<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Protect Assets Strategy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com</link>
	<description>Asset Protection for a Safe Retirement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:40:59 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on is setting up an llc important to protect assets from a judgement? by Ryan M</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/is-setting-up-an-llc-important-to-protect-assets-from-a-judgement/comment-page-1#comment-4413</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/is-setting-up-an-llc-important-to-protect-assets-from-a-judgement#comment-4413</guid>
		<description>If the LLC is set-up for a legitimate business that yes it is a good idea.  If you are setting it up as a way of hiding money with no legitimate reason for the LLC other that to stash assets, then your LLC is pretty worthless.  You must prove that those assets are for business purposes.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the LLC is set-up for a legitimate business that yes it is a good idea.  If you are setting it up as a way of hiding money with no legitimate reason for the LLC other that to stash assets, then your LLC is pretty worthless.  You must prove that those assets are for business purposes.<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on is setting up an llc important to protect assets from a judgement? by Ryan M</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/is-setting-up-an-llc-important-to-protect-assets-from-a-judgement-2/comment-page-1#comment-4414</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/is-setting-up-an-llc-important-to-protect-assets-from-a-judgement-2#comment-4414</guid>
		<description>If the LLC is set-up for a legitimate business that yes it is a good idea.  If you are setting it up as a way of hiding money with no legitimate reason for the LLC other that to stash assets, then your LLC is pretty worthless.  You must prove that those assets are for business purposes.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the LLC is set-up for a legitimate business that yes it is a good idea.  If you are setting it up as a way of hiding money with no legitimate reason for the LLC other that to stash assets, then your LLC is pretty worthless.  You must prove that those assets are for business purposes.<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does the Law of Armed Conflict Apply in Afghanistan? by rickinnocal</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/does-the-law-of-armed-conflict-apply-in-afghanistan-2/comment-page-1#comment-4409</link>
		<dc:creator>rickinnocal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/does-the-law-of-armed-conflict-apply-in-afghanistan-2#comment-4409</guid>
		<description>Not really,no. 

First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as &quot;Criminals&quot;, so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action. 

The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian &quot;collateral damage&quot; is unavoidable in war. 
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, &quot;Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly.&quot; In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban &quot;Criminals&quot;. 

It&#039;s also worth noting that McCrystal&#039;s order is a foolish reaction anyway - the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops - they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, &quot;bats 1000&quot;. Everyone misses sometimes.

Richard&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not really,no. </p>
<p>First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as &quot;Criminals&quot;, so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action. </p>
<p>The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian &quot;collateral damage&quot; is unavoidable in war.<br />
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, &quot;Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly.&quot; In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban &quot;Criminals&quot;. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also worth noting that McCrystal&#8217;s order is a foolish reaction anyway &#8211; the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops &#8211; they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, &quot;bats 1000&quot;. Everyone misses sometimes.</p>
<p>Richard<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does the Law of Armed Conflict Apply in Afghanistan? by rickinnocal</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/does-the-law-of-armed-conflict-apply-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4408</link>
		<dc:creator>rickinnocal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:14:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/does-the-law-of-armed-conflict-apply-in-afghanistan#comment-4408</guid>
		<description>Not really,no. 

First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as &quot;Criminals&quot;, so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action. 

The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian &quot;collateral damage&quot; is unavoidable in war. 
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, &quot;Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly.&quot; In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban &quot;Criminals&quot;. 

It&#039;s also worth noting that McCrystal&#039;s order is a foolish reaction anyway - the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops - they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, &quot;bats 1000&quot;. Everyone misses sometimes.

