Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:22:57 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:44:27 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:



It's in most country's interest
to keep their currency cheap in relation to the
dollar.


Hi Tom,

Seems to be the white house monetary policy too (I wonder if they know
we use the dollar?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
I think the only currency they understand
is oil, which just appreciated mightily against the
dollar.
73,


Hi Tom,

Funny about that. Before the election, the cost of Gas taxes pushing
a gallon over $2 would cripple us. Instead we pay $2.50 and the
economy is just fine thank you and the arabs get more than the tax
revenue we didn't add. Let's see, we pay them more, take in less tax,
and add a 10 year off-budget item of $100 Billion. Sounds like
Osama's slush fund is doing better than the market. Could be the
golden investment for social security diversion if you didn't end up
in a Git'mo rest home for the aged financial supporters of terrorism.
Who knows? Filling up your gas tank could get you to the tropics
sooner than you might imagine. Flown there on 'Merican Oil? (Such
irony anticipated in the goofs there too.)

A trillion here, and a trillion there, and soon you are talking about
real money.... Let's see, if a million monkeys printed a million
dollars a decade, how much would a banana cost by the next election?
There's one chimp that doesn't care.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
Indeed. If you're hopelessly in debt, there's one
thing that is guaranteed to save you: runaway inflation. It
worked after Viet Nam and it will work after Iraq.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

We only sell weapons to people that aren't intending to shoot at us.

Seems this intention backfired!
--
Philip de Cadenet G4ZOW
Transmitters 'R' Us
http://www.transmittersrus.com

Dear ZZZZPK (no call, no location):

I thought you were describing the Scots until the word "part."
Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"ZZZZPK "

s.it.net wrote in message ...
snip


So... in a NON-POLITICAL way please describe those people of the mid
to late 1700's who went around shooting soldiers who wore REDCOATS and
GOVERNED a land the that was at one stage part of the GREAT BRITISH
EMPIRE and had as one of its main cities BOSTON ?

Richard Clark wrote:
"Seems to be the white house monitary opolicy too (I wonder if they know
we use the dollar?)."

The white house is dense. The U.S. has been spending 8 billion a year
just to improve Iraqi infrastructure so foreigners might invest in a
place with no law and order. The infrastructure is in desparate need of
repair from war, sabotage, crime, and neglect.

Bush needs to put aside his bias against socialist programs, in a state
which was socialist under addam, and inaugurate WPA and PWA type
programs tp put Iraqi idle minds and hands to work now. This would
immediately put money into the hands of spenders. It would give Iraquis
a stake in the future of Iraq.

Halliburton, Kellog, Brown and Root, et al can`t do it. They aren`t
Iraqis. We`ve been unable to enforce law and order and won`t until it is
clear to be in the best interest of Iraqis to maintain law and order.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:31:59 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

The white house is dense. The U.S. has been spending 8 billion a year
just to improve Iraqi infrastructure so foreigners might invest in a
place with no law and order. The infrastructure is in desparate need of
repair from war, sabotage, crime, and neglect.

Hi Richard,

As acknowledge by the white house, this Trillion dollar sink hole is
putting money down the toilet by buying bullets to protect against
suicide bombers (hasn't worked - ever - this has been going on since
Nobel invented dynamite).

Simple resolution with that same Trillion dollars that WOULD solve
things would be to set up shop next door to the guys strapping sticks
of TNT to the Iraqi's vests. Instead, offer to strap packs of $100
for every stick of dynamite they might have lined up for.

Let's say that they would come out looking like a Chia Pet with
$50,000 glommed onto them.

We could do this with every man, woman, and child in all of Iraq.

It won't happen, of course, because there is no will to win the war -
only to fight one. Except for those who have something better to do
with their lives (indirect quote of the draft dodger who shunned
military service to run this corporate franchise called the Pentagon).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"This won`t happen, of course, because there is no will to win the war -
only to fight one."

When WW-2 ended, Churchill was out.

You need something like a battle to be a wartime leader. Hitler had
"Mein Kampf". He and Mussolini wore military uniforms. So did Tojo and
Stalin (Saddam`s role model). Military costumes are worn by most
Latin-American dictators. Fidel Castro (El Comandante) is an example.
Take Mexico, their revolution was almost a century ago, yet the party
which ruled the country until the last election was the Partido
Revolutionario Institutional. Got to keep that military thing alive to
be the leader of choice. Fortunately our president is required to be a
civilian.

The war may get you re-eleected no matter how bably you wage it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Clark wrote:
"--this Trillion dollar sink hole is putting money down the toilet by
buying bullets to protect against suicide bombers--"

Spend some money on bomb sniffing dogs. It`s the explosions that must
end. Let the bombers find a new way to kill themselves.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:32:43 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Spend some money on bomb sniffing dogs. It`s the explosions that must
end. Let the bombers find a new way to kill themselves.

Hi Richard,

white house marching orders were to ignore the ammo dumps (museums,
relief agencies, nuke sites, industrial areas, power plants, water
works, ...) to looters and to protect the energy offices in the
capital.

Once the energy offices were secured, new orders to ignore the
wandering deserters, stay out of the desert smuggler lanes, and avoid
borders - to take command of the pipeline.

Once the pipeline was taken, new orders to ignore securing the
pipeline, or protecting the fields and plants, and to shrug off the
terminals and ports until Haliburton arrived.

Once Haliburton arrived, new orders to abandon military operations to
protect foreign workers (from the US of course), and convert aid
workers to informants for intelligence operatives (increasing the
demand on the Armed Forces to protect even more civilians) and to
patrol in advance of civilian operated trucking operations. Military
personnel were diverted from mission to build and secure the "Green
Zone," a soviet style encampment modeled after Kabul during the
(failed) occupation.

Then reduce troop count.

Then raise troop count.

Then extend tours.

Then cap retirement and discharges.

Then institute rotations guaranteed for 10 years out. Not to mention
being humbled into a death gratuity raise, and more pay. Quick
discharge for those medically unfit due to "non-combat" injuries (a
bureaucratic double shuffle).

Clearly there is absolutely no will to win. There is every will to
balance this war on the back of men in uniform though and to rob the
treasury to pay contractors 5 to 10 times as much to do the same work
of a qualified grunt, who has to train these clowns and then take an
RPG while watching their backs.

The draft dodgers and goldbricks that inhabit the administration never
learned the lessons of Vietnam - they had more important things to do
with their life when other men in uniform were preserving freedom and
Democracy and standing against the Communist menace.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

No, no, no.

The pound is robust. The dollar is taking a long time to
catch up in value.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:21:34 +0100, "Polymath"
wrote:
Pound, Money = sort of like a dollar, but twice as valuable
today: $1.77 (down 10% since Christmas shopping)
and more robust.
What a con job.
100 years ago, today: $4.87
40 years ago, today: $2.80
30 years ago, today: $2.20
20 years ago, today: $1.39
10 years ago, today: $1.60

Robust must mean slumped by 63% - One Time Constant?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:33:53 +0100, "Polymath"
wrote:

No, no, no.

What touching agony in that expression [classic denial].

The pound is robust. The dollar is taking a long time to
catch up in value.

Uh-huh, and back when the conversion rate was nearly 1 for 5 and
there was an "empire," how much Gold could you get in conversion?

If robust means plummeted by 95% and ruling an island, then you
probably have a stock portfolio full of Dot.Coms.

Don't take this as a stick in the eye from your 'Merican cousins, our
white house is trying to get us to grow our hair long so we can braid
it in queues before we start doing laundry for the Chinese. Its our
new Social Security investment plan in the future.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC