World News: French Battle Islamic Terrorists; Dirty Air in China; Syria Update

Jan 13, 2013 Full story: WTVY Dothan 120

People refused to venture outdoors and buildings disappeared into Beijing's murky skyline as the capital's air quality went off the index.

Full Story
Avenger

Kitchener, Canada

#67 Jan 18, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, he is.
Hey we get hockey back we get to watch the Leafs get trounced again. lol
George

Red Deer, Canada

#68 Jan 18, 2013
Avenger wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey we get hockey back we get to watch the Leafs get trounced again. lol
Yeah I get the Oilers and Flames and they are running full page adds apologizing but are not expecting a sell out crowd.
George

Red Deer, Canada

#69 Jan 18, 2013
Avenger wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey we get hockey back we get to watch the Leafs get trounced again. lol
It will be a welcome relief instead of listening to the Idle no More or the confessions of Armstrong, I think they both should get jobs and stop bothering people. Oops sorry, this site is not for that.
Rtloder

Marrickville, Australia

#70 Jan 18, 2013
inv e wrote:
Sorry for disagreeing amoungst all the agreement, but I think if you want greater improvement in the economy you focus on trade. War doesn't really do much good to the economy compared to peace and trade..
It's precisely because the established trade is not fulfilling the requirements of the wealthy nations, that is Britain and France can not pay their bills, "by" creating a flow on reaction, cutting the cost of their imports allowing them to recover.
The problem is since 08, the recovery has not come, because Arab Spring was an economic contention which couldn't be solved by anything other than fundamental changes which are impossible to be imported.
Look at Asia, everything was well and functional, until Japanese debt reached 230% of GDP, Japan can never trade out of that impasse.
So what do they do beside invent stupid stories about how they really owe that that debt to loyal citizens who are happy to give their money away, they solve a territorial dispute by purchasing disputed territory from themselves.
In essence they declare war to hide economic problem.
Never mind trade the Japanese have been beaten in that game.
Just like the French and British were in the Middle East.
Avenger

Kitchener, Canada

#71 Jan 18, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I get the Oilers and Flames and they are running full page adds apologizing but are not expecting a sell out crowd.
Oilers look interesting could be a good year.
Uncle Pang

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

#72 Jan 18, 2013
semi-retired wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your folks in the UN supported the French intervention.
What have to to say about that Deng?
The Chinese FM always bend low when under pressure from the Ameicans.
I just hope Xi will have a stronger set of backbones than the little whimp in Wen Jiabao!

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#73 Jan 18, 2013
Rtloder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's precisely because the established trade is not fulfilling the requirements of the wealthy nations, that is Britain and France can not pay their bills, "by" creating a flow on reaction, cutting the cost of their imports allowing them to recover.
The problem is since 08, the recovery has not come, because Arab Spring was an economic contention which couldn't be solved by anything other than fundamental changes which are impossible to be imported.
Look at Asia, everything was well and functional, until Japanese debt reached 230% of GDP, Japan can never trade out of that impasse.
So what do they do beside invent stupid stories about how they really owe that that debt to loyal citizens who are happy to give their money away, they solve a territorial dispute by purchasing disputed territory from themselves.
In essence they declare war to hide economic problem.
Never mind trade the Japanese have been beaten in that game.
Just like the French and British were in the Middle East.
I'm afraid I might have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think wars cut costs of imports, if anything peace in the Middle East will cut high prices of oil as supply of it is not affected.
Perhaps Governments do try shift the blame overseas to keep their attention away from problems at home, but wars do not improve economies. A war is an expensive thing, with the debt crisis, it would only increase debt if war is to be fought.
If Japan's debt really is 230% of its GDP, it can climb out of that debt with a budget surplus. Of course it will take a while, but peace and more trade will get things right.
Uncle Pang

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

#74 Jan 18, 2013
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid I might have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think wars cut costs of imports, if anything peace in the Middle East will cut high prices of oil as supply of it is not affected.
Perhaps Governments do try shift the blame overseas to keep their attention away from problems at home, but wars do not improve economies. A war is an expensive thing, with the debt crisis, it would only increase debt if war is to be fought.
If Japan's debt really is 230% of its GDP, it can climb out of that debt with a budget surplus. Of course it will take a while, but peace and more trade will get things right.
But the truth is, the US war industry is the sum of all the next twenty countries put together.
The American economy very much depend and linked to its success and growth.
Why would the Saudis, the Gulf states, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and even Algeria want to buy them Lockheed Martins F- fighters if there was peace in all round the region?

