The economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated that the actual cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan at 3 trillion dollars to the U.S. (all of which has been funded by borrowing), and 6 trillion globally. That's a lot of money init? Kinda curious how people wonder why we have a global credit crunch and stuttering US economy, when the government of that country has taken a huge amount of the capital available on the world market, and invested it not in productive activities such as US infrastructure spending, or research investment, or even non productive (but arguably necessary) building up of strategic forces or counter terrorist intelligence services; but instead has basically blown the lot for no return on fighting a full scale military war in a country that had nothing to do with Al Queda, the Jihaddist movement, or the dreadful Sept 11th attacks, in order to find these famous non existent WMDs (remember them?).
So originally this was a war that was going to cost 60 billion dollars to stop the imeadiate threat posed by this huge arsenal of WMDs that the evil Dictator Saddam Hussein was aiming at everyone, via a surgical and highly technological war based on air power. Oh and it would ensure oil supplies.
Now its a 3 trillion dollar war with no end in sight, (and no weapons ever found, and no link to Al Queda and the Hussein regime ever being established), to prop up the Shia majority Iraqi Government against other non Shia Iraqis and also foreign Jihaddists have now taken to Iraq in droves as its become a haven for terrorists and Islamic extremists in precisely the opposite effect of the alleged original intention. And Oil is now 102 dollars a barrel, and Iraq produces less now than it did in 2002. The economic consequences of which are starting to become apparent in a world financial system that is basically broke, and we are all going to pay for that.
Don't ever forget that the Iraq war was fought as a war of choice, against a non-existent threat, using an ocean of borrowed money that will take generations to repay, resulting in a country an order of magnitude more dangerous and unstable than it has been in the past 500 years. Not forgetting that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid for this folly with their lives.
In a word. Brilliant.
The Chinese must be laughing themselves silly as the US's idiotic and utterly irresponsible leadership is handing them the world on a plate.
Money and the war
Money and the war
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Galbally;784211 wrote: The economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated that the actual cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan at 3 trillion dollars to the U.S. (all of which has been funded by borrowing), and 6 trillion globally. That's a lot of money init? Kinda curious how people wonder why we have a global credit crunch and stuttering US economy, when the government of that country has taken a huge amount of the capital available on the world market, and invested it not in productive activities such as US infrastructure spending, or research investment, or even non productive but arguably necessary building up of strategic forces or counter terrorist intelligence services, but instead on fighting a full scale military war in a country that had nothing to do with Al Queda, the Jihaddist movement, or the dreadful Sept 11th attacks, in order to find these famous non existent WMDs (remember them?).
So originally this was a war that was going to cost 60 billion dollars to stop the imeadiate threat posed by this huge arsenal of WMDs that the evil Dictator Saddam Hussein was aiming at everyone, via a surgical and highly technological war based on air power. Oh and it would ensure oil supplies.
Now its a 3 trillion dollar war with no end in sight, no weapons ever found, and no link to Al Queda and the Hussein regime ever being established, to prop up the Shia majority Iraqi Government against other non Shia Iraqis and also foreign Jihaddists have now taken to Iraq in droves as its become a haven for terrorists and Islamic extremists in precisely the opposite effect of the alleged original intention. And Oil is now 102 dollars a barrel, and Iraq produces less now than it did in 2002. The economic consequences of which are starting to become apparent in a world financial system that is basically broke, and we are all going to pay for that.
Don't ever forget that the Iraq war was fought as a war of choice, against a non-existent threat, using an ocean of borrowed money that will take generations to repay, resulting in a country an order of magnitude more dangerous and unstable than it has been in the past 500 years. Not forgetting that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid for this folly with their lives.
In a word. Brilliant.
The Chinese must be laughing themselves silly as the US's idiotic and utterly irresponsible leadership is handing them the world on a plate.
You forgot the billions of dollars of weapons to Turkey to allow them to invade Northern Iraq and further destabilise the country we're trying to put back onto its feet.
As you say, we'll be suffering from the strategic damage from this excursion for generations.
So originally this was a war that was going to cost 60 billion dollars to stop the imeadiate threat posed by this huge arsenal of WMDs that the evil Dictator Saddam Hussein was aiming at everyone, via a surgical and highly technological war based on air power. Oh and it would ensure oil supplies.
Now its a 3 trillion dollar war with no end in sight, no weapons ever found, and no link to Al Queda and the Hussein regime ever being established, to prop up the Shia majority Iraqi Government against other non Shia Iraqis and also foreign Jihaddists have now taken to Iraq in droves as its become a haven for terrorists and Islamic extremists in precisely the opposite effect of the alleged original intention. And Oil is now 102 dollars a barrel, and Iraq produces less now than it did in 2002. The economic consequences of which are starting to become apparent in a world financial system that is basically broke, and we are all going to pay for that.
Don't ever forget that the Iraq war was fought as a war of choice, against a non-existent threat, using an ocean of borrowed money that will take generations to repay, resulting in a country an order of magnitude more dangerous and unstable than it has been in the past 500 years. Not forgetting that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid for this folly with their lives.
