Slashdot Mirror

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

You don't know what you're talking about.

From the CIA World Factbook:

Literacy Rates for Mexico:
Total Population: 92.2%
Male: 94%
Female: 90.5% (2003 est.)

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Given the rate at which the Europeans are NOT making babies, within another generation or two, Europe, as we once knew it, largely will have ceased to exist.

Just within northern Europe:

Iceland: 1.92 TFR (2006)
Norway: 1.78 TFR (2006)
Denmark: 1.74 TFR (2006)
Finland: 1.73 TFR (2006)
Sweden: 1.66 TFR (2006)
Belarus: 1.43 TFR (2006)
Estonia: 1.40 TFR (2006)
Germany: 1.39 TFR (2006)
Russia: 1.28 TFR (2006)
Latvia: 1.27 TFR (2006)
Poland: 1.25 TFR (2006)
Lithuania: 1.20 TFR (2006)
Ukraine: 1.17 TFR (2006)

A Total Fertility Rate [TFR] of 2.10 [per woman per fertile lifetime] is necessary just to break even [you need the extra "0.1" mostly to account for children who don't survive to adulthood].

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /us.html

Lists US literacy at 99% of all people over the age of 15.

Which seems a bit high to me, and of course there are many different ways to judge literacy. Many of those people's literacy is not as functional as it should be, I certainly personally know plenty of people who can't read critically as fully as they should be able to. But that isn't the same as saying most Americans are too illiterate to handle books or written material at all.

Let's be rational for a little bit.
World Population: 6,525,170,264
I, personally, could give a rats hairy ass about abortion one way or the other. However, overpopulation is as big an issue as bioethics.

And before you say, "Well, what if your mother had aborted you?"
Well, then I wouldn't be here to care, now would I?

Damn kneejerk activists...

Not to take away from your point, but the regular smaller, non-High def CRT TVs(IE the cheap ones) over at Walmart have had the digital tuners for about a year.

Still, I have a 32" TV. It works perfectly well, and is approaching 8 years old. If we go ahead and say that the digital tuners weren't put in until 2005, that's still only 4 years from availability of the new tuner until the cutoff of the old system. For my family(not obsessive TV watchers), TVs generally last around 12-15 years.

So only about a third of the TVs would be attritioned to the new tuner as of the cutoff. Still, if you add in new installs, and people replacing before necessary, I'll be generous and say 2/3rds of the TVs will have the tuner in 2009. That still leaves a massive amount of TVs with only the old tuner, rendered useless for one of it's major functions by what's essentially government fiat.

Now, in this case I AGREE with the fiat. This billion dollar handout can easily be paid for by simply selling a few of the freed channels. The radio spectrum has become that valuable. Digital can fit more into a given part of the spectrum than analog can.

Hmmm... 219 Million TVs in 1997. $990 million will provide for 24.75 million set-tops. Or about 10% of the televisons today.

You forgot one statistic:

Population Sweden 9,016,596 (July 2006 est.) U.S. 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

By leaving that one out and including percentages, you are promoting another fallacy. And gee, with that in mind, we don't look so bad now, do we? I suggest everyone look at the full information available.

You forgot one statistic:

Population Sweden 9,016,596 (July 2006 est.) U.S. 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

By leaving that one out and including percentages, you are promoting another fallacy. And gee, with that in mind, we don't look so bad now, do we? I suggest everyone look at the full information available.

Better question: Would you let somebody with obvious mental instability babysit your $1.3 billion kid?

Good question. The GDP of the United States is $12.98 trillion according to The CIA, but we still have Bush.

we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases (exactly how much we can reduce it by, is another question...).

Your Right... I say you lead the way... Start by commiting suicide to consume less, thus producing less GH gases... If it makes a measureable impact on the planet, I promise I'll follow shortly after.

BTW, IF we could get it soooo hot that everything dies (On purpose!) Eventually MAN will then die too... So eventually the planet will recreate life (from all the bacteri & stuff way down below the surface) that may lead to a new dominient species... so we are REALLY just contributing to the normal course of (if you believe in it) evolution. Right? so WHO GIVES a WHOOP if the Human race wipes itself out?

So, I don't get what the whole problem is about anyways.. It's just another normal cycle... We are only a blink in the time line. You or I will not and can not make a difference in the overall cycles of the planet. I think there is a MUCH GREATER chance that the 1,313,973,713 people in china (1.3 BILLION) will make MORE of an impact than the 298,444,215 People in the US (300 MILLION with "undocumented" immigrants) BUT everyone seems to jump on our backs first...

