crushthedemoniac wrote:
Its kinda funny, you all ask which areas are safe or ok to live and no matter where the area is you either get "its very safe" or "its not to bad". So my question is since pretty much every area of JC has been coverd on this board at one point or another where exactly are the bad areas according to you people?

tghost wrote:
I went there for the first time about a month ago. The food was quite impressive. I particularly found the Tuscan Kale and Ricotta pie appetizer inventive and delicious.

The drinks the bartender poured were also quite good. I would concur with other posters about the noise, but I don't think there's much that can be done. The decor and layout lend to the high db levels. Service could have been snappier, but the place is still young. Prices were reasonable

I'll definitely be back.

bill wrote:
Quote:

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds fifteen years before we invaded Iraq and had not used WMDs since -- by the way, at the time he gassed his own people we fully backed him.

Doesn't matter we backed him, the fact the guy did it let us know what he was capable of.

Quote:

1441 does say "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)"

but the operative words are "recalling" and "necessary." The members of the security council did not all agree that so-called preemptive war was "necessary"

Yes, recalling a previous resolution authorizing member states to use all necessary means. Wouldn't you infer then that the member states could be free in determining what is necessary?

Quote:

Further, since 1441 clearly states that it recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq, you can't POSSIBLY read it as authorizing full-on war for regime change.

Right, sovereignty is a huge buzz word in UN. They include that to basically say we recognize you, you're autonomous. You should comply on your own without enforcement, but, if you don't...

bill wrote:
What's your point? Stop going to another tangent. We were not discussing if the administration lied or not. I was responding to the unprovoked attack statement, and gave reasons why a rational person in 02 would support going into Iraq.

bill wrote:
Quote:

JSalt wrote:
Your "point" is a non-point. The Iraq war has almost nothing in common with the American Civil War. Although military casualties (which by the way is NOT the same thing as deaths) are far lower in Iraq, the Civil War at least arguably had a real purpose and did not involve us making an unprovoked attack on a sovereign foreign nation.

How lovely, another person who likes to change the subject. The OP only stated 4,000 dead. Brian mentioned the outrageous death toll in only 1 battle. The reasons for the deaths are irrelevant. Also we don't need your opinion on if the attack was provoked or unprovoked. Many would argue that:

1. Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions, including violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement.
2. His repression of the Iraq people.
3. His support for international terrorism, including an attempt to assassinate a former US president by the Iraqi intelligence service, and the support for Mujehedin el-Khalq, PLF and Abu Nidal terrorist organization.
4. His refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners.
5. His refusal to return property stolen by Iraqi forces.
6. His efforts to circumvent economic sanctions.

was provocation enough.

Quote:

JSalt also wrote:
The medical stats are irrelevant - those are regrettable but they're the product of modern medicine, which obviously saves/prolongs far more lives than it ends.

LOL. Yes, let's just raise our hands in the air and accept it.

HGLNYC wrote:
Sorry I don't get it......I've been there a few times and it's a Manhattan wanna be. If I want trendy over priced weird food, i'll stay in the City.

niceguyeddie wrote:
Quote:

JSalt wrote:
BTW check your math, that's a 14% decline, not a 4% decline.

JSalt,

I agree with general argument, though I think there's a better way to make your point. All markets go up over the long term in general, as long as there is still a positive relationship between demand and supply of whatever the market is selling. However, using the price data supplied for the NY RE market, it shows a 10.58% CAGR from sept 87 to sept 2007. Over roughly that same period of time (I couldn't line up the dates exactly) the S&P500 returned about 9.5%. This only includes prices, not dividends, so realistically, the stock market should be closer to 11-12% in TSR. Also, RE is a leveraged, nondiversifiable asset, meaning its inherent risk is higher than an indexed market fund. Over that period of time, though you might have made money in either market, you would probably have done better in stocks.

JSalt, maybe your explanation was simpler.