Community > Posts By > northrn_yanke

 
no photo
Wed 02/27/08 12:00 PM
he was one ofthe prime culprits for feeding false inteligence to our government on WMDS


very good...at least you now accept the info Bush, Clinton and a few other countries including the UN was false....it is unfortunate that Bush relied on that and other evidence that may not have been correct but it's not been wasted as the terrorists would have to have been fought one day and it's better to take it to them than wait for them to come to us...

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 11:55 AM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Wed 02/27/08 11:56 AM
I am still trying to figure out what a socialist liberal naive commie is


what that is is a self proclaimed left wing socialist who backs off to now claim they're a socialist liberal when they are educated at to what a left wing socialist really is...noway

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 10:10 AM
If this was a war on terror as you have been brainwashed to believe then we would have to fight it world wide as terrorism is not just arabic in nature it is a world wide problem. You have been lead to believe that Iraq is the stronghold for terrorists, it is not. You have been led to believe that Saddam was just as good as bin laden for 9/11, not true. You have been led to believe that Iraq will change the world for terrorists, not true.


I can see that your an expert on brainwashing...hopefully you'll find a cure for yourself someday...yawn

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 08:05 AM


madman....even the dimmest of bulbs at this point think that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists and in fact the actions in Iraq have decreased the likelyhood of more terrorism attacks in the US
"If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist terrorists, the administration’s argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists...and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17137.htm


again nothing in your own words....yawn

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 07:40 AM
madman....even the dimmest of bulbs at this point think that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists and in fact the actions in Iraq have decreased the likelyhood of more terrorism attacks in the US

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 05:48 AM
as to a formal declaration of war, the us hasnt declared wr on anybody since world war II. but to authorize a military action like we have is still authorization for going over there as for as the american military is concerned, no one else really matters..... well to me anyway, but im sure that there are differing opinions.


Doc...in addition to that am I not correct that after the first round with Saddam there was a cease fire in place and with that Saddam didn't comply with the conditions of the cease fire there was no need for a declaration of war when the original one was still alive....

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 05:36 AM
EU fines Microsoft a record $1.3 billion
Regulators: Software giant has defied 2004 antitrust ruling


BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Commission fined Microsoft a record $1.3 billion Wednesday for defying sanctions imposed on the software giant in 2004 for antitrust violations, far exceeding the original penalty.

EU regulators said the company charged “unreasonable prices” until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system.

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The fine is the largest ever for a single company and brings to just under $2.5 billion the amount the EU has demanded Microsoft pay in a long-running antitrust dispute.

The Commission, executive arm of the European Union, has now fined Microsoft more than any other firm for failing to comply with sanctions. It said no other company had ever ignored sanctions.

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

The fine comes less than a week after Microsoft said it would share more information about its products and technology in an effort to make it work better with rivals’ software and meet the demands of antitrust regulators in Europe.

But EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes remained skeptical and said Microsoft was under investigation in two additional cases.

“Talk is cheap,” Kroes said. “Flouting the rules is expensive.”

Microsoft’s actions have stifled innovation and affected millions of people around the world, Kroes said. She called the record 899 million euro fine “a reasonable response to a series of quite unreasonable actions.”

“We could have gone as high as 1.5 billion euros ($2.23 billion),” she said. “The maximum amount is higher than what we did at the end of the day.”

Microsoft fought hard against a March 2004 decision that led to a 497 million euro ($613 million) fine and an order that the software maker share interoperability information with rivals within 120 days. The company lost its appeal in that case in September.

Microsoft was fined $357 million in July 2006 for failing to obey that order.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software — where it is the world’s leading supplier — in an effort squeeze into a new market and damage rivals.

The company delayed compliance for three years, the EU said, only making changes in October to the patent licenses for companies that need data to create software that works with Microsoft.


How does the rate that Microsoft was charging fall into an antitrust issue in the fist place. I also don't agree that EU can tell Microsoft or any company how much they can charge. If you read the article Microsoft was charging the same rate the world round but EU forced them to drop their rate. I don't think it's fair and what the fine will do is increase our costs of purchasing Microsoft products..grumble

no photo
Wed 02/27/08 04:59 AM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Wed 02/27/08 05:00 AM
the information I have gatherd


madman...thanks for starting my day off with a good laugh...laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 05:58 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Tue 02/26/08 05:58 PM
thank you...i really do appreciate it.


it's not said often enough to men like yourself....

I thank you, my family thanks you and I am sure everyone, except for the few in here who can't understand, thanks you..drinker

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 05:32 PM

The problem is we havent been able to build an Iraqi government to our likeing. They just need to find the right group of people who will bend to the will of americadrinker


then why don't you head over there...with all your copy and pasting talents I'm sure you could put it together with a few clicks of your mouse...

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 05:17 PM
oh I'm sorry when I read Bush policies I thought that somehow they attributed a brazilian to be causing teen pregnancy...blushing

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 05:11 PM

Everytime I come in here it is copy and post copy and post. SO what do you think we are going to think? Makes me wonder?


your missing an important step...it's copy, paste, then post...it's more difficult than you thought huh...laugh

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 04:56 PM
do you have peace now? realy what do you think would happen if we left? we would leave another country devestated and the populaton hateing us for bloweing up there water plants, electrical plants, babyfood factories you name itwe destroyed it..


actually if you stopped looking for articles to trash the US you could be looking for info on Iraq...there are many parts of the country that are in better shape now than before the war..the infrastructure is better and the oil wells are making profits for the Iraqi people, not Saddam...

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 04:43 PM

answer my question


don't hold your breath...when he's called out he runs and hides...

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 04:17 PM
sorry your wasteing your life in Iraq bro but its not my fault.If I could send ya a shot I would


that is nasty....even for you..noway

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 03:38 PM
yawn

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 03:37 PM

Excuse me?! Why are you behaving so rudely?

My dollar doesn't go as far as it used to either.


rudely?...so it's rude if you don't think his lie was a lie...noway

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 03:35 PM
Because it takes the American people to wake up their government. Most probably don't even know that Conventions aren't signed / ratified.


oh so the American people need you to wake them up and educate them....somewhat arrogant don't you think....


What elite paratrooper force would that be?


I'm not sure what force thy would be but it was a funny incident near the start of the Afghanistan war when the Canadians had nothing to get them airborn and they had to get a lift on a US helicopter. I thought you would have been aware of that being Canadian. You do realize that Canada has very little in transportation and relies on the US almost exclusively to transport troops and equipment around the world..

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 03:09 PM
I stated that I wasn't surprised with the OP. That the US had not signed / ratified other Conventions dealing with Human Rights.


but you don't feel it is necessary to force the US to comply?..if not then why did you bother posting it?

no photo
Tue 02/26/08 03:05 PM
Edited by northrn_yanke on Tue 02/26/08 03:06 PM
I know so many people going through the same thing


you mean medisonman isn't the only one going through bouts of uncontrollable lying...I wonder if it's a side effect of viagra....noway

1 2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Next