyway. In South Vietnam you had President Ngo Dinh Diem, who was a basic dicator, who gave his family posts all over the government kinda like Saddam did. Currently in Iraq I don't see a corrupt President nor a corrupt administration.




Originally posted by Expositor
The most recent succesful foreign policy decisions by the US have been under the Clinton adminsitrations. These saw: a reduction of American involvment in world affairs, a growth in the US economy, low unemployment and a drastic reduction in the budget deficit.

All of this was throw away when the current adminstration seized power on 26th Nov 2000.


You mean the successful foreign policy like I don't know Somolia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Terrorist bombings of Afircan embassies, USS Cole, etc, those successful foreign policy's of not caring a damn until its too late.



Originally posted by Expositor
These saw: a reduction of American involvment in world affairs,


That's a good thing?


Originally posted by Expositor
a growth in the US economy, low unemployment and a drastic reduction in the budget deficit.


Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending and 100,000s of military jobs that are needed more than ever, all because of the 'successful foreign policy of the Clinton Administartion' that caused 9-11 by the way, all the crap that the Clinton Administarion did in the 90s pissed off a lot of people that wanted to harm the United States. Bin Laden had been planning 9-11 long before Bush even entered the White House.



Originally posted by Expositor
All of this was throw away when the current adminstration seized power on 26th Nov 2000.

Bush the President posistion on Jan 20. 2001, not Nov 26. 2000, that when he won the election, he did get to work that day. Also if Bush lost, you be blaming Gore for all this crap, you think he would've done better. 9-11 would still happen, recession would've happened, Afghanistan would've happened, Iraq probably would have not have happened, something else would, who knows what.


Again and again, I'll say it, wait and give it time for the Iraq government to built up its new nation under a new government that the Iraqi's had never had. The United States took more than two years to fight for its freedom from the British, and it had its own civil war, so don't try to take the high moral ground that Americans were better. Don't forget the Constitution was written by a bunch of men in a candle lit room, not some divine event. It'll take years before the Iraqi government will be able to handle its own affairs, the Amerians should stay there until the Iraqi government will be strong enough to handle itself. You don't leave work halfway through without consequences.




-----





posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Sadaam is gone. Through all of the obstacles worldwide that stood in the way of a butcher, we have overcome.


You're gonna make me cry dude. A butcher? A butcher that the Goverment created right? That trained him, fed him, gave him his weapons, put him in power, told him exactly what to do and now... he's a butcher? What does that make the government?

But wait, the evil butcher must now be stopped and in order to do so the "good guys" first, order air strikes that nearly destroy the place. Then the ground forces were sent in to do their part. Not only that, but then the prisioners are taken and tortured in a most saddistic manner, allegedly because they knew where the weapons of mass destructure were hiding. And all this to get rid of a bad guy?
First, war was not declared to get rid of terror because thats what it created. Troops didn't travel halfway around the world to destroy WMD, else they'd have started right here. And finally, lives were not put to death for freedom but for Oil. Seriously man, Wake up and smell the coffee.

And do you really think a Senator's gonna change my mind? I got a brain Mister, that means that I actually get to think for myself and therefore I know BS when I see it.

Peace ?

I'll start by denying Ignorance first.



[edit on 30-7-2005 by joyouslyhumored]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
curme - I stand corrected--now I know (more or less) one veteran who thinks we are doing the wrong thing in Iraq. It would be really interesting to talk with you about your experiences there, but alas that will probably never happen.

Below are some of my thoughts on the Iraqi war.





I don't think religions or good intentions stop people from doing illegal, imorale and terrible things--other people do, at least most of the time. When the, for want of a better word, true Muslims of the various countries have had enough of the actions of their countrymen, then and only then will this idiotic behavior stop. It may take years to stamp this pestilence out, but it will not be done by any outside force trying to impose its will upon a non-receptive population and it will only be done when such behavior is condemned from within, by their society at large.

Iraq is a good case in point. The U.S. & the U.K. may have led the coallition into Iraq for the wrong publicly stated reason, but that doesn't make what they are doing wrong. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have gone into Iraq. There were plenty of other reasons to throw Saddam Hussein and his regime out on the street. Does anyone in the world really dispute that he was abusing the Iraqi people? Does anyone think he was a nice guy who had the best intrests of his countrymen at heart? Does anyone not know that he used WMD's on the Kurds? That he was attempting to develop atomic weapons and would have done so if not for Israeli efforts earlier and the coallition efforts in 1991 and afterwards.