Richard&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not really,no. </p>
<p>First, the LOAC applies to armed conflicts between nations, or between government and opposition forces in a civil war. Taliban and Al Quaida forces have been characterized by the President as &quot;Criminals&quot;, so the laws that apply are those of police action, not of military action. </p>
<p>The LOAC requires military forces to perform their actions is such a way as to minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent compatible with completing the military mission. A certain amount of civilian &quot;collateral damage&quot; is unavoidable in war.<br />
In law enforcement, however, the avoidance of harm to persons other than the criminal takes precedence over preventing the criminal action. As the old saw goes, &quot;Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent be punished unjustly.&quot; In an action being treated, as Obama is treating this one, as a law enforcement matter, it is thus unacceptable to kill a single innocent bystander in the process of killing a whole bunch of Taliban &quot;Criminals&quot;. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also worth noting that McCrystal&#8217;s order is a foolish reaction anyway &#8211; the rocket strike yesterday was NOT fired at a civilian position. It was fired at a strong-point from which the Taliban was shooting at the US troops &#8211; they just missed. No-one, especially in combat, &quot;bats 1000&quot;. Everyone misses sometimes.</p>
<p>Richard<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do We Have a Decisive Tactical Disadvantage in Afghanistan? by raymond</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4407</link>
		<dc:creator>raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan#comment-4407</guid>
		<description>Having had three direct relatives who served in Viet Nam and Thailand,
2 were SOCOM members 1 was a Thud Pilot, I can recall many a vocal
outburst Re: Robert S, McNamara, Micro Management in Viet Nam
set the stage for its over all failure, Our Military members were pawns
in a very deadly game. Korea was a similar political action (police action),

It seems to me that we had no heart for fighting after the two great world
wars, Not that we lacked in Spirit or individual fortitude, But our Government
and its leaders lost sight and vision over what winning was supposed to be
all about. 

I have had three combat tours in the mideastern regions. From the moment
I stepped off the Aircraft at Kabul, I could smell the death not of decaying
carcass but of failure, It was the same smell as described by my Father
and my two uncles. When you go into a fighting mode, Your instincts whirl
from self Preservation to command responsibility, My Mission requirement
in Afghanistan was basically the same I had in Iraq, Supply Host commands
with Military Police units, Train and set up Afghan National Police units, 
Contain Combatants for transportation to US holding facility&#039;s. What was 
entirely different between the two operations was the lack of government 
structure in Afghan and the Illiteracy rate of the Afghan people whom were
being drafted into the various police units, I see no way in hell we can have
have a divided responsibility of Afghan Police and Military before a 10 year
period of time. I am saying 2020 will be a missed target date,

What McCrystal implemented as far as his ground and Air policy are nothing
more than throw backs to the Viet Nam era. Any and all air operations units
have NO TARGET of OPPORTUNITY. Which means if Primary and Secondary
are socked in. You bring the bombs home and dump them in the bomb dump.

Predator Drones should be the action piece of this fight, SOCOM can act as
forward target Intelliegence folks. That MOS is 97z. Remove all combat units
from Afghan and Iraq, and Germany. Leave a cadry in Nato if you want,. But
get everyone else the hell home. Just a thought.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having had three direct relatives who served in Viet Nam and Thailand,<br />
2 were SOCOM members 1 was a Thud Pilot, I can recall many a vocal<br />
outburst Re: Robert S, McNamara, Micro Management in Viet Nam<br />
set the stage for its over all failure, Our Military members were pawns<br />
in a very deadly game. Korea was a similar political action (police action),</p>
<p>It seems to me that we had no heart for fighting after the two great world<br />
wars, Not that we lacked in Spirit or individual fortitude, But our Government<br />
and its leaders lost sight and vision over what winning was supposed to be<br />
all about. </p>
<p>I have had three combat tours in the mideastern regions. From the moment<br />
I stepped off the Aircraft at Kabul, I could smell the death not of decaying<br />
carcass but of failure, It was the same smell as described by my Father<br />
and my two uncles. When you go into a fighting mode, Your instincts whirl<br />
from self Preservation to command responsibility, My Mission requirement<br />
in Afghanistan was basically the same I had in Iraq, Supply Host commands<br />
with Military Police units, Train and set up Afghan National Police units,<br />
Contain Combatants for transportation to US holding facility&#8217;s. What was<br />
entirely different between the two operations was the lack of government<br />
structure in Afghan and the Illiteracy rate of the Afghan people whom were<br />
being drafted into the various police units, I see no way in hell we can have<br />
have a divided responsibility of Afghan Police and Military before a 10 year<br />
period of time. I am saying 2020 will be a missed target date,</p>
<p>What McCrystal implemented as far as his ground and Air policy are nothing<br />
more than throw backs to the Viet Nam era. Any and all air operations units<br />
have NO TARGET of OPPORTUNITY. Which means if Primary and Secondary<br />
are socked in. You bring the bombs home and dump them in the bomb dump.</p>
<p>Predator Drones should be the action piece of this fight, SOCOM can act as<br />
forward target Intelliegence folks. That MOS is 97z. Remove all combat units<br />
from Afghan and Iraq, and Germany. Leave a cadry in Nato if you want,. But<br />
get everyone else the hell home. Just a thought.<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Have we Designed and Engineered a Losing Strategy in Afghanistan? by Poyzin</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/have-we-designed-and-engineered-a-losing-strategy-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4404</link>
		<dc:creator>Poyzin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/have-we-designed-and-engineered-a-losing-strategy-in-afghanistan#comment-4404</guid>
		<description>the best way to defeat the muslims is to keep them OUT of civilized countries - no immigration allowed from their hateful countries.  Let the filthy, inbred, barbarian TURD balls rot in their own filth and keep them out of civilized societies until they abandon their idiotic religion and get with the program.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the best way to defeat the muslims is to keep them OUT of civilized countries &#8211; no immigration allowed from their hateful countries.  Let the filthy, inbred, barbarian TURD balls rot in their own filth and keep them out of civilized societies until they abandon their idiotic religion and get with the program.<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do We Have a Decisive Tactical Disadvantage in Afghanistan? by nostradamus02012</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4406</link>
		<dc:creator>nostradamus02012</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan#comment-4406</guid>
		<description>bottom line, the population as a whole don&#039;t want us there.

