Send Flowers to Russia, Ukraine and Worldwide with Cyber-Florist.com Fiance.com: Beautiful Russian brides
Home  |  About  |  Forum  |  User Blogs  |  Login  |  Register

	Create New Topic   My Posts   My forum buddies   Invite friends   Private messages Russian brides > Main Forum > Rich But Naive Author Post Annika77 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/18/2004 10:44:48 AM   Im real stupid forigner sorry...exwife. Posh like a bit fashionable and money...it means maybe not give away 75 procent of salary. wessman Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/18/2004 11:40:31 AM   ok, I figured something like that and I responed for clerification and in no way was that a put down. It is difficult to communicate when we can not see the facial features of a person, to know their body language, the light in their eyes or the inflection of a voice. Are the people you are communicating with actively listening and open concerned and in the here and now. We all are at a disadvantage when conversing on a one-dimensional forum such as this. I was not inferring that you are a stupid forienger, sometimes I do not have time to read three pages of content to figure things out and that part made no sense is all. Perhaps I came across as judgemental and if so please excuse me, it is my profession and my nature to be a helper and thsat is who I am, clear communication is essential in my little world. It was not my intent to make you feel as though you are stupid, less than and a forienger! Annika77 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/18/2004 11:48:44 AM   Ahh, dont worry about my feelings! I must be more careful! geriatrix Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/18/2004 3:09:47 PM   There is another aspect: Europe vs USA In many ways there are more cultural links between Europe and FSU. The 'shock of the new' will not be quite so severe. Besides, the geographical distance will be shorter, it will be much easier to 'go home' and visit the family, if a girl 'only' moves to a European country. And, if USA continues to act as the 'world policeman' and Europe continues to refuse to help, the average US taxpayer will become less rich and the average European taxpayer will become more rich, giving European men yet another advantage. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/18/2004 7:39:30 PM   Geriatrix What a knucklhead, where in the hell did you learn economics at? Let me guess John Maynard Keynes? Wealth redistribution, ie. taxation has very little to with being rich or less rich. Economies, especially in the US is not a zero sum game. Taxation reduces the growth of an economy, and slows federal revenues. If you want to challenge Check the OMB during Reagans tax cut years. Federal revenues quadrupled but a liberal congress outspent the revenues. So Reagan gets the blame. but in no way stops a person with a creative mind to become wealthy. As far as the world policeman comment. Too many countries owe their freedom to us. What do we get in Return. BS from socialists in Europe. Hopefully many in Europe will never need our help again, because I sure as hell wouldn't offer it. I would love to see how much financial aid is going to France, Germany and many other countries. As far as I'm concerned anymore I wouldn't give a damn dime to any of those countries and then lets talk about wealth. There's more than the world policeman that has their hands in my taxpayers pocket. Another post from the land of OZ Worldtraveller Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 6:50:41 AM   Nasfan6, excuse me please, but in which world are you living?? Financial aid from the US to Germany?? The last thing I can remember was the Marshall-Plan shortly after WWII - hmm nearly 60 years ago. And I am thanksful for it. Being a member of the NATO Germany contributes to every war directly or indirectly with financial support. Please consdider the enormous debts of the US and on the other side Germany as the worldchampion in exports. Really, Nasfan6, I laughed, when I read your lines :-) WT Worldtraveller Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 6:56:35 AM   Geriatrix, the wars done by the Bush administration are economic wars. To save Irak and the neighbouring region for future oil business and nothing else. Please note the links of actual members of US-ministeries and those US-companies engaged in rebuilding the Irak. Geriatrix, have you any little imagination, how many billions of DM or EUR Germany paid to eastern Europe for compensation of WWII and later for rebuilding the economy and social spheres in the former SU? It was also me, a german taxpayer, who gave and gives his portion to this and not the US-taxpayer. Sorry, Geriatrix, before you are writing such uncorrect things, update your knowledge. WT Worldtraveller Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 7:03:57 AM   Annika77, you accused the US-ones to be materialistic. Probably you are right. But during the 14 years of travelling throughout the former USSR I can say, that I never meet more materialistic persons than in eastern europe. I can call it also a very egoistic part of character. I describe the habit of many eastern europe citizens as POTEMKIN-like. Sure you know, who it was in russian history. Means always to show more to other people regarding importance and wealthyness than really exists. WT Annika77 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 7:21:57 AM   Im not SUCH East European spcialist. I dont think my country is Potemkin like, people here really work hard and development is quick. geriatrix Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 9:04:19 AM   I am naive, but I am not rich. To me it looks like USA is involved with cleaning up mess all over the world. That includes mess in places where it was created by Europe (European countries). In the long run a great deal of the expenses will have to be paid by the US taxpayers. (Military intervention and economic aid.) In the meantime the European countries are mainly concerned with raising their living standards, without spending too much on security. A few points: (mess in the past + security now) Vietnam - France could not handle French Indo-China and 'dropped the bundle' - for USA to pick up. Africa - the problems are created by European countries. Why should USA be involved in their solution. Balkan - is actually IN Europe, why should USA (through NATO) pay to solve the problems? Why are there US soldiers in Europe? Surely the European countries have plenty of experience with running a military! Could it be that they would rather improve their living standard while USA pays for security? Worldtraveller Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 9:53:50 AM   Geriatrix, which newspapers are you reading daily??? Are you sure to have had history in school? "Cleaning up", what an expression of arrogance. Sympthomatic for the actual Bush administration. See the actual Irak. