Mission accomplished



[email protected] wrote:

> AFAIK, the replacement
> for the FBI's computer system that wouldn't let agents search
> for "flight AND school" still isn't working.


Must present a bit of a problem for that homeland security paedophile.
Perhaps he just used google instead.
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> I agree that FDR did a bunch of things that I think are unconstitutional.
> However, I do tend to give him a *little* bit of slack due to the fact that we were
> actually in an readily definable war. Doesn't it seem to you that Bush has taken a
> very wide open definition of war? "A war on terror" - terror is an abstract concept,
> not at all like, say, German and Japanese aggression. When I say "abstract", his
> definition of "war" is that he knows it when he sees it, and he'll know when it's
> over. But he can use or manipulate that decision any way he chooses to give himself
> the opportunity to tweak laws and the constitutional process in *his* favor. The
> main point of the article is that he's never vetoed a bill because he puts a
> "signing statement" onto each one that tells how *he* chooses to interpret it. He
> can publicly sign a bill that says (for example) tha he won't engage in torture, but
> privately add a signing statement that says he reserves the right to ignore what the
> bills states is law. He's done this almost 800 times since he took office. He's
> seriously broken the definition of how laws are done and how power is distributed in
> the American government by taking hte power of creating law away from Congress and
> the power of determining how those laws are interpreted by the Judiciary. This is,
> to say the least, completely antithetical to the intentions of the US constitution.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Here's just a start on FDR:

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm
Quoted:
In the first 100 days of his administration, he took full advantage of
the fear in the American people and Democratically-controlled Congress.
With Congress willing to try any measures to resurrect the economy, he
used his newfound power to ram through passage of a series of measures
to prop up the fragile banking system, reform the stock market, provide
aid to the unemployed, and induce industrial and agricultural recovery.


During this period:

Roosevelt closed all banks for 4 days declaring a bank holiday so
Congress could develop a plan of action.
Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act to permit the Treasury
Department to inspect all banks before they would be allowed to reopen,
and to provide for Federal assistance to large institutions that were
bordering on bankruptcy.
The Economy Act was passed to balance the Federal budget by cutting the
salaries of government employees and reducing pensions to veterans by
as much as 15 percent.
The Agriculture Adjustment Act was passed to protect farmers from
market fluctuations through subsidies and production controls, the
forerunner of the huge farm subsidies we live with today. The
Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) was created to manage the
effort. That initial organization is the father of the modern-day
Department of Agriculture with over 100,000 employees, but we don't
have any emergencies to deal with today of which I'm aware.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created, including the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), an organization that
guarantees your bank deposits.
The most recognizable departments set up under the New Deal to relieve
the 15 million unemployed Americans were the Civilian Conservation
Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), and the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration (FERA).
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created to manage flood
control, public electric power, and regional planning in that region.
Perhaps the most important measure that was enacted (if you are an
alcoholic) was the repeal of the XVIII Amendment prohibiting the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. The XXI
Amendment was ratified in 1933.
The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was passed to adopt an
anti-deflationary scheme that would permit trade associations to
cooperate in stabilizing prices within their industries. It guaranteed
to workers, among its many provisions, the right of collective
bargaining and helped spur large union organizing drives in major
industries. Under the NIRA, businesses were called on to accept a
minimum wage, maximum workweek and the abolition of child labor.
The NIRA subsequently created the Public Works Administration (PWA), a
major program of public works spending designed to alleviate
unemployment and to pump monies into the failing economy.
There was absolutely no constitutional basis for any of this
legislation. Roosevelt was able to hammer out this multitude of
legislation because: 1) the democratically controlled Congress
consisted of liberals and reformers, and 2) there was little resistance
from the normally conservative business community, as they were
desperate to find any means to achieve economic stability.
End Quote:

