The Bush government hard at work protecting your childrens safey...what's good for business is good for America. Let them eat lead... (forget the cake)

"Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement that they found "no instances of hazardous levels." And they refused to release their actual test results, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public."

---

Account frozen...

no work on HUGE corporate profits by US Companies that are making those monies abroad and therefore pay no taxes on!

Did you have some legal theory on why companies that aren't in the U.S., and that earn profits outside of the U.S. must somehow pay U.S. taxes.

Why? Because you think the should? There is likely a trillion or more dollars by now, deliberately kept outside of the U.S. No one in their right mind would bring that money here when they would lose 35% right off the top. 350 BILLION being taken by force.

Yes I think monies earned by US Companies should be subject to US taxes. ALL monies not just money earned in the US. If you want to save money and think that overseas is the place to take your Company, then fine SEE YA! BUT do not expect to get any US Government contracts, there is a price to be paid for taking your Company overseas. If you think profits are better for your Company than US Government contracts, than that is your ever lovin' choice. BUT those Companies that can't or don't move overseas and do pay their Corporate taxes will enjoy all the benefits of ALL US Government contracts, access to the best workers money can buy, and many other incentives that benefit those Comapnies that stay.

---

Iran options

By Patrick Clawson

Clawson, deputy director for research of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author or editor of 24 books and monographs, including most recently "Forcing Hard Choices on Tehran" from the Washington Institute, co-authored with Michael Eisenstadt.

February 18, 2007

The controversy over U.S. statements regarding Iranian arms in Iraq reflects the deep skepticism about how well the Bush administration understands the world. The intelligence briefers in Baghdad got into trouble by making the natural human error of assuming that all right-thinking people would come to the same conclusion as they did after reviewing the evidence: since Iran's Al-Quds force is under the direct control of Iran's supreme religious leader and since senior Al-Quds officers were detained in Iraq carrying false identities and plans for attacking U.S. forces, then it must be the case that Iran's top leaders are behind the attacks on U.S. forces.

Likely? Yes. Proven? No. And making the claim has taken attention away from the well-established fact that sophisticated Iranian weapons are being used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

In contrast to this overreaching, the U.S. approach to Iran's nuclear program has more often stuck to what can be completely proven. And that explains its greater success at building a broad international coalition and creating bipartisan support at home, compared to the skepticism about the Iraq claims. In December, the United Nations Security Council unanimously – with Russia and China approving – voted to impose sanctions on Iran's dangerous nuclear “fuel cycle” activities. That came after three years of patient diplomacy concentrating on what is not in dispute, namely Iran's pursuit of a nuclear fuel cycle and its 18 years of concealing its nuclear activities. Iran proudly trumpets its progress on the fuel cycle, giving tours of the massive facilities it is building. And Iran acknowledged that it hid its activities, claiming only that these were minor mistakes.

By concentrating on what is clearly established, Washington has been able to accomplish much more than if it had emphasized the intelligence that strongly suggests Iran already has an active nuclear weapons program. The international inspectors have found a lot of suspicions indications Iran is working on a bomb, but there is no smoking gun. Explaining why to worry about Iran's nuclear fuel cycle is complicated; it is much simpler to warn that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. But it is worth taking the extra effort to explain that if Iran completes the fuel cycle facilities it shows off to the world, then it will be on the brink of having a bomb. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El-Baradei – no fan of President George W. Bush – says that if Iran completes the facilities now being built, Tehran would be “a few months” away from having a bomb.

While the United States has been quite successful at building a broad coalition opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Tehran continues to claim it is making great progress with its nuclear program. So has the U.S. effort been a triumph of appearance over substance? No, because the Iranian claim is not true: Iran has encountered many technical problems in its nuclear program, largely because it has been blocked from access to foreign assistance. The task now is to secure vigorous enforcement by all countries of Security Council Resolution 1737, which forbids Iranian access to dual-use technologies, that is, civilian technologies that can be applied to the nuclear program.

The more Iran's nuclear program can be slowed, the more time for Iran's fundamental weaknesses and the West's abiding strengths to become apparent to the Islamic republic's hard-line leaders, who have recently been over-confident because of temporary factors in their favor, such as a tight oil market and U.S. problems in Iraq. Already, the more business-minded Iranian leaders are realizing the high price that the country is paying for its nuclear program, especially since the U.S. Treasury has led a worldwide campaign to shut off Iran's access to international banks. A vigorous debate is occurring inside Iran about the wisdom of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's confrontational stances. If the West hangs tough and steps up the pressure on Tehran, Iran may well in the end agree to suspend its nuclear program, though admittedly the near-term outlook is not good.

