US businessman held hostage in China over billing dispute

The USAF and the RCAF/CFAC also had some nuclear-tipped air-to-air weapons in their inventories, such as the AIR-2 Genie.  Canada had them as late as 1984; they were carried by CF-101 Voodoo interceptors.  They were officially under US control, but they could be released for use by Canada as circumstances warranted.

In addition to the two big components of the nuclear triad that have already been mentioned – the land-based ballistic missiles and the manned SAC bombers – there was also the third component, the US Navy’s ballistic missile subs.  At the opposite end of the scale, the US nuclear inventory includes – if I’m not mistaken – man-portable nuclear demolition charges, designed for things like special commando-type operations.  I think a weapon of this type is featured in the 1977 motion picture thriller Twilight’s Last Gleaming.

Britain is to America as Greece is to Rome

http://cullenmurphy.com/are-we-rome

In Janurary of '03 we had a stint of -30*F.  It was very sunny, calm no wind and no snow (minus what was already on the ground.)  The weather guy said it was to cold to snow.  He explained that the moisture in the air would hit the dew point long before it would get to us.

It stayed that way for almost 6 weeks.  I got a lot of ice fishing done.  8-)

I wouldn’t mind that again for a few weeks. :-)  But only a few weeks I would rather not have to spend the nest egg keeping the house above freezing.

LOL Thread Necro!  This topic died 8 years ago!

I get mixed answers when I ask that question, most to the left will concede that a man should have that choice. But there are some that are fanatical that think that it is all the womans say (I DESPISE when someone says “when a man can get preg. than he can have a say”). Somehow a man not wanting to become a parent is not relavent. Most to the right think a man should have a say, (even if they are pro life, they would like to have some say… even if they will never use it). But there are those who think that this (and it probably would) lead to more abortions. Also consider that if this was made law, the scenerio of a woman getting preg to try to hold onto a man in a relationship that is dead would not happen nearly as much. Just about all “relationships” that come about because of pressure of an unwanted baby end very badly.

I believe that abortion in the first month is ok. That is before the child has brain waves. That is when I think it is human (yes, all animals have brain waves and are not human, but using that standard than you could “abort” after the baby is born because it is no more inteligent than a chimp). If a woman wants one than I don’t think anyone has the right to stop her.

You may think a month is not enough time to decide to have one, or even to know if you are preg. To that I say first… tough, you need to make a decision quickly - a human life is at stake. And about not knowing, if you are gonig to take on the resp. to have sex than you should you should have to take on the resp of knowing if you are preg. You miss a period, test yourself and decide.

I am pro life, but I am not insane with it. My sister died because she gave birth. She didn’t know it would kill her. And I fully support a woman who wants to abort if her life/health is at stake no matter how far along the preg. is.

If the morning after pill works, and is SAFE… it should be made legal IMO. I think that pill would solve a lot of the problems.

Source :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42201-2003Jul11.html

As one obnoxious US Senator once so aptly put it…
“There’s too much consumin’ goin’ on out theya!”

@El:

Another form of World Charity…
What happens to the world’s economy if all countries buy their own products where available, but elsewhere when necessary…

I think i didn’t totally understand that. You mean “buy their own even if moer expensive”, and only if that is not enough go and import?
I suppose so, so let’s look…

Canada buys its own lumber. The US buys Canadian lumber. Who is helped? Canadian limber industries. Who is hurt? US lumber industries.

Not right. Canada is the biggest exporter of lumber products (21.2%). They would be hurt if people did not buy from them. The US only has 11.1% of that market, they mainly sell their lumber in their country anyway. In contrast the 31 millions Canadians don’t use as much wood as the 275 million USies (per capita they are comparable). The US lumber industry would lose not as much as the Canadians. So…. you are wrong :)

Source: http://www.cofi.org/reports/factbook2000/Chapters from FACTBOOK 2000-Part I.pdf

The US buys its own Christmas decorations. China buys its own Christmas decorations. Who is helped? The US foofaraw industries. Who is hurt? Chinese prison wardens and sweatshops.

Well, does it hurt the chinese (who probably don’t have that big market for christmas deco)? They would put that work into something else. It would help the US industry though, taken that you USies import a cheap lot from China.

Japan buys its own computer chips. The US buys Japanese computer chips. Who is helped? Japanese tech industries. Who is hurt? US tech industries.

Why are they hurt? By what you say in the beginning the above means that there are no US chips available. How does that hurt the US, when there are none anyway?

The US buys its own wines and beer. France and Germany buy their own wines and beers. Who is helped? The US alcohol industries. Who is hurt? The French and Germany brewmeisters.

Do not forget the US customers here, who are hurt, and the german and french drinking people, who can be sure to get good beer and wine only and not fall into this mean “Budweiser”/“Budvar” trap….

Russia cannot afford to buy its own diamonds. The EU and US buy Russian diamonds. Who is helped? Russia, the EU and US. Who is hurt? Nobody.

“Can’t afford” kind of contradicts the term “available”. The EU and US, having no large diamond mines would buy russian/south african diamonds anyway. So, i don’t see why the real world and your model would differ here at all.

The US watches its own Whorelywood movies and TurpitudeVision. The EU watches Cannes movies and ?. Who is helped? France is better off because the youth of France no longer have American negative behavioural influence and the French language is saved from Anglicization. The US is better off because Whorelywood only has 30% of its original budget. This causes fewer movies to be made, but they are of better quality(otherwise, the good and great directors, producers, actors keep working, but Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Madonna and Julia Roberts are working as telephone solicitors in East LA.) Both the US and Europe find a strange thing happening… families are spending personal time together. Who is hurt? Canada has an influx of unemployed actors and Peter Jennings.

Don’t forget Australia who would suffer from that with unemployed actors… and i don’t think the quality for Hollywood movies would go up:
(1) Sean Penn is a great actor
(2) you would lose/have lost the services of Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, Russell Crowe, Elle Macpherson, Stephen Hopkins (dir), Errol Flynn (all Australia); Klaus Kinski, Johnny Weissmüller (!), Franka Potente, Marlene Dietrich, Fritz Lang (dir), F.W. Murnau (dir), R. Fassbinder (dir), W. Wenders (dir), Billy Wilder (dir), Roland Emmerich (dir); Wolfgang Petersen (dir), E. Lubitsch (dir), Peter Lorre (all Germany, Austria)…

Now look at the movies never made or seen by you…
Casblanca (Lorre), Tarzan (Weissmüller), for Flynn see:
http://www.imdb.com/Name?Flynn,+Errol
No “Independance day”, no Godzilla (Emmerich), no “Patriot” and “Lethal Weapons” (Gibson), No “beautiful mind”, “Gladiator” (Crowe), no Nosferatu (Kinski, Fassbinder; Murnau), no Metropolis (Lang), no “M” (Lorre, Lang), no “Run, Lola, run” (Potente),
etc. etc. etc. etc.
and these are only two countries …

So, i guess the quality would be even worse :)

USA does pays its dues. Maybe not always on time, but does every country in the UN manage to pay on time?