Ok then, here is to resilience. You make some good points, but it is remarkable how I manage to see black when you see white and I see white when you see black. Its a little like reading the bible. People read different things in the same words. Sometimes when people read words they understand and parse them point by point they come to an opposite meaning. That's life.

It is my understanding that it is not a government entity. I think that is pretty well known around. They do have some interesting slight of hand going on with the money creation, but its not money they get to keep for themselves and their benefactors the way the populist theories of nefarious Fed activities so like to state. The effect of their activities grows the economy. They loan money to banks at an interest rate, and they sell bonds to investors, for which they pay an interest rate.

Greenspan will not say anything against the Fed as an institution in any case. What I expect a laugh about is any comments he may happen to make about Paul Volker and his management policy. Have you ever read about that guy? His management of the interest rates based on the size of M1 supply defies all logic and he used it to inflate our economy to hell. Not an Argentina by any means, but still, out of control. It was so out of control that I wonder if some clever historian will some day uncover a link between Volker and some evil plot to ruin the value of the dollar and drive interest through the roof. I can not imagine anyone doing a better job without intent. Logic suggests that it must have been intentional then.

Probably one day some bunch of guys were sitting around somewhere and discussing things and one said, "Hey man it would do us a lot of good if we could drive interest up to 25% and inflation to 18%. How can we get there?" and someone else said, Well we could manage interests bases on M1 money supply and watch the roller coaster till we got what we want. Its a slam dunk." So someone else said, "Ok lets do it. They'll blame Jimmy Carter anyway and he'll never have a clue."

Is that Bush giving you the Vulcan mind meld in your picture? Is that why you've been so quite lately? He got to you?

Nope, didn't call you that. May have referred to people of a similar ilk as such, but I know the difference. I think you and Fanta are an educated liberalist and an uneducated liberalist. Between the two neither of you will give a fair shake to any ideology besides your own. Your position is pretty familiar to me and I have some idea of the fundamentals used to base your opinions. I happen to think they are closed minded to a degree in the same way a salesman's can be closed. You have an agenda you wish to promote. That's fine but I prefer more reason in my politics. Fanta's arguments conflict with themselves. Can't argue with him, pointless. Zombie may be a little strong, but a person who hike steps with move-on can't be terribly sane. That's my opinion, live with it or not. I don't care and I no longer am interested in entertaining your twisting demagoguery. Don't have time for you.

Voil, you consistently put the left spin on everything. Did you consider that oil in Iraq made the attack more likely because the revenues of oil when used in a threatening manner created a problem that would not have been there otherwise. Consider that in the case of Iran as a parallel. If they had no oil, and therefore no revenue, they would not be a threat with their warmongering and terrorism support.

As for Greenspan and the comments he did or did not make, I expect I'll read the book pretty quickly. Most of you here will not. I'm interested in more than the hot-button talking points though. I expect anyone who reads his book will find criticism enough to go around for both parties. But if you read carefully you will find plenty to go around for both parties. Ha.

I think Chirac was very corrupt. Everything he did was clouded by his personal interests.

That was a pretty good mischaracterization of my commentary Voil. And I'll make the point that when I make a comment in a thread and you respond with derogatory remarks in a different thread you are doing truth no service. My reference to Fanta as a zombie had to do with the fact that if faced with defending the country he would prefer to lick the boots of the attackers than fight. That's not exactly my opinion, but its not a long ways off. As your your part Voil, you are consistently using your own form of revisionist history to support your positions, so I can't give you a hell of a lot of credit in that regard. Fanta has stated that in his opinion Iran should pursue nuclear weapons, and that is the only way they are going to win the respect and authority in world affairs that they want. Well in my opinion that makes him the war monger here. In the present analysis, if Iran pursues nuclear weapons then western Europe and the United States will act together to attack Iran and prevent them acquiring the weapons. So if you want Iran to pursue nuclear weapons then you want the United States to go to war with Iran, and you are the worst kind of hypocrite.

