NATO had already outlined its new structure. All of us are already divided into elite and inferior categories. Of course Yankees themselves and their allies took the elite role of “fighters” of high response in different “hot spots”. And after dashing US guys had “rollicked” there all dirty and risky and expensive work of stabilizing of situation in problem region passes to another group of NATO countries.
And US by their planned deployment ABM system’s constituents in Eastern European countries just fix this structure. As a matter of fact those missiles will defend just Americans themselves. At the same time it would be nice cause for US to pretend to be All-European defender. And under this pretext they’ll continue imposing us their will in our defence matters and maybe in political course as well….. giving out to us roles in their nasty predatory games.
All in all, we could pacify us with fact ..,.. if our safety would be guaranteed. Alas! Only one thing we can surely get in case of American ABM is planted in European lands. Hatred of Islamic terrorists, it is. And I strongly doubt American ability to shelter Europeans from this very threat. No guarantee at all!

Hatred of Islamic terrorists, it is. And I strongly doubt American ability to shelter Europeans from this very threat. No guarantee at all!Neither America, nor anyone else can protect countries that are allowing themselves to be overrun with a militant population, as France has allowed.

Who is the "us" to whom you refer?

heh. i thought this thread was going to be about women.

Ouch

Neither America, nor anyone else can protect countries that are allowing themselves to be overrun with a militant population, as France has allowed.

??

What do you envision these "militant" folks in France doing to that country? Are they about to destroy it? Are they a threat to destroy it?

What do you envision these "militant" folks in France doing to that country? Are they a threat to destroy it?No, I don't think they'll destroy it.
France was either being nice or thought they could buy peace by allowing mass immigration of Muslims. The more militant among them have rioted two years in a row. If I remember, the last riot went on for days.
Now there are laws banning religious garb of all kinds (and I think even stars of David and Crucifixes [crucifii?])

This will only get worse in years to come.
Dragon said that America won't be able to help protect Europe from the threat of militant Islam. I was just responding that they have already allowed the camel's nose into the tent and now we can't help them.

I'm sure they had the best of intentions at the time they allowed the immigration, but now their lack of foresight is not our problem.

Out of curiosity, dragon, is english your first language? Your post is incoherent (meaning that it doesn't make sense).

ABM is just anti-missile weapon.
Spread of democracy and wealth are anti-terrorism weapon.
We need both devices for peace.

...Of course, we shall do it with a reasonable price.

ABM is just anti-missile weapon.
Spread of democracy and wealth are anti-terrorism weapon.
We need both devices for peace.

Very agreeable point of view, dammit.

...Of course, we shall do it with a reasonable price.

The price of freedom is never cheap, ever.

Dammit.

ABM is just anti-missile weapon.
Spread of democracy and wealth are anti-terrorism weapon.
We need both devices for peace.
Don't say that to an American democrat - you'll screw 'em all up...

heh. i thought this thread was going to be about women.
Please tell me this isn't what got his ass banned...

It actually made me laugh, but in a Borat kind of way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhiJZmxtll8

Please tell me this isn't what got his ass banned...
It wasn't.
It actually made me laugh, but in a Borat kind of way:
I liked that movie so much I had to see it twice.

France was either being nice or thought they could buy peace by allowing mass immigration of Muslims.
??
Mass immigration of people from north Africa is an old story - back in the 60's, France needed cheap labour force. That's all.

The more militant among them have rioted two years in a row. If I remember, the last riot went on for days.
If you refer to kids burning cars one year ago, they are everything but "militant muslims !".


Now there are laws banning religious garb of all kinds (and I think even stars of David and Crucifixes [crucifii?])

The law you refer to was passed long time before last years riots ; and it doesn't ban religious garbs of, it only applies in schools.


This will only get worse in years to come.
Dragon said that America won't be able to help protect Europe from the threat of militant Islam. I was just responding that they have already allowed the camel's nose into the tent and now we can't help them.

I'm sure they had the best of intentions at the time they allowed the immigration, but now their lack of foresight is not our problem.

No "we" had not the best intention, we just needed people to work in our factories and fields ! And we still do need them. 99% of immigrants cause no problem at all, and if you really believe that we are in such trouble with muslims, please come and visit us. You will see you are wrong.

No "we" had not the best intention, we just needed people to work in our factories and fields !