In a word. Brilliant.
The Chinese must be laughing themselves silly as the US's idiotic and utterly irresponsible leadership is handing them the world on a plate.
You forgot the billions of dollars of weapons to Turkey to allow them to invade Northern Iraq and further destabilise the country we're trying to put back onto its feet.
As you say, we'll be suffering from the strategic damage from this excursion for generations.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Money and the war
Galbally;784211 wrote: ... Now its a 3 trillion dollar war with no end in sight, no weapons ever found, and no link to Al Queda and the Hussein regime ever being established, to prop up the Shia majority Iraqi Government against other non Shia Iraqis and also foreign Jihaddists have now taken to Iraq in droves as its become a haven for terrorists and Islamic extremists in precisely the opposite effect of the alleged original intention. And Oil is now 102 dollars a barrel, and Iraq produces less now than it did in 2002.
...
Don't ever forget that the Iraq war was fought as a war of choice, against a non-existent threat ...
The diplomatic effects may also be affecting similar but not directly related aspects of current geopolitics. As the economist pointed out a few weeks ago in its article: Nuclear Proliferation, Has Iran won? WHO would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war.
...
Don't ever forget that the Iraq war was fought as a war of choice, against a non-existent threat ...
The diplomatic effects may also be affecting similar but not directly related aspects of current geopolitics. As the economist pointed out a few weeks ago in its article: Nuclear Proliferation, Has Iran won? WHO would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war.
Money and the war
May I have a quick dig at Paul "Deputy Defense Secretary" Wolfowitz in passing? The guy whose financial acumen was supposedly so infallible that he became Paul "World Bank" Wolfowitz after coming up with this with-profits war?
The unanticipated costs, far from having the reconstruction pay for itself as he predicted, were criticized as far back as 2003. The Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy to the Appropriations Committee Hearing "Fiscal Year 2004 Supplemental Request For Iraq Reconstruction September 22, 2003" has some prescient lines in it:Vice President Cheney said Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. Last week President Bush conceded there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Vice President Cheney said our troops would be treated as liberators. I am sure that most Iraqis are grateful that we removed Saddam Hussein. But it is clear the Iraqi people increasingly don’t want us there.
[...] There is the issue of cost. Five months ago we passed a Wartime Supplemental with $2.5 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. At the time we were told that was all that U.S. taxpayers would be asked for this year. That, we have learned, was a gross miscalculation. Former OMB Director Mitch Daniels said the total cost could be between $50 and $60 billion. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said, quote, “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.” We now know those predictions were wildly off the mark. When they saw the $87 billion price tag, it gave many Americans sticker shock and awe. It also has had that effect here in the Congress.
Counting this Supplemental, we will spend more than $100 billion in the first year to rebuild Iraq. And it is clear that the Administration will be back for many more tens of billions of dollars before next year is out. We don’t have this money in the bank. It is red ink. We are headed for a $1 trillion deficit, which will fall squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Not to mention the harm that fiscal irresponsibility of this magnitude would bring to our current economy, or to our other national priorities – our schools, our health care, or our ability to fix Medicare and Social Security, for instance.And this was just six months after this unprovoked US war of aggression, and it's been downhill ever since.
The unanticipated costs, far from having the reconstruction pay for itself as he predicted, were criticized as far back as 2003. The Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy to the Appropriations Committee Hearing "Fiscal Year 2004 Supplemental Request For Iraq Reconstruction September 22, 2003" has some prescient lines in it:Vice President Cheney said Saddam Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. Last week President Bush conceded there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Vice President Cheney said our troops would be treated as liberators. I am sure that most Iraqis are grateful that we removed Saddam Hussein. But it is clear the Iraqi people increasingly don’t want us there.
[...] There is the issue of cost. Five months ago we passed a Wartime Supplemental with $2.5 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. At the time we were told that was all that U.S. taxpayers would be asked for this year. That, we have learned, was a gross miscalculation. Former OMB Director Mitch Daniels said the total cost could be between $50 and $60 billion. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said, quote, “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.” We now know those predictions were wildly off the mark. When they saw the $87 billion price tag, it gave many Americans sticker shock and awe. It also has had that effect here in the Congress.
Counting this Supplemental, we will spend more than $100 billion in the first year to rebuild Iraq. And it is clear that the Administration will be back for many more tens of billions of dollars before next year is out. We don’t have this money in the bank. It is red ink. We are headed for a $1 trillion deficit, which will fall squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Not to mention the harm that fiscal irresponsibility of this magnitude would bring to our current economy, or to our other national priorities – our schools, our health care, or our ability to fix Medicare and Social Security, for instance.And this was just six months after this unprovoked US war of aggression, and it's been downhill ever since.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Money and the war
The truly crazy thing is that positive intervention IS possible - Australia did it in PNG and the UK has done it in, for example, Sierra Leone. What made it a complete disaster was the WAY it was handled.