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a pure criminal, but he was feeded up by the US as long he was a helpful tool. How often a civil war broke out after US military "cleaned" a country. Vietnam? It was left by the french ones in the mid 50´s. ONly several years later in 1962 the US invaded to fight back communistic tendencies and "protect" their own southvietnam colony. Africa? Tell me any problem there produced by any european country! But you are free to count the millions of landmines produced by US-companies still killing people everyday there in Africa. Africa is still now a kind of colony for all wealthy contries, which are eager to keep them down and explore the natural ressources. Any dictator was and is wellcomed to give any kind of stability to an african country. Call them sons of Mobutu. Geriatrix, do you really believe, that Germany (for example) does not pay any penny to US-military located in Germany? Hell, you have a very limited knowledge! Every year dozens of millions are paid from german government in this issue to US-Military. Economic aid? Now you are really naiv! Every economical aid is the prestep before the real business will be done. And nothing else. It was all the time and will remain till end of times. Open up ypur eyes, Geriatrix! WT GLTALLTOAD Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 11:20:03 AM   WT, The payment made to US for the german bases is an insignificant token-like amount. It does not apply to their maintenance costs, including salaries. It is a well documented fact that most european governments where US bases are located activily lobby the US capitol hallways to kill any type of legislation aimed to remove or relocate those military bases to avoid the sudden collapse of the surrounding local economies to each and every base facility. At the same time countries like Poland, Zcheck Republic and Austria actively lobby to invite those same military bases. toad geriatrix Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 12:01:53 PM   Worldtraveller, Not that it matters, but I DID have history in school. Some of my teachers were - as I realised later - clearly marxist-leaning, but not all of them, and I do think I learnt to think for myself. The main cause of WW2 was created by the Peace Treaty after WW1, and a similar time horizon (or longer) applies to the events mentioned above. I am not saying that what USA does is always right. Often it is not. I am saying that USA puts resources into attempts to solve some security problems, Europe tries to spend as few resources as possible. And let USA do the dirty work. After which Europe criticises USA. Since you mention Iraq: It is quite possible that the lack of stability in the Middle East is actually to a certain degree the result of the meddling of Great Britain and France (and Russia) many years ago. The point is that the area is politically un-stable and that France and Germany (and other European countries) have been more interested in selling military technology to the countries than trying to be a stabilising factor. Vietnam (and the other countries in French Indo-China): Viet-Minh won a military victory at Dien Bien Phu, there was an international conference in Geneva, the French and their Vietnamese allies agreed to move south of the 17th parallel. Two years later France offically withdrew from its Far East empire. It is of course always easy to be clever in hindsight, but it is probably fair to suggest that the policies France followed in its colonies in French Indo-China (with respect to civil administration, infrastructure, etc.) did not prepare the the area well for the French withdrawal. USA clearly had its own agenda, but some of the problems in South-Vietnam were clearly caused by the French way of running the country as a colony up to the very moment of departure. Africa: Most of the problems there can probably be traced back to the time when the countries were colonies. And some of the countries are still in many ways treated as colonies. African countries are politically and economically un-stable. And the main culprits are the former colony powers. In Europe. US troops in Germany: The economy of the matter is shown when USA wants to save money by bringing the soldiers back to USA, and Germany says it will hurt the local economy. Economic aid: I do not have the figures. Europe's economy is about the same size as USA's. It should give as much aid - directly and throught UN. Perhaps it does. (?) But Europe also has a legacy to the former colonies. And I still think that, by the end of the day, the American taxpayers have to foot the bill for 'putting out fires' which were caused by Europe. And that Europe does not 'pull ets weight' when it comes to security. Therefore the average American taxpayer get less rich and the average European taxpayer gets more rich. geriatrix Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 12:07:19 PM   Typo: 'pull ets weight' should be 'pull ITS weight' wessman Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 7:29:25 PM   Geri- realised is like advice and advise except this time there is no realised to confound with realized there is only realized. PaulM Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 7:53:58 PM   It is a well documented fact that most european governments where US bases are located activily lobby the US capitol hallways to kill any type of legislation aimed to remove or relocate those military bases to avoid the sudden collapse of the surrounding local economies to each and every base facility. Greece couldn't get rid of them fast enough, of course poor countries are glad to have some form of income from American bases. Americans should be direct in their criticism of European countries, UK has done its bit in partnership ( not help) with the US, but its not stopped some presidents trying to cuddle up to French and German PM's before the Gulf wars. nasfan6 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 8:47:08 PM   WT Economic Wars??Really, well if your talking about oil, I don't know what