That's right.
But anyone who can't tell French can't work in France. Do you pay attention this matter?

1. ...and it doesn't ban religious garbs of, it only applies in schools.
2. No "we" had not the best intention, we just needed people to work in our factories and fields !
3. 99% of immigrants cause no problem at all,
4. and if you really believe that we are in such trouble with muslims, please come and visit us. You will see you are wrong.1. We unenlightened bigots in the US are not at that point yet.

2. I gave more credit.

3. But as we have discovered here, 1% can sure make a mess.

4. Since you know first hand, I stand corrected.

1- I personally don't think this law is a good thing. I don't like the idea of girls being told by their religion how to dress, but I also believe this is not an issue that should be restricted by the law

I say fuck 'em - assimilate or get out. If you wanna live the life of a "Muslim", then go do it in the Middle East. Our nations ARE free, but the goal here is to unify, not to "celebrate" our fucking diversity (or whatever bullshit liberal catch phrase is used to "praise" something that's divisive and destabilizing). In short, we're not a goddamned grab-bag for religious minorities, and to base our social considerations on THEIR wants and desires is not only irresponsible, it's ludicrous and rankly unfair to the people who built this nation in the first place. The same logic should apply to France and England. If the Muslims are unhappy about being told to ditch the hijab while testifying in OUR courts (or, for that matter, when they apply for licenses in OUR countries), then too bad - they can either do it or get out. Hell, I wish deportation were an option.

I say fuck 'em - assimilate or get out. If you wanna live the life of a "Muslim", then go do it in the Middle East. Our nations ARE free, but the goal here is to unify, not to "celebrate" our fucking diversity (or whatever bullshit liberal catch phrase is used to "praise" something that's divisive and destabilizing). In short, we're not a goddamned grab-bag for religious minorities, and to base our social considerations on THEIR wants and desires is not only irresponsible, it's ludicrous and rankly unfair to the people who built this nation in the first place. The same logic should apply to France and England. If the Muslims are unhappy about being told to ditch the hijab while testifying in OUR courts (or, for that matter, when they apply for licenses in OUR countries), then too bad - they can either do it or get out. Hell, I wish deportation were an option.

I'm sure they would want to go back to the Middle East. But when you have Western Nations going to war inside the Middle East, it doesn't make it safe for innocent civilians. So they flee to the West and start their families there. They become citizens of a new country. For America, it's called freedom of religon not freedom from religon. It's in the First Amendment. If they choose to wear the hijab, what's it to you?

IFor America, it's called freedom of religon not freedom from religon. It's in the First Amendment. If they choose to wear the hijab, what's it to you?
I have no problem with women wearing a hijab; none of my business and part of their religious heritage. But when they refuse to take it off when driving, or during identification photos, or when called to testify in court, there's a problem.

I have no problem with women wearing a hijab; none of my business and part of their religious heritage. But when they refuse to take it off when driving, or during identification photos, or when called to testify in court, there's a problem.

I agree with you. As I stated in a previous thread, Muslim women should take of the hijab when the law in the country asks them to do so. I have no problem with that.

I'm sure they would want to go back to the Middle East. But when you have Western Nations going to war inside the Middle East, it doesn't make it safe for innocent civilians. So they flee to the West and start their families there. They become citizens of a new country. For America, it's called freedom of religon not freedom from religon. It's in the First Amendment. If they choose to wear the hijab, what's it to you?

The impossible is a bad way.
We must never have serious cost by helping somebody.

We can help someone if we don't have unnecessary outgo.
We can help nobody if we have a vast amounts of spending.
If France will go deep recession by riot of illegal immigration, the immigration will loss of job. Both France and immigration will be unhappy. Do you want such a thing?

Of course we must help innocent people. Spreading peace and wealth lead to spreading market, saving cost for security, and making welfare for more people in the world. But we must do by more reasonable way like as PKO, ODA, and telling the innocent people varied information.

