QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe Gabe, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, I hope your right. I agree it is a circular aurgument , but hey, its the Middle East. These guys still fight viciously over which brand of Islam is correct, Suni or She-ite. Its like Northern Ireland 20 years ago, outsiders looked at the situation and just shake their heads, but insiders saw the violence as perfectly just and rational. Unfortunatly, the troops leaving will do nothing about Al Quida. They had the chance to use the Hammer at Tora Bora and failed to do so, now we need to use the scalpel. The Hammer will only break off more terrorists.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom [i] I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings. Ummm.....Oklahoma City? Have fun with your trains Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away. Dan, I know a full frontal mass military assault would effect nothing, thats not the intent of what i was advocating. The Soviet's tried it and lost the highest number of troops since WW2. My point was that if enough troops had been deployed to contain the area and prevent anyone from escaping we could have either using special forces captured or killed him, or if nothing else starved him out. Believe me if we had sent 150,000 troops to encircle that area, we were interogating every shepard, goat, and lizard coming out of there, and the special forces were still slowely rooting out or collasping every single cave, hole, crack, and gopher hole they came across I would not complain. But W's eyes were already looking west to Iraq by that time, and Gen. Franks was also aware of the Soviet experience, but letting Afgan forces do the job was a mistake and he escaped. Now he is still putting his ugly face on Al Jazira and still a figure head to his followers. Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:34 PM This is getting a bit far afield... LC Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. Just as an aside, all Arabs, which I believe is what you mean, are not Muslim and by no way are all Muslims Arabic. Nor all they all zealots or savage. After spending a good deal of one's professional life involved in disputes that have religion or ethinicity as a reason, it's important to get to know the playing field. As far as Arabs or Muslims go, over the course of history...white, Christian types...Europeans, Slavs, etc...have commited quite a few atrocites and actions that rival driving a plane into the WTC. So Muslims nor Arabs have the corner on the market. Menacham Begin, PM of Israel was himself considered a terrorist by the British for his role in the bombing of the King David Hotel in the 40s. Evil and hate have little basis in religion or ethicity, but that is how it always gets turned. I never want to see this country in a position where we hate so much that we do to anyone what we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII using ethnicity, race or religion as a basis. My 2 cents. And by the way..you can blame T E Lawrence for teaching the Arabs how to use explosives and to blow up TRAINS. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:13 PM I'm sure if planes were invented during the crusades, some knight would have flown it into some enemy city. We Christians are not without our fanatism either even in today's society. Andrew Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. It's all good. Reply M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. OK, I'm a foreigner and I won't have the same view! But US taxpayer dollars are still being spent disrupting indoor plumbing in Fallujah, while plans are being made to restore it at the expense of the same people. As I understand it, many Iraqis do not understand why the US troops are in Iraq, because, although they are happy that Saddam has been deposed, the fighting has made life significantly worse than it was under Saddam. A correspondent in Baghdad wrote that if Saddam could stand in the upcoming elections, and promised a swift return to pre war conditions (dictatorship, secret police, censorship but public order and effective peace) he would win by a landslide, for reasons not unlike those that returned George W Bu***o power. I find worrying similarities between the news coverage I see, possibly different to that in the USA, and the conditions in Saigon pictured in "Good Morning Vietnam". The worrying part in that movie to me was the realisation by the Robin Williams character that his close Vietnamese friends were active members of the Viet Cong. In Iraq, it appears that many people, not "Terrorists" or "Insurgents" just want the fighting to stop and are actively trying to oppose the Coalition troops. It was said that 30 000 members of the current Iraqi security forces, after long and expensive training, were found to have views inconsistent with their continued employment in that role and were quietly "let go". Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. But Iraq will have to run its own affairs eventually, whether or not they adopt a form of government favoured by the present US Administration. But US (and British and Australian and other..) troops will have to try to protect the majority of Iraqis for some time yet, until a local administration, of whatever political leaning can effectively run the country. Peter Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:24 PM I don't mind too too much with the Republicans being in power. It is projected that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.03 U.S by spring time which means I can vacation in the U.S more often. It just means that I need to get better I.D for the boarder. In a couple of years when I become a customs officer, I.D won't be a problem at all. I will return Fostoria!! Keep a motel room for me. Andrew Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:05 PM The following is a quote from an article in today's Janesville Gazette. "What next?" By Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas-Knight Ridder Tribune. "Over the next four years, Bush intends to set Iraq on the road to democracy, defeat global terrorism and send a wave of freedom across the Middle East" You guys shouldn't be so hard on the President. Obviously he has spent a great deal of work on this-watching beauty pagents and all... Further from the article." "I think he really wants to leave a legacy" said Stephen Moore, president of The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that supports Republicans." I would have added something about success qualifying for something like overacheiver of the millenia, but I guess that would be a biased view. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Sterling1 Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Traveling in Middle Earth 795 posts Posted by Sterling1 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? Amtrak -- no change in the existing trends. Transit -- no change in the existing trends Unions -- no change in the existing trends Class Is -- no change in the existing trends Short lines -- no change in the existing trends What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, the House the radical body (conservative meaning, don't change too fast, radical meaning change fast). Democrats retain filibuster power in the Senate, and will use it just like in the last four years to keep the radical tendencies of the House moderated. I would expect to see an Administration effort to kill Amtrak once again, and just like the last four or five efforts, it will be halted by Republican Congressmen and Senators who will seek to protect their home districts -- thus Amtrak will be even more beholden to local interests and run for local purposes, instead of an actual national system. As for unions, market power has been undergoing a steady erosion since 1946, when Taft-Hartley was passed. That won't change -- it will just continue. Maybe slightly faster than before, maybe not. The real conflict is going to appear between states and the feds. Even Republican governors are becoming quite grumpy at the unfunded mandates foisted on them by the Congress and Administration, and are becoming increasingly prickly about where the federal money is spent. Health care payments are crushing states. From the Metallica song SAD BUT TRUE . . . heavy guitar and drum playing "There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.] Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:29 PM ...."Crystal-ball gazing time" by Mark....All sounds believable and probable and I would add: Adminstration will REALLY try to kill Amtrak this time..... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin1978 Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it! Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. And after that Kevin, we'd like you explain why the earth rotates in the direction it does and why why have daylight savings time. And after that, why Belgians like mayo on their fries. Now get to it...you've got a lot of splaining to do........ Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:39 PM Amtrak's new L.A. to San Louis Obispo train starts Nov.17 [:)]!Due to a shortage of Surfliner cars the train will run with Horizon equipment.It will have the dome car when avalible[:D].Right now the dome is being used on the Reno Fun Train. This train will leave L.A. in the early morning and return in the early afternoon. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. You are very much correct!!! The high concentration of Muslims in Hamtramck, MI (Detroit suburb) has raised the ire of "American extremists" -- one who happens to be on the radio every morning on my way to work. As for me, I live less than 1/2 mile from a major Islamic church/temple/mosque/whatever. Doesn't really bother me any. -Mark -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then. I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:57 PM There is one statement about religion in general that most people would have to agree on. Religion in itself(not any one in particuliar) through the centuries has been the single largest cause of more war and genocide than anything else probably put together. Which goes to show that any religion taken to the "fanatical" level can be extremely devastating no matter what century we live in. Scary when you think about it. Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:58 PM Sorry, had to get number 50 right NOW!!!!!! Be safe, Shrek Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:22 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623 I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Actually no. It's kind of complicated. And first, I guess I need to preface this with, I am not at liberty to discuss policies, that would be a breach with my employer if you understand my meaning. First a determination has to be made as to whether a combatant is a POW or unlawful combatant. There us a fairly loose test that is applied...are they a recognized entity, do they have a chain of command, do they openly bear arms, can they be identified as a combatant, etc....if they pass the POW test, then if they have commited violations of the GC or "laws of war" they can be charged as war criminals, but there are guidelines about what can