Lots more there and everywhere. Large portions of the violations and
illegal exoansion of the Governments powers were pre-war. You can argue
that this was justified, but Bush's supporters are arguing the same
thing, and Bush is doing nowhere near the far ranging extensive damage
done by FDR.
Then you can't even begin to compare Bush's violations of civil
liberties in scale to FDRs until we see Muslim and Arab American
citizens in large numbers having their property confiscated and being
relocated and locked up in internment camps. Having them demonized, at
all levels, by government paid for propaganda and Hollywood feature
movies etc...
Realistically Bush has better reason to violate civil liberties in the
monitoring of Americans and intel operations because, unlike FDR, we
don't know exactly who the enemy is, where they are, what small groups
are putting together terror operations, etc...Just the level of
uncertainty would seem to me to be a better excuse for the behavior.
That said, I don't think the danger rises anywhere near the level that
should allow this to happen. I do feel that we are in more danger here
in the continental US than we were in WW2. There was little to no real
danger of serious attacks on the continental US then, even the sabotage
was incredibly minor, as opposed to unconventional warfare and
terrorism both of which have a goal which is to cause as much fear as
possible by surprise attacks designed for psychological value. The
thinking has changed to make this type of warfare much more prevalent
since you NEVER have to defeat an enemy miltarily, just convince his
people it's not worth it anymore.
Which is much easier to do, and harder to combat.
In short my opinion is that FDR had lot less reason for what he did,
and did a lot more damage.
Most of my family older family disagree since they benefitted from a
lot of the programs, then especially getting into the war, since war
production massively expanded the need for coal and they were almost
all miners in Pennsylvania.
There are a fair amount of people who are convinced that his economic
policies were failing badly to bail us out, so, he was desperate to get
us into the war and bail out the economy that way. There's a fair
amount of evidence to back that theory, especially since he was using
US assets to provide intel on and target, especially subs, for
destruction by the British well prior to the US declaring war. We were
basically fighting an undeclared war long before Pearl Harbor, on both
fronts.
Bill C
To sum it up, Bush is terrible, FDR was FAR worse.
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:25:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Can any of those countries even send a team to the Olympics? What about the
>Marshall Islands?


You'd reallly want to go with the Martial Islands. For real fighting,
maybe the Marital Islands.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 19:29:20 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> OK, Mister Know-It-All, let's hear YOUR version of reality.


A somewhat dangerous challenge, since the great thing about the
Internet is that it fully supports almost all known alternate
realities. More sites than cites.

I fully believe that the center of the Universe as I know it is the
bottle of Bookers on my bar. Fortunately, the Wild Turkey site gives
me at least partial support. And a free screen saver. Have to pay for
the matching glasses.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I fully believe that the center of the Universe as I know it is the
> bottle of Bookers on my bar.


So do you postulate an infinitely expanding universe or is there enough
dark matter to cause eventual contraction ?
 
On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:43:48 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>So do you postulate an infinitely expanding universe or is there enough
>dark matter to cause eventual contraction ?


An evening of expansion, followed by a morning of contraction. I'm
more concerned about the cosmological significance of having to buy
new bottles on occasion.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 22:45:47 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> The Germans actually did their part to support the US while making a
>> public stand to say the opposite. NATO bases in Germany were
>> available to help in the war effort. Germany considerable increased
>> its troop strength in Afghanistan, which freed up US forces for Iraq.
>> And, as is now coming out, German covert operators in Iraq provided
>> support for the war.

>
>I'd like to see a cite for that.


Once again I have to cite the World Socialist Website.

Here are some excerpts. I love the way they end the article.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/afgh-f25.shtml


The US government has recently announced plans to pull out large
numbers of its 10,000 troops currently stationed in Afghanistan and
redeploy them in Iraq to fight that country’s resistance movement. To
fulfil this aim, Operation Enduring Freedom—the official name of the
US forces in Afghanistan—will be merged with the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO mission providing security
services to the Kabul regime.

The German Army (Bundeswehr) would then take over the leadership of
the Afghanistan occupation. Their presence will increase throughout
the country, and they will participate in combat operations. Two
thousand German troops are currently in Kabul and the northern
provincial cities of Kunduz and Faisabad.......


........With its relief of US troops in Afghanistan, the German
government is indirectly supporting the United States’ occupation in
Iraq and thereby shares responsibility for the illegal war being
conducted and the suppression of the Iraqi population. In this way, it
is also paving the way for the US government to rush into further
military adventures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there's this:

Heat Rises on German Spies in Iraq, CIA Activities
by Mark Trevelyan


BERLIN - German's security services faced the prospect of a
parliamentary inquiry on Friday, triggered by reports that German
agents in Baghdad had helped the United States pinpoint bombing
targets at the start of the Iraq war.

Despite official denials, the reports have stirred unease in Germany
and drawn accusations that the then government of Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder was secretly aiding the U.S. war effort, while publicly
opposing it to win votes.

The opposition Greens said for the first time they would join liberals
and leftists to demand an inquiry, into both the Iraq allegations and
wider concerns about the role of the security services in the U.S.-led
war on terrorism. The three parties between them have enough votes to
force such a probe.

"This accusation about the involvement of German authorities in the
Iraq war is a monstrous accusation," said Greens parliamentary leader
Renate Kuenast.