"Unlike developed countries, China and other developing nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change are not required to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. " - http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=re adnews&itemid=1761&language=1

*China -- Population: 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/ch.html

*United States -- Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/us.html

we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases (exactly how much we can reduce it by, is another question...).

Your Right... I say you lead the way... Start by commiting suicide to consume less, thus producing less GH gases... If it makes a measureable impact on the planet, I promise I'll follow shortly after.

BTW, IF we could get it soooo hot that everything dies (On purpose!) Eventually MAN will then die too... So eventually the planet will recreate life (from all the bacteri & stuff way down below the surface) that may lead to a new dominient species... so we are REALLY just contributing to the normal course of (if you believe in it) evolution. Right? so WHO GIVES a WHOOP if the Human race wipes itself out?

So, I don't get what the whole problem is about anyways.. It's just another normal cycle... We are only a blink in the time line. You or I will not and can not make a difference in the overall cycles of the planet. I think there is a MUCH GREATER chance that the 1,313,973,713 people in china (1.3 BILLION) will make MORE of an impact than the 298,444,215 People in the US (300 MILLION with "undocumented" immigrants) BUT everyone seems to jump on our backs first...

"Unlike developed countries, China and other developing nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change are not required to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. " - http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=re adnews&itemid=1761&language=1

*China -- Population: 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/ch.html

*United States -- Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/us.html

Actually, it's closer to 6.3 billion people nowadays. The world's population is approaching 6.6 billion people.

Overall canada represent 23.4% of the US' export 23.4% https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /us.html

Thinking only works as well as the facts you start with.

In this case, it's the fact that Iran is a predominantly Shia country.

Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%

[source]

And Iran has never said they want to exterminate anyone. They do, however, want the maps to change, much like the maps in Eastern Europe/Asia changed at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. wiped the U.S.S.R. off the map, but there was no extermination needed, done, or called for.

The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. The CIA World factbook begs to differ: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2034rank.html

In fact, 25 nations spend a higher percent of their GDP on the militairy than the US does.

Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources.

Really? Where did you read this? I thought it was a big conspiracy by the tin foil companies.

Get a math book and look up "set theory". Or amke some Venn diagrams ...

Islam is a religion, not a society. That's why when you speak of theocracies that are "Islamic societies" they are societies that make the *religion* of Islam their core.

There is no such thing as an "Islamic society" without the religion of Islam - however, you can have people practicing the religion of Islam without them being in an "Islamic society."

Next you'll be claiming that, because some intolerant nutbars want to impose their christian fundie views on the whole country, the US is some sort of "Christian society", when it isn't, never has been, and never will be. To quote the CIA Factbook: Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; Some people in the US practice christianity - however, they can't even agree among themselves as to who is a "real christian" ad "who's gong to hell." The practice, by individuals, of any particular religion, doesn't make that society that religion.

...per capita GDP of Cuba is second lowest in the Caribbean basin.

...per capita GDP of Cuba is second lowest in the Caribbean basin.

...per capita GDP of Cuba is second lowest in the Caribbean basin.

My guess that this is for poor villages, not hunter gatherers. Even in some of the poorest villages in the world, there is still at least some literacy. Sometimes it's a suprising amount of literacy. Where my parents come from, the Philippines literacy is 92%. Not bad for one of the poorest countries in the world.

Anyway, I think the most powerful and wonderful possiblity of these devices is having access to the larger world of knowledge that we take for granted on the internet. Even if all they had was Wikipedia, it could radically change their world. Did you know that you can double the egg production output of chickens simply by leaving a light on in a chicken coop? I didn't know that until I read it on the internet. Twice as much food by simply having access to a lightbulb and the knowledge of what to do with it. I'm sure there are millions other useful pieces of information that that could help the lives of people in the developing world.

According to the CIA World Factbook, "approximately 90% of the population is concentrated within 160 km of the US border" (That's 100 miles for us yanks.)

the US is viewed by many Canadians as Canada's primary trading partner.

There's no "views", only reality.

From the CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /ca.html:

Exports account for roughly a third of [Canada's] GDP. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs about 85% of Canadian exports. Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.

Exports: $405 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - partners: US 84.2% [~$341 billion]

And Americans would be wise to equally remember the following,https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac tbook/geos/us.html:

Exports: $1.024 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - partners: Canada 23.4% [~$240 billion]

the US is viewed by many Canadians as Canada's primary trading partner.

There's no "views", only reality.

