A poster in this tweet's thread raises great point: Why is it only the South who feels they need to be represented by a symbol of "pride"?? There is no Upper-Midwest flag, no West Coast or East Coast flags, no flag that the Great Plains States are insisting on protecting. Aside from all the racist connotations, why are it's supporters arrogant enough to think their "culture" is special enough that they need more than the American flag?? Also, demographically, these are the EXACT same people who would like to make flag-burning illegal, while supporting the battle standard of a traitorous uprising. The fact that these people are the first to lay claim to patriotism proves that for a significant portion of them, America, and being a good American, means being white and conservative.
ROFL that Fox is calling it "The Great American Solar Eclipse" like officially more than once. Bet you didn't know that an eclipse, that can be seen worldwide, belonged to Murica because freedom owns the Sun and moon. Why on Earth would they try to politicize the sun? What's wrong with these people.
A poster in this tweet's thread raises great point: Why is it only the South who feels they need to be represented by a symbol of "pride"?? There is no Upper-Midwest flag, no West Coast or East Coast flags, no flag that the Great Plains States are insisting on protecting. Aside from all the racist connotations, why are it's supporters arrogant enough to think their "culture" is special enough that they need more than the American flag?? Also, demographically, these are the EXACT same people who would like to make flag-burning illegal, while supporting the battle standard of a traitorous uprising. The fact that these people are the first to lay claim to patriotism proves that for a significant portion of them, America, and being a good American, means being white and conservative.
Because they have a seperate distinct culture that was represented in the past by said Flag.
Other regions may have other symbols significant to their culture besides a flag.
It is like the fleur du-lis for Quebec. They have a distinct culture different from the rest of Canada and you are allowed to be proud of that culture and still want to remain part of a larger community which is Canada.
Now, people from the southern states may be ignorant to the fact that thier symbol of pride can be construed as something as racist. Southern Hospitality doesn't reflect a racist attitude and that maybe that is what s outherns have pride in.
It could also hanker back to TV shows like Duke's of Hazard that used the symbol of he flag to repersents their ideal culture.
The "Confederate Flag" is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and was revived as a symbol for the opposition to civil rights during the 50s and 60s. If the goal was to represent the Confederacy as historical heritage they would be much better served using the actual flag of the CSA instead of the one championed by the KKK during the fight for racial equality.
I apologize for my rudeness. I'm just frustrated by a great many things.
I'm not saying that people have to accept communism or Marxism or anything like that. Fine, whatever. It's not like any new revolutionary party would even use those terms because that would be very unwise. I'm just saying that people aren't aware of just how much $$$ and power is invested in the hands of so few, and how they use that power to divide us. And some people know but don't care, because all they care about is their ipads and coca-cola, and as long as they have their petty comforts they don't give two shits about the overall scheme of things.
Everyone...every human being in the west desires to live in a society among like people. Nobody inherently wants division (except for a handful of insignificant Nazis). But there is so much social injustice right now...people talk about the dudes carrying torches as if that's white supremacy - it's uglyness. It's disgusting. It's white nationalism and should be opposed. But white supremacy is better represented by the savings accounts of the very people on TV railing against white supremacy? Does anyone care to challenge this hypocrisy? Do you care that 1% of the population controls a disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth? And that these people have set themselves up as the moral vanguard???
I talk a lot about unity and the way in which the current political and cultural establishment seek to divide working class people. While I'm not a social democrat, the thing that was so inspiring about Bernie Sanders' campaign was the way he was able to penetrate social barriers and reach such a diverse group of voters. It was so incredible. I have no doubt...people are hungry for unity and a mass-movement for true social justice. Not the superficial kind where the privileged class looks for people to share the blame with...but actual social justice. And in these hectic, polarized times that's what I long to see.
So again, sorry if I came on too strong. I get that communism is a scary word and shit. But no one is looking to emulate the communists of a century ago. Even democrats back in those days were bad ...but that's beside the point. We have to realize that right now we do not own the means of production and that it is rightfully ours. A man is entitled to that for which he sweats; the fruit of labour belongs to the fruitful. In our society that's not the way it is and that is totally not okay. It has to change and we have to be the ones to change it.
ROFL that Fox is calling it "The Great American Solar Eclipse" like officially more than once. Bet you didn't know that an eclipse, that can be seen worldwide, belonged to Murica because freedom owns the Sun and moon. Why on Earth would they try to politicize the sun? What's wrong with these people.