Voil you referenced my comments in the following way, saying my comments ammounted to the following. "US citizens whom have no issue with engaging in war and blowing people up, when they consider that these people need to 'be managed', because they don't agree with US guidelines, like the current escalation with Iran for example, those US citizens, according to philosopher would be the good, clear thinking, and upholding citizens of the US. "

Well that was bull, nothing like what I said. First of all I do not support blowing people up. I do not have a lot of qualms about destroying weapons manufacturing facilities in Iran if they are producing weapons used to destroy or threaten our troops. As I have said I also consider an American soldier to be more valuable than an Iranian Ayatollah. Choose your own friends if you don't like my choice, apparently you don't. Blowing up innocents is not something I would support.

But let me point out here that if someone fills their rhetoric with the reverse logic employed by Fanta and the revisionist history used by Voil, then there is no reasoning with them.

Take for example Voil's contrasting comment evaluation of Fanta's remarks "On the other hand, the ones like Fanta, whom exercise their democratic right through healthy and objective 'auto-critique', and whom dare state that 'blowing them all up' is not the ethical course of action when another nation won't walk to the US tune...

This is completely false. Its ridiculous. Fanta's democratic right is exercised by supporting Iran's right to have nuclear weapons, and by screaming LIAR LIAR about Bush because he can't find any other positive discourse. Its insanity. You support that, I have no respect for you.

Obviously you two have agendas and I'm not interested in them. Leave me out of your discussions. Support the Ayatollah in your own way but leave me out of it.

Next time you want to say something to me or about me, answer the comments where posted, rather than squirelling off to a different thread and making untrue snippy posts. I'm absolutely inflamed that you go off somewhere in a corner and misrepresent my comments. The complete disregard for truth and fairness in discourse is the sort of thing I expect from far left wing idiots with no regard for reality and I am getting no less here.

Well, I think they are trying to build quite a few things over there. Suppose you hire a construction crew to build something and every time they get the framework up somebody burns it down. I think you have a lot of that going on over there. If you want it eventually build you keep paying and you stop people from burning it down.

Now this is occurring in several cases, first in real construction, second in formation of bridges between the different sects in the area, and third in the political reconciliation realm. So long as you have people burning it all down things will be difficult.

Sunnis burn it down to keep from letting the Shia have too much power and grab too big a share of the wealth. Strife exists between different groups of Shiites as well because some want closer alliance with Iran and some do not. Then the Kurds, who have been doing fairly well since the 91 war are trying to be cut out by both groups of Moslems. Iran works to destabilize things because it is in their financial interest to have the US fail and they seek to walk away with Iraq as their own possession, so they can have ever larger oil revenues and ever larger military and enhance their dreams of regional conquest. Syria prefers to interrupt things for its own reasons. Saudi Arabia is determined to not let Iran prevail so it contributes to destabilization, just to keep Iraq from becoming too heavily controlled by Shiites. And finally disadvantaged individuals from around the region who consider their own lot hopeless jump into the fight just because they don't have a lot of other things they can do besides just go join some rebel cause. That last item would not be the case if the middle eastern countries managed their political systems a little better so that fault is back on the local country governments in my opinion.

The US is not over there trying to destroy things as you suggest Voil, they are trying to to build things up. It is a little unkind of you to say so. Everyone else is trying to stop that process. People with an innate hatred for democracy or for the United States get on the bandwagon because if there is a lack of progress they have a reason to spew more vitriol against the US.

You also mention the bombs in Japan again. It seems to be on your mind every day. All the people who were adults at the time of the bomb are at least 80 years old today, so I suspect you were not one of them. Therefore any idea you have about the reasons for the bombing were taught to you by someone else. You assume that they were right, or you latch on to their issues as your way of contributing to some form of revisionist history. It seems that if someone says something enough times that makes it true. Well find another piece of history to pick on, the US has some high minded ideals as well and it wouldn't hurt to pick up and promote some of the better ones from time to time.

Each step towards a political and peaceful solution is a hard fought step and very significant.

Stop reading Iron Mountain if it upsets you so much.

Old guys need love too.

Old guys have the responsibility to watch out for the young ones, and the young ones lack the historical perspective. That's why the old guys have to decide whether to go to war or not. The young ones have the strength and courage, so they have to do the fighting. That's life.

