Lots of places like that, and of course when it comes to benefits you need to be working for the Government. Seem to remember locally that the cost of benefits per person is not far off the wage.

In the case of rural areas, the country's primary agricultural base has moved to California and other places where specific crops are grown on an industrial scale. Where we live, the Amish still farm the way the "English" did in 1950; they grow corn, potatoes, vegetables, keep sheep, pigs, chickens etc. The non-Amish farms are all abandoned and have grown up to scrub and secondary forest.

So what were farming families are scratching a living in Burger King and Walmart part time employment, and if I want potatoes I buy ones shipped in from hundreds or thousands of miles away (or grow them myself, or buy them from my Amish neighbours.)

Two things can be true at once. If we have the correct information, the US was clearly in the wrong and Iran was justified in their actions. What's not cool is that Iran released the footage of the soldiers while in captivity and that cringe-worthy apology video. Do I think that's enough to cancel the deal and/or go to war with Iran? Of course not. We got the best possible result and now the 4 long term prisoners have been released.

As far as propaganda goes, the political-right has been screaming during the whole negotiation process about how horrible Obama is for not working on the release of the 4 prisoners. Now it turns out that it was baked into the cake ... will they be praising Obama on the morning shows next week?

After the fall of Saddam the new Iraqi government was headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki a Shi'ite. The Iranian leadership themselves Shi'ite had no wish to see any Sunni participation in the new government. Iran saw Iraq as becoming a client state and Al-Malaki an inept and corrupt leader as it turned out an ally and possibly a future anti-western leader also.

The main point to remember though is that by toppling Saddam Bush destroyed the balance of power in that part of the world. After the war between Iran and Iraq neither country would have probably not wanted another one but Saddam's regime was a counter balance against that of Iran and would have remained so.

if you look at Iraq during the time of Saddam, despite the fact that he was a despot Iraq was pretty much liberal in many ways compared to Saudi or Iran.

I worked for local government for 35 years. The decent benefits and retirement I now enjoy were all won by the unions.

Had the unions stepped in at the beginning and forced Walmart to unionize or bugger off then it's employees would have been far better off today.

I may be wrong but I heard that when Walmart wanted to open up in Germany they were told that the right to unionize was part of the deal. Walmart I think pulled out but that was no loss to Germany as I see it.

Kaiser Steel in Fontana, California also went out of business, Ford closed an assembly plant and moved elsewhere, many other companies including a major toy manufacturer moved to China. McDonnell-Douglas in Long Beach was bought out by Boeing and went out of the wide body passenger jet business and instead started to manufacture C-17 cargo planes for the Air Force. When the Air Force had fulfilled it's inventory requirement the plant was closed down. Now Boeing have shifted a part of their production from Everett, Washington to a new plant in North Carolina for the purposes of cheaper labour and have farmed out a lot of the work on the new Boeing 787 to Japan and other countries.

The end of the cold war and the winding down of the defence industry in California also impacted thousands and thousands of people but hard on them as it was no one could say that it was entirely bad since we all believed at the time that the world was going to be a much safer place from then on ha! ha!

I don't disagree with you final statement, and I have always been against Bush's war in Iraq, nevertheless, I don't buy the "balance of power" argument. The US's invasion, occupation, and desertion of Iraq had 10x any impact and influence of a neighbouring Shia state. What are you suggesting Iran did, start populating Iraq's nascent government? They don't even speak the same language. And why would Iran be jumping to create a 'client state' that is effectively being run by the US/UK during a period in which it was sworn enemy to the West.

I doubt that there will be praise for Obama and Kerry for the release of the hostages.

I agree with what else you say. In this case it appears that the commanders of the riverine craft failed to follow orders, took a short cut past the Iranian island, and ran into engine trouble. Undoubtedly there will be disciplinary action taken.

Clearly, none of that was sufficient to cancel the deal, in anyone's mind. Just as clearly, there are unrelated but compelling reasons in certain circles for cancelling the deal.

Iran is a Shi'ite state and the post Saddam government which was also led by Shi'ites replaced Saddam's Baathist Sunni regime. The Sunnis and Shi'ites have a long history of rivalry and bad feeling.

The interference and mischief making in Iraq's internal affairs by Iran followed the withdrawal of British and US Forces

The inept al Maliki regime which became rife with corruption and a prime playing field for Iran's ambitions then took power and what was already a bad situation in Iraq just got worse and worse

Look at the humiliating defeat of the Iraqi army by ISIS forces last year. Millions of dollars worth of US military equipment fell into ISIS hands, tanks, Humvees, artillery, small arms, the lot. The Iraqi army just abandoned everything and fled. This was as a result of al-Maliki's ineptness and corruption.

Even now the Iraqi army is not even able to completely subdue Ramadi and then even with massive US air support whereas ISIS have no air power whatsoever but still manage to take a toll on the Iraqi forces

Have you got any expert articles on this DC? I hear what you are saying, but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Time like this I think back to the Iran Iraq war.

Happy days.

That's the kind of comment losers in high school would make.

Ohh

Never went to High School.

You'll have to reach your own conclusions mate. I can only repeat from what I've learned from news and discussions on the middle east by people whose expertise runs to matters concerning that part of the world.

I do remember picking up a copy of Time magazine in a dentists office back in the early 80s and reading an article called "the rising crescent" which predicted the rise of Islamic extremism across the middle east. That turned out to be true.

Saddam for whatever else he was, was certainly not an Islamic extremist. Iraqi society under his rule would today be called a society of infidels and apostates by the extreme religious nut wingers who now have so much influence in that part of the world

The Saudis hated and feared him partly because of his military aggressiveness but also because of the fear that his secular form of society would encroach upon their strict Islamic ways and culture

Bush got it all wrong. He though he was going to war against Iraq for freedom and democracy. He got the wrong country. it should have been Saudi, the land that bred Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, That country which todayt calls itself an ally of the west but funds ISIS under the table

Said by many at the time.