In addition to pressing Iran, the United States needs to reassure its friends in the region that they are well protected against any threat from Iran. America does this not to be nice to oil-rich Arabs but because of U.S. interests in preventing Middle Eastern countries from starting their own nuclear programs. Nine regional countries – all U.S. allies, such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – have announced they are re-examining their nuclear options in reaction to the Iranian program. If all of them went the whole way to nuclear weapons, the world would be a much more dangerous place. The best way to forestall further nuclear proliferation is for the United States to take concrete steps to shore up the defenses against Iran. That explains why President Bush ordered the deployment to the Persian Gulf of a second aircraft carrier and additional Patriot anti-missile defenses.

One should hope the additional military assets sent to the Gulf will also persuade Iran's leaders that their nuclear program is hurting Iran's security by starting an arms build-up that will leave Iran worse off. The Cold War offers instructive examples of how strong responses can bring better results. When the Soviet Union deployed nuclear-tipped SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe, NATO answered by stationing similar missiles in Western Europe, despite massive demonstrations against what protesters saw as Reagan administration provocative saber-rattling. In fact, the NATO deployment dissuaded Moscow, which agreed to dismantle the SS-20s if NATO did the same to its missiles. We can hope that strong preparations to defend against Iranian nuclear-protected strong-arming of its neighbors will similarly dissuade Iran, such that Tehran agrees to stop its nuclear program in return for creation of a regional framework that protects Iran's security.

The second aircraft carrier deployed to the Gulf also increases the U.S. capability to pre-emptively strike Iranian nuclear facilities. But there are no reasons to carry out such a strike so long as Iran's nuclear program faces difficult technical barriers and diplomacy offers good prospects of resolving the crisis.

At the same time, the United States cannot rule out pre-emptive military force, because some in the Iranian revolutionary leadership with an apocalyptic world view might relish the opportunity to declare that Iran is about to explode a nuclear bomb, without clarifying if it was going to be inside Iran or on a Western or Israeli target. If they were to make such a threat, then pre-emptive military force would be well worth considering. Given that reality, the U.S. military certainly had better be preparing detailed plans now, so that America does not get caught flat-footed a la Iraq, not knowing what bad things could happen the day after the use of force. Such military planning would inevitably be misread by some as signs that an attack is near. But that is the price to be paid when so many in American society do not understand how the military works, including the importance of detailed contingency planning.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

Collision course

FROM THE ECONOMIST
The London-based Economist is a weekly magazine of international reporting, analysis and commentary.

February 18, 2007

'We are not planning for a war with Iran.” So said Robert Gates, America's new defense secretary, on Feb. 2. You cannot be much clearer than that. With a weak and isolated president, and an Army bogged down in the misery of Iraq, the American Congress and people are hardly in a fighting mood.

Nonetheless, and despite Gates' calming words, Iran and America are heading for a collision. Although the risk is hard to quantify, there exists a real possibility that George Bush will order a military strike on Iran sometime before he leaves the White House two years from now.

America and Iran have been at loggerheads ever since Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution of 1979. But four things are making this old antagonism newly dangerous.

One is Iran's apparent determination to build nuclear weapons, and a fear that it is nearing the point where its nuclear program will be impossible to stop. The second is the advent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist president who denies the Holocaust and calls openly for Israel's destruction: His apocalyptic speeches have convinced many people in Israel and America that the world is facing a new Hitler with genocidal intent.

The third is a recent tendency inside the Bush administration to blame Iran for many of America's troubles not just in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

Any one of these would be destabilizing enough on its own. Added together, they make the possibility of miscalculation and a slide into war a great deal more likely. That is all the more so when they are combined with a fourth new source of friction between America and Iran.

This is the predicament of Bush. A president who is now detached from electoral considerations knows that his place in history is going to be defined by the tests he himself chose to put at the center of his foreign policy: bringing democracy to the Middle East and preventing rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Given his excessive willingness to blame Iran for blocking America's noble aims in the Middle East, he may come to see a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear program as a fitting way to redeem his presidency. That would be a mistake.