be done. Generally, it is accepted that stateless, terrorist organizations are not lawful combatants, and are therefore not POWs and are not accorded POW status. An Iraqi POW has many rights that an Al Queda detainee does not have per the GC (that is an example and not a lead in to an abuse discussion). Recognized entities is very loose also. We all recognize Al Queda for what they are, but legally that definition is murky at best, and they do not represent a state. The Taliban regime that they allied themsleves with was not universally recognized as a legimate government, though it may have been the de facto government....international law as Gabe can attest to is tricky and often defined by the winner so to speak. So Al Queda, being a stateless entity, and not officially recognized as one anyway, and not passing the POW test, are unlawful combatants subjest to prosecution as a criminal (as would a mercenary, though they fail the mercenary test) by the state that detained them or which they had commited acts against. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:24 AM congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:48 AM I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 1:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Would this have been the Frontline piece on the SECDEF? That was quite interesting. Reply arbfbe Member sinceFebruary 2002 910 posts Posted by arbfbe on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:38 AM Did I mention the mad rush by the RR's to go to one man train crews? That idea is part of the section 6 notices served upon the UTO by the National Carrier's Conference. I doubt the UTU or BLET can expect much sympathy form any Presidential Emergency Board appointed by W should the unions not agree with the NCC on this item. I might add this is only a temporary measure until the railroads can install the technology necessary to reach their ultimate goal of crewless trains. I don't think that can happen during W's second term, though. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:02 AM Three things, then I am going to stop responding to this thread and get back to trains: (1) For those saying and thinking that this thread is way off railroad topics, you are obviously right. But, I find it interesting to see what the various political beliefs of railroaders are (I am noticing that they are somewhat different than the average American political belief--I find this very interesting and worthy of exploration). Also, when something is said as an aside while discussing legitimate railroad topics, I see no reason why not to comment. (2) When I said I don't expect it would be any different if a Muslim contingent moved into Mississippi (suggesting that Amercicans are really no different from Muslims and we should respect them more), the commentary on this comment has left out two very important factors: (A) I don't mean Muslim/Americans I mean true outsiders, and (B) I don't mean civilians, I mean a military contingent that could blow the hell out of anything and everybody if they wanted to. You cannot tell me that Americans would do everything and anything to get them out. (3) My larger point is that I think we would achieve more of our goals if we tried to understand Saudi Arabia and other Arab problems rather than just assuming they are bad people who are that different from us. I don't think they are that different and think their concerns are legitimate. Back to trains. Gabe Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:05 AM I would like to see evidence that the people who will be conducting the railroad renovations and presumably rebuilding in Iraq understand the needs and wants of the population -- both in Iraq and in countries with which Iraqi railroads would presumably interchange... Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
[i] I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away.
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? Amtrak -- no change in the existing trends. Transit -- no change in the existing trends Unions -- no change in the existing trends Class Is -- no change in the existing trends Short lines -- no change in the existing trends What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, the House the radical body (conservative meaning, don't change too fast, radical meaning change fast). Democrats retain filibuster power in the Senate, and will use it just like in the last four years to keep the radical tendencies of the House moderated. I would expect to see an Administration effort to kill Amtrak once again, and just like the last four or five efforts, it will be halted by Republican Congressmen and Senators who will seek to protect their home districts -- thus Amtrak will be even more beholden to local interests and run for local purposes, instead of an actual national system. As for unions, market power has been undergoing a steady erosion since 1946, when Taft-Hartley was passed. That won't change -- it will just continue. Maybe slightly faster than before, maybe not. The real conflict is going to appear between states and the feds. Even Republican governors are becoming quite grumpy at the unfunded mandates foisted on them by the Congress and Administration, and are becoming increasingly prickly about where the federal money is spent. Health care payments are crushing states.
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin1978 Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?
QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623 I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek
QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.