papers your are reading. We don't need the oil, trust me on that, but the socialists in our country have blocked the exploration and expansion of oil in Alaska that would free the US from Opec's grip. That sure as hell would destabilize a lot of economies. Plus you want to blame all wars on the US. That's a crock. Maybe you should check out the UN's ability to create war. They have been involved in supporting more murderous regimes than any single entity in history. It's you kind of indignation that encourages me to support Isolation. Our economy would not fail but a lot of the worlds would be thrown in turmoil without the US Buck!!!! izifaddag Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 10:21:46 PM   WT "you accused the US-ones to be materialistic. Probably you are right. But during the 14 years of travelling throughout the former USSR I can say, that I never meet more materialistic persons than in eastern europe. I can call it also a very egoistic part of character." I am addressing this because it highlighted a pet problem I have. The problem is popular opinion as opposed to reality. The west is charactertrized as fat, selfish and stupid. Some truth in that but according to your experience you point out that the west hasn't cornered the market in this area. Here is another. The evil white man is still putting down the poor black man in the USA. I have no axe to grind, I am English by birth and predominant culture. I was a blank sheet of paper when I came to the USA. I saw with non biased eyes. I am here to tell you that American blacks (please note I said American blacks) are the most racist individuals I have ever met, closely followed by the American Jews. This is extremely interesting because you would think that both of these groups would be very forward thinking. They have both suffered terrible prejudices against them through history. I don't understand this attitude. As originally a European I remember that there was a conscious effort to break down all the barriers so as to make Europe a better place to live. When I came to America there was serious activity to increase nuclear weapons whereas in Europe popular opinion was to get them the hell off the face of the Earth. I don't know where this post is going but it is interesting. I truly, truly hope that the FSU countries don't lose their charm and sell out their character for a handful of fries and a pair of Nikes. God please protect them. Steve scottlf Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/19/2004 10:31:31 PM   There is a line of thought that ultimately, all wars are economic. I tend to agree. I've mentioned this is another thread at one time, but in regards to estimated oil reserves, the U.S. is not even in the top 10 nations. The United States had 21.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2001, twelfth highest in the world. These reserves are concentrated overwhelmingly (over 80%) in four states -- Texas (25% including the state's reserves in the Gulf of Mexico), Alaska (24%), California (21%), and Louisiana (14% including the state's reserves in the Gulf of Mexico). You are on the mark in regards to the usefullness of the oil reserves of the United States. I disagree with the United States government having jurisdiction over those lands that hold those reserves. Ultimately, the economics of oil availibility and cost of extraction should drive whether those reserves are utilized, and not some government mandate based on what I prefer to call “environmental terrorism”. However, there is more to the economics of oil besides raw reserves. There is also the cost of obtaining that oil in raw form (pumping it out of the ground, in simplest terms). It is fairly expensive to deliver crude from American reserves compared to foreign reserves. Possibly as high as ten times in some cases. So, regardless of the reserves the United States holds, it is still consistently cheaper to import foreign oil. Part of the bigger problem is fluctuations. Yes, OPEC can suddenly raise the price of oil above what it cost to extract oil INSIDE the United States. The problem is that native oil production within the United States is below standard consumption. The rules of supply and demand dictate that even if your production cost are less than imported oil prices, if you can't meet demand, the effective price still demands you import that oil (I.E. foreign oil prices still dictate the cost of native oil) Refer to this government web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html The United States can certainly ramp up production, but the cost of doing so is prohibitive, and foreign markets tend to stay at a price below what would make it worthwhile to keep such production available. The site above indicates that. Anyway, I generally agree with certain aspects of isolationism, anyway. However, the current trade practices of the United States would make that very problematic. As far as manufactured goods, the United States imports far more than it exports. http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html Also keep in mind that with no gold or other quantitative material backing, the U.S. Dollar is ultimately a debt based currency (and practically ALL world currencies for that matter). The value of the Dollar is ultimately based on the reliability of the U.S. Government to pay it's debts. At this particular point, China is one of the United State's largest debt holders. In fact, Asia in general is where a very large percentage of American debt exists. When you keep in mind the current trace dependencies we currently have with Asia, we are in a very bad situation. There are some VERY nasty things China could do to us economically. It just doesn't benefit them to do it (at this time). To be more succinct, I think we need China more than China needs us, and that's a situation we should NOT be in. Anyway, that's just my opinion. dragster Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/20/2004 3:39:16 PM   to hell with the economic debate.........lets just bomb the land of the rising sun again!Why is it that such passion can be invoked by the relative fiscal policies of each other's countries......you all (collectively) elected your politicians.....now just let the lying theiving scheming b*stards complete the mess without it intruding here...(PHEW). Your Reply: Your name:   New Registration Password:   Forgot password?   refresh Code:   Russian brides > Main Forum > Rich But Naive
	Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6