From the CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /ca.html:

Exports account for roughly a third of [Canada's] GDP. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs about 85% of Canadian exports. Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.

Exports: $405 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - partners: US 84.2% [~$341 billion]

And Americans would be wise to equally remember the following,https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac tbook/geos/us.html:

Exports: $1.024 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - partners: Canada 23.4% [~$240 billion]

Can you give an example of a more decentralized country that has better broadband access?

Can you give an example of a more decentralized country that has better broadband access?

Certainly: Sweden.

A country world-renowned for its internet access, which has about 20 people/km^2 compared to the US's 30 people/km^2.

I think I've made my point.

This is a fallacy. A rough estimate gives about 10 thousand dollars per person. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/xx.html
I live with about that amount of money (+/- 5%) and it'd be preposterous to say that I am in a bad shape.

in this case the simple math shows you that the world's gross product per capita is very small and everyone would be in a very bad shape

1. a tremendous title wave will wipe out most human life on the southern, western, and eastern coasts of the southern hemisphere;
2. water near the surface of the ocean will drop in salinity and temprature, killing off most of the coral reefs and the algae that takes most of the carbon out of the atmosphere;
3. Changing ocean currents will plunge most of the northern hemisphere into ice-age like conditions.

Kenya, where Obama's father is from, is far from a predominantly Muslim country where only 10% of the population adhere to Islam. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /ke.html

Health care is not a right.

I can really see why they feel slighted - after all, collection of samples for the WHO is not a process without its costs and hazards. It's not like they're collecting bread mold or something.

Perhaps approaching the WHO looking for some form of compensation for sample collection could be attempted. Perhaps it already has been. But anyone who has dealt with a global scale NGO, especially a UN agency, knows that the bureaucracy involved makes even the most overburdened of national government bureaucracies look like a model of efficiency.

Still, though, I have to wonder about the claims that Indonesia cannot afford to purchase the vaccines. Indonesia is one of the most populous countries in the world, and seems more than able to afford many of the trappings of a modern industrialized nation. Their GDP is close to a trillion dollars US. Is it possible that a certain amount of their stand on this issue is posturing? Or to the benefit of one particular agency or department of their government? Follow the money to its destination and more would begin to be clear.

• Baker Island
  
• Howland Island
  
• Jarvis Island
  
• Kingman Reef
  
• Johnston Atoll
  
• Midway Islands
  
• Palmyra Atoll
  
• Wake Island
  
• Navassa Island
  

Is it possible that US Dollars are locked up in foreign reserves? And one day Asian countries will try cashing in their dollars for American goods and everything will inflate like nuts?

See also: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2187rank.html

Excluding minor territories, Norway is the wealthiest country on earth.

From CIA - The World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

GNP per capita of Norway is $46000. For comparison, USA is down a way at $37000.

Otherwise, Norway is similar to Oregon in size and population.

So Apple might feel this more than the size of the country alone would imply.

So, you can read my mind? What am I thinking now?

I never said I could read your mind. I said I doubted your stament and went one to why I doubted it. And if you expect anyone outside a Bush basher would believe your stament about powel, you need to work on delivery a little. With all the supporting evidence on what he presented by all the other countries involved, you can find fault in a person you were supposed to have respected for repeating this evidence,and no you don't respect him. Not likley.

Chavez wasn't even president of Venezuela in th eearly '90s. He wasn't elected president until 1998. He did lead a coup in 1992 but it failed.

Interchange chavez with venezuela. The point was that Chavez made changes to the eixisting policy. It takes nothing away from the point or anything else said.

First, I am not Democrat, politically I am Libertarian. Now as for Kennedy, while he escalated troop deployment to Viet Nam, he did not get the US into the country. The Republican president who warned of the military industrial complex, Eisenhower first sent troops there. By 1955/6 in an accord both North and South Vietnam agreed to have a vote on whether they should reunite or remain two nations. Eisenhower was against this vote so he sent Edward Lansdale, an Air Force Col at the tyme to South Vietnam. There he sought out Veit Namese who opposed the reunitication, armed, and trained them.

I never said you were a democrate. I said your trying your best to claim republican leaders suck or something along the lines. You even goto the point of getting the facts wrong again to save kenedy from an acusation about a war and place blame on an american.

First, It wasn't Eisenhower who got us into vietnam. It was our democrate leader Truman who did. Truman approved a 10 million dollar aid package for "anti-communist efforts in Indochina". This was around '50. In the sameyear he sent 120some troops to vietnam to advise the French. Then in 1951 he sent another 150 million to support the french in vietnem.