The path of totality passed over the US only. It's the first eclipse ever where that's true. Even the Science channel called it the "Great American Eclipse".
Marx and Engels shouldn't be viewed as the be all end all of communism, and its absurd to pretend that the sociopathic 'communism' that was so popular in the 20th century failed simply because economic equality/centrally planned economies are weak when their failure likely has more to do with their casual brutality and demand for immediate change/conformity.
Socialism has bred some effective competitors with very high happiness and much better equality, and China, perhaps the largest economy ever known, is hardly an economic disaster. Central planning is only as good as its planners, and most communist states developed rampant corruption as morale plummeted.
I personally see the US as being in an increasingly untenable situation itself, as capitslism is running rampantly. The tax system was designed to enable the rich to make more money I think, and thats an inevitable (eventual?) effect of capitalist democracy. Money is very powerful in capitalism, and money will tend to flow to those best equipped to 'fleece the sheep'.
As I age, I've seen many faults in our Western democratic system, as we constantly change national goals and visions. 8 years is actually an awfully short mandate, hence our governments traditional strict reliance on experts, both political and scientific. 'Deep State' was actually a great enabler of American success, but the system is so partisan that heaps of intelligent, proven people get either disregarded/silenced, or even fired for being associated with the wrong party.
I've hardly got solutions, but I think a few good truisms include (imho): central planning can out perform aggregate (read uncontrolled capitalist) decision making if the planners are smart enough, real socialism creates happier people, political violence breeds more of the same eventually, and changing leaders constantly is very contrary to longer term vision.
@DreadKhan I need one more option for the post, something like "all of the above" - was really hard to choose between "agree", "like" and even "insightful"
@Stormvessel Don't you worry about strong wording, people here are used to much more heated discussions, like "who is better LI - Jaheira or Viconia". Or alignment definitions and accuracy - try to survive THAT! We can take a little politic to the head
With all seriousness, though, the topic is about "feeling", opinion, situation views. You are entitled to your own as anyone else here.
Once again going against every explicit statements he has been making for YEARS, we are now doing a possible troop surge in Afghanistan because he fears a "rapid exit". And god knows that is definitely an issue, seeing as how we have only been there for 16 years, or almost long enough for someone born in 2001 to have graduated high school. Again, I cannot even count the number of people who said Trump would be good on these issues, that he is an isolationist, that none of this would continue to take place. It was bullshit then, and it's HEAVY bullshit now.
Says "we will win". Win what?? What are we aiming for?? What are our goals in Afghanistan?? Will anyone in this forum still be alive when we leave??
Fact is, he just went on TV to talk about this, and said.....nothing. The plan is a secret. We have a secret plan to win in Afghanistan. Shame on the networks for running this garbage. The bar for Trump has been set so low that when he announces NOTHING about the subject he was supposed to be talking about and doesn't shit in his hand and throw it at the camera, he gets praise for doing so.
But seriously, go back and check the main reasons Trump supporters voted for him over Clinton. See the issue of foreign entanglements and how he is the best person to get us out of them come up again and again again. Then notice people like me in those discussions telling those people they were full of shit up to their ears. Then fast-forward to tonight.
He also called out Pakistan (who is at least a nominal ally) and then called on India (??) to get more involved in Afghanistan, basically throwing an needless match on a long-simmering fire between two nuclear powers. Because he has not idea what he is doing. None.
I saw this speech about 100 times during the Bush Administration. Let me translate for you: If the President says there is "no timetable for withdrawal" that means "we are going to be there forever".
If Trump is going to make this a centerpiece issue (as he has obviously tried to do tonight) then it is high time the media start reporting on military deaths in Afghanistan the same way they did during the height of the Iraq War.
His plan in Afghanistan is to distract people from racism, corruption and Russia by spending a few billion dollars and few hundred American military lives.
His plan in Afghanistan is to distract people from racism, corruption and Russia by spending a few billion dollars and few hundred American military lives.
The USA's plan (not his) is to stay there forever. It belongs to the Pentagon and CIA now. No other country can touch it. They control all minerals and ancient artifacts in the country. Also they have a base of Ops right next to Pakistan and Iran.
