Did I call you names? I thought I was just throwing out a hat. If it fits no one, then, no one should wear it.

 

The term "initial jobless claims" refers to the number of people filing their claims for unemployment benefits for the first time in a certain week. It does not reflect the total number of people out of work in the U.S., which currently stands at about 8.7 million, accounting for about 6.2% of the work force.

 

In Germany, where the left-wing Social Democratic Party is in power, the unemployment rate is more than 10%. So if we put things in perspective, America is not alone in facing economic sluggishness. 9/11 has affected the entire global economy.

 

Although it is said that the U.S. has lost millions of jobs to China in recent years because of cheap Chinese imports, it would be wrong to think China's employment situation is much better than Europe or North America. China is experiencing very high urban unemployment with tens of millions out of work.

 

In China's countryside, things are even worse with about 100 million out of work or under-employed. They keep moving into cities, especially coastal cities where Western corporations have set up factories to take advantage of China's cheap labor.

 

In the U.S., economists see the 400,000 level in weekly initial jobless claims as a critical mark. If weekly initial claims stay above 400,000, it is a sign that the jobs market remains weak. If weekly initial claims fall below 400,000, it is a sign of labor market stabilization, indicating fewer people have lost their jobs.  

 

As to Saddam's WMD's, what has been found in Iraq so far is evidence of WMD programs. For example, the components of a nuclear weapons program were discovered in an Iraqi scientist's backyard. He had kept them there on orders from Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

In addition, mobile bio-labs were found by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Their appearances are similar to the illustrations provided by Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. Security Council earlier this year before the Iraq War.

 

At the time Powell said Iraq had mobile bio-labs. But the Saddam Hussein regime denied having such mobile bio-labs. If these mobile labs were harmless toys, why did the regime deny their existence?

 

The term I use is "WMD programs". Investigators are still looking. Some believe more evidence will be found. Some believe weapons of mass destruction must be hidden somewhere in Iraq. Others say they may have been moved out of Iraq.

 

What is well-known is that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s. If they had been destroyed, proof of their destruction should have been provided by Saddam's regime. It didn't.

 

So, now, some of his WMD's remain unaccounted for. There is a difference between "unaccounted for" and "non-existent". Before the Iraq War, the intelligence services of major countries all believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

 

Before the war, Colin Powell provided a tape to the U.N. The voices on the tape indicated the regime was trying to hide WMD's. At the time, Saddam's regime said the tape was a fake. Who should you trust? It's up to you. But I choose to trust Powell. Anyway, it's clear Saddam had WMD programs.

 

Claywoman, keep marching. That's a healthy way to lose some weight. As I said before, I don't think you have been exposed to Karl Marx's teachings. Actually, I know quite a bit about Marxism and Communism.

 

But I choose to look at the world from the perspective of the political right. Consequently, I believe George W. Bush's global policy will make the world a better and safer place to live.

 

Understandably, since you choose to look at things from the perspective of the political left, you have come to a completely different conclusion.

 

Yet, whatever you say, history shows FDR and Winston Churchill made the world more secure by eliminating Adolf Hitler's regime. They were not satisfied with so-called "containment". They sent their troops into Nazi Germany.

 

The principle is simple: If the Free World can destroy its enemy at an acceptable cost, why not do so when the window of opportunity is open? Why, instead, choose to contain the enemy, giving him a chance to recover and fight back?

 

Sincerely,

 

Robert M. Liu