It is the policy of the USA and their equally warmongering allies, the French and British to have a perpetual disorder in this Muslism region.

The "Divide and Conquer" ploy still hold out this day to the warmongers.

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#75 Jan 19, 2013
Uncle Pang wrote:
<quoted text>
But the truth is, the US war industry is the sum of all the next twenty countries put together.
The American economy very much depend and linked to its success and growth.
Why would the Saudis, the Gulf states, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and even Algeria want to buy them Lockheed Martins F- fighters if there was peace in all round the region?
It is the policy of the USA and their equally warmongering allies, the French and British to have a perpetual disorder in this Muslism region.
The "Divide and Conquer" ploy still hold out this day to the warmongers.
As the wealthiest country in the world, it's there we can probably see why they have the largest and strongest military in the world. There are times when they probably should not have intervened in wars, there are times it was good that they did. But in terms of the economy, I think peace is much more beneficial.
Stable oil prices I think would benefit America and everyone else more than selling war planes. With on going war in the region we can expect higher demand for arms. But with peace reigning, and trade routes open between all nations, i think America would be so much better off economically.
Rtloder

Marrickville, Australia

#76 Jan 19, 2013
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid I might have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think wars cut costs of imports, if anything peace in the Middle East will cut high prices of oil as supply of it is not affected.
Perhaps Governments do try shift the blame overseas to keep their attention away from problems at home, but wars do not improve economies. A war is an expensive thing, with the debt crisis, it would only increase debt if war is to be fought.
If Japan's debt really is 230% of its GDP, it can climb out of that debt with a budget surplus. Of course it will take a while, but peace and more trade will get things right.
Supply and demand assumes 2 axioms.1, Abundant supplies of resource
(how could equilibrium be achieved if enterprise is without capacity,conflict must replace all relationships that hinder survival at every level until in the end there is only 2 people left fighting in the whole world.)

2. This is the more practical one.
Political coercion is not a major factor in the market place. Which of course it is the dominant consideration of exchange value.
The common assumption, recession comes in the West, commodity prices reduce, recession ends.
Can also be summed up as. Recession comes because capacity to grow is curtailed by no new resource or industry to develop, "importing cheaper resource" becomes the new resource or industry to develop,(exploit) in fact the only one.

That's been going on since 08, and it's not working as you point out some resource prices have actually been increasing, grain
is the big one. The Global economy is NOT dis- functional, but the Status that creates exchange value is fighting to hold it's place, coercion is the name of the game.

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#77 Jan 19, 2013
Rtloder wrote:
<quoted text> Supply and demand assumes 2 axioms.1, Abundant supplies of resource
(how could equilibrium be achieved if enterprise is without capacity,conflict must replace all relationships that hinder survival at every level until in the end there is only 2 people left fighting in the whole world.)
2. This is the more practical one.
Political coercion is not a major factor in the market place. Which of course it is the dominant consideration of exchange value.
The common assumption, recession comes in the West, commodity prices reduce, recession ends.
Can also be summed up as. Recession comes because capacity to grow is curtailed by no new resource or industry to develop, "importing cheaper resource" becomes the new resource or industry to develop,(exploit) in fact the only one.
That's been going on since 08, and it's not working as you point out some resource prices have actually been increasing, grain
is the big one. The Global economy is NOT dis- functional, but the Status that creates exchange value is fighting to hold it's place, coercion is the name of the game.
Perhaps what your saying is true, but I am struggling to understand it. I'm inclined to believe that after every boom there comes a bust. So the after the bubble burst in USA, banks struggled to get money back from the loans they had and so it had a domino effect on the rest of the economy. And i also believe an economy will climb out of a recession by itself, even without monetary or fiscal policies. Investors are always looking to invest, entrepreneurs are always looking for opportunity etc, so for recession to bounce back it will do best in times of peace.
Assuming a budget deficit because of the lower revenue collected in a recession (from lower employment, lower production), debt is used to make up for the deficit, so starting a war would only increase debt further. With the debt crisis, who would feel safe lending to a country with debt climbing so high without higher interest rates?
There are plenty other trade opportunities in peace than in war. Trade I still believe is what creates wealth for everyone, not warring.
Syrian