This newspaper supported America's invasion of Iraq. We believed, erroneously, that Saddam Hussein was working to acquire nuclear weapons. And we judged that the world should not allow a mass-murderer to gather such lethal power in his hands. In the case of Iran, the balance of risks points – though only just – in the other direction.

Even if it became clear that Iran was on the threshold of acquiring an atomic bomb, an American strike on its nuclear facilities would be a reckless gamble.

Without America invading and occupying Iran – unthinkable after Iraq – such a strike would at best delay rather than end Iran's nuclear ambitions. It might very well rally support behind a regime that is at present not conspicuously popular at home, emboldening it to retaliate inside Iraq, against Israel and perhaps against the United States itself.

Besides, it is far from clear exactly how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Iran has a complex power structure with elements of pluralism and many checks and balances. For all its proclaimed religiosity, it has behaved since the revolution like a rational actor.

To be sure, some of its regional aims are mischievous, and in pursuing them it has adopted foul means, including terrorism. But the ayatollahs have so far been shrewd calculators of consequences. There are already small signs of a backlash against the attention-seeking Ahmadinejad. As with the Soviet Union, a nuclear Iran could probably be deterred.

All of this suggests that in present circumstances it would be wrong for America to launch a military strike against Iran. But it would be the height of self-deception for anyone to jump to the conclusion that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be dangerous at all. It would be very dangerous indeed.

For a start, there is a danger that Iran's nuclear efforts would provoke a pre-emptive strike by Israel, which is already a nuclear power, albeit an undeclared one. For Israelis, whose country Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe off the map, it is not all that reassuring to hear that Iran can “probably” be deterred.

Even if Israel were to decide against such a strike, Iran's going nuclear could destroy what is left of the international non-

proliferation regime. It has proved hard enough for Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to live with Israel's undeclared bomb; if their Iranian rival got one, too, the race to copy might soon be on.

On top of this is the danger that a nuclear Iran would feel safe to ramp up attempts to spread its revolution violently beyond its own borders.

Every effort should be made to stop an Iranian bomb. But there is a better way than an armed strike. In 2002 Bush consigned Iran along with Iraq and North Korea to an “axis of evil.” Since 2004, for lack of good alternatives, he has been helping the efforts of Britain, France and Germany to talk rather than bludgeon Iran into nuclear compliance.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is for civil purposes only. Last year, the Europeans called its bluff by offering trade, civil-nuclear assistance and a promise of talks with America if it stopped enriching the uranium that could produce the fuel for a bomb. When Iran refused, diplomacy led in December to the imposition of economic sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.

This is a promising approach. The diplomacy at the United Nations proceeds at a glacial pace. But Iran is thought to be several years from a bomb. And meanwhile the Americans, Europeans, Russians and Chinese have at last all lined up on the same side of the argument.

What is required now is a further tightening of the economic squeeze coupled with some sort of an incentive – most usefully an unambiguous promise from Bush that if Iran returns to compliance with the nuclear rules it would face no attempt by America to overthrow the regime. Even then, America and Iran may be fated to lock horns in the Middle East. But the region, and the world, would be a good deal safer without the shadow of an Iranian bomb.

---

me@rescam.org

America's political market is working

GEORGE F. WILL
THE WASHINGTON POST

February 18, 2007

Two Democratic presidential candidates with national campaign experience are stumbling. A Republican candidate who has run only municipal campaigns is confounding expectations, calling into question some assumptions about Republican voters.

John Edwards has learned – surely he did not know it when they were hired – that two women employed by his campaign have Internet trails of vitriolic anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, rants. One of them wrote a profane screed about God impregnating Mary, and said the Catholic Church opposes the morning-after birth control pill in order to “force women to bear more tithing Catholics.” The other woman, who sprinkles her commentary with a vulgar term for female genitalia, referred to George W. Bush's “wingnut Christofascist base.”

When the women's works became known, it was reported that they were, or were going to be, fired. Thirty-six hours later, after left-wing bloggers rallied to their defense, Edwards' campaign said they would be retained. Edwards explained that the women had assured him that “it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word.”

He really does? The two women – both of whom have resigned, pronouncing themselves, of course, victims of intolerance – are what they are, and are unimportant. But the fact that a prospective president is so pliable under pressure, and so capable of smarmy insincerity – what does he think were the women's intentions? – is very important.