I'm sure they would want to go back to the Middle East.
Riiiiight.
But when you have Western Nations going to war inside the Middle East, it doesn't make it safe for innocent civilians.
Pfft - TWO nations. Only TWO nations have been attacked, and of the two, one indisputably had it coming while the other should've been dealt more thoroughly with when Saddam went rogue in '91. That aside, I'm sure all the "innocents" undoubtedly view the Middle East as a paradigm of peace and prosperity, especially when you take into consideration all the religious persecution replete with the staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds, but (and I believe this was your point) when the Big, Bad, Wolf (otherwise known as the USA) steps in for a little (much deserved, mind you) corrective action, then they (the "innocent" civilians, that is) are inclined to promptly flee to the West for cover because our military kills soooo indiscriminately. :rolleyes: Sure. Whatever you say, Ackmed.

Just out of curiosity, is that how your family ended up here? Don't worry, you don't have to bother answering - it was a rhetorical question....
So they flee to the West and start their families there.
Oh, so that's why they do it! And this is the best part...Because they're "scared" of us!!!

What are you - a fucking comedian?
They become citizens of a new country. For America, it's called freedom of religon not freedom from religon. It's in the First Amendment. If they choose to wear the hijab, what's it to you?
Go home. I mean, after all, I'm sure you'd "like" to, right?

I'm sure all the "innocents" undoubtedly view the Middle East as a paradigm of peace and prosperity, especially when you take into consideration all the religious persecution replete with the staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds...

Wow.

I'm curious as to where you gleaned the information that there's a ""staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds"" in Iraq.......or in the Middle East, whichever you meant........?!?!?

Oh, and BTW; how many are there, roughly........?!?!?!

Eight hundred and sixteen thousand, two hundred and sixty two.

Eight hundred and sixteen thousand, two hundred and sixty two.
Yeah, FT - duuuuh.

And the adults are just as bad - with their high-tech weapons and what not:

http://republicanrantz.com/images/iraqiscud.bmp

As much as I would hate to admit it, the cartoon got me laughing.

Yeah, FT - duuuuh.

You made the claim that there are ""staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds..."".......whether you meant Iraq or the ME, I do not know.

Just tell us where you came up with that information, and roughly how many of the 13 year olds there are.

You made the claim that there are ""staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds..."".......whether you meant Iraq or the ME, I do not know.
The Middle East, but I understand your confusion - I was talking about Iraq. Sorry.
Just tell us where you came up with that information, and roughly how many of the 13 year olds there are.
It's just common sense. How many pictures do you have to see where young teens are carrying fully automatic rifles, and how many stories do you have to read where some youngster, strapped with explosives, walks into a street-side market and blows it to smithereens for Allah before you start equating the word staggering with reality?

Is your argument here that it doesn't happen a lot, or is it mired in some liberal philosophy that (once again) manages to miss the big picture???

I has to be one or the other, so enlighten me...

Pfft - TWO nations. Only TWO nations have been attacked, and of the two, one indisputably had it coming while the other should've been dealt more thoroughly with when Saddam went rogue in '91.

I believe I had said meddling. So I'm not just talking about attacking. I mean interfering. Over the years you had the West, not only the USA, interfering in the policies of the Middle East. For example, the Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Suez War, the Gulf War, and now the Iraq War. America's monetary and military support for not only Israel, but for Egypt and Saudia Arabia, fules the hatred SOME muslims have for the West.

That aside, I'm sure all the "innocents" undoubtedly view the Middle East as a paradigm of peace and prosperity,

Well, it depends. Most I would say view it as a war tone and unsafe. And most I would say believe it was caused by the West.

especially when you take into consideration all the religious persecution replete with the staggering number of bomb-strapped, AK-47-toting 13 year-olds, but (and I believe this was your point) when the Big, Bad, Wolf (otherwise known as the USA) steps in for a little (much deserved, mind you) corrective action, then they (the "innocent" civilians, that is) are inclined to promptly flee to the West for cover because our military kills soooo indiscriminately.

In all honesty Prae, I'm not surprised that you have this viewpoint towards Muslims, whether or not they live in the Middle East. When you're bombarded with negative images that put Muslims in a bad light, I don't expect your viewpoint to change. When you don't look for alternative sources for information about Muslims, I don't expect your responses to be anymore sophisticated than what you have posted. When you

Whatever you say, Ackmed.

How creative, how did you come up with that one?

