Originally posted by shavixmirPaying for Iraq is a relatively small short term expense to a 13+ trillion dollar economy when you add back in the long term effect of increased Iraqi oil output.
Obviously the "war" (hell... call it what you want, but it's not really a war is it?) isn't the main cause of US financial dominance coming to an end... but it ain't helpin' matters much either...
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessYou shouldn't confuse bluster with action. With Russian inflation at 8.5% last year and no reason think it's going to get better over the near term, Russia isn't in much of a position to defend someone elses soil.
It's already been dealt with. Russia announced a few days ago that they will defend Iran if the US tries anything. Russia obviously made a economic deal with Iran.
This speaks directly to the point of the article, which not many in this thread have even read more than 2 paragraphs, that this is just another sign of the loss of influence the US can e ...[text shortened]... e world is a much more dangerous place than it is today.
THAT is the point of the article.
2. Putin still hasn't completed Irans overdue reactor, nor will they commit to a date for it's completion. This tells us that Putin isn't really that committed to Iran.
3. He isn't moving the needed military to Iran. There's already enough American strike capacity in the region to put an end to Irans current nuke program in a matter of hours and right now, there's not a single thing Russia can do about it.
Edit:
4. No. This isn't another sign of American loss of influence. With Russia, we've never had any influence to lose.
Originally posted by Merk??
You shouldn't confuse bluster with action. With Russian inflation at 8.5% last year and no reason think it's going to get better over the near term, Russia isn't in much of a position to defend someone elses soil.
2. Putin still hasn't completed Irans overdue reactor, nor will they commit to a date for it's completion. This tells us that Putin isn't really t ...[text shortened]... gn of American loss of influence. With Russia, we've never had any influence to lose.
Russia just threw down the gauntlet. They basically challenged the US to do something in Iran. The US won't challenge the Russians because the Russians have nukes. Plain and simple.
Russia is slowly rebuilding and trying to regain its influence. What we are witnessing is the rebirth of Russia in Central Asia and China in the east.
This is likely not a good thing for stability.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessRussia didn't throw anything down. Words mean nothing unless they get backed up. The facts still remain. Russia has been stalling on the Bushehr reactor for months.
??
Russia just threw down the gauntlet. They basically challenged the US to do something in Iran. The US won't challenge the Russians because the Russians have nukes. Plain and simple.
Russia is slowly rebuilding and trying to regain its influence. What we are witnessing is the rebirth of Russia in Central Asia and China in the east.
This is likely not a good thing for stability.
Why would they protect with force something they're not even dedicated to enough to complete?
Originally posted by spruce112358In one post you're saying to me, I should take action. I tell you
I agree with you about the UN. Press for elected representatives, no veto power, and a Constitution and Bill of Rights. A World Court that moves slightly faster than molasses in Murmansk in mid-winter wouldn't hurt, either.
Greed is not stopping the vision from happening. Such a Union has to be formed of peer nations, with similar ideals. Letting Nor ...[text shortened]... country; not you personally), and risk something other than the loose change in your pocket.
what I do, and can do, and why I don't think any one person can do much
difference. Then in the next post you say my country should do
something. This is Sweden we're talking about. You realise that, yeah? I
think the record more or less speaks for itself (conveniently ignoring WW2
neutrality), though lately, capitalism has grown strong here and we see
the greed pervade almost every part of our society nowadays. The
socialist party in Sweden, is hardly about socialism anymore. So that's
sad, but I think our track record up 'til the past ten or twenty years, when
it comes to helping people in and outside our own country has been
pretty damn good.
Originally posted by smw6869It's ok to encourage the Iranian people to build a democracy for themselves.
So it's ok to go into Iran to help Them form a democracy? Who cares if they want a democracy? Why should we intervene? Are you going to foot the bill? There's oil there also. Could they at least pay us for some of the expense with revenues from their oil sales? Is that asking too much? Oh thank you, for giving the US approval on this scheme. And when the Rus ...[text shortened]... Saddle up... don't forget your skirt. Democracy? You know all we want is the OIL.
Granny.
It's also OK to support them if they request help from the surrounding world.
I don't think it's ok to just step in there and act the saviour under false
pretences.
3 edits
Originally posted by spruce1123581) I don't object to the US choosing their targets based on what will
Bravo. Really -- this is a very nice post.
One or two points, if I may.
