Balalaika-Balalaika,
Putin and Russians could care less of what do you think or feel. People like you hate Russia and it does not matter what Russians are doing, you will be barking from your cage.
It will take a leader like Peter The Great just to step on you and rule again.
Cossack
P.S. And do not think that your American owners are better than Russians, try to be yourself and live without masters first time in your life.

By cossack ( - 165.247.3.124) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 11:27 pm:
To all religious experts:
Why do some Muslims demand that their women should cover up faces?
Cossack

there is no demand to cover faces but to cover hair and the demand is not from men. most women choose to cover there hair,,


This is what the bible says....


"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head"
1 Corrinthians 11:3-6

By cossack ( - 165.247.3.124) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 11:27 pm:
To all religious experts:
Why do some Muslims demand that their women should cover up faces?
Cossack


When You Look At Me What do you see when you look at me Do you see someone limited, or someone free All some people can do is just look and stare Simply because they can't see my hair Others think I am controlled and uneducated They think that I am limited and un-liberated They are so thankful that they are not me Because they would like to remain 'free' Well free isn't exactly the word I would've used Describing women who are cheated on and abused They think that I do not have opinions or voice They think that being hooded isn't my choice They think that the hood makes me look caged That my husband or dad are totally outraged All they can do is look at me in fear And in my eye there is a tear Not because I have been stared at or made fun of But because people are ignoring the one up above On the day of judgment they will be the fools Because they were too ashamed to play by their own rules Maybe the guys won't think I am a cutie But at least I am filled with more inner beauty See I have declined from being a guy's toy Because I won't let myself be controlled by a boy Real men are able to appreciate my mind And aren't busy looking at my behind Hooded girls are the ones really helping the Muslim cause The role that we play definitely deserves applause I will be recognized because I am smart and bright And because some people are inspired by my sight The smart ones are attracted by my tranquility In the back of their mind they wish they were me We have the strength to do what we think is right Even if it means putting up a life long fight You see we're not controlled by a mini skirt and tight shirt We are given only respect, and never treated like dirt So you see, we are the ones that are free and liberated We're not the ones that are sexually terrorized and violated We are the ones that are free and pure We're free of STD's that have no cure So when people ask you how you feel about tha hood Just sum it up by saying 'baby its all good' 😉

u cowards deserve to die

By Antonio ( - 209.239.213.34) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 10:46 pm:


unless they convert to Roman Catholicism, which is the One True Religion established by God Himself


1993, Father Anthony McCallen, 47, jailed for three and a half years for indecently assaulting young boys and taking indecent photographs.
1994, Father Brendan Smyth, 54, jailed for four years in Belfast Crown Court for sexually abusing girls and boys for more than 20 years.

1996, Father Joseph Steele, 67, of Belfast, jailed for two and a half years for indecently assaulting three boys and seven girls over a 14-year period.

1996, Father Frederick Linale, 59, jailed for 10 years for sexually assaulting two teenage boys over a period of five years

why are u fighting????
u are simply kiulling innocent muslims just like bosnia, kosovo and kashmir in our holy book the koram it says towards the end of the world muslims will be being killed every where and suprise suprise dont worry our day will come Islam started off with a handful of people now we are the quickest growing religin in the world and in the koran it says all our enemies christians and jews (christians killed ourt people in kosovo and bosina) will be given their punishment. we will win the final war against u kafars ALLAH HU AKBUR ( allah is the greatest!!!!!!!

Turk I am not the one who is blinded.No one in the west is talking about genocide,nobody is raping those ugly skanks.The facts are presented to you,however you choose to ignore them.The war is about terrorists who are made up of extremists from other countries.Many links have been posted but I guess it is you that is blinded or you just do not think Muslims do this stuff. Once again I will give you something to read,I advise to read it carefully and understand what you are reading. http://freeman.io.com/m_online/bodansky/chechnya.htm http://chechnya.gamma.ru/eng/default.htm

By Antonio ( - 209.239.213.34) on Monday, January 24, 2000 - 10:46 pm:


The unholy book of Mohammedanism, the Koran, permits and commands Muslims to commit rape and murder of non-Muslims.