I believe I had said meddling. So I'm not just talking about attacking. I mean interfering. Over the years you had the West, not only the USA, interfering in the policies of the Middle East. For example, the Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Suez War, the Gulf War, and now the Iraq War. America's monetary and military support for not only Israel, but for Egypt and Saudia Arabia, fules the hatred SOME muslims have for the West.
Okaaaaay - so you're saying that certain Middle Easterners fled their homelands for the United States and Europe because the United States and Europe "meddled" in their affairs? I can certainly understand the "hatred" portion, but the immigration motive still leaves me scratching my head. Why would they flee to an area they hate or feel threatened? 2 and 2 isn’t making 4 here, Googs.
Well, it depends. Most I would say view it as a war tone and unsafe. And most I would say believe it was caused by the West.
We haven't "stolen" anything from the Middle East. We developed the technology to find oil, to drill for it, to refine it, and to process it, but because we also developed a conscience (circa 1940), we felt obligated (for lack of a better word) to show you how to reap your own birthright. Were we manipulative? Absolutely, but we weren't the ones ripping you off - your governments were (and that's despite what some people might say, and I can hear them saying it as we speak -- "bu...bu...but we installed their crooked governments in the first place, etc., etc., etc." - a convenient red herring for sure, but that's okay because passing the buck is what these people do best, and without trying to belabor their character any further - I've found that most liberals are past masters at doing exactly that, but I digress). BTW, I'm not saying that we didn't fuck over Iran - we did, but that's neither here nor there - it's ancient history, and more importantly, it was mutual.

As far as the "war" issue is concerned, maybe you should (once again) talk to your dictatorial leaders about who's at fault without blaming us for YOUR religious spats (which certianly pre-date 1948), OR -- for that matter -- your complete and utter incompetence in general (and just so you're aware, my criticism here doesn't exclude the Israelis).

Look - in short, we (the West) are a multi-trillion dollar machine that's dependent on a commodity that just so happens to stockpile beneath your feet. If you think for one second that we wouldn't "meddle" in your affairs to keep that machine running efficiently, then you're as foolish as you are idealistic. And that goes for every single one of you motherfuckers who say we shouldn't be there out of principle. Jesus H. Christ - pull your heads outta your asses, will ya - there's a bigger picture here!
In all honesty Prae, I'm not surprised that you have this viewpoint towards Muslims, whether or not they live in the Middle East. When you're bombarded with negative images that put Muslims in a bad light, I don't expect your viewpoint to change. When you don't look for alternative sources for information about Muslims, I don't expect your responses to be anymore sophisticated than what you have posted.
I admire and respect your level-headedness, Googs, but until you can convince me that the Middle East isn't the most fucked up place on Earth - I'm sticking to my guns.

Okaaaaay - so you're saying that certain Middle Easterners fled their homelands for the United States and Europe because the United States and Europe "meddled" in their affairs? I can certainly understand the "hatred" portion, but the immigration motive still leaves me scratching my head. Why would they flee to an area they hate or feel threatened? 2 and 2 isn’t making 4 here, Googs.

I think everyone on this forum would agree that the U.S and the rest of the West is a far better place than that of the Middle East and anywhere in the world for that matter. I don't think your going to see Muslims immigrating to third world countries.

We haven't "stolen" anything from the Middle East. We developed the technology to find oil, to drill for it, to refine it, and to process it, but because we also developed a conscience (circa 1940), we felt obligated (for lack of a better word) to show you how to reap your own birthright. Were we manipulative? Absolutely, but we weren't the ones ripping you off - your governments were (and that's despite what some people might say, and I can hear them saying it as we speak -- "bu...bu...but we installed their crooked governments in the first place, etc., etc., etc." - a convenient red herring for sure, but that's okay because passing the buck is what these people do best, and without trying to belabor their character any further - I've found that most liberals are past masters at doing exactly that, but I digress). BTW, I'm not saying that we didn't fuck over Iran - we did, but that's neither here nor there - it's ancient history, and more importantly, it was mutual.

THe support America gives to these nations when its suppose to be democratic is what drives the hatred more for Muslims. Ordinary citizens from Saudia Arabia aren't getting portions of the Oil revenue. It's odd. Americans scream for suffrage for women across the globe. But that seems unlikely in Saudia Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive, simply because of their oil revenue and the West's support for them.

As far as the "war" issue is concerned, maybe you should (once again) talk to your dictatorial leaders about who's at fault without blaming us for YOUR religious spats (which certianly pre-date 1948), OR -- for that matter -- your complete and utter incompetence in general (and just so you're aware, my criticism here doesn't exclude the Israelis).