We are all suffering because the USA doesn't have a President worth the name who allowed the business interests that back him to dictate policy, and then found that business principles are not a panacea for all ills. It's hard to believe that no-one warned Bush that the follow up was going to to be more difficult and expensive than the initial military campaign, but that seems to be the situation.
Idiot.
We are all suffering because the USA doesn't have a President worth the name who allowed the business interests that back him to dictate policy, and then found that business principles are not a panacea for all ills. It's hard to believe that no-one warned Bush that the follow up was going to to be more difficult and expensive than the initial military campaign, but that seems to be the situation.
Idiot.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Money and the war
The prediction was for a domino effect. Iraq would turn to the light and suddenly love Israel, and then the US would roll on into Syria with the same result, and then Iran with yet more of it. Nothing to do with love the US or love democracy or suddenly want to turn Christian and leave medieval literalist theology behind them (or am I confusing them with the US there? I forget), the entire invasion was about turning Israel into the regional leader of the pack.
There should be trials.
There should be trials.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
We are currently paying about 200 BILLION DOLLARS just towards interest on the Reagan/Bush Federal Debt. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility. :rolleyes:
Money and the war
I expect if you just let it drift long enough you can let your children pay it off instead. They'll not mind working extra hours to bail the country out when it becomes unavoidable. All you'll need do is refuse to look embarrassed about it.
You do know it needs paying off some day, yes? Not just keeping up the interest payments?
It's quite like a big national credit card in some respects.
You do know it needs paying off some day, yes? Not just keeping up the interest payments?
It's quite like a big national credit card in some respects.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Money and the war
These things run and run. We only paid off the final installment of Lend/Lease last Christmas!
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Money and the war
Scrat;784260 wrote: One thing needs to be pointed out. The Persian gulf is where a lot of the worlds oil comes from. If it were to be clogged with wreckage from the numerous wars that would be fought there without the presence of the American Navy, gas sure would be a lot more expensive. I have no doubt of that.
What our problem has become is the imperialistic ambitions of certain people who make policy in Washington. This appears to have taken on a life of its own. The MIC is moving down the track with a full head of steam and it's not slowing down soon. We're looking at a presidential candidate whom is perfectly comfortable with being in Iraq for 100 or even 200 years. The other 2 will be perfectly content with that also regardless of what they say today.
We can cry all we want about what happened in the past but if Americans cannot change the policies of America the situation will only get worse. When warfare becomes the only viable, productive enterprise in America then the world should fear.
If we do change the policy and withdraw then we will see certain parts of the world return to chaos which is fine by me as we all make our own decisions.
I agree about the strategic importance of the U.S. Navy being in the persian gulf the south China sea, the Med, and the Indian Ocean, and all I can say is that 3 trillion dollars would buy a lot of Naval power.
What our problem has become is the imperialistic ambitions of certain people who make policy in Washington. This appears to have taken on a life of its own. The MIC is moving down the track with a full head of steam and it's not slowing down soon. We're looking at a presidential candidate whom is perfectly comfortable with being in Iraq for 100 or even 200 years. The other 2 will be perfectly content with that also regardless of what they say today.
We can cry all we want about what happened in the past but if Americans cannot change the policies of America the situation will only get worse. When warfare becomes the only viable, productive enterprise in America then the world should fear.
If we do change the policy and withdraw then we will see certain parts of the world return to chaos which is fine by me as we all make our own decisions.
I agree about the strategic importance of the U.S. Navy being in the persian gulf the south China sea, the Med, and the Indian Ocean, and all I can say is that 3 trillion dollars would buy a lot of Naval power.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
jones jones
- Posts: 6601
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am
Money and the war
which explains why Mr Bush dances to the tune of the international bankers ... whoever pays the piper calls the tune ...
"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
-
VoiceOfReason
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:45 am
Money and the war
This begs a really big question: Why?
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
Money and the war
VoiceOfReason;787935 wrote: This begs a really big question: Why?
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
We're spreading democracy and fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Sorry, I have no idea why we're over there.
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
We're spreading democracy and fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Sorry, I have no idea why we're over there.
Money and the war
VoiceOfReason;787935 wrote: This begs a really big question: Why?
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
You know, I really don't know, the cynical reason would be secure access to Iraqi oil or at least the strategic control of the Persian Gulf, but you don't need to mount a 5 year ground invasion of Iraq or spend so much money to achieve either of those objectives.
The US Navy is the strategic power in the Persian gulf, not the US Army in Iraq, and Saddam could have been bought off or rehabilitated or a mix of the two to ensure Iraqi oil (as well as a useful, though distasteful, ally against Islamic jihaddists {whom he spent most of his career, and his nation's money and people fighting against}, with the backing of the West, remember the Iran-Iraq war?).
The stakes in what is happening in the world right now are very high, particularly for the US, so I just can't understand why the Administration would be so cavalier with their country's economic and military resources, as well as the US's strategic and diplomatic standing in the world, just to "get" a tinpot dictator, it actually makes no sense. They (and we) do have some very real and very dangerous enemies, and they seem to be more interested in settling old scores from the first Bush administration, and bankrupting their country in the process, than actually ensuring the US's long term security and strategic interests.