But seriously, go back and check the main reasons Trump supporters voted for him over Clinton. See the issue of foreign entanglements and how he is the best person to get us out of them come up again and again again.
That's still true to this day. Clinton never met a war she didn't like, a rebel group she wouldn't like to fund, a regime she wouldn't see changed, a drone strike she wouldnt like to authorize. I don't think we're anywhere near Clinton levels of hawkishness as of yet.
I was saying that we were going to be in Afghanistan forever 10 years ago. No, I don't have proof of that since this board didn't exist at that time but I did say it. That aspect is merely a subset of our never-ending War on Terror that we have had since at least 2003, a state of being which will continue to exist for the rest of my natural life.
If I were Pakistan, I wouldn't do anything the United States asked me to do until the drone strikes there stop. Do you like sunny, cloudless days? Great for being outdoors, right? Well, in Pakistan they don't--a sunny, cloudless day means the drones can see you--so you had best stay indoors if you are a young male. All victims of drone strikes are quantified as "military combatants" or "enemy militants" (or some such ridiculous nonsense) until they can prove otherwise.
Money corrupts a democracy or republic when people are allowed to donate to political campaigns. If I am a billionaire--hah! if I were a billionaire I probably wouldn't be posting here--and I contribute the legally-allowed maximum to a candidate and my candidate wins, I am going to expect a return on that investment in the form of favorable legislation or regulation in areas where my businesses will benefit; that favorable legislation/regulation should also have a positive impact on my quarterly bottom line. If you don't deliver then I will dump you and back someone else who will be more agreeable. Oh, and when my lobbyist drops by with pre-drafted legislation for you to introduce into Congress, I expect my bill to be on the docket within a week.
In other words, end *all* private donations to political campaigns and you will see somewhat of an end to this corrupting influence. Not a complete end, mind you, but it should subside to a degree. Also, if a Member of Congress didn't draft a bill on their own then it cannot be introduced--this will end pre-drafted legislation, whether from an industry group or some private group like ALEC. We can set up some sort of sliding scale as to how much money gets allocated to your campaign, something like $500,000 for State seat, $2,500,000 for House seat, and $5,000,000 for Senate seat. Just a ballpark, mind you.
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
All victims of drone strikes are quantified as "military combatants" or "enemy militants" (or some such ridiculous nonsense) until they can prove otherwise.
A deliberate decision by the Obama admin, probably a PR move to keep civilian casualty numbers lower. Pretty bad.
In other words, end *all* private donations to political campaigns and you will see somewhat of an end to this corrupting influence. Not a complete end, mind you, but it should subside to a degree.
Problem seems to be the courts. McCain and Feingold once passed decent campaign finance restrictions that were since shut down, and the Citizens United decision struck down even more restrictions. While its clearly in the public interest to limit campaign finance, the constitutional argument for it appears to be strong.
I have no problem with personal contributions from individuals with a low maximum limit, to make the amount of donors matter more than getting a few rich donors, but major money from private organizations or individuals is an issue.
I was saying that we were going to be in Afghanistan forever 10 years ago. No, I don't have proof of that since this board didn't exist at that time but I did say it. That aspect is merely a subset of our never-ending War on Terror that we have had since at least 2003, a state of being which will continue to exist for the rest of my natural life.
If I were Pakistan, I wouldn't do anything the United States asked me to do until the drone strikes there stop. Do you like sunny, cloudless days? Great for being outdoors, right? Well, in Pakistan they don't--a sunny, cloudless day means the drones can see you--so you had best stay indoors if you are a young male. All victims of drone strikes are quantified as "military combatants" or "enemy militants" (or some such ridiculous nonsense) until they can prove otherwise.
Money corrupts a democracy or republic when people are allowed to donate to political campaigns. If I am a billionaire--hah! if I were a billionaire I probably wouldn't be posting here--and I contribute the legally-allowed maximum to a candidate and my candidate wins, I am going to expect a return on that investment in the form of favorable legislation or regulation in areas where my businesses will benefit; that favorable legislation/regulation should also have a positive impact on my quarterly bottom line. If you don't deliver then I will dump you and back someone else who will be more agreeable. Oh, and when my lobbyist drops by with pre-drafted legislation for you to introduce into Congress, I expect my bill to be on the docket within a week.