Media reports on Thursday said two agents of Germany's BND foreign
intelligence service in Baghdad had helped the United States identify
bombing targets at the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003, which the
Berlin government strongly opposed.

The reports said one agent helped set up a U.S. bombing raid on a
Baghdad suburb where Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was thought to be, by
driving there and confirming the presence of a convoy of limousines.
At least 12 civilians were reported to have died in the raid.

Ernst Uhrlau, who was then the government's intelligence coordinator
and now heads the BND, said the reports were false. "We were not
involved in tracking down Saddam Hussein," he told Die Welt newspaper.

Government spokesmen told a news briefing the BND had exchanged
information with the Americans, but only to identify schools,
hospitals and other locations that must not be bombed.

Greens leader Kuenast said that helping the Americans even to identify
'non-targets' was a form of involvement in the war.

"If you don't take part in the war, you can't help with the selection
of targets," she said.

The Greens, who were junior coalition partners in Schroeder's
government, have previously held back from seeking an inquiry into
several controversial incidents which have increased pressure on the
security services.

Chief among these is the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen who
was secretly flown by the United States to Afghanistan, jailed and
interrogated for months as a terrorist suspect before being freed for
lack of evidence.

The government has denied allegations that German security agencies
passed information to the United States on Masri, who is suing the
former head of the CIA for wrongful imprisonment.

"We will propose a committee of inquiry with the task of clearing up
everything about el-Masri, but also focusing on the question of
involvement in the war in Iraq," Kuenast said.

© Reuters 2006

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-10.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that NATO bases in Germany were/are being used for US
operations in Iraq is unquestionable.

It's also been reported that some of the terrorists being moved to the
now famous secret interrogation facilities were passed through Germany
on their way to whervere it was that they were going. And perhaps
some of these secret faciliies are in Germany.

The Germans are doing their part to help in the war effort.
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 22:53:58 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>These concerns over the strength of the intelligence were voiced before
>the war, publicly and officially. I'm not wired into our intelligence
>system, but even I knew that the preponderance of the evidence indicated
>that Iraq probably did not have significant WMD.



So when Tony Blair said that Iraq had WMDs that could be ready for use
within 45 minutes and had attempted to buy technology used for nuclear
weapons in Africa, you knew it was false. Of course, you also knew
that the UN weapon inspection program was absolutly useless because
you knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. And you knew that Colin Powell's
speech to the UN was also false.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> So when Tony Blair said that Iraq had WMDs that could be ready for use
> within 45 minutes and had attempted to buy technology used for nuclear
> weapons in Africa, you knew it was false. Of course, you also knew
> that the UN weapon inspection program was absolutly useless because
> you knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. And you knew that Colin Powell's
> speech to the UN was also false.




Dumbass -

It was self-evident. Saddam ran a secular regime. Trying to portray him
as an Al-Qaeda type of religious fanatic was the purest ********
imaginable.

When *we* booted him from Kuwait in 1991, he had WMD. SADDAM ELECTED
NOT TO USE THEM. Not because he was squeamish about the morality, but
for practical reasons.

He was a rational player. He didn't want his fledgling House of Hussein
dynasty to be wiped out.

Osama bin Laden = irrational
Saddam Hussein = rational


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:07:08 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>With dozens of militias now fighting for their slice of the pie, ethnic
>cleansing balkanizing large swaths of the country, the civilians
>fatalistically trying to stay off the streets as much as possible, and
>the US and British sticking mainly to their bases, how is a civil war
>going to be avoided?



In reality, the violence in Iraq is confined mostly to the Sunni
Triangle. Most of Iraq is peaceful. If the Sunni want to continue
the sectarian violence using IEDs and suicide bombings, there's not
much that's going to stop them. Right now, they're doing their best
to do as much harm as they can. It isn't like they're all of a sudden
going to develop some new capabilities that they don't have now.
They're not holding, jet fighters, armored divisions and artillery
units in reserve waiting for the US to leave. I don't expect to see
Sunni armored division advancing on Kurdish or Shia areas trying to
take control back.

Iraq will just be another country with ethnic fighting that could
continue for years. In that respect, it will be no different from
lots of other countries in the world.
 
On Tue, 09 May 2006 10:05:54 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> It was the right thing to do at the time.

>
>So the right thing to do was to support a regime that used mustard and
>poison gas against civilians in a war that resulted in around 1 million
>casualties ?



I'm sure that the US would have preferred that the Iran/Iraq war never
happened. But I doubt that many tears were shed in Washington seeing
two enemies killing each other. Nevertheless, the US had a desired
outcome for the war and did what it could to achieve that goal.
Basically, the US wanted a draw with neither county in control of the
others oil. When it appeared that Iran might actually win the war,
the US took action to prevent that from happening.