Does anybody believe the reasons that were given? Hell, they weren't even consistent, as far as I can tell. I'm a big believer in "follow the money". It always boils down to material gains, or "protecting our interests" aka Money. Does anyone seriously think that our national security is at risk? Don't get me wrong...I take national defense seriously, and I would put my uniform back on and do what I had to do, if it came to that. I just don't believe that that has much to do with why we're over there. What are we really trying to do over there? Any theories? Better yet, any facts?
You know, I really don't know, the cynical reason would be secure access to Iraqi oil or at least the strategic control of the Persian Gulf, but you don't need to mount a 5 year ground invasion of Iraq or spend so much money to achieve either of those objectives.
The US Navy is the strategic power in the Persian gulf, not the US Army in Iraq, and Saddam could have been bought off or rehabilitated or a mix of the two to ensure Iraqi oil (as well as a useful, though distasteful, ally against Islamic jihaddists {whom he spent most of his career, and his nation's money and people fighting against}, with the backing of the West, remember the Iran-Iraq war?).
The stakes in what is happening in the world right now are very high, particularly for the US, so I just can't understand why the Administration would be so cavalier with their country's economic and military resources, as well as the US's strategic and diplomatic standing in the world, just to "get" a tinpot dictator, it actually makes no sense. They (and we) do have some very real and very dangerous enemies, and they seem to be more interested in settling old scores from the first Bush administration, and bankrupting their country in the process, than actually ensuring the US's long term security and strategic interests.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
My post#6 didn't convince you even slightly then.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;788521 wrote: My post#6 didn't convince you even slightly then.
Its probably true, it just seems like such a facile policy based on extreme wishful thinking that its hard to believe that that turkey ever flew, but obviously it did.
Its probably true, it just seems like such a facile policy based on extreme wishful thinking that its hard to believe that that turkey ever flew, but obviously it did.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
I reckonthese guys-or rather the kind of attitude represented by it have a lot to answer for
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
have a look at some of the names and where they ended up. They seem to have been very quiet recently
In another age it would be seen as a naked imperialist declaration. It's manifest destiny in another guise. Also a lot of the american establishment seem to have bought in to this idea that american ideals are what everybody needs. The fact that people might ELECT left wing governments or object to multinational companies controlling their economy and resources seem to be beyond their comprehension. Bear in mind european multinationals are just as guilty as american ones.
It's a foreign policy that doesn't take in to account how the rest of the world might react backed up with a conviction that military superiority will always win in the long run despite the lessons of vietnam, but it's also an attitude that doesn't really ask what american interests actually are and whether the ordinary american wants to use military might to rule the world and assumes anyone not agreeing is unamerican.
God knows what the UK is doing involved in all this as it was only too obvious it was going to go wrong.
The american economy looks like it's going down the toilet-so much for protecting american interests.
posted by benjamin
We're spreading democracy and fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Sorry, I have no idea why we're over there.
I trust you are being facetious. I can't believe anyone actually fell for that one.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
have a look at some of the names and where they ended up. They seem to have been very quiet recently
In another age it would be seen as a naked imperialist declaration. It's manifest destiny in another guise. Also a lot of the american establishment seem to have bought in to this idea that american ideals are what everybody needs. The fact that people might ELECT left wing governments or object to multinational companies controlling their economy and resources seem to be beyond their comprehension. Bear in mind european multinationals are just as guilty as american ones.
It's a foreign policy that doesn't take in to account how the rest of the world might react backed up with a conviction that military superiority will always win in the long run despite the lessons of vietnam, but it's also an attitude that doesn't really ask what american interests actually are and whether the ordinary american wants to use military might to rule the world and assumes anyone not agreeing is unamerican.
God knows what the UK is doing involved in all this as it was only too obvious it was going to go wrong.
The american economy looks like it's going down the toilet-so much for protecting american interests.
posted by benjamin
We're spreading democracy and fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
Sorry, I have no idea why we're over there.
I trust you are being facetious. I can't believe anyone actually fell for that one.
Money and the war
Scrat;788904 wrote: You need to look farther north to the oil and gas fields of south central asia, I won't even go into the minerals that are there in those mountains. Big business wants access to them. Look at Kosovo, America, Britain and France couldn't care less about the "freedom" of the Kosovars. Kosovo has a hell of a lot of gas and mineral deposits. Buy off the appropriate people and you have access (in some cases exclusive) to those huge energy and mineral resources.
It's just a matter of who you have in place to expedite the means of aquisition and access. The key point is WHO, you want somebody that will sell to YOU, not to somebody else.
You need to think in the long term also, 20 or 30 years down the road, the west dreams of one day having pipelines running from the SCA regions through the ME to the gulf.