1) You seem to agree that a lot of the causes the US pursues are just, but object that America/Americans should get anything out of it. I never said we were saints. If I have two Just Causes I could pursue, I'll go for the one that benefits me on the side -- sure. Human nature YOUR feet. Don't apply the knee-jerk European 'not my problem, mate' to EVERY situation.
benefit national economy, as such. Human nature, as you say. I
object to the sanctimonious and dishonest appearance you try to hold up
as the forces of good and just; how you expect the rest of the world to
look at you like a marvel of national unity, when in fact you're just a
bunch of greedy, self-serving humans like the rest of us. That's
what I object to. Shut up about your so called "great deeds" in the world,
and you'll probably receive much less critique from the same.
2) Socialism is the only ideology (as far as I know) that guarantees
everyone a decent living, while at the same time allowing individual
freedom and prosperity.
3) You must understand that not everyone in the world has had the
simple life you've enjoyed. Imagine living under a strict rule, with less
than no individual freedom, forced to reject your own religion and
oppressed by your own government. Then, another war-lord (in a
matter of speaking) charges in, destroys what little you have and in
whose name heinous deeds are committed. You don't have the distance
to differentiate between seriously disturbed foggers and the honestly
benevolent people, because to you, if they wear a certain uniform they're
all the same. Now, imagine, if you will, what you'd do if you could get your
hands on one of those foggers who totally messed up your already
miserable life. I'd be pretty god damn pissed myself to be honest, and it
will take some time before people has the distance to see any good
come out of it.
4) Vietnam was what it was, and it serves no purpose trying to rewrite
history. When you screw up, you screw up. Live with it.
5) Of course it counts. But your initial post which got us started here
suggested that you (the US) has saved the world, and we don't have to
thank you, because you did it not for us, but because you think that
fighting for democracy Anywhere is the best way to ensure it Everywhere.
Sounds to me like you're on the high horse there, but I could be wrong.
---
And I don't think you understand that European countries (most of them),
while not taking military action so readily, is doing a whole lot by
example. Fugitives from all over the world are let into many European
countries to start over (though there's definitely a lot more to do on the
front of welcoming and giving a sense of home - a peaceful one). This is
not a small thing. Through education and example people from countries
like Somalia, can make a difference in their own home country from afar,
hoping to one day set foot on their own soil with a much better hope for
the future of their nation. But then, we must stay out of their business
when they're trying to achieve peace in their own land. And we must help
without strings attached, if they ask for it. Because as you said, if they
get to build stable, peaceful democracies, it will help ensure the safety of
our own democracies, and that's a cause in itself.
You'll find that when you're not totally screwing people, they're usually
quite nice to be around, be they capitalists, socialist or communists;
muslims, christians or sane.
Originally posted by stockenYour county is going to help also, right?
It's ok to encourage the Iranian people to build a democracy for themselves.
It's also OK to support them if they request help from the surrounding world.
I don't think it's ok to just step in there and act the saviour under false
pretences.
G.
Originally posted by stocken1) I thought you Did object to the Us choosing targets based on what will benefit our economy.
1) I don't object to the US choosing their targets based on what will
benefit the national economy, as such. Human nature, as you say. I
object to the sanctimonious and dishonest appearance you try to hold up
as the forces of good and just; how you expect the rest of the world to
look at you like a marvel of national unity, when in fact you're just a ...[text shortened]... be they capitalists, socialist or communists;
muslims, christians or sane.
So you want us to do good things around the world, but just keep our mouths shut and don't brag about it? Glad to see you are just as greedy as we are. How doe that make us worse than you.
2) Socialism guarantees everyone a "decent living"? Who's the gov't to say what a decent living is? You call that freedom.
3)T he simple life? We fought, bled,and die for every freedom we have.
You can't be serious Stocky! We've never lived under strict rule? Why do you insist that the US be the saviour of the world, but condem us when we do what we can. Trust me, the US citizen doesn't want this role.
4) Why can't we help people and also have some strings attached? Do you really think money grows on trees in the US, and the streets are paved with gold?
G.
3 edits
Originally posted by smw68691) I'm not going into a pissing fight with your sorry arse, so you'll forgive
1) I thought you Did object to the Us choosing targets based on what will benefit our economy.
So you want us to do good things around the world, but just keep our mouths shut and don't brag about it? Glad to see you are just as greedy as we are. How doe that make us worse than you.
2) Socialism guarantees everyone a "decent living"? Who's the gov really think money grows on trees in the US, and the streets are paved with gold?
G.
me if I don't respond to this. My position is clear(ly not as you suggest).