It worked.
 
On Tue, 09 May 2006 10:06:15 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> The Iraqi security forces are mainly Shia and Kurds. It's hard to
>> imagine the Sunni being able to wage any large scale military
>> operations. Full scale civil war is unlikely.

>
>The former Iraqi army however was mostly Sunni so there's no shortage of
>trained former soldiers.


That's true, but all they have are RPGs, small arms, IED and suicide
bombers. It will be difficult for them to face well-equiped army
units. They're doing all they can right now and they can keep it up.
If there is going to be a major escalation of violence in Iraq it's
going to come from the Shia and it will be aimed at the Sunnis. Truth
be told, they have it coming.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:

> So when Tony Blair said that Iraq had WMDs that could be ready for use
> within 45 minutes and had attempted to buy technology used for nuclear
> weapons in Africa, you knew it was false. Of course, you also knew
> that the UN weapon inspection program was absolutly useless because
> you knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. And you knew that Colin Powell's
> speech to the UN was also false.


Yes to all of the above. I posted publicly at the time that Powell lied
to the UN and he recently admitted that that was the case. He was the
one man who could have stopped it and he rolled over for Bush.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> >>>> Three presidents on "what was the best moment of your presidency?"
> >>>> http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/05/great-moments-in-history.html
> >>>
> >>> What are we to infer from this?
> >>
> >> That Carter didn't consider the incident with the rabbit in his pond as
> >> highly as Bush considers the incident with the bass in his pond?

> >
> > That we are to contrast the President with former
> > Presidents, who can be elder statesmen? That the President
> > is constrained by the responsibilities of office; that he
> > has not had time to write his memoirs, much less comment
> > upon them; that he finds a diplomatic and friendly way to
> > decline the question while still giving the questioner
> > something to write?

>
> Hmmm. What are we to infer from your response?


A few different inferences are possible.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Three presidents on "what was the best moment of your presidency?"
>>>>>> http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/05/great-moments-in-history.html
>>>>>
>>>>> What are we to infer from this?
>>>>
>>>> That Carter didn't consider the incident with the rabbit in his pond
>>>> as highly as Bush considers the incident with the bass in his pond?
>>>
>>> That we are to contrast the President with former
>>> Presidents, who can be elder statesmen? That the President
>>> is constrained by the responsibilities of office; that he
>>> has not had time to write his memoirs, much less comment
>>> upon them; that he finds a diplomatic and friendly way to
>>> decline the question while still giving the questioner
>>> something to write?

>>
>> Hmmm. What are we to infer from your response?

>
> A few different inferences are possible.


Same with the link.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 22:53:58 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> These concerns over the strength of the intelligence were voiced before
>> the war, publicly and officially. I'm not wired into our intelligence
>> system, but even I knew that the preponderance of the evidence indicated
>> that Iraq probably did not have significant WMD.

>
>
> So when Tony Blair said that Iraq had WMDs that could be ready for use
> within 45 minutes and had attempted to buy technology used for nuclear
> weapons in Africa, you knew it was false. Of course, you also knew
> that the UN weapon inspection program was absolutly useless because
> you knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. And you knew that Colin Powell's
> speech to the UN was also false.


But of course. Everyone knows that "probably" is a synonym of
"certainly," that "indicated" means "proved," and that "preponderance of
the evidence" implies "absolute certainty."

The UN weapons inspectors destroyed tons of WMD, which is what lead me
to conclude that there was probably nothing (much) left. At the time we
invaded, Saddam had permitted the inspectors to do what they wanted.

In the meantime, the USAF was bombing the place almost weekly, for ten
years.

OIF will go down as one of the most unnecessary, and stupidest, wars in
American history.

Shrub's father effectively exorcised the ghosts of Vietnam. The son
resurrected them. Shrub's legacy will be so bad his dad's legacy is
eventually going to be tarnished simply because of the family relationship.

Powell's presentation held a lot of credibility with me, because I still
perceive him as an honest man. But as such, it was light on the evidence
of significant stocks of WMD, pointing instead to a presumed production
capacity. *I* have WMD production capacity.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:07:08 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> With dozens of militias now fighting for their slice of the pie, ethnic
>> cleansing balkanizing large swaths of the country, the civilians
>> fatalistically trying to stay off the streets as much as possible, and
>> the US and British sticking mainly to their bases, how is a civil war
>> going to be avoided?