In 30 years, there won't be any oil left, and thats at current world oil consumption growth rates, and America probably wont have quite as much credit to spend on oil wars, so I imagine the world scene will look quite different. In 30 years time, it will be Chinese Aircraft carriers shelling Venezuela from 100 miles off shore, not US bombers reducing Iraq.
It's just a matter of who you have in place to expedite the means of aquisition and access. The key point is WHO, you want somebody that will sell to YOU, not to somebody else.
You need to think in the long term also, 20 or 30 years down the road, the west dreams of one day having pipelines running from the SCA regions through the ME to the gulf.
In 30 years, there won't be any oil left, and thats at current world oil consumption growth rates, and America probably wont have quite as much credit to spend on oil wars, so I imagine the world scene will look quite different. In 30 years time, it will be Chinese Aircraft carriers shelling Venezuela from 100 miles off shore, not US bombers reducing Iraq.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
No, be reasonable. There'll be ten Chinese Aircraft carriers off the coast of Venezuela providing much-welcomed protection.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;789092 wrote: No, be reasonable. There'll be ten Chinese Aircraft carriers off the coast of Venezuela providing much-welcomed protection.
Oh yeah spot, thats right, the Chinese are going to be really nice to people who aren't Chinese, unlike those perfidious yanks, just ask the Tibetans or the Vietnamese about that one. I suspect that the new Empire of the Middle Kingdom will make the west's Imperium since 1500 over the globe look like a sing song at a hippie reunion.
Oh yeah spot, thats right, the Chinese are going to be really nice to people who aren't Chinese, unlike those perfidious yanks, just ask the Tibetans or the Vietnamese about that one. I suspect that the new Empire of the Middle Kingdom will make the west's Imperium since 1500 over the globe look like a sing song at a hippie reunion.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
That's just such total propaganda - I'm surprised. The Chinese haven't occupied territory they consider to be foreign in the last two thousand years, it's entirely against their ethos. The debate over the ability of Tibet to be self-governing is an old one, the Chinese have been wary of allowing non-Chinese domination of their soft underbelly for centuries and Tibet has certainly had periods where, in the absence of Chinese occupation, foreigners would definitely have taken advantage and annexed the area. You can see why they consider it a special case.
Other than that, nothing. The Chinese even pulled back in startled shock when they were attacked by India and pushed reactively onto Indian soil. It's not their policy, it never has been their policy, to suddenly accuse them of intending it to be their policy is unjustifiable.
Other than that, nothing. The Chinese even pulled back in startled shock when they were attacked by India and pushed reactively onto Indian soil. It's not their policy, it never has been their policy, to suddenly accuse them of intending it to be their policy is unjustifiable.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;789099 wrote: That's just such total propaganda - I'm surprised. The Chinese haven't occupied territory they consider to be foreign in the last two thousand years, it's entirely against their ethos. The debate over the ability of Tibet to be self-governing is an old one, the Chinese have been wary of allowing non-Chinese domination of their soft underbelly for centuries and Tibet has certainly had periods where, in the absence of Chinese occupation, foreigners would definitely have taken advantage and annexed the area. You can see why they consider it a special case.
Other than that, nothing. The Chinese even pulled back in startled shock when they were attacked by India and pushed reactively onto Indian soil. It's not their policy, it never has been their policy, to suddenly accuse them of intending it to be their policy is unjustifiable.
Forgive me for being somewhat cynical of any nation or state that achieves, or may potentially achieve, great power. I don't think most people worried about US foreign policy in 1810 did they? I'm not saying they (the Chinese) will be much worse than anyone else, but hardly any better. Thats the nature of it isn't it. Also your relaxed attitude to the Chinese treatment of Tibet would I presume be somewhat different to what you might feel if the US decided to secure its "soft underbelly" ie Mexico in quite as blatant a manner? (you would explode in apoplexy, that would be my bet) What about the Russians invading Afghanistan, or Chechnya, (they have a soft underbelly), I suppose France should be entitled to re-annex Algeria, as that was France's Achilles hill in the recent past no? Methinks you can sometimes display incredible double standards my good man.
Other than that, nothing. The Chinese even pulled back in startled shock when they were attacked by India and pushed reactively onto Indian soil. It's not their policy, it never has been their policy, to suddenly accuse them of intending it to be their policy is unjustifiable.
Forgive me for being somewhat cynical of any nation or state that achieves, or may potentially achieve, great power. I don't think most people worried about US foreign policy in 1810 did they? I'm not saying they (the Chinese) will be much worse than anyone else, but hardly any better. Thats the nature of it isn't it. Also your relaxed attitude to the Chinese treatment of Tibet would I presume be somewhat different to what you might feel if the US decided to secure its "soft underbelly" ie Mexico in quite as blatant a manner? (you would explode in apoplexy, that would be my bet) What about the Russians invading Afghanistan, or Chechnya, (they have a soft underbelly), I suppose France should be entitled to re-annex Algeria, as that was France's Achilles hill in the recent past no? Methinks you can sometimes display incredible double standards my good man.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Come on, the Chinese have had periods where they've been the most powerful country on the planet and they've not shown Empire-building tendencies. You're projecting fear over an existing demonstrated reality, all you can say is maybe the future won't follow the past. What has the US in 1810 to do with the question?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
Galbally;789121 wrote: what you might feel if the US decided to secure its "soft underbelly" ie Mexico in quite as blatant a manner? (you would explode in apoplexy, that would be my bet)
You're kidding, surely. You've a fair understanding of the Monroe Doctrine, presumably? The whole of Central and South America is the declared back yard of the US. They've disrupted genuine social democracy too many times in too many decades for you to just ignore it. What the US doesn't like in the rest of the Americas the US destroys unless whatever it is - Canada or Cuba or Venezuela - fights back hard enough and visibly enough.
