beechguy

Yes, well at 10:20 A.M. CDT, 17 March,  U.S. the exchange rate for the $ is 1.0974 Euro, 1.207 for Pound, and Yen at 107.3. There has been a lot of volatility, anyone could have a bad day. 

I agree with the others, I just move more dollars to the Thai bank when favorable.

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

trump has just awarded Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom. To an individual who promotes conspiracy theories -  unbelievable!

What conspiracy theories? Almost everything the guy said has come true, including crooked investigations.

13 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Post Kuwait Saddam was causing no problems for anybody, other than to embarrass and humiliate the US by not caving in.

 

That's why there was so much opposition (among intelligent/informed people) to the 2003 invasion, which was justified on the basis of "trumped-up" evidence.

 

Tony Blairs part in its blatant fabrication is what makes him so reviled in his own country.

 

 

That's not exactly correct, the concern in 1998, was that Sadam was planning to try and cross into Kuwait again, and there was concern he would use weapons, including anthrax(Bill Clinton Administration), chemical protective equipment was issued, and evacuation plans were made. For 2003, injections and chemical protective equipment was issued again, because of the anthrax and threat from other chemicals. If Bush or Blair were liars, then so was Bill Clinton. Bottom line though, it was faulty intelligence, and game playing by Sadam. Bye the way, I was there.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It should not surprise you that the media does not report on what you personally feel to be probable events.

Give them time.

8 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

A common but inexplicable misconception. Iran and ISIS are sworn enemies. US spent years trying to rid Syria of ISIS, then Russia and Iran joined the fray and cleared Syria of ISIS in months. Iran has always been our ally in the fight against ISIS.

My main point was, that ISIS would not have taken over so much of Iraq if we had maintained a presence. I would know a little about that, I was in Al Assad, and Tikrit. ISIS in Syria, was their problem.

1 hour ago, PhonThong said:

Those were rocket or mortars. Iran has fired surface to surface ballistic missiles. That is a game changer. 

Not really, they are still hitting dirt, and not very effective. As I said, same as a Palestinian throwing a rock. Now that they have had their little tantrum, things could calm down, but I wouldn't want to be an Iranian and count on that.

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The Iranians attack bases in Iraq that have USA troops stationed there, so that will make the Iraqis want to keep USA troops there? How do you come to that conclusion?

Because the last time we left, ISIS kicked the <deleted> out of the Iraqis. Those bases probably take some incoming on a regular basis, but the media can't be bothered to tell you that.

This is normal Arab/Persian operating procedure, lose one guy, and kill dozens of your own.

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

You certainly deflected to something completely irrelevant.  

 

Btw its the usa that keeps begging for help with its wars.

 

Must be hell for you living in thailand with no gun. How did you ever enjoy your travels with no gun, must be very scary for you.

No, not scary at all, I spent 15 years in the Middle East, about 20 months of that in Iraq and Afghanistan, no firearms at all. 

No, the U.S. isn't begging for help, we're just asking other countries to do their part. Unless you guys really like $100 oil, and high gas prices. Apparently the Germans don't like it or they wouldn't be doing business with the Russians.

As to going off topic, not really, the larger discussion is people defending themselves. Citizens of the U.S. generally can, or have the option, apparently that is not the case in the UK.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Trump announced that 52 Iranian targets would be struck if Iran attacked Americans or American assets, leaving Iran plenty of options--militias in Yemen launching drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, Hizbollah in Lebanon firing rockets into Israel, mines appearing in the Straits of Hormuz making it impassable to oil tankers, cyber attacks on an endless number of targets, "spontaneous" anti-American protests across the region and beyond, etc.

 

On the subject of protests; the anti-Iran protests in Baghdad and Tehran have been replaced with anti-American protests.    I'm sure you see this as a good thing.

So far as options for Iran, you do realize they were already using them, and that the war started decades ago?  

6 hours ago, evadgib said:

"We"? How many generations can you claim to go back before one of the people you're slagging off turns up in your gene pool?

At least 3 or 4 generations, maybe more, before they wised up and became U.S. citizens

22 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

They don't go through any channels in the UK because firearms are almost impossible to get hold of.