if they did, every single disadvantage you talk about with regards to civilians would be a distinct advantage.

the truth is that the population tolerate the taliban and other insane extremists because for whatever reason they don&#039;t see us as all that much better.

maybe the insane right in the usa will think about this the next time they defend torture, illegal prisons and holding defendants for years without charge.

what about what we are actually doing is any better than what they already have.

torture, no due process, corporate control of the economy...

why should they fight the taliban to get what they already have?

edit:
why should we torture the underwear bomber?  he IS talking.  and richard reid was mirandized within four minutes of being arrested and no one had a problem with that or the fact that over 150 criminal convictions of terrorists were obtained in the criminal justice system under the bush admin.

every time we torture, we show the world and that includes the citizens of iraq, afganistan and anyone else - that we aren&#039;t different.

that alone is enough reason to NOT do that.  that and the simple fact that torture does not work - just ask john mccain.

there is one other simple fact about the obama adminstration - he has kept us MUCH safer than bush did.  on sept 11 at 9:45 am of his administration he accomplished that goal.
bush took more vacation in his first year as president than any other president - and here&#039;s a crazy coincidence - in that same year we had the worst attack on american soil since 1812.
so you can &#039;say&#039; obama is weak and a creampuff - but the fact is that we have not been attacked under his watch and by this time in the bush admin we were still putting out the fires at the site of the world trade centers...&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>bottom line, the population as a whole don&#8217;t want us there.</p>
<p>if they did, every single disadvantage you talk about with regards to civilians would be a distinct advantage.</p>
<p>the truth is that the population tolerate the taliban and other insane extremists because for whatever reason they don&#8217;t see us as all that much better.</p>
<p>maybe the insane right in the usa will think about this the next time they defend torture, illegal prisons and holding defendants for years without charge.</p>
<p>what about what we are actually doing is any better than what they already have.</p>
<p>torture, no due process, corporate control of the economy&#8230;</p>
<p>why should they fight the taliban to get what they already have?</p>
<p>edit:<br />
why should we torture the underwear bomber?  he IS talking.  and richard reid was mirandized within four minutes of being arrested and no one had a problem with that or the fact that over 150 criminal convictions of terrorists were obtained in the criminal justice system under the bush admin.</p>
<p>every time we torture, we show the world and that includes the citizens of iraq, afganistan and anyone else &#8211; that we aren&#8217;t different.</p>
<p>that alone is enough reason to NOT do that.  that and the simple fact that torture does not work &#8211; just ask john mccain.</p>
<p>there is one other simple fact about the obama adminstration &#8211; he has kept us MUCH safer than bush did.  on sept 11 at 9:45 am of his administration he accomplished that goal.<br />
bush took more vacation in his first year as president than any other president &#8211; and here&#8217;s a crazy coincidence &#8211; in that same year we had the worst attack on american soil since 1812.<br />
so you can &#8217;say&#8217; obama is weak and a creampuff &#8211; but the fact is that we have not been attacked under his watch and by this time in the bush admin we were still putting out the fires at the site of the world trade centers&#8230;<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Have we Designed and Engineered a Losing Strategy in Afghanistan? by † PRAY † - SFECU</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/have-we-designed-and-engineered-a-losing-strategy-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4403</link>
		<dc:creator>† PRAY † - SFECU</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/have-we-designed-and-engineered-a-losing-strategy-in-afghanistan#comment-4403</guid>
		<description>You can&#039;t fight a war &amp; win under the terms set down to fight this one.  Just like Vietnam we didn&#039;t fight to win.  
Wars should be given to Generals to fight and politicians should not mess with it.  
ie If General George Patton had been given free hand to win the war in Afghanistan, they would all have been speaking english years ago.  &amp; Pakistan would have cleaned out their Al quaida dens or they would be under constant Predator surveillance and rocket attack.  