You're kidding, surely. You've a fair understanding of the Monroe Doctrine, presumably? The whole of Central and South America is the declared back yard of the US. They've disrupted genuine social democracy too many times in too many decades for you to just ignore it. What the US doesn't like in the rest of the Americas the US destroys unless whatever it is - Canada or Cuba or Venezuela - fights back hard enough and visibly enough.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;789134 wrote: Come on, the Chinese have had periods where they've been the most powerful country on the planet and they've not shown Empire-building tendencies. You're projecting fear over an existing demonstrated reality, all you can say is maybe the future won't follow the past. What has the US in 1810 to do with the question?
Unless you realize that China itself is a land empire, conquered by the Han Chinese over many centuries from weaker neighbors, in a similar (if much faster) process of the encroachment of English-speaking settlers through what is now the US in the 19th century.
The point about 1810 is that at that time, no one had to worry about the US because it was a minor power, in much the same way that few people feel threatened by the Spanish nowadays compared to the 16th century during which they were the global superpower, then of course supplanted by the French, and they by the British, who were themselves replaced by their colonial pupils the US, who will probably be overtaken by China before mid century, then someone else.
Unless you realize that China itself is a land empire, conquered by the Han Chinese over many centuries from weaker neighbors, in a similar (if much faster) process of the encroachment of English-speaking settlers through what is now the US in the 19th century.
The point about 1810 is that at that time, no one had to worry about the US because it was a minor power, in much the same way that few people feel threatened by the Spanish nowadays compared to the 16th century during which they were the global superpower, then of course supplanted by the French, and they by the British, who were themselves replaced by their colonial pupils the US, who will probably be overtaken by China before mid century, then someone else.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
spot;789142 wrote: You're kidding, surely. You've a fair understanding of the Monroe Doctrine, presumably? The whole of Central and South America is the declared back yard of the US. They've disrupted genuine social democracy too many times in too many decades for you to just ignore it. What the US doesn't like in the rest of the Americas the US destroys unless whatever it is - Canada or Cuba or Venezuela - fights back hard enough and visibly enough.
Way too simplistic Spot, the US is certainly responsible for an awful lot of meddling in Latin America particularly, but Canada? I am not making apologies for US policies in the region, I am just making the point that if the U.S. was to use a more blatant policy of control, in which it (for instance) conducted a ground invasion of Mexico, started colonizing it, and also exiled its ruling class and leaders, banned the use of Spanish and instigated a policy of destroying indigenous culture through force, you would be rightly outraged, but when China does it, all of a sudden you equivocate and start talking about "strategic interests" so whats the difference between the US doing it or China doing it?
Way too simplistic Spot, the US is certainly responsible for an awful lot of meddling in Latin America particularly, but Canada? I am not making apologies for US policies in the region, I am just making the point that if the U.S. was to use a more blatant policy of control, in which it (for instance) conducted a ground invasion of Mexico, started colonizing it, and also exiled its ruling class and leaders, banned the use of Spanish and instigated a policy of destroying indigenous culture through force, you would be rightly outraged, but when China does it, all of a sudden you equivocate and start talking about "strategic interests" so whats the difference between the US doing it or China doing it?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Galbally;789155 wrote: so whats the difference between the US doing it or China doing it?The US has just caused the death of a million totally unaggressive bystanding Iraqis with the full intention of doing exactly the same to Syrians and Iranians should the slightest opportunity afford itself, and the Chinese haven't.
I've actually recommended that the US take the same action as the Chinese as far as their soft underbelly is concerned and amalgamate Mexico into the US Federation of States, I've recommended it several times here and I've meant it every time. It would be a wonderful solution to their problems. That has nothing whatever to do with any Imperial ambition, no more than it has in the case of China. Iraq, on the other hand, is nothing but.
I've actually recommended that the US take the same action as the Chinese as far as their soft underbelly is concerned and amalgamate Mexico into the US Federation of States, I've recommended it several times here and I've meant it every time. It would be a wonderful solution to their problems. That has nothing whatever to do with any Imperial ambition, no more than it has in the case of China. Iraq, on the other hand, is nothing but.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;789166 wrote: The US has just caused the death of a million totally unaggressive bystanding Iraqis with the full intention of doing exactly the same to Syrians and Iranians should the slightest opportunity afford itself, and the Chinese haven't.