New London, CT

#78 Jan 20, 2013
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
As the wealthiest country in the world, it's there we can probably see why they have the largest and strongest military in the world. There are times when they probably should not have intervened in wars, there are times it was good that they did. But in terms of the economy, I think peace is much more beneficial.
Stable oil prices I think would benefit America and everyone else more than selling war planes. With on going war in the region we can expect higher demand for arms. But with peace reigning, and trade routes open between all nations, i think America would be so much better off economically.
The defense industry is a huge portion of the American economy. Cutbacks would put a huge number of people Americans of work. In reality, major cuts may now be looming, as they attempt to get a handle on their $16 Trillion dollar deficit.

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#79 Jan 20, 2013
Syrian wrote:
<quoted text> The defense industry is a huge portion of the American economy. Cutbacks would put a huge number of people Americans of work. In reality, major cuts may now be looming, as they attempt to get a handle on their $16 Trillion dollar deficit.
If what I have is correct, the military expenditure as a percentage of GDP in USA was about 4.7% last year. I'm afraid I don't have the employment numbers in the military. Let's hope much of the ex-soldiers will be able to find jobs in other sectors of the economy, and it won't be like the end of the war in vietnam.
Kar

Gdansk, Poland

#80 Jan 20, 2013
it is as always this type of war so called next mission, where brave,heroic soldiers ( means degenerate, neonazi mass murderers,, suppliedin modern weapon of mass destruction, who murder people for money and for fun)murder so called ,,islamistic terrorists ,, means malnutried teenagers, 13-15 years old children.
The next crime against humanity in the name of stealing natural resources of this Mali.
Rtloder

Sydney, Australia

#81 Jan 20, 2013
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
If what I have is correct, the military expenditure as a percentage of GDP in USA was about 4.7% last year. I'm afraid I don't have the employment numbers in the military. Let's hope much of the ex-soldiers will be able to find jobs in other sectors of the economy, and it won't be like the end of the war in vietnam.
Your right got it right here, highest year was 6.1% 1985, lowest was 3% 2000..2008 was 4% representing $1697, per. capita.
Russia was 3.5%in 2007, representing
$413. per. capita.
The war is the result of economic incapacity, which is the result of the very worst and most inappropriate social and economic polices and even doctrines being forced on the developing world in recent history. That's why I hate the West.
However most people who support President Assad don't feel that way. They see it as a normal conspiracy within international relations.
As you point out, OVER CAPACITY TO PRODUCE could easily be matched to insatiable demand.
We need you to tell us more about how, probably you should relate to political or you be talking to yourself and end up a hermit, but that's not so bad now we got internet.
Rtloder

Sydney, Australia

#82 Jan 20, 2013
Kar wrote:
it is as always this type of war so called next mission, where brave,heroic soldiers ( means degenerate, neonazi mass murderers,, suppliedin modern weapon of mass destruction, who murder people for money and for fun)murder so called ,,islamistic terrorists ,, means malnutried teenagers, 13-15 years old children.
The next crime against humanity in the name of stealing natural resources of this Mali.


France is only testing the weight of public
opinion, The March coup, not even a year old, has been forgotten about. Mali was a constitutional democracy up until then,
the Captain -also now forgotten about was,- was a trained CIA operative. Like Kagmey, who is now committing the carnage you speak about in the Congo DR .

If the Tuareg Tribes people had not of fallen out with the Islamic groups, France would not be able to invade. The bogey man justification is not as much a license to slaughter, maim, cripple, rape and pillage as it used to be, or maybe it is, that's what France is asking.