In other words, end *all* private donations to political campaigns and you will see somewhat of an end to this corrupting influence. Not a complete end, mind you, but it should subside to a degree. Also, if a Member of Congress didn't draft a bill on their own then it cannot be introduced--this will end pre-drafted legislation, whether from an industry group or some private group like ALEC. We can set up some sort of sliding scale as to how much money gets allocated to your campaign, something like $500,000 for State seat, $2,500,000 for House seat, and $5,000,000 for Senate seat. Just a ballpark, mind you.
We already had McCain/Finegold as a first step to what you are talking about. The Supreme Court gutted it and made the decision that money=speech. That was ballgame. It was Citizens United, and the vote was, of course, 5-4, with all the liberal justices dissenting, and the all the conservative justices enshrining corporate power to god-like status. If you don't overturn Citizens United, everything you are talking about doesn't amount to a hill of beans. And since Gorsuch was just placed on the court for LIFE by way of a seat stolen from Barack Obama, it is never happening in the near future. If Trump appoints even one more justice, you won't see it happening before you are in a nursing home, or well beyond that. The Supreme Court is where the real power and damage to this country has been happening since 2000 when they stopped the recount in Florida. Again, as long as Citizens United stands, the jig is up. We've lost. The only thing to do would be to change the Constitution itself. This is something a few liberal groups have actually made some progress on. My fear is that if you call a Constitutional Convention, it will be hijacked by the far-right, and you could see things as radical as banning gay marriage and abortion put on the table. There is no real solution to this problem. The solution was not letting Bush and Trump get Supreme Court picks. Too late. The game everyone is referring to has already been played.
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
For Bush it was Bin Laden. For Obamma it was something serious enough to get 100,000 sets of boots there. Now the excuse they are using is minerals.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
For Bush it was Bin Laden. For Obamma it was something serious enough to get 100,000 sets of boots there. Now the excuse they are using is minerals.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
Obama did ramp up troops to 100,000. He then completely got out of Iraq (which was the main reason he was elected) by 2011, and by the end of his second term, the troop levels in Afghanistan had been reduced to 8400. Which is a draw-down of some 90,000 troops. So clearly, whatever one thinks of his strategy, Obama was not planning on perpetually being in any of these places, which is evidenced by the fact that he got 90% of the troops he had in their OUT within 5 years. You CAN argue it is still bad that he had anyone in either country for ANY amount of time. But the fact remains, we are in both countries for one reason, and one reason only. And that is because George W. Bush failed to prevent 9/11 despite 5-alarm fires going off all around his Administration in the months leading up to the attack. He then used those attacks to start two quagmire wars.
Libya was a joint NATO effort that ended 11 days after Gaddafi was killed.
China, perhaps the largest economy ever known, is hardly an economic disaster. Central planning is only as good as its planners, and most communist states developed rampant corruption as morale plummeted.
central planning can out perform aggregate (read uncontrolled capitalist) decision making if the planners are smart enough,
I think the point here is can planners ever be that smart? Possibly with AI in the future that may be the case, but I don't think it has been to date anywhere in the world.
In the case of China their economy was centrally planned from the establishment of the modern state in 1949 up until the late 1970s - and by any economic and social measures that performed poorly. I don't believe the fast economic growth since then is the result of central planning, but the result of the free market reforms they gradually introduced from that point onwards (including specifically decentralising much of the economic planning). I visited China in 1993 when those reforms were still working through the system and it was incredibly striking the difference between visiting shops working on the old communist model (service not a priority ) and shops operating on incentives (soft-selling techniques not yet developed ).
The unleashing of market forces in China has also resulted in many of the problems currently being discussed here, e.g. concentration of wealth and corruption. While I think the country has been quite successful in dealing with those to date there's still considerable potential for social upheaval as a result.
I also wouldn't be keen to invest in China at the moment. In recent years the Chinese economy appears to have been slowing down and they've struggled to maintain the growth rate set in their 5 year plans. In order to maintain the perception that is not the case there has been increasing intervention in areas like infrastructure projects and foreign investment where the economic case is poor. I think it's highly likely the debt incurred in these ventures will never be paid back and there is a real danger in the future of a financial crash as a result. Although the banking system is still heavily state-controlled, the result of market liberalisation is that the stock market is now far too large for direct intervention to manage (they've tried and failed with that in the past). If there were a future loss of confidence in the banking system the state would be unable to prevent the consequences spreading across the financial system as a whole and into the general economy.