Where you are confusing the issue is that you suppose the old guys do not love their progeny and they want to fight for their own greed and damn the consequences. Besides which your topic is a worn out quote from a worn out source.

Paul Volker did that for you.

Also suggesting that Iran should have nukes points out the fact that it is in fact you, who is the war monger, not me. As usual Fanta, your logic is simply twisted. Tried to be nice.

Fanta, your analogy is poorly considered, poorly constructed and ignores important facts. The following commentary suggesting it is time for Iran to arm itself with nukes is completely absurd, like many other comments you have made.

Besides that Nukes did not do North Korea any good. Its people are starving proletariats with no hope for the future except that glorious leader will choke on his own bile and die. If they had found a peace and fair trade with their neighbor to the south they would be enormously prosperous and have plenty to eat.

Iran could live without a weapon one at this point and all the countries around them would be happy to be their friends. Countries would come from all over the world do trade with them.

Impromptu, off-the-cuff commentary can sometimes make it through easier than a well thought out discussion because it just seems like an immediate thought rather than something you have been thinking about a long time. So just next time he smells like hell say "you smell like hell, you need to work on that some".

Sometimes being a little crass is the least offensive way.

I can't read your writing dude.

I started a run on my bank today since the weekend is coming up and I'm about to have some fun.

I guess I was a little unkind with the last comment I made. Countering my comments would probably be productive actually a I read what you write back and give it consideration. Anyway I'm not so much a hawk as you probably think. I still hold the opinion that Iran is a dangerous place and unnecessarily provocative.

Clearly they are stirring up an arms race in the region and potentially a nuclear arms race. I consider that problematic, dangerous. I have the impression that you consider it just fine because the United States has nuclear weapons and so they have no moral ground to deny them to others, particularly since they actually used two of them in Japan.

I counter that by reminding you that in fact the United States has many and has had for 60 years. In that 60 years none but the first ever developed has been used in war. The supposition that Iran would not use them is without real foundation. Their exporting of violence in the region speaks for itself.

If they continue to foster an arms race in the region it can only go to encourage war. If war in the region is inevitable then might it not be better to go after it before the arms are built up for so many more years and the consequences increase.

Their intolerance of Israel is based on some strange rationalizations. Iran has what to do with Israel after all? Remember that the majority of the Palestinians and the majority of the Iranians are rather young. This has a lot to do with war and other things. Essentially Iran is a country of young adults and children, largely indoctrinated by the mullahs. The Palestinian children are similarly indoctrinated to hate Israel. Now there may be some historical foundation for some of that in the case of the Palestinians, but these children, with a hatred for something they were not around for and did not witness, only have the teachings of an elder group of people with nothing but hatred and no real motivation to teach a two sided history.

So when you want to criticize me for not looking at both sides, you might point the finger in a circle. because adults in the Iran and Palestine are teaching children in Iran and Palestine and they are not teaching a two sided perspective. Ultimately they teach hatred and killing. How long can that kettle boil before things start flying. If you want to blame the US or people like me in the US for a lack of tolerance I'll take exception.

Sometimes life is about rigor. You work towards the things that are important rigorously. Building a stable country living with your neighbors in peace and seeing to the civil rights of the individuals is a way to rigorously improve things. In Iran and Palestine the only thing they seem to do rigorously is hate.

Remember that it takes two people to dance, but only one to fight. You can always refuse when invited to dance, but when you are invited to fight it might be harder to refuse. Iran is inviting us to fight every time it sends another IUD or EFP to Iraq to use against American soldiers. Iran is inviting the world to fight every time it flaunts the nuclear proliferation treaties. Fanta of all people with his criticism of the US for holding nukes should readily step up to the plate with criticism for Iran in this regard. However he does not do so, and instead rallies against the US. That is obviously an unbalanced position, which is part of my complaint in the previous inconsiderate post of mine, that I am not seeing balance.

One issue with your comments, I am not in favor of blowing people up pall mall across Iran or anywhere else. I wouldn't particularly object to taking their military down a notch as a way of encouraging a populist uprising in the country. Hopefully some people with more level minded approaches to governance might rise in their place and some of the financial support of splinter terror groups might diminish.