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#83 Jan 20, 2013
Rtloder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your right got it right here, highest year was 6.1% 1985, lowest was 3% 2000..2008 was 4% representing $1697, per. capita.
Russia was 3.5%in 2007, representing
$413. per. capita.
The war is the result of economic incapacity, which is the result of the very worst and most inappropriate social and economic polices and even doctrines being forced on the developing world in recent history. That's why I hate the West.
However most people who support President Assad don't feel that way. They see it as a normal conspiracy within international relations.
As you point out, OVER CAPACITY TO PRODUCE could easily be matched to insatiable demand.
We need you to tell us more about how, probably you should relate to political or you be talking to yourself and end up a hermit, but that's not so bad now we got internet.
True. Ok let's come back to what we're arguing about. I think what you're saying is that the west uses warfare as a way of assisting it's economy. I'm arguing war doesn't benefit a economy as much as peace, and in saying that, I think wars are fought and started more for other reasons than for economic gain.
I believe wars are started mainly for political reasons, one vying for control, one defending it's power. Sometimes politics throws religion into the mix to exploit religious fervour and blind passions.
If by capacity you mean infrastructure, I don't think a lack of infrastructure itself will lead to war, but perhaps it may make the soil rich and leave it dangerously fertile for nationalism to take root.
Whether the west is the trying to implement policies in Syria is perhaps best for the next discussion. So we ok with this? We can move on to that one if you like.
Rtloder

Sydney, Australia

#84 Jan 21, 2013
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Ok let's come back to what we're arguing about. I think what you're saying is that the west uses warfare as a way of assisting it's economy. I'm arguing war doesn't benefit a economy as much as peace, and in saying that, I think wars are fought and started more for other reasons than for economic gain.
I believe wars are started mainly for political reasons, one vying for control, one defending it's power. Sometimes politics throws religion into the mix to exploit religious fervour and blind passions.
If by capacity you mean infrastructure, I don't think a lack of infrastructure itself will lead to war, but perhaps it may make the soil rich and leave it dangerously fertile for nationalism to take root.
Whether the west is the trying to implement policies in Syria is perhaps best for the next discussion. So we ok with this? We can move on to that one if you like.

Inv e, please don't feel relieved you can leave the bread and butter issues behind and move on to something more interesting.
I know it's a pain in the butt because it's like thinking about going to work but work is quite pleasant if your not burdened with having to put up with imbeciles .
I see what it is, that your forgery of agenda is saying about the twits on the post and I entirely agree. After all didn't nationalism destroy the Second International and left mankind stranded in the hollow of unpleasantness, you will get no argument from me.
We've got a nincompoop of a thread, presided over by a stupid dog and a triple triad of evil (replica),if your interested I could give you it's name?.
Their calling is the gutter, and they claim the Arab Spring was NOT a contrivance of CONSPIRACY. Their mind set is bedevilled by nationalist tendency,
OH,! if I could only set them free I'd go to my grave in peace.
Chris

Toronto, Canada

#85 Jan 21, 2013
Warrior from Kush wrote:
@ george, There is always a bigger picture. NATO are the true terrorists.
George knows that!!!

He is paid to look naive!!!
Chris

Toronto, Canada

#86 Jan 21, 2013
Kar wrote:
it is as always this type of war so called next mission, where brave,heroic soldiers ( means degenerate, neonazi mass murderers,, suppliedin modern weapon of mass destruction, who murder people for money and for fun)murder so called ,,islamistic terrorists ,, means malnutried teenagers, 13-15 years old children.
The next crime against humanity in the name of stealing natural resources of this Mali.
Good description!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down over Uk... 51 min Dimitri100 1,123
Why should Australians fear from Muslims? (Dec '07) 56 min Allah Hubal etc 44,863
Ukraine parliament ratifies EU pact 1 hr UKRAINE in NATO 1
'The War Is Not Over' (Sep '06) 1 hr Pizza Pie 276,527
Why Obama must revisit Ho Chi Minh's request? 4 hr bac ky luu phan boi 32
Two years after Benghazi, US wants more time to... 5 hr Righteous 76
ISIS turns to glossy magazine for propaganda 5 hr Da-ish 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Terrorism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••