I've actually recommended that the US take the same action as the Chinese as far as their soft underbelly is concerned and amalgamate Mexico into the US Federation of States, I've recommended it several times here and I've meant it every time. It would be a wonderful solution to their problems. That has nothing whatever to do with any Imperial ambition, no more than it has in the case of China. Iraq, on the other hand, is nothing but.
Again, I am not trying to justify US foreign policy, which seems a little self-defeating at best. I am just trying to reiterate the point that I have to make repeatedly in that the US did not invent the desire to dominion, neither are they particularly cynical or amoral, or murderous compared to anyone else, they just have achieved an enormous level of power (particularly in the relative sense, though that sole superpower status will end once more as China, India, and Europe reemerge, Russia too probably). I don't see what the American's have done worse than anyone else given that level of capability over others, some of it they have used well, some very badly, as most great powers tend to do. I would say that on the whole, the US is not the worst power in the world, certainly no worse than the French, Spanish or British in their day. How the Chinese will act once they have the full spectrum of military, economic, and diplomatic power remains of course, to be seen.
I think that in the 21st century (presuming we don't destroy ourselves, or drown in the results of our own pollution which is not that unlikely) you will see a power system emerge between those great powers, similar to that of the 19th century "concert of Europe" where the great powers of Britain, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, Prussia had an informal arrangement to ensure that positions relative to each other was kept stable. This new global concert would be the US, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and India, no one else will be very important and that's always been the nature of power, you either have it or you don't, and if you don't then look out. Its just an opinion, and no one can predict the future.
I've actually recommended that the US take the same action as the Chinese as far as their soft underbelly is concerned and amalgamate Mexico into the US Federation of States, I've recommended it several times here and I've meant it every time. It would be a wonderful solution to their problems. That has nothing whatever to do with any Imperial ambition, no more than it has in the case of China. Iraq, on the other hand, is nothing but.
Again, I am not trying to justify US foreign policy, which seems a little self-defeating at best. I am just trying to reiterate the point that I have to make repeatedly in that the US did not invent the desire to dominion, neither are they particularly cynical or amoral, or murderous compared to anyone else, they just have achieved an enormous level of power (particularly in the relative sense, though that sole superpower status will end once more as China, India, and Europe reemerge, Russia too probably). I don't see what the American's have done worse than anyone else given that level of capability over others, some of it they have used well, some very badly, as most great powers tend to do. I would say that on the whole, the US is not the worst power in the world, certainly no worse than the French, Spanish or British in their day. How the Chinese will act once they have the full spectrum of military, economic, and diplomatic power remains of course, to be seen.
I think that in the 21st century (presuming we don't destroy ourselves, or drown in the results of our own pollution which is not that unlikely) you will see a power system emerge between those great powers, similar to that of the 19th century "concert of Europe" where the great powers of Britain, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, Prussia had an informal arrangement to ensure that positions relative to each other was kept stable. This new global concert would be the US, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and India, no one else will be very important and that's always been the nature of power, you either have it or you don't, and if you don't then look out. Its just an opinion, and no one can predict the future.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Scrat;789231 wrote: As we speak China is building submarines and ships at a rate no one else in the world is, what will she do with them?
Maintain the integrity of Venezuela's political independence in the face of extreme pressure, I thought we'd decided that earlier.
Maintain the integrity of Venezuela's political independence in the face of extreme pressure, I thought we'd decided that earlier.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
I don't even like the idea of the US having so much as a coastguard these days, much less a deep sea navy. What they've done with their toys tells me the toys would be safer for the rest of the world if they were in the hands of absolutely anyone else at all. You can give all those aircraft carriers to the French tomorrow for all I care. I wouldn't trust those criminals in the White House to run a brewery.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
Scrat;789234 wrote: I disagree. There are vast regions of the earth (a lot of it in Russia) that have not been explored yet in this respect. I am of the understandiing that the KNOWN reserves will be gone this century. What of the unknown? The object of the game is to control resources,
Seriously, much cleverer people than us are looking incredibly hard with the most advanced technology and a budget of trillions to look for every drop of oil available. We are now down to the sand tars, and looking under the ice cap, and waiting for the Antarctic and Siberia to thaw out, there isn't that much new oil available, in fact we are a lot closer to reaching peak oil production than most people realize. In any case, the use of oil is no longer sustainable as a primary fuel source for other very good reasons.
Anyway, what was this thread about again?
Seriously, much cleverer people than us are looking incredibly hard with the most advanced technology and a budget of trillions to look for every drop of oil available. We are now down to the sand tars, and looking under the ice cap, and waiting for the Antarctic and Siberia to thaw out, there isn't that much new oil available, in fact we are a lot closer to reaching peak oil production than most people realize. In any case, the use of oil is no longer sustainable as a primary fuel source for other very good reasons.
Anyway, what was this thread about again?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
spot;789134 wrote: Come on, the Chinese have had periods where they've been the most powerful country on the planet and they've not shown Empire-building tendencies. You're projecting fear over an existing demonstrated reality, all you can say is maybe the future won't follow the past. What has the US in 1810 to do with the question?