If you don't think that it is a reasonable to try to get a more more moderate group of Iranians in power, then explain to me why you think it makes sense in the United States only to have the moderates in power.

Well there you have it Voil, You don't have to concern yourself with my hawkish attitude on Iran because for every one like me there are a hundred guys like Fanta who would lick their boots to keep out of a war. So when you think about how awful the Americans are just think about a peaceful place, maybe with an own hooting in the distance and zombies like Fanta wandering all over the place ready to do international bidding. So there, the US isn't so bad. You can sleep comfortably knowing that most of the Americans really prefer peace to conflict, under any circumstances. Perhaps you might take a minute to update your membership to Move-on.org since propaganda seems to interest you whether it is complete information, incomplete information or simply BS.

Well, I recognize the perspective you are putting forth here as being not only your opinion but a widespread opinion among many groups. I know there are some shades of gray in the matter as well. Ordinarily I am pretty generous in listening to the opinions of others and I don't mind saying that for the most part your comments make sense. However I still feel that the facts chosen are picked to back your opinion and that and for the most part you give the least favorable interpretation to the United States motives and actions over the years.

Referring to a fireworks display using Japanese civilian populations completely overlooks the fact that there was a war going on. It does not consider the opinion of people at the time that without that action there would have been bloody battles from one side of Japan to another with quite a lot more lives lost. So while you might have interpreted it differently, you chose to consider it wholesale murder without provocation.

I'm going to add some historical clips here.

In 1925 Reza Khan deposed Ahmad Mirza, the last shah of the Qajar Dynasty, and was proclaimed shah of Iran. He changed his name to Reza Shah Pahlevi, thus founding the Pahlevi dynasty.

During World War II, Britain and the USSR were concerned by Reza Shah's friendly relations with Germany. In 1941 the two countries invaded and occupied large areas of Iran. They forced Reza Shah to abdicate, and in the absence of a viable alternative, permitted Mohammad Reza to assume the throne.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-80) was king of Iran (1941-1979) with the exception of about two years. He replaced his father, Reza Shah, on the throne on September 16, 1941,

In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah was attributed to
the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party,

The shah's regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran's security and intelligence organization, the SAVAK. Relying on oil revenues, which sharply increased in late 1973, the Shah pursued his goal of developing Iran as a mighty regional power dedicated to social reform and economic development.

In January 1979, religious leaders gained control of Iran and forced the Shah to flee. Iran became an Islamic republic. Boys and girls were no longer allowed to attend classes together. Alcohol and western music were forbidden. Men could not wear T-shirts, short sleeved shirts, or neckties. Women and girls had to wear long, dark garments that covered their hair and body. Religious police severely punished anyone suspected of opposing the revolution.

The point of the clips is to add some perspective here. His position was supported by the US, and he was undoubtedly given help from time to time, but there was some history there. The rise of his father's dynasty was supported by both USSR and Britain.

Now for the flip side. There is also substantial literature supporting the position that the shah would have had no position whatsoever without the aid of the CIA, and that his regime was the most repressive anywhere. But I think the truth lies somewhere between the two camps. His regime was repressive. British Petroleum did all they could do to eliminate Mossadegh and asked for help from the CIA, which did help.

I think that the present regime in Iran is much worse than the Shah's government. People I know from Iran agree with that position.

I happen to have the opinion that if the present government in Iran were dashed and more moderate people in control, so that they were less dictatorial towards their people and less supportive of anarchy and terror throughout the middle east, that a lot of things would be better, not the least of which is the welfare of the Iranians.

People tend to look at the rebuilding of Iran as some sort of winner take all scenario but I don't see it that way. If the government there were changed in a positive manner it would benefit all the countries of the region and countries farther away as well. France, Germany, England, the US and even the USSR and China could benefit from contracts and trade with the country. As it is now, trade with that country is governed largely by corruption for the sake of a greedy few bent on regional domination.