 

No regrets now or ever, we just need to look at the US to remind ourselves what benefits of removing firearms from society have brought. No, bombs, trucks and knives aren't doing very well. There's far less loss of life from the average terrorist attack in the UK than your average mass shooting in the US.

Well see, that's the good thing, I pretty well live where ever I want. I don't need the UK for anything, don't need any of their products, and only held some Sterling one or two times my whole life, traveling through airports. The dollar would have done the same. But you guys go ahead and call us when the Muslims or Russians are breathing down your neck, I guess we can save you again.   

On 12/31/2019 at 9:32 AM, DannyCarlton said:

Not really a practical solution is it? In the UK we got rid of the guns and haven't had a mass shooting since, whereas the US is the Worlds No:1 for mass shootings. Similar to Thailand's world No:2 for death on the roads. Not really something to be proud of is it?

That's your first problem, being from the UK. They will regret giving up their firearms someday. In the mean time, bombs, trucks, and knives seem to be doing well enough.

On 12/31/2019 at 8:43 AM, DannyCarlton said:

If the snowflakes had their way the gunman wouldn't have had possesion of a gun in the first place. Only in America.

Most ridiculous thing I've read lately, you do realize that these guys often don't go through legal channels to get firearms. Only the uninformed.

On 1/1/2020 at 3:02 AM, ballpoint said:

I never mentioned Indians.  They have more sense.  A man, who by the admission of the guy who shot him, was being watched due to his suspicious appearance and actions, was able to raise a shotgun from wherever he had concealed it (I'm assuming he was concealing it, and even in Texas you can't just walk into a church openly carrying a shotgun at the ready), and shoot two of the armed security detail - one of whom never got a shot off, while the best the other could do was to fire one shot in his general direction, before finally being shot by a third security team member.  Even the one who kept his cool took his time making the shot, and I suspect things would have gone differently had he been the first one targeted and shot by the criminal. 

 

Now, I'm going to get challenged as to whether I could have done what this "warrior" did, but that's not the point.  I'm not the one who volunteered to carry a gun in a church as a deterrent to criminals, but it would seem to me that, should it really be necessary to have such people, then it would be far better to have professionals who spread out and stay calm under pressure, not giving a man with a shotgun the time to raise it, target and shoot an armed man, swing to the next target and shoot another armed man before a third man manages to take a shot at him.  And that's all ignoring the obvious question, given that the assailant was obviously wearing a wig and fake beard and acting suspiciously, why wasn't he challenged as he entered the church in the first place?

Just curious where you are getting your so called facts, they aren't matching anyone else?

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting idea from John Dean (and if you don't know who that is, you don't know the history of impeachments). 

John Dean Retweeted Will Bunch  ????

Hope @SpeakerPelosi will not play into Mitch’s hands, and allow the GOP Senate to exonerate Trump for his crimes. This is how to stop it. Impeach, don’t send to the Senate and continue to investigate! Make it a campaign issue. Senate is rigged. Stop the crowning of King Donald!

Jo

 

 

Impeach in the house.

Then do not send to the senate. 

Because the senate trial is being fixed with direct cooperation from the white house.

So sending it to the senate would be a gift to 45 in which he can claim he was exonerated. 

 

THEN

Continue to investigate.

Hopefully eventually be able for FORCE Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.

 

Also keep in mind, there is nothing to stop the democrats from impeaching again (and again) when new evidence is uncovered.

You are right, I expect it to go on through 2024.

26 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

" Members of the Trump cult have concluded their glorious leader can do no wrong and will accept no evidence that conflicts with that conclusion, but will believe outlandish nonsense that supports it."...…    if the day ever comes when honest to goodness "proof" is offered by the Dems related to an honest to goodness "crime" being committed then yes, a number of us will be interested in hearing it. So far nothing had been offered in that regard.  

There are two problems, the incompetence of Nadler, and lack of integrity of Schiff. Much like the elections, Hillary in 2016, and this Democrat clown crew running in 2020, we don't really have an option.