P&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can&#8217;t fight a war &amp; win under the terms set down to fight this one.  Just like Vietnam we didn&#8217;t fight to win.<br />
Wars should be given to Generals to fight and politicians should not mess with it.<br />
ie If General George Patton had been given free hand to win the war in Afghanistan, they would all have been speaking english years ago.  &amp; Pakistan would have cleaned out their Al quaida dens or they would be under constant Predator surveillance and rocket attack.  </p>
<p>P<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Do We Have a Decisive Tactical Disadvantage in Afghanistan? by EaDgBe</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1#comment-4405</link>
		<dc:creator>EaDgBe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protect-assets-strategy/do-we-have-a-decisive-tactical-disadvantage-in-afghanistan#comment-4405</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t go to war if you don&#039;t want to commit crimes against humanity :)&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t go to war if you don&#8217;t want to commit crimes against humanity <img src='http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> <br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Should I incorporate to protect my assets? by gi am smart</title>
		<link>http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/should-i-incorporate-to-protect-my-assets/comment-page-1#comment-4402</link>
		<dc:creator>gi am smart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protect-assets-strategy.com/protecting-assets/should-i-incorporate-to-protect-my-assets#comment-4402</guid>
		<description>Strongly suggest you at least record your Domain. My Ex tried to reduce his child support when he found out I was writing a book. Claimed since he was married to me part of the time covered in my Autobio, he deserved a cut, despite the fact it wasn&#039;t completed yet. Said &#039;possible proceeds&#039; and crap. I am so happy I live in New Jersey. Hedge you bets. Anything listed on Domain with a statement basically qualifies as a &#039;work in progress&#039;. Therefore it is grandfathered under Copyright Law. Get with USA.GOV /copywrights to find out how many documents you can use that rule for until you must file a formal application. Fees vary according to forum of written work. Insofar as a business is concerned, Incorporation is highly recommended so you got dibs on who came up with the idea and did something with it first.&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References : &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strongly suggest you at least record your Domain. My Ex tried to reduce his child support when he found out I was writing a book. Claimed since he was married to me part of the time covered in my Autobio, he deserved a cut, despite the fact it wasn&#8217;t completed yet. Said &#8216;possible proceeds&#8217; and crap. I am so happy I live in New Jersey. Hedge you bets. Anything listed on Domain with a statement basically qualifies as a &#8216;work in progress&#8217;. Therefore it is grandfathered under Copyright Law. Get with USA.GOV /copywrights to find out how many documents you can use that rule for until you must file a formal application. Fees vary according to forum of written work. Insofar as a business is concerned, Incorporation is highly recommended so you got dibs on who came up with the idea and did something with it first.<br /><b>References : </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