In New Hampshire recently, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, “Now that we have a Democratic president . . . ” Quickly correcting this slip, she said she meant “a Democratic Congress,” but added: “If we had a Democratic president, we would end the war.”

Well. She and others say they can “end the war.” That phrase is a flinch from facts. They mean they can end U.S. involvement in the war. No one believes the United States has the power to prevent the war from raging on.

But if a Democratic president would implement withdrawal, the Democratic Congress could, by forbidding further spending to sustain forces in Iraq. So why is Clinton, who says that a Democratic president would properly withdraw U.S. forces, not voting for a policy she considers proper?

Congress has used denial of funds to express itself on, and influence, conflicts in Vietnam (1973) and Nicaragua (1982 and 1984). Also, on Nov. 2, 1983, two weeks after the bombing that killed 241 Americans in the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, the House of Representatives voted on a measure to force the withdrawal of the Marines by March 1984, by cutting off funds for the Lebanon operation. The measure was defeated, 274-153, but the 153 included 18 Democrats who are still in the House, nine of whom are committee chairmen.

A question for the 18: If they believed defunding the Beirut operation was proper, why is it not proper to defund U.S. involvement in Iraq? One answer insistently suggests itself: They think that withdrawal would be too risky. Does Clinton agree?

Regarding the Republican race, for many months commentators have said that when the Republican base learns the facts about Rudy Giuliani's personal life (an annulled first marriage, a messy divorce, then a third marriage) and views on social issues (for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, in each case with limits), support for him will evaporate. But such commentary is becoming self-refuting. The insistent reiteration of it during Giuliani's coast-to-coast campaigning is telling activist Republicans – the sort of people who read political commentary – the facts about Giuliani. And so far those facts are not causing a recoil from him: According to the USA Today/Gallup Poll, his lead over John McCain has risen from 31-27 in November to 40-24 today.

This does not mean that the social issues have lost their saliency. People for whom opposition to abortion is very important might, however, think that in wartime it is not supremely important. Or they might reason, correctly, that presidents can change abortion policy only by changing the Supreme Court, so Giuliani's pledge to nominate justices such as Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts is sufficient.

Furthermore, California's primary is being moved up to Feb. 5, and New Jersey's and some other states' might be moved to that date, so Giuliani's views on social issues might become, on balance, advantages. And suppose Giuliani convinces Republicans that he can become the first Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to be competitive for California's (now 55) electoral votes.

Markets are mechanisms that generate information. The political market is working: Americans are learning much about the candidates, and themselves.

---

me@rescam.org

The party of defeat

By Robert J. Caldwell
San Diego Union-Tribune

February 18, 2007

Democrats have struggled for a generation to escape the crippling public perception that they are soft on national security. Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives have now revived their party's electoral curse.

The House vote Friday for a Democratic leadership resolution opposing President Bush's plan to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq was lopsidedly partisan. Nearly all Democrats voted for it. All but a relative handful of Republicans voted against it.

Yes, it is a non-binding resolution, meaning it has no force in law. Bush is free to ignore it, as he already has said he will. And, yes, it contained political cover language expressing support for American troops in Iraq. Thus, as virtually all Democrats proclaimed during the House's four days of debate on the resolution, Democrats can claim that they “support the troops.”

But House Democrats are now on record as formally opposing the troops' mission – a potentially decisive effort to stop the violence in Baghdad and defeat the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province.

It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the entire American campaign in Iraq rides on this mission, and on the parallel effort to prompt political reconciliation among Iraqi factions. Unless U.S. and Iraqi forces can at least greatly diminish the terrorist carnage convulsing Iraq's capital city, the paramount U.S. objective of creating a stable, democratic Iraq won't be achieved. The complementary struggle in Anbar province is equally decisive. Defeating the Sunni insurgents and their allies, the terrorists of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is vital to the hopes of stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to permit American forces to begin withdrawing.

The Democrats' passage of a non-binding resolution opposing the troop reinforcements that Bush and his Iraq commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, say are essential to American success is damaging enough. If Democrats now use their power over appropriations to defeat the troop surge before it can be fully implemented, the political risk to Democrats will be greatly compounded.

Starkly put, Democrats risk making “Bush's war” their war, and then losing it.