You can have aspects of free planning in what is ultimately a planned economy; China's government can and does intervene quite heavy handidly even recently, like restricting 2nd home purchases and some pretty mindblowing currency management, to say nothing of having actual penalties for business that are seen as hurting the image of China abroad. I could also mention the very heavy involvement the government has with big industries. I don't honestly see how including relatively open markets makes them not centrally planned when everything is still controlled. If the government didn't want you to run a given business, there is still not much recourse.
What China did do imho in the 70s was open its borders to trade, and in part because of the work of Nixon of all people. That allowed them to actually produce and sell consumer goods; its not like China of 1970 was equipped to be a consumer nation, so having opened up internally was nowhere near as significant. Tourism also opened up, and thus businesses to service tourists were needed, but again, these shops were not primarily for the Chinese any more than tourist shops in Cuba are for the Cuban people.
Its often forgotten that China was a largely medieval country before Europeans forced their way in; there were certainly advanced things, but China was very much pre-industrial revolution. Their development with minimal trade following WW2 during this period is quite staggering actually, and allowed them to become the giant they are.
I wouldn't argue with Xi that the Chinese stock markets are too big for government management, because they still do help manage it, in part through shenanigens like currency manipulation. Real estate is a truly colossal market in China... Housing was set to be a bubble uglier by far than the US sub-prime collapse, and direct government intervention managed to help curb runaway prices. They learned from our mistake.
I will agree freely however that China does indeed have more market freedoma than a strictly communist country would have, yet from everything I read, the government does not hesitate to intervene if deemed necessary. So far it has served them well, it'll be seen how it does in the future. Regarding failure to meet targets, well, they do set very high goals, and they are as big or bigger than anyone they are supplying, a feat even Japan couldn't achieve.
I personally see the emphasis Westerners like to put on the free market to be akin to propaganda, ymmv.
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
For Bush it was Bin Laden. For Obamma it was something serious enough to get 100,000 sets of boots there. Now the excuse they are using is minerals.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
Obama did ramp up troops to 100,000. He then completely got out of Iraq (which was the main reason he was elected) by 2011, and by the end of his second term, the troop levels in Afghanistan had been reduced to 8400. Which is a draw-down of some 90,000 troops. So clearly, whatever one thinks of his strategy, Obama was not planning on perpetually being in any of these places, which is evidenced by the fact that he got 90% of the troops he had in their OUT within 5 years. You CAN argue it is still bad that he had anyone in either country for ANY amount of time. But the fact remains, we are in both countries for one reason, and one reason only. And that is because George W. Bush failed to prevent 9/11 despite 5-alarm fires going off all around his Administration in the months leading up to the attack. He then used those attacks to start two quagmire wars.
Libya was a joint NATO effort that ended 11 days after Gaddafi was killed.
Don't be fooled, they never left Iraq. Lybia will always be theirs, they put Gaddafi on the Throne in the first place. As for Bush, I have some theories...
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
For Bush it was Bin Laden. For Obamma it was something serious enough to get 100,000 sets of boots there. Now the excuse they are using is minerals.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
Obama did ramp up troops to 100,000. He then completely got out of Iraq (which was the main reason he was elected) by 2011, and by the end of his second term, the troop levels in Afghanistan had been reduced to 8400. Which is a draw-down of some 90,000 troops. So clearly, whatever one thinks of his strategy, Obama was not planning on perpetually being in any of these places, which is evidenced by the fact that he got 90% of the troops he had in their OUT within 5 years. You CAN argue it is still bad that he had anyone in either country for ANY amount of time. But the fact remains, we are in both countries for one reason, and one reason only. And that is because George W. Bush failed to prevent 9/11 despite 5-alarm fires going off all around his Administration in the months leading up to the attack. He then used those attacks to start two quagmire wars.
Libya was a joint NATO effort that ended 11 days after Gaddafi was killed.
Don't be fooled, they never left Iraq. Lybia will always be theirs, they put Gaddafi on the Throne in the first place. As for Bush, I have some theories...