Not all governments represent their people.

Look - in short, we (the West) are a multi-trillion dollar machine that's dependent on a commodity that just so happens to stockpile beneath your feet. If you think for one second that we wouldn't "meddle" in your affairs to keep that machine running efficiently, then you're as foolish as you are idealistic. And that goes for every single one of you motherfuckers who say we shouldn't be there out of principle. Jesus H. Christ - pull your heads outta your asses, will ya - there's a bigger picture here!

At least you admit. But don't say its under my feet. I am as American as you are. (I'm sure you'll disagree with me) THis leads me to a question though: Do you think Saudia Arabia and other oil rich countries can break the American Economy?

I admire and respect your level-headedness, Googs, but until you can convince me that the Middle East isn't the most fucked up place on Earth - I'm sticking to my guns.

I'd say Africa is. But I get your point. I'm just a little worried about what's going to happen to Middle East (for the World for that matter) when their oil goes dry. It's just going to devastate the area more. And Prae, in all honestly, your posts on this forum are one of the many I look forward to reading.

THe support America gives to these nations when its suppose to be democratic is what drives the hatred more for Muslims.
I can understand that.
Ordinary citizens from Saudia Arabia aren't getting portions of the Oil revenue. It's odd. Americans scream for suffrage for women across the globe. But that seems unlikely in Saudia Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive, simply because of their oil revenue and the West's support for them.
That's a tad simplistic.
Not all governments represent their people.
I'd say the vast majority don't (ours included. For starters, reference gay marriage and immigration policy).
At least you admit. But don't say its under my feet. I am as American as you are. (I'm sure you'll disagree with me)
I don't disagree with you, Googs (at least not fundamentally, so to speak). It's just that hyphens (of any kind, for that matter) piss me off to a degree in which you can't even possibly fathom. To the core of my person, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt when he said (in 1907) that there's no room in America for divided patriotism. Moreover, the unity in which made us great and brought us together in 1776 depends on it.
THis leads me to a question though: Do you think Saudia Arabia and other oil rich countries can break the American Economy?
Break? No. Severely damage? Without doubt.
I'd say Africa is (the most fucked up place on earth).
Maybe, but suffice it to say the Middle East is vying for position.
And Prae, in all honestly, your posts on this forum are one of the many I look forward to reading.
Thank you, Googs - and once again, I applaud your willingness to discuss things in a levelheaded fashion. :) (I think it's safe to say you have me soundly beaten in that department...;))

I'm just a little worried about what's going to happen to Middle East when their oil goes dry. It's just going to devastate the area more. You have foresight and wisdom lacking in the "leaders" of the Middle East. I read a couple years ago that if you remove oil from the equation, the entire combined exported products of the entire Middle East comes out to slightly less than the exports of Denmark.

I hope they start thinking about that before the well runs dry... but they won't.

Some Middle East nations like Oman and Qatar have actually begun preparing for the day the wells run dry. So has Saudi Arabia to some extent.

You have foresight and wisdom lacking in the "leaders" of the Middle East.

Everyone on allforums had more wisdom and foresight than the leaders of the Middle East. But thanks. Leaders of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, are parading with all their money.

I read a couple years ago that if you remove oil from the equation, the entire combined exported products of the entire Middle East comes out to slightly less than the exports of Denmark.

I'm not surprised. All the Middle East has is oil.

I hope they start thinking about that before the well runs dry... but they won't.

I don't think they will too. Until the last drop of oil is gone, the Middle East is going to continue to ignore it. And when there is no more oil, they're going to be dumbfounded.

Some Middle East nations like Oman and Qatar have actually begun preparing for the day the wells run dry. So has Saudi Arabia to some extent.

I know Saudia Arabia makes billions off the pilgramage to Mecca. But how are other countries preparing??

THe support America gives to these nations when its suppose to be democratic is what drives the hatred more for Muslims. Ordinary citizens from Saudia Arabia aren't getting portions of the Oil revenue. It's odd. Americans scream for suffrage for women across the globe. But that seems unlikely in Saudia Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive, simply because of their oil revenue and the West's support for them.