If you think Democrats wouldn't be that foolish or reckless, think again.

Rep. John Murtha, the blustery Pennsylvania pol and anti-war ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is already pledging to use his power as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's appropriations subcommittee on defense to stop the surge by restricting the deployment and funding of U.S. forces.

Here's what Murtha said in an interview Thursday with the MoveCongress.org Web site, which represents a coalition of anti-war groups:

“They (the troops) won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind ... we're going to stop this surge.”

Does Pelosi, smarter and smoother than Murtha, agree?

“I fully support that,” Pelosi said of Murtha's remarks.

What's building, then, is not only a political crisis for the Democratic Party but a constitutional clash over the president's, any president's, express powers as commander in chief of America's armed forces.

The Constitution wisely vests the power to command the armed forces in the president, not Congress. That's especially true in time of war. If Bush decides that sending another 21,500 troops to Iraq is necessary, that's his call under the Constitution. Congress' constitutional authority lies in deciding how much to appropriate for the military. Deputizing 435 House members and 100 senators as armchair generals to micromanage the movement of troops and the military conduct of a war isn't in the Constitution for a reason. It couldn't possibly work and would be folly to attempt.

But that, apparently, is what Pelosi, Murtha and the House Democratic leadership intend. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, scrambling Friday to push a comparable resolution in the Senate, seems to be similarly misguided.

Have the Democrats learned nothing from history?

In 1973, a heavily Democratic Congress voted to prohibit U.S. air support for Cambodia's pro-American army, then desperately fending off the communist Khmer Rouge insurgents. In early 1975, Congress cut off all U.S. military aid for Cambodia.

Predictably, Cambodian government forces were soon defeated by the Khmer Rouge, then backed by Communist China and North Vietnam.

What followed was one of the great horrors of the 20th century – the genocidal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge of 2 million Cambodians, roughly 40 percent of Cambodia's population.

In 1974-75, an even more heavily Democratic Congress drastically cut U.S. military and economic assistance to our ally South Vietnam, even as the Soviet Union was illegally flooding North Vietnam with heavy weapons. The subsequent North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam overran our ally, took Saigon, and promptly imposed a Stalinist dictatorship that resulted in the deaths and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, constantly, but selectively, invoked by Democrats last week as a blueprint for a phased U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, also lent support to a “temporary surge” in U.S. forces if deemed necessary. In addition, the ISG report warned ominously of the dire consequences – Iraq as a failed, terrorist state, a destabilized Middle East, and spreading regional conflict – of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that many Democrats favor.

If Pelosi, Murtha and Reid succeed in crippling the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and thereby contribute to defeat and disaster, Democrats would spend another generation rightly deemed weak and feckless on national security.

---

me@rescam.org

TOILET PAPER is now Available . . .

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Yes I think monies earned by US Companies should be subject to US taxes. ALL monies not just money earned in the US.

Hmmmm, OK then, define a U.S. company.

Would Daimler Chrysler count? I mean, every single dime they make could be sent overseas... Oh, hey, how about GM? By some estimates, the majority of GM stock is owned by foreigners--which of course, would mean that GM is not a U.S. company either...

If you want to save money and think that overseas is the place to take your Company, then fine SEE YA! BUT do not expect to get any US Government contracts, there is a price to be paid for taking your Company overseas.

This is funny. You understand that there is a "price to be paid for taking your company overseas," yet you seem not to understand that there is a price to be paid for a 35% corporate tax rate, that is taxed TWICE. Not to mention, they don't "take their companies overseas" they open other companies over there and do not bring the profits back.

If you think profits are better for your Company than US Government contracts, than that is your ever lovin' choice.

As a rule, profits are orders of magnitude more important than U.S. Government contracts. You can have U.S.G. contracts, but without profits, the company fails. The reverse is not true.

BUT those Companies that can't or don't move overseas and do pay their Corporate taxes will enjoy all the benefits of ALL US Government contracts, access to the best workers money can buy, and many other incentives that benefit those Comapnies that stay.

Big deal. They weigh the costs very carefully in a cost/benefit analysis--guess what, many times they opt for overseas. Especially when 35% comes off the top.