So I'm not looking for some sort of prize here where the United States takes over Iran because of its activities. I simply prefer them to drop their nuclear ambitions and quit exporting terror to other countries. And I think it might be nice if they keep their mitts off Iraq and give it a chance to heal.

I do not consider the US to be the great moralist and to have a monopoly on decent motives. You're painting me with a radical right paint brush and that's not entirely reasonable in my case, so you might relax a bit on the rhetoric.

So let me make the point here that I do not necessarily oppose other countries doing things their own way. however I take exception to Iran's activities since the rise of the Islamic regime. I thank they need to be managed, but that they are resistant to management. I really prefer not to have war under any circumstances, but I lean a little to the right on Iran. The trouble is that, as you say, any such intervention on the part of the US would give the impression that this country is a bunch of war mongers. Well guess what, Iran seems to be so as well. Between the two it looks like trouble.

One more thing, your comment about the US,,,"'heart and soul' of the Mid-East (Palestine and Jerusalem), as a gift and reparation for the European and Western Nations prejudice caused to the Jewish people. How generous..."

What does that have to do with anything I am talking about here? It seems to me to suggest that Israel is the fault of the United States. I take exception to that and I consider the comment to be inflammatory and incorrect. The building of Israel was brought about by a lot more than the United States. As for the heart and soul comment, much of what the Jewish people found there was uninhabited, barren land, which they built up through their own work.

I'm pretty open minded to other solutions about the Iran issue. I think it just irritated you that I suggested they might need some force to get things on track. I don't recognize any of my comments as propaganda, juvenile or otherwise. They are just my thoughts on the matter. Maybe it might be a matter of difference between the sources you have been reading and the sources I have been reading.

I also have the opinion that Iran is a big part of the trouble with killing of American and other soldiers in Iran. They do this by supporting groups with weapons and training and in particular the explosive devices used in bombings all over. Pick any American soldier who died there, as far as I'm concerned any one of them is worth more than the ayatollah.

Spare me the righteous indignation, it looks better on mothers against drunk drivers and even they are puppets of the trial lawyers.

Voir, yes, unfortunately I recognize the other side of the blade. People like to take that look at the United States quite a lot, but then they tend to appreciate it when the US looks out for their country's interests. Unfortunately it is popular to hate the success of the US. That does not change the fact that the United Stated does enormous amounts of good in promoting free society and helping to maintain peace in the world, or that it contributes to help impoverished people all over the world, or that it helps to develop the sciences. That also does not change the fact that Iran is a problem in the world and I'm really not interested in arguing that point. You are free to consider Iran a bastion of freedom and an upstanding promoter of peace and fair trade throughout the world, but I don't know why you would want to do that.

Have you read enough of the history of Iran to recognize that the country flourished under the shah, and that while there were some suppressed people, the country as a whole grew more and more modern, with privileges and growing wealth for the majority of its population. And in fact the repressed segments of society were the extremists for the most part anyway. People love to talk about the CIA involvement in the rise of the Shah. but the Pavlovi family had a more valid claim to the leadership of Iran going back through decades than the Ayatollah ever did. And besides that the guy the Shah supplanted was a radical anyway and only had any influence in government for a year or two. The CIA helped factions within the gov't to cast the guy out, but they were trying to do that already. So essentially the CIA was supporting more moderate groups within Iran.

Prior to the period when the Pavlovi family was in power in the region, Iran was a little like a flag in a breeze, influenced by Russia and Turkey and whoever was strongest at the time.

The influence by GB and the US is most resented by those other groups who had more influence before that time, say prior to WW1 or so.

I consider most of the complaints about the US involvement to have stemmed largely from the propaganda fostered by such groups. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy. Someone is going to have more influence than others. With the US as a major influence there is the capacity for the region to build trade agreements and flourish without fanatical, dictatorial governments. Without the US influence you get what you have now, a militaristic dictatorship steeped with religious hatred and a ongoing drive to create atomic bombs.

I was just lucky I guess. G'night all, I'm outta here.

Gave her the sheep eye and walked on to lunch. The biggest trouble was waiting for the traffic light to change green so we could walk. The whole time we waited for the light she kept screaming from across the street.