>
>
> In reality, the violence in Iraq is confined mostly to the Sunni
> Triangle. Most of Iraq is peaceful. If the Sunni want to continue
> the sectarian violence using IEDs and suicide bombings, there's not
> much that's going to stop them. Right now, they're doing their best
> to do as much harm as they can. It isn't like they're all of a sudden
> going to develop some new capabilities that they don't have now.
> They're not holding, jet fighters, armored divisions and artillery
> units in reserve waiting for the US to leave. I don't expect to see
> Sunni armored division advancing on Kurdish or Shia areas trying to
> take control back.


Moqtada al Sadr is a Shiite, backed by Iran. The Badr Brigade is Shiite,
backed by Iran. The British were dealing with a violent mob of Shiites
in Basra last week. Most of the killing being done now is at the hands
of Shiite militias, not Sunnis. The Sunnis are targeting primarily
occupation forces.

And, they have indeed found new capabilities. Their new shaped-charge
"IEDs" are thought to be sourced from Iran.

> Iraq will just be another country with ethnic fighting that could
> continue for years. In that respect, it will be no different from
> lots of other countries in the world.


Like I said, you can play word games. There is hope, but Iraq is going
to go through a very difficult time before things get better. And we've
been saying that for three years.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2006 10:06:15 +0200, Donald Munro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> The Iraqi security forces are mainly Shia and Kurds. It's hard to
>>> imagine the Sunni being able to wage any large scale military
>>> operations. Full scale civil war is unlikely.

>> The former Iraqi army however was mostly Sunni so there's no shortage of
>> trained former soldiers.

>
> That's true, but all they have are RPGs, small arms, IED and suicide
> bombers. It will be difficult for them to face well-equiped army
> units. They're doing all they can right now and they can keep it up.
> If there is going to be a major escalation of violence in Iraq it's
> going to come from the Shia and it will be aimed at the Sunnis. Truth
> be told, they have it coming.


You're confused about the meaning of "civil war." There are no/few
"well-equipped" Iraqi army units. The Shiites have the same resources
that the Sunnis have. They'll kill a lot of each other before this is over.

The only "well-equipped" army in Iraq is going to continue to lay low,
trying to spend more money than lives, and doing little to actually
protect civilians, protect contractors, protect infrastructure, or quell
the civil war.

Then, if Congress hasn't yanked the funding (which looks quite
possible), they'll pick up the pieces and Iraq will start over. Again.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Uh, Tom, weren't you in the US military (according to you) during that
> time
> frame? Okinawa comes to mind... I swear, you come up with this stuff and
> it just
> cracks me up. Youu always seem to have worked in whatever field happens to
> be in
> discussion at the moment. You've done blood science when blood science is
> in
> discussion, you've designed windtunnels when the aerodynamics of helmets
> are in
> discussion, you worked on the first word processor when typestyles and
> documents
> were under discussion. Gosh, what a coincidence it all is, Tom.


I have to admit I'm rather impressed with your memory. The fact is that all
of those are correct. Save that I exited the military in '67 and if you
bothered to look it up the Shah was overthrown in the Carter Administration
in '79. Funny how you don't have a lot of ability to look things up huh?

What's more since my resume includes almost 40 companies you will no doubt
run into a lot more things I have close experience with.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have to admit I'm rather impressed with your memory. The fact is that all
> of those are correct. Save that I exited the military in '67 and if you
> bothered to look it up the Shah was overthrown in the Carter Administration
> in '79. Funny how you don't have a lot of ability to look things up huh?


You said: "Just so we're clear on it - in 1963 I spent some time with an Iranian
prince. I was offered a job at a company working in Iran and looked into all
its history and studied Farsi a bit before deciding not to take that job.
Later I worked with several companies that were doing jobs for the Shah."

I remembered that you claim to have been in the military in the early to mid
'60s. And that seemed to coincide with the time frame you claim to have been hanging
with your prince. I don't need to look up when the Shah was overthrown - I remember
it quite well, especially from being at San José State with all kinds of Iranian
students. Funny how you normally say that I'm only good at looking thhings up huh?

> What's more since my resume includes almost 40 companies you will no doubt
> run into a lot more things I have close experience with.


So how is it that you seem to constantly be casing on Brian Lafferty about "not
being able to keep a job?" Pot calling the kettle black, no?

Once again, Tom, you're merrily off trying to mock my intelligence and avoiding
answering the questions that have been asked. Are you trying to claim that you know
more about the history of Iran and its literature and language than Juan Cole? After
all, he only teaches Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan (and will
soon be teaching it at Yale). You should be able to do better than that, right?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?