If Saudia Arabia doesn't produce oil, Would West countries make women in Saudia Arabia being allowed to drive?
May I know your plan for human right in Middle East? Some people(including women) in Middle East resist human right for women.

If Saudia Arabia doesn't produce oil, Would West countries make women in Saudia Arabia being allowed to drive?
May I know your plan for human right in Middle East?

Saudi Arabia is by far the worse country in the Middle East(in not the whole world) when it comes to the human rights of women,. Women enjoy their rights in Lebanon and Jordan. Saudi women, as it looks, don't enjoy anything. I believe the West has the ability to make Saudi Arabia change their ways.

Some people(including women) in Middle East resist human right for women.

Most people recognize the rights of women. Most people realize that a ban on women driving is stupid. Most people can't speak in opposition of their government because of the fear of being sent to jail. Most people want their freedoms but are afraid to ask for them. All in all, it's not the people that don't want these freedoms. It's the government that doesn't want to give these people their rights. And it's wrong. The West screams for women's suffrage and other rights. How about we make some noise in Saudi Arabia?

Most people recognize the rights of women. Most people realize that a ban on women driving is stupid. Most people can't speak in opposition of their government because of the fear of being sent to jail. Most people want their freedoms but are afraid to ask for them. All in all, it's not the people that don't want these freedoms. It's the government that doesn't want to give these people their rights. And it's wrong. The West screams for women's suffrage and other rights. How about we make some noise in Saudi Arabia?


You mean not about the human rights of women but about freedom of speech on Saudi, don't you?
But I guess it's too soon. If the West will make Saudi giving human rights of citizen, probably Saudi will develop alliance with China or Russia. It make more obstacle for human rights of people in Saudi.
This problem is not just about Saudi. Making not Saudi but China and Russia spread human rights is better.

Until the last drop of oil is gone, the Middle East is going to continue to ignore it. And when there is no more oil, they're going to be dumbfounded.


When the last drop of oil is gone, the Middle East will be completely ignored and forgotten by the USA and its government, as if it never existed.

Aside from those interactions having to do with oil, the U.S.A. could not possibly care LESS about the Middle East or any human being in it......

Aside from those interactions having to do with oil, the U.S.A. could not possibly care LESS about the Middle East or any human being in it......

Pretty broad statement there, FT. (Not that I've ever known you to make broad, sweeping generalizations about the American citizenry before, of course.)

News flash for you though; there are many of us who have done business with our Middle Eastern partners, and have formed fast friendships.
I personally care deeply about what happens to my friends in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq.

What did you just recently say in another thread?
“Sheesh. You guys are letting this psychotic hatred you have for Jane Fonda override your powers of reason.”

You are just as guilty of that which you accuse others of, sir. You daily let your psychotic hatred that you have for the US Government override your powers of reason and your objectivity, and it causes you to make ignorant, unfair generalizations about the American people.

You keep doing it, and I’ll keep calling you on it.

When the last drop of oil is gone, the Middle East will be completely ignored and forgotten by the USA and its government, as if it never existed.And if the last drop of our money were gone their leaders would ignore us. So what?

Most people realize that a ban on women driving is stupid.
That really depends - have you ever seen a woman drive??? :eek:

I don't know...maybe the Saudis are on to something here. ;)

And if the last drop of our money were gone their leaders would ignore us. So what?
That's a fantastic point, Brooks.

Dubai is investing in tourism BIG time, its oil will be the first to dry up, about 15 years from now they reckon. All these dictators who run these oil kingdoms wont care if and when it goes, their money is stashed in Wall St and Zurich, and theres not too many poor Muslims out in the Hamptons, when the oils gone, so are they.
Which makes me think, why is the US not busting its chops to get on with Hugo Chavez, the experts reckon he could be sitting on the biggest oil field ever found.

Some ME nations are changing from purely oil to a more balanced service economy in which they act as clearing houses for other nations. Switzerland and the Cayman Islands are being used as models for a change in economy.

''models for a changing economy'', Switzerland has a lot of questions to answer about WW2, which will never be answered.

Those questions have nothing to do with their economy today which is basically a banking service economy. That is the model some countries in the ME are looking at.

Yes I understand that, but my point is that Switzerlands banking economy tho always secretive, recieved a massive boost after the Nazis raped Central Europe, and I think that issue needs addressed.