Inside Iraq, most Iraqi's know the U.S. led coallition is not there to take over their country and force them to do things against their own beliefs, but some Iraqi's don't yet realize this. Further, some ignorant, mostly extremely poor, or idealistic people inside Iraq and in nearby countries have been fed inflamatory propaganda by entrenched, so called, religious and political groups that stand to lose much of their power, prestige and influence when and if the government of Iraq goes democratic. Furthermore, political dissidants and opposition politicians outside of Iraq (generally, but not always, inside the countries of the coallition partners) promote disunity and factionalism as a means of enhancing their own prestige and/or increasing their chances of election in the near future, or of gaining some leverage for their own agenda. Moreover, some non involved countries, which likewise stand to lose power, prestige and influence in Iraq, or in some cases lucrative business contracts or investments, speak out against coallition efforts. While yet others worry that their country could be next. Stir into this mix the pacificists and horrow stricken who oppose all armed efforts on personal moral grounds. (If I left any group out, forgive me, my mind went numb.) Finally, exacerbating this complex, difficult, delicate situation is an international press corps which sensationalizes events on a daily basis as an accepted and "normal" course of doing business. Put all these ingredients in a large oven & broil at high heat and what you end up with is a recipe for complete frustration and ineffectiveness. It's an absolute miracle that anything gets accomplished at all.

The saddest part of all this is that it's the Iraqi people themselves who suffer. The coallition is trying to bring electricity to those without it, they are trying to repair and improve the water & sewage systems, they are trying to build new and better schools and hospitals, fix the roads, organize a police force, etc., etc., etc.. They aren't trying to force anything on anyone, least of all some particular sort of government or way of thinking. And you know what, they are doing it with their own money and resources--at huge expense, even while their own people are dying in the effort.

Just what would you have them do that they aren't already trying? Would you have them simply walk away and leave things as they are? Just leave the poor people there to their own devices? Let the lawless elements take over and beat them down again? Let some group like the Taliban or Al Qaeda take power and gear up for more attacks like 9/11, or 7/7? The world should be proud of what the coallition is doing, not throw rocks at them for trying.

Perhaps the terrible events of the past few days will help forge a better working alliance between all the countries striving to eradicate terrorism. A much better coordinated response is clearly needed. The kicker here is going to be sharing intelligence available to various countries, as that requires a high degree of trust in one another. Mayby it's time to get the Israelis involved again in all this business as they certainly have one of the best intel organizations around.

As much as it may gall everyone involved, I firmly believe serious economic aid to poor Middle-Eastern and South-East Asian countries would go a long way towards curtailing the feelings of helplessness and despair that fuel the various terrorist movements. People who believe they have something to lose are not going to so readily become suicide bombers and terrorists.

I recently read where an insurgent crossed into Iraq on foot, ostensibly to go help his Muslim brothers fight the occupiers of their country. Inside Iraq he was given a vest packed with explosives and was told to mingle with Iraqi police recruits and then blow himself up. When he objected, they told him to do it or they would kill him. I wonder how many other times this same scenario has happened?



[edit on 30-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zife
Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending...


If you're going to be comparing apples to oranges, don't use Clinton's effective budgetary policy to wage your argument. The man rode off the height of American economy. Bush entered into a downturn cake eaters. Let's get one thing straight, Bush spent the American surplus which, Clinton, RESPONSIBLY, saved for Americans. Bush spent the entire damn thing in one fell swoop. This was the largest Republican spend-off in American history. In one swoop, Bush eliminated social security reserves for you yong men, and raised commodity prices for oil due to OPEC backlash on the invasion of an OPEC member.

The reserves saved from the height of American economy, to be used over the next two decades was spent in less than four years. When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances. The best definition is from, Nixon, "I'm not a crook!"



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   


Originally posted by vincere7

Originally posted by Zife
Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending...


If you're going to be comparing apples to oranges, don't use Clinton's effective budgetary policy to wage your argument. The man rode off the height of American economy. Bush entered into a downturn cake eaters. Let's get one thing straight, Bush spent the American surplus which, Clinton, RESPONSIBLY, saved for Americans. Bush spent the entire damn thing in one fell swoop. This was the largest Republican spend-off in American history. In one swoop, Bush eliminated social security reserves for you yong men, and raised commodity prices for oil due to OPEC backlash on the invasion of an OPEC member.