You seem to agree: your sent your business overseas when you bought your computer. Odd how that works out...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You seem to agree: your sent your business overseas when you bought your computer. Odd how that works out...

well - i'm real happy to say i built mine from American Made Parts, that was CLOSE ;)

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Cheney 'unlikely to ask for more troops'

February 19, 2007 08:29am
Article from: AAP

PRIME Minister John Howard said US Vice President Dick Cheney is unlikely to ask Australia to commit extra troops to Iraq during his visit later this week.

US officials have flagged that Mr Cheney will canvas what Australia may be able to do to enhance its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan when he visits.

But Mr Howard said today that he did not expect Mr Cheney to ask Australia to commit extra combat troops to Iraq, but he did not rule out providing trainers to help train Iraqi soldiers.

"As far as combat troops are concerned I think the current level is appropriate and I don't expect Australia to be increasing that and I don't expect a specific request from the vice-president," Mr Howard told Channel 9.

"Although, as I say constantly with these things, I never categorically rule something out because there could be some dramatic change in circumstances of which we're not aware at the moment.

"I wouldn't at the margin rule out some additional trainers because trainers are very important in helping get the Iraqi army ready to do the job we all want it to be able to do, and that is to look after the country's security."

Mr Howard would not rule out sending extra combat troops to Afghanistan.

"We will keep our own force commitment in Afghanistan under review," he said.

"On Afghanistan we continue to review our force level there - the situation in Afghanistan is not easy - we would like to see a greater commitment in the southern part of the country from a number of the non-NATO countries."

And Mr Howard again reiterated his view that it would be a disaster if America and its allies pulled out of Iraq now.

"I do not want to see a precipitated coalition withdrawal because that would plunge the country (Iraq) into much greater bloodshed, it would embolden the terrorists, it would be an enormous humiliation for the United States and it would damage Australia's security interests, particularly against terrorists in this part of the world," he said.

Mr Howard is promising to push the issue of Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks during Mr Cheney's visit.

Hicks, who has been in US custody in Cuba for five years, is facing charges of attempted murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support from terrorism.

He is expected to face a US military commission later this year and could be sentence to life imprisonment if convicted.

Mr Howard said Hicks's situation has taken too long to resolve and he will be pushing the issue with Mr Cheney during his visit to Australia.

"I will be pressing the vice-president as strongly as the circumstances allow for the trial to take place without any further delay," Mr Howard told Nine.

"Some of the delay has not been the fault of the administration, but a lot of it, frankly, has been the process within the Pentagon and the defence department in the United States."

But Mr Howard said he did not believe Hicks had been in Afghanistan on a holiday.

"He wasn't in Afghanistan on some kind of backpacking frolic, I mean let's get that out of the way, these are very serious allegations and they should be tested," Mr Howard said.

"But it's taken too long and I will be making that point as forcefully as the circumstances allow when I see the vice-president."

If Hicks is tried quickly, then the Adelaide father-of-two could be back in Australia within the year, Mr Howard said.

"If the trial does take place quickly, as we want, then either way he could be back on Australian soil later this year," he said.

"If he's free, well then he obviously comes back - I mean he's an Australian citizen. If he is convicted we have an arrangement with the Americans whereby he can serve out the remainder of his term in an Australian prison."

---

Join Calm Chaos

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

...let's not talk that way about the religious right in the United States and their government minions.

---

Account frozen...

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

...let's not talk that way about the religious right in the United States and their government minions.

Plenty of leftest liberals in our government too.

---

me@rescam.org

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

...let's not talk that way about the religious right in the United States and their government minions.

Plenty of leftest liberals in our government too.

...they all moved to California.

---

Account frozen...

Why Iran 'meddles' in Iraq
Is Tehran's supposed involvement malign, or are its interests in the war legitimate?
By Adam Shatz, ADAM SHATZ is literary editor of the Nation.
LA-Times, February 18, 2007

THIS TIME AROUND, when the Bush administration presented "intelligence" from unidentified sources about a dangerous foe in the Middle East, the American media was noticeably more skeptical. Eager to redeem themselves for the generally obsequious reporting about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, journalists don't want to get fooled again as the administration lays the groundwork for a possible war against Iran.

But even though journalists have quite rightly raised questions about the credibility of the intelligence and the motives behind its release, they have failed to take the next step and examine the fundamental underlying premise behind the administration's accusations: that Iran's role in Iraq is inappropriate.