Let's just hope there isn't another ghengis khan then. OK you can split hairs that the mongols are not chinese but we still feel the effects of that little episode today.
America has never overtly gone in for empire building either although you could argue it's the same thing by another name.
Let's just hope there isn't another ghengis khan then. OK you can split hairs that the mongols are not chinese but we still feel the effects of that little episode today.
America has never overtly gone in for empire building either although you could argue it's the same thing by another name.
Money and the war
Actually lads, Genghis Khan was a mongol, not Chinese, so its unfair to blame the Chinese for that one, he conquered and invaded the China of his day as well, he was certainly a prolific war lord when it came to conquering other people's lands. It was his crowd that were responsible for sacking a lot of what is now Iraq and the Levant, as well as Eastern Europe, they sure did get around those mongols.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
And they had horses too. I think they were the cultural ambassadors of their day perhaps. A sort of medieval British Council of the time except more extrovert and Asian.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;789134 wrote: Come on, the Chinese have had periods where they've been the most powerful country on the planet and they've not shown Empire-building tendencies. You're projecting fear over an existing demonstrated reality, all you can say is maybe the future won't follow the past. What has the US in 1810 to do with the question?
From what I can gather, the only reason the Chinese did not follow through their Imperial dream in the fifteenth century was because of a palace fire at a time when the Emperor was trying to reduce the power of the Mandarins - the bureaucrats / priests used it as a sign / prophesy of impending doom, killed the Emperor to prove it and forced the next Emperor to become isolationist.
From what I can gather, the only reason the Chinese did not follow through their Imperial dream in the fifteenth century was because of a palace fire at a time when the Emperor was trying to reduce the power of the Mandarins - the bureaucrats / priests used it as a sign / prophesy of impending doom, killed the Emperor to prove it and forced the next Emperor to become isolationist.
Money and the war
And it's seriously never occurred to the Americans to run their political system in the same way?
WHY NOT??
WHY NOT??
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
spot;790089 wrote: And they had horses too. I think they were the cultural ambassadors of their day perhaps. A sort of medieval British Council of the time except more extrovert and Asian.
Yes they were definetly extroverts, in the same way that a murder is just an extroverted suicide. :wah:
Yes they were definetly extroverts, in the same way that a murder is just an extroverted suicide. :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Scrat;790230 wrote: What's the difference? They were about as different as Danes and Swedes or Germans really, the only big difference was in lifestyles, settled agricultural types and nomadic hunters essentially but still asian. I've seen these people in Russias far east and believe me phsically there in NO difference but when it comes to lifestyle there is a big one.
Kind of like Londoners and Welsh?
Well, its just to be fair the to the Chinese, just like it would be unfair to critize Canada for vietnam. Oh and the london and welsh thing, world of difference, seriously.
Kind of like Londoners and Welsh?
Well, its just to be fair the to the Chinese, just like it would be unfair to critize Canada for vietnam. Oh and the london and welsh thing, world of difference, seriously.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
Scrat;789231 wrote: China is building submarines and ships at a rate no one else in the world is, what will she do with them? China is also building a large more modern army that is very capable even now. What will be done with it?
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html
This year's report came out today. I'm just about to start reading it, I thought you'd like a peek too.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html
This year's report came out today. I'm just about to start reading it, I thought you'd like a peek too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Money and the war
Its interesting to note as an update on this thread, that at the time of the Iraq invasion, Oil was 28 dollars a barrel, it went up to 119 dollars yesterday with no end in sight, also as you may have noticed the American financial system is in ruins with its worst crisis since WW II, the dollar has crashed in value, and the rest of the world's developed economies are getting sucked into this quagmire, with their being a serious risk of a general collapse in the banking system. Now this isn't all about the Iraq war, the very unsound practice of basing economic leverage on domestic property prices that are artificially made high through profligate lending are more to blame, but all that money that has been blown in Iraq would be extremely useful right now to help prop up the American economy, unfortunately its gone, and in fact its borrowed money from abroad so it makes things worse. Also of course the rise in oil price over the last few months is going to swallow up any financial stimulus package that will be provided, and still the war goes on with no end in sight. I would love to be smug and say I told you so, but unfortunately this is going to effect everyone, so I don't have that luxury.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Money and the war
The thing that puzzles me is how come none of the management in the banks responsible have been fired or called to account.
Money and the war
gmc;806946 wrote: The thing that puzzles me is how come none of the management in the banks responsible have been fired or called to account.
Because they are allowed to regulate themselves by complacent and aquiescent governments, and also its a general rule in any kind of system that one of the priviliges of being at the top is that you generally don't have to pay for your mistakes, thats what your subordinates are for.
Because they are allowed to regulate themselves by complacent and aquiescent governments, and also its a general rule in any kind of system that one of the priviliges of being at the top is that you generally don't have to pay for your mistakes, thats what your subordinates are for.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.