The reserves saved from the height of American economy, to be used over the next two decades was spent in less than four years. When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances. The best definition is from, Nixon, "I'm not a crook!"




"""don't use Clinton's effective budgetary policy to wage your argument"""

I didn't, I was responding to someones other statement, where long-term effects of Clinton's at the time effective bugetary policy was sound, but cost the American people dearly on 9-11 and in the war on terror as his effective cut backs in military spending.


This is the whole paragraph and not just a sentence. I love how people take things out of context and try to spin in it for their benefit.

"""""Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending and 100,000s of military jobs that are needed more than ever, all because of the 'successful foreign policy of the Clinton Administartion' that caused 9-11 by the way, all the crap that the Clinton Administarion did in the 90s pissed off a lot of people that wanted to harm the United States. Bin Laden had been planning 9-11 long before Bush even entered the White House. """

The United States Military is in a crappy posistion where its lacking troops because of the huge cut backs Clinton made during the 90s that helped increase your precious budget surplus that 4 odd trillion dollars. I wasn't talking about Pres. Bush's economic agenda or nothing to the contrary, just the military that has been getting the funding its needs for a war that it has been fighting for almost 4 years."""""




""" When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances."""

I don't even agree with the guy half the time. I'am Canadian by the way. I just hate how people compare Clinton and Bush, which is like you said comparing apples and oranges. I'm just trying to give you my unbiased view, Clinton and Bush had their own strenghts and weaknesses.



"""When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances."""

I never did, and I think I never will use good economical polcies and Bush in the same sentence, but you have to at least look in the situation that he is in, 9-11 happened, 1.5 trillion dollars lost because of that, huge war that needs money, Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding, recession that hit Clinton's last few months of office that overlapped into Bush's office term for some time, China-U.S trade deficiet that is just growing, exporting labor market to China, Mexico, India, etc. Gore might have down a bit better than Bush if he was president, but it still would look #ty for him too.

Ohh by the way, the reason oil prices are high, is not because the whole invasion of Iraq thing, Iraq wasn't exporting too much oil during the 90s anyway, so the invasion of Iraq would not have a impact of oil production in other countries. The problem lies in processing the oil into fuel for cars, rubber, etc, that's where the bottle neck lies not production. I can give you 100 million of oil a day, but if you can only process 70 million a day and people demand 100 million, than you have a problem. Plus the rise of China as an economical power and growin energy, industrial sectors, etc, is producing a huge demand for Oil, thats why China made a multi-billion dollar deal with Iraq, making one with Venzuala, buying oil companies in Canada, investing in Sudan, just to get the oil. By the way, the U.S. is wasting and using wayyyyyyyy too much oil, just seeing scenes of L.A.'s highways.
The American economy is growing well enough, by the looks of it, we'll see in the future what happens with the whole social security problem, the next pres might fix it for you Americans, maybe if you fix the trade deficiet with China, its huge and growing.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
First of all, let me state that overall I liked the Clinton admin. Not for everything, but what they did do, on the wave of internet and dotcoms excess revenue for the Government, the systems that were in place allowed for surplusses. My personal belief is that the election campaign with Perot is what set the precedent for the government to start being fiscally responsible.

Like it or not, we rode a huge wave through the Clinton admin.... BUT, lets look at it with a little more detail.

When greenspan had that big 1/2 point rate hike in May of 2000, thats when the skids hit. Stocks slammed. And the business I was in up here in Seattle started to see the effects of people wondering if the market was going to be stable. We were already on a slide entering into the Bush Administration, so in all fareness, I think the begining of the recession was partially caused by measures done by Greenspan in trying to cool off the economy.

The other aspect, now that Im thinking about it was the Enron tpye stock fluffing. When American Corporations figured out it was better off to lie to consumers and investors in order to make their stock go up in value, and there were no controls in place to really get these offenders, Ill put that in the Clinton Arena.

We used 401k funds, and everything else that to fund these huge increases in stock values, and the moneys were being invested in some companies that were lying. Not all, but some. That value of not trusting invested money and " what is the real value " is what limits big gains today. Investors are shy and trying not to allow another 2 Trillion dollar drubbing at the hands of the American public.

Both Parties were to blame. The Reagan admin with the allowance of letting us invest money tax free into 401k funds, allowed for the largest gain in the stock market ever. The excessive wealth and the corruption that set in and the poor ethics that was allowd to develop, makes me realize that the statement, " Government is merely a shadow of Business " ring all that more true.

That was a bit off path but oh well.

Peace



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join