Take, for instance, the New York Times' Feb. 13 editorial, "Iran and the Nameless Briefers." While demanding that President Bush "make his intentions toward Iran clear," warning against "another disastrous war" and questioning the administration's assertion (since retracted) that "the highest levels of the Iranian government" authorized the sale of armor-piercing explosives to militants in Iraq, the paper added, as if it were self-evident: "We have no doubt of Iran's malign intentions. Iran is defying the Security Council's order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq."

Let's be clear: Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with his disgraceful Holocaust denial conference and incendiary strutting, cuts an unsavory profile, to say the least. And since the collapse of the Iranian reform movement, hard-liners have shrewdly exploited Bush's threats, jailing intellectuals with contacts in the West.

Still, is it fair to characterize Iran's involvement in Iraq as "malign," or, for that matter, as "meddling" (in contrast, say, to the presence of 130,000 American troops in Iraq)? Might Iran have legitimate interests in what is, after all, its own geographic neighborhood?

Could it be that Iran's stake in Iraq is solidly grounded in the same realist principles that drive the behavior of most nations, rather than in "malign intentions" or a desire to export the Islamic revolution?

If Iran wants to see a friendly government established in Iraq, it hardly lacks for reasons. Unlike the United States, Iran was attacked by Iraq, back when Hussein's regime enjoyed American support as a bulwark against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolution. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians died during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). When Iraq used poison gas against Iranian troops, the United States uttered not a single protest.

Not surprisingly, Iran wants to ensure that no government in Iraq will threaten it again. That's why Iran made no secret of its joy over Hussein's downfall, but it also refuses to accept a potentially hostile American base in the Persian Gulf or to cede absolute control over Iraq's future to the United States.

Iran also sees itself as a protector of Shiite interests in the region — and is, with a mixture of gratitude and wariness, viewed as such by Shiites from the gulf to Lebanon to Pakistan. Iraq's Shiite majority, though Arab and nationalist, is linked to Iran's Shiites through both family and religious ties. It was in Tehran that many of the Iraqi Shiite parties in power today found sanctuary from Hussein's agents; many Iraqi clerics studied in Iran, and some — most notably Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani — were born in Iran. Every Iraqi Shiite politician must pay his respects to Tehran, including secularists such as Washington's former darling, Ahmad Chalabi.

The future Iraqi government, frankly, is likely to bear a stronger resemblance to the Islamic republic than to the liberal democracy the Bush administration publicly championed — or to the "Saddamism without Saddam" scenario that many advocates of the invasion privately preferred. That Iran has acted to bolster the power of its Shiite allies in Iraq — and to arm Shiite militias avenging Sunni attacks on their people and their shrines — may not be to Washington's liking, but "meddling" doesn't seem the right word for it.

In thinking about Iran's behavior, it's important to remember that the United States has made plain its determination to curb Iranian influence in the region — by force of arms, if necessary. From Iran's perspective, the U.S. is an implacable enemy that has rebuffed its diplomatic overtures. No state likes to see a hostile army stationed in its backyard.

If Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has indulged Ahmadinejad's rhetorical extremism, it may be because he expected to be rewarded, rather than punished, for Iran's assistance to the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As Gareth Porter recently reported in the American Prospect, Iran floated a proposal in May 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, for a "grand bargain" with the United States. It offered to back the 2002 Arab Summit's proposal for a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine and to end its military support for armed Palestinian groups as well as Hezbollah in return for the restoration of diplomatic relations with the United States.

Prematurely intoxicated by its "mission accomplished," the Bush administration reportedly ignored Iran's proposal and has since given every indication that it prefers regime change in Tehran to the kind of dialogue recommended by the Iraq Study Group. To this end, the administration has flirted with the Iranian Mujahedin Khalq, also known as MEK, a bizarre Maoist guerrilla group/cult that opposes the Islamic government and frequently launched attacks on Iran from Iraq with Hussein's backing.

Given the Bush administration's belligerent position, the Iranian government might have concluded that, with Hussein dead and the Shiite parties in power, Tehran's interests are best served by the withdrawal of American troops on its border. Even if the Iraqis fail to drive out U.S. forces, a deepening quagmire usefully distracts attention from Tehran's nuclear program and reminds the United States that it needs Iran in order to exit with its honor intact.

Like any state, the Islamic republic seeks above all to preserve itself. But, again, is this "malign intent" or a sober calculation?