2) "decent living", while debatable I guess, is one where not every day is
a struggle just to stay alive against overwhelming odds.
3) Compared to the Iraqis, we in the western part of the world has had it
fairly easy. We've had a pretty damn good education practically given.
We've never had to accept government officials rape and abuse our
relatives without reason, or see people put in jail for simply making
political statements against our government. The problems most of us
have are of personal nature, and can hardly compare to the suffering
people are going through in some other countries in the world. You'll
forgive me if I say that while previous generations has gone through hell
and worse building this prosperity, they couldn't have done it without the
occasional break and sheer luck. We seem to just throw it away now;
taking it for granted and not realising that not everyone's as fortunate. (I
am of course not talking about all the people in the lower classes
who could definitely use a little more of the cake enjoyed by the rich and
famous.)
4) I think that money is something we create. Nothing more. Anyone who
considers money a tangible, solid thing of nature, need only look at the
ridiculous figures being passed back and forth in the financial world.
Money that doesn't even exist in print are sent as unimaginably large
numbers between computer systems. It's ridiculous. If every country in
the world were a free democracy (without even the ability to suck out your
own people), world economy as the abstract thing it is would fall like a
card house in fart's wind, because there would be no one's freedom to
infringe upon to make large figures happen. People would be forced to
focus on important matters, like spending resources on improving
agriculture and building a peaceful, just co-existence for one.
I do hope this is not just the same old US-bashing to you. I'm not saying
you're worse than the rest of the world. I'm saying you're no better, and
you really shouldn't think of yourself that way, unless you do something
that is truly without national or personal motive. See?
Originally posted by stockenWere you responding to my post? Really? Why am i a sorry ass just because i don't see it your way? Now it sounds like you think you're better than me.
1) I'm not going into a pissing fight with your sorry arse, so you'll forgive
me if I don't respond to this. My position is clear(ly not as you suggest).
2) "decent living", while debatable I guess, is one where not every day is
a struggle just to stay alive against overwhelming odds.
3) Compared to the Iraqis, we in the western part of the world h ...[text shortened]... ss you do something
that is truly without national or personal motive. See?
I agree with you on the money issue. Money is created from debt. No debt...no money. If everyone paid off all their debt there would be no money in cirulation. It would all be back in the banks. You may want to read the book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island".
I don't concider myself better than anyother citizen of the world. But if you want to tell me what i am, i can be that person, if it pisses you off.
G.
Originally posted by smw6869You appeared to purposely not get what I'm saying. That's what I meant
Were you responding to my post? Really? Why am i a sorry ass just because i don't see it your way? Now it sounds like you think you're better than me.
I agree with you on the money issue. Money is created from debt. No debt...no money. If everyone paid off all their debt there would be no money in cirulation. It would all be back in the banks. You may wan ...[text shortened]... ld. But if you want to tell me what i am, i can be that person, if it pisses you off.
G.
by sorry arse. My apologies if you really didn't get that I'm not thinking of
myself, or my country, as any better than you/yours, other than that
yours seem to have the delusional self-image of world saviours, whereas
I openly admit to not being perfect. (And no, admitting to such is not the
same as being fashionably modest, and therefore closer to perfect, or I
would be perfect, which I'm clearly not, see).
I thank you for the book tip. I'll have a look see.
And no, I don't want to tell you what you are. I may certainly have
misinterpreted, or put more into your posts than are really there. Again, if
I have, I apologise.
Originally posted by stockenNo i'm not purposely not getting what you're saying, It's just seems to me that you speak in a convoluted manner which is difficult to understand. You seem to change your views to suit you argument.
You appeared to purposely not get what I'm saying. That's what I meant
by sorry arse. My apologies if you really didn't get that I'm not thinking of
myself, or my country, as any better than you/yours, other than that
yours seem to have the delusional self-image of world saviours, whereas
I openly admit to not being perfect. (And no, admitting to suc ...[text shortened]... eted, or put more into your posts than are really there. Again, if
I have, I apologise.
The problem is that you do want the US to be the world's saviors, but only on your terms.
G.
Originally posted by stockenNobody in my country lacks for a "decent living" as you describe it except the terminally ill.
1) I'm not going into a pissing fight with your sorry arse, so you'll forgive
me if I don't respond to this. My position is clear(ly not as you suggest).
2) "decent living", while debatable I guess, is one where not every day is
a struggle just to stay alive against overwhelming odds.
3) Compared to the Iraqis, we in the western part of the world h ...[text shortened]... ss you do something
that is truly without national or personal motive. See?