.

JUDAH FORNICATES WITH HIS DAUGHTER –IN-LAW. TA-’MAR


[Gen. 38:15]
When he saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered
her face. He went over to her at the road side and said "Come, LET ME
COME INTO YOU" for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.
She said, "What will you give me, that you may come into me?" He
answered, "I will send you a kid from the flock." And she said "Will
you send me a pledge till you send it?" He said, "What pledge shall I
give you?" She replied "Your signal and your cord and your staff that
is in your hand."

So he gave them to her, and WENT INTO HER, and she conceived by him.
About three months later, Judah was told, "Ta'-mar your daughter-in-
law has played the harlot, and moreover SHE IS WITH CHILD BY HARLOTRY

Moscow: One of Russia's most gifted spin-doctors flew to Chechnya yesterday to begin the task of repackaging the grim news from the war zone to make it palatable (Giles Whittell writes). Unofficial army sources put Russian casualties at 30 dead and 70 wounded in the past 24 hours alone.
Sergei Yastrzhembsky is a trilingual diplomat and former chief spokesman for President Yeltsin. In theory, Mr Yastrzhembsky, tipped as a future Foreign Minister, has been hired to "co-ordinate the flow of information on Chechnya". In practice, that means presenting propaganda as fact, military setbacks as caution, and the muzzling of the media as the prudent management of battlefield reporting.


THE TIMES.....

By waseem khan ( - 194.81.181.224) on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 09:29 am:
u cowards deserve to die

Listen, VASELINE KHAN,
You will need a lots of vaseline to date your camel. Or you prefer Bosna-The- HOMO
Cossack

TURK

Building a Global Mess
by DAVID R. HENDERSON

[This piece ran in the Financial Post, August 3, 1999, and is posted here August 10, 1999]

Economists and politicians who talk about the world economy these days are increasingly advocating a "new global financial architecture." What many of them wish to do is give the International Monetary Fund (IMF) new powers over the world's economies. In practice, this means giving the United States Treasury and its new secretary, Lawrence Summers, control over the world's economies. Why? Because for the IMF to take action, 85% of the member votes must be in favour, and the U.S. government controls a whopping 17% of the votes. You do the math.

But the IMF already has exerted a great deal of control over the world's sickest economies, and the results should have humbled IMF officials. The best kind of "global architecture" is one without the IMF and, indeed, without any international regulatory bodies.

Ironically, the IMF's original mission, established in 1944 at Bretton Woods, was to support fixed exchange rates, a mission that should have ended in 1971 when exchange rates were floated. But after 1971, the IMF -- like virtually all government bureaucracies that find the world has outpaced them -- looked around for a new mission. Unfortunately, it found one.

The IMF now lends, at below-market rates, tens of billions of dollars to governments that have messed up their countries' economies. In 1994-1995, for example, a consortium including the IMF, other international government agencies, and the United States and other governments subsidized a $50-billion loan to Mexico (all figures in U.S. dollars).

The IMF claims Mexico as a success story, and it may well be, by the IMF's standards. Certainly, the foreign banks and other lenders that had lent money to the country were bailed out. But per-capita GDP in Mexico is not yet back to where it was before the country's 1994 economic crisis. To claim the bailout as a success in a broader sense, IMF supporters would have to establish that the lot of the average Mexican would be much worse had the IMF and other international agencies not acted. They have not done that.

Even if the Mexican bailout had been a success in this broader sense, the IMF subsidy sent, and other bailouts are sending, two bad signals. First: If you're a government official who screws up your economy enough, the IMF will bail you out. Just this week, for example, the IMF loaned another $4.5-billion to the Russian government, $1.9-billion of which will be used to pay back an earlier IMF loan. The new loan was made contingent on Russian parliamentary approval of a package of new laws. Some of the laws, ironically, will increase taxes on Russians, as if what a formerly communist country needs to get its house in order is to tax its people more. The second signal the IMF bailouts send is to investors, who will make much riskier investments than otherwise because the downside is covered. Investors are saying, in essence, "heads I win, tails I break even." Neither foreign governments nor investors are missing that signal.