Iran has, in other words, a strong realist case for being involved in Iraq. If Iranian "designs" on Iraq are seen as malign, it is only by those who believe that U.S. "intentions" in Iraq (unlike other imperial powers, we have no designs) are benign.

In this fairy-tale version of history, American rationales for occupying Iraq may change as often as necessary (from the destruction of Hussein's nonexistent "stockpile of weapons of mass destruction" to the promotion of democracy to the prevention of a civil war detonated by our invasion), but they remain virtuous in intent, while those who resist our plans are always portrayed as sinister.

The liberal mainstream has come to view the Iraq war as the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, but its faith in American virtue — its belief in American exceptionalism — remains as unshaken as the Bush administration's.

In the narrow parameters of American politics, you can ask whether Bush is telling the truth about Iraniandesigned bombs, but you may not ask whether the United States would accept the presence of 130,000 Iranian troops on our border. Nor may you ask who exactly is "meddling" in Mesopotamia.

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

...let's not talk that way about the religious right in the United States and their government minions.

Plenty of leftest liberals in our government too.

...they all moved to California.

stopping off in Vegas on the way here.

---

me@rescam.org

They did NOTHING as usual! But they did get PAID for it! No work on fixing [snip]

Hey... Give 'em a break... They've been busy killing innocent civilians and destroying nations... ;)

...let's not talk that way about the religious right in the United States and their government minions.

Plenty of leftest liberals in our government too.

...they all moved to California.

stopping off in Vegas on the way here.

...just long enough to drop some money...then on to California to hire a cheap maid.

---

Account frozen...

Yes I think monies earned by US Companies should be subject to US taxes. ALL monies not just money earned in the US.

Hmmmm, OK then, define a U.S. company.

Would Daimler Chrysler count? I mean, every single dime they make could be sent overseas... Oh, hey, how about GM? By some estimates, the majority of GM stock is owned by foreigners--which of course, would mean that GM is not a U.S. company either...

A US Company would be one that is registered in the US. No not JUST registered to do Business, but one that is Registered and Licensed and founded here. Stockholders are an unimportant entity in this discussion.

If you want to save money and think that overseas is the place to take your Company, then fine SEE YA! BUT do not expect to get any US Government contracts, there is a price to be paid for taking your Company overseas.

This is funny. You understand that there is a "price to be paid for taking your company overseas," yet you seem not to understand that there is a price to be paid for a 35% corporate tax rate, that is taxed TWICE. Not to mention, they don't "take their companies overseas" they open other companies over there and do not bring the profits back. [/quote]
Actually this is sorta true, Exxon/Mobil did not "open" a new company overseas, they are still Exxon/Mobil. They just do not bring any profits back to the US because of the current tax rules. This would stop under my idea. They would not be able to say these monies were earned overseas and are therefore not taxable. The tax rate, under my idea, would be less than the 35%, it would be the same as if the money were earned in the US. The Company is based and Headquartered in the US, it pays money on its assets in the US, ALL of its assets!

If you think profits are better for your Company than US Government contracts, than that is your ever lovin' choice.

As a rule, profits are orders of magnitude more important than U.S. Government contracts. You can have U.S.G. contracts, but without profits, the company fails. The reverse is not true.[/quote]
That is true, but the U.S.G. awards hundreds of millions, billions even, of dollars of contracts each year. If your Company wants no part of that fine, but the US worker will then take over and make the money and it will help to keep the economy going. Not line the pockets of some overseas Company.

BUT those Companies that can't or don't move overseas and do pay their Corporate taxes will enjoy all the benefits of ALL US Government contracts, access to the best workers money can buy, and many other incentives that benefit those Comapnies that stay.

Big deal. They weigh the costs very carefully in a cost/benefit analysis--guess what, many times they opt for overseas. Especially when 35% comes off the top.
You seem to agree: your sent your business overseas when you bought your computer. Odd how that works out...[/quote]
Actually I did not send any money overseas when I bought my computer, I build my own and buy the parts from the local mom and pop store. When I do have one built, it is also by them. Where they buy their parts is part of the overall problem, but not part of the issue we are discussing. They are not part of the Companies that have taken their monies overseas. And those Companies that do go overseas will have to reweigh those decisions, especially if they can no longer supply the U.S.G. with materials. Currently they can do both, leave and still get the U.S.G.'s money!

---