All categories - 31 March 2007

Please explain.

2007-03-31 08:23:27 · 4 answers · asked by SomeGirl 3 in Physics

2007-03-31 08:23:22 · 28 answers · asked by Dan S 1 in Celebrities

The area behind my house has recently been developed into a new neighborhood of custom homes. Because I am downhill from this development, the water rushes through my yard causing damage, debris, and threatening to flood my house. Who is responsible: me, the builders, or the land developer. If the developer, how do I find out who it is?

2007-03-31 08:23:19 · 3 answers · asked by JackRabbit 1 in Other - Home & Garden

cuz i dont! lol

But im thinking to make a prank to my mom,tellin her am pregnant!! LOOLZ too harsh?
nah i wont say that,she'll have a heart attack too quick lool

2007-03-31 08:23:15 · 21 answers · asked by Pinky 6 in Lebanon

the White house late one night. A secret service agent pointed out some female panties on his arm. Clinton said, I know they're there, it's a patch, I'm trying to quit.

2007-03-31 08:23:10 · 5 answers · asked by johN p. aka-Hey you. 7 in Jokes & Riddles

I paid 50 cents

2007-03-31 08:23:09 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

all catholics cry foul? but if the same accusation was aimed at any other religion, the sit on their mouths!

2007-03-31 08:22:57 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

2007-03-31 08:22:50 · 5 answers · asked by ashley_breault 1 in Other - Pets

romantic song you've heard lately?

And yes, I would like some U Tube links too:)

2007-03-31 08:22:21 · 10 answers · asked by ♫Pavic♫ 7 in Polls & Surveys

2007-03-31 08:22:16 · 4 answers · asked by rosecrashers1365 2 in Mathematics

(hint don't try beating the game and looking at the credits,he's not there!)

2007-03-31 08:22:10 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Video & Online Games

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

2007-03-31 08:22:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

or too much? And why?

2007-03-31 08:21:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Computers

CONSIDER TALENT AND LOOKS!
Christina Aguillera
Jennifer Lopez
Shakira
=============

2007-03-31 08:21:50 · 31 answers · asked by Mz. Massachusetts 5 in Polls & Surveys

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


QUICK VOTE
Was Saddam Hussein trying to take advantage of the political turmoil in the U.S.?
Yes
No

View Results



VIDEO
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

For Clinton, a long day of political juggling (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Larry King Live highlight: Vice President Al Gore on the military air strike on Iraq (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Clinton statement on attack against Iraq (12-16-98) Windows Media: 28K | 56K



TRANSCRIPTS
Clinton defends U.S. attack on Iraq (12-17-98)


President Clinton explains Iraq strike (12-16-98)




POLL
U.S. public endorses Clinton's actions on Iraq (12-17-98)




RELATED STORIES
Blasts over Baghdad during second night of attack (12-17-98)

U.S. boosts Gulf strength (12-17-98)

World reaction mixed; Russia, China harshly criticize U.S. (12-17-98)

House passes resolution in support of U.S. troops (12-17-98)


Impeachment and Iraq fill the president's time (12-17-98)


In-depth: Strike on Iraq


MESSAGE BOARD
Your opinion: Iraq vs. the U.N.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE STORIES:

2007-03-31 08:21:36 · 11 answers · asked by jnwmom 4 in Government

I am trying to download some word documents fom this site http://www.tes.co.uk/2032375... but when I click on them they don't open.
Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?

2007-03-31 08:21:20 · 5 answers · asked by CH 3 in Internet

It is said the bananas have 70% same DNA has you!

2007-03-31 08:21:14 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Friends

This question mostly toward male to female crossdressers. If you have, what were you wearing(just panties/lingerie underneath, or more)? How did going to through security go? I've never tried before. Would kind of be embarassing being caught, but I think it would be a thrill. I was thinking about doing it, but just curious of some input from those who did it before.

2007-03-31 08:20:58 · 13 answers · asked by OzoidBlue 2 in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

2007-03-31 08:20:53 · 19 answers · asked by PiiNK LiiGER 1 in Diet & Fitness

1. Milburn Stone =
2. Hugh O'Brian =
3. Ty Hardin =
4. Richard Boone =
5. Will Hutchins =
6. JAMES ARNESS♥ =

2007-03-31 08:20:49 · 5 answers · asked by I am Sunshine 6 in Polls & Surveys

2007-03-31 08:20:44 · 11 answers · asked by WWTSD? 5 in Religion & Spirituality

As opposed to shutting it down through the start menu.

2007-03-31 08:20:39 · 5 answers · asked by X-Malleus 1 in Other - Computers

She left me 5 months ago for a coworker and we divorced. We where highschool sweethearts and married for 14 years. She just came to pickup the kids and we had a very emotional talk for about an hour. I asked her if the grass was greener and she said no its just different. I asked how and she told me that he is more affectionate and I told her thats how we where when we met and after 16 years and two kids marriage is work. She was crying as well as me and it helped me to see why she left. I still hurt and having a very hard time moving on. we live in a small remote town and I feel so much pain still. How long does it take to get over your first love?

2007-03-31 08:20:04 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Marriage & Divorce

2007-03-31 08:20:04 · 22 answers · asked by Billy Jack 1 in Polls & Surveys

2007-03-31 08:19:59 · 7 answers · asked by Cinna 4 in Other - Beauty & Style

I really don't think I should, but no I am having doubts...my husband and I are getting leagally seperated. He is in the military and I know someone will be there for him. He says that I can get a lawyer if I want, so it is making me wonder....

2007-03-31 08:19:52 · 8 answers · asked by Courtney 3 in Law & Ethics

Do you like to see girls play video games? You like the way they drive that stick, don't you?

2007-03-31 08:19:49 · 17 answers · asked by babyGirl* 3 in Polls & Surveys

In other words do you have goals that you set and achieve or do you just sit back and watch life pass you up?

2007-03-31 08:19:47 · 6 answers · asked by Tbrat 5 in Polls & Surveys

what is LIFE

2007-03-31 08:19:42 · 15 answers · asked by v4eother 1 in Philosophy

pls help ... my hair gets oily very fast :((

2007-03-31 08:19:40 · 7 answers · asked by Radu P 1 in Hair