In a recent Fortune article, MIT economist Paul Krugman minimized the IMF's harmful effect because it has "very little actual money." But apply that same reasoning to the 1980s U.S. savings and loan crisis. Just as the IMF subsidizes investors' downside risk, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp.'s (FSLIC) deposit insurance gave depositors zero incentive to monitor the S&Ls' loan portfolios. In 1983, shortly before the S&L crisis was at its worst (in the end, it cost more than $175-billion in present-value terms), the FSLIC had only about $6.4-billion in the kitty. By Mr. Krugman's reasoning, the S&L crisis didn't happen. Think of the IMF as a giant FSLIC. The crucial factor is not the IMF's funds at any point in time, but how much more it can get. Just recently, the U.S. government gave it $18-billion.

Disappointingly, even Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, my former boss at the Council of Economic Advisers and generally a critic of government spending and regulation, advocates a large role for the IMF. He recently laid out a Rube Goldberg scheme for giving the IMF control over international capital movements. He would have governments of emerging-market countries borrow from the IMF, based on collateral. But the collateral would be a share of the foreign exchange earned by that country's exporters.

Mr. Feldstein writes: "A country that borrows from this [international credit] facility would automatically trigger a legislated diversion of all export receipts to a foreign central bank like the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, with exporters then paid in a mixture of foreign exchange and domestic currency." In other words, Mr. Feldstein would have U.S., British and other governments partially nationalize assets of emerging economies' exporters. This hardly sounds like a recipe for improving those countries' economies.

The best thing that can be done with the IMF is to end it. The basic problem with the IMF cannot be fixed. It is spending (its lending often turns into spending) other people's money, and, as the saying goes, "if you're paying, I'll have lobster." People are always much less careful with other people's money (if those people have no legal recourse) than they are with their own.

Last year, when Russian official Anatoly Chubais bragged to the Russian press that he had "conned" the IMF and its chief negotiator, Stanley Fischer, none of us taxpayers who paid the price could legally take action against Mr. Fischer. He wasn't fired, and he and the IMF have continued to make loans. An even greater "moral hazard" than is implicit in IMF loans is the moral hazard in giving such power to a small group of people. Their power must end.

If we do away with the IMF, what should the United States, Canada and the other industrialized countries do to help make the economic world safer?

The main thing we can do is avoid putting barriers in the way of the crisis countries' exports. One of the few bright spots in Asia's current situation, for example, is its ability to ship goods to the United States and other countries. But the Clinton administration is using the dimmer. After telling Asian government officials at the November meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum that they should solve their problems by exporting more, Vice-President Al Gore warned them to avoid exporting more to the United States because increased exports from Asia would undercut U.S. support for free trade. And President Bill Clinton, only weeks after fretting about the world economic crisis, tried to persuade South Korea and Japan to ship less steel to the United States.

We should care about people in other countries, not because their economic conditions have a huge impact on ours--they don't--but because those who are hurting, wherever they happen to live, are fellow humans. And the caring solution to the world's economic problems is, as it always has been, more economic freedom, not less. The countries that have had the most economic freedom for the longest time have done the best economically. Those with the least economic freedom have done the worst, due to decades of economic oppression. Many of the world's economies face serious problems, most of which are caused by government. Advocating more government regulation as the solution is like seeing someone suffer and then saying, "Suffer more."

Mr. Feldstein writes: "A country that borrows from this [international credit] facility would automatically trigger a legislated diversion of all export receipts to a foreign central bank like the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, with exporters then paid in a mixture of foreign exchange and domestic currency." In other words, Mr. Feldstein would have U.S., British and other governments partially nationalize assets of emerging economies' exporters. This hardly sounds like a recipe for improving those countries' economies. BASIC SUMMARY OF LAST POST

If russia could not defeat the muslims when they were a great super power {afghanistan}
someone explain how they are going to beat them now that russia is a GREAT SUPER PAUPER STATE

http://www.stratfor.com/SERVICES/giu2000/012100.ASP