I'm still not exactly sure what everyone wanted Obama to do in both the case of Egypt and Libya. There were mass uprisings among the populace against military dictators who (yes) the US had been keeping in power for decades. People now complain quite a bit about the aftermath (even Obama himself sees the lack of success in Libya after Gaddafi was killed as his greatest failure as President, he has said so on numerous occasions), but the same people would have complained even more if the US under his leadership had continued to support two military dictators who were killing their own people in the streets. He didn't go looking for what happened in those countries. WE as a country may have created the situation that came up, over the course of decades. But I still have no idea what other choice Obama had but to side with the people over tyrants when push came to shove. I would have done the same thing.
I don't believe anyone in the Bush Administration had anything to do with 9/11. I find the idea there was some conspiracy behind the whole thing preposterous. I'm not quite sure why anyone even needs to reach for some nefarious plot to explain what happened that day. It is easily explained by simple incompetence, which they proved in spades for the next 7 years afterwards in all aspects of governance.
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
For Bush it was Bin Laden. For Obamma it was something serious enough to get 100,000 sets of boots there. Now the excuse they are using is minerals.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
Obama did ramp up troops to 100,000. He then completely got out of Iraq (which was the main reason he was elected) by 2011, and by the end of his second term, the troop levels in Afghanistan had been reduced to 8400. Which is a draw-down of some 90,000 troops. So clearly, whatever one thinks of his strategy, Obama was not planning on perpetually being in any of these places, which is evidenced by the fact that he got 90% of the troops he had in their OUT within 5 years. You CAN argue it is still bad that he had anyone in either country for ANY amount of time. But the fact remains, we are in both countries for one reason, and one reason only. And that is because George W. Bush failed to prevent 9/11 despite 5-alarm fires going off all around his Administration in the months leading up to the attack. He then used those attacks to start two quagmire wars.
Libya was a joint NATO effort that ended 11 days after Gaddafi was killed.
Don't be fooled, they never left Iraq. Lybia will always be theirs, they put Gaddafi on the Throne in the first place. As for Bush, I have some theories...
I'm still not exactly sure what everyone wanted Obama to do in both the case of Egypt and Libya. There were mass uprisings among the populace against military dictators who (yes) the US had been keeping in power for decades. People now complain quite a bit about the aftermath (even Obama himself sees the lack of success in Libya after Gaddafi was killed as his greatest failure as President, he has said so on numerous occasions), but the same people would have complained even more if the US under his leadership had continued to support two military dictators who were killing their own people in the streets. He didn't go looking for what happened in those countries. WE as a country may have created the situation that came up, over the course of decades. But I still have no idea what other choice Obama had but to side with the people over tyrants when push came to shove. I would have done the same thing.
I don't believe anyone in the Bush Administration had anything to do with 9/11. I find the idea there was some conspiracy behind the whole thing preposterous. I'm not quite sure why anyone even needs to reach for some nefarious plot to explain what happened that day. It is easily explained by simple incompetence, which they proved in spades for the next 7 years afterwards in all aspects of governance.
Not arguing about Obamma and what he did or didn't. Just saying that when it comes to military action on Spec Op missions, the Presidents don't call the shots. They are also on a need to know.
I personally see the emphasis Westerners like to put on the free market to be akin to propaganda, ymmv.
I'm certainly not a believer in a totally free market - I'd like to see more intervention in the UK rather than less. Your earlier post though stated that a well-planned centrally planned economy would outperform a capitalist one, which I don't accept as a general statement if by centrally planned you're referring to the textbook definition where all aspects of the economy are controlled. You can make an argument that it could theoretically be better for a country, due to providing more stability (avoiding boom and bust cycles), though the history in countries that have tried central planning makes it dubious whether that's achievable.
Your second post seems to refine your earlier statement though - suggesting you believe that intervention in the free market can improve its performance, rather than that all aspects of the economy should be controlled. On that principle we can agree , although we may have differences in the degree and type of desired intervention.
In relation to the ability of the government to intervene I referred above to the stock market in China as already having passed the stage where they could directly control it, but the same is also true in other areas of the economy. You mention housing for instance where I think there is still a significant danger of future problems. Housing prices have been forced very high by international standards, which has helped to fuel the consumer boom in China. However, there are now significant numbers of empty houses in China, which means confidence in current pricing is potentially fragile. It would probably be possible to keep prices stable if supply were controlled in future, but that's where problems are likely to occur for the centrally planned economy. I already referred to the way China has supported growth in recent years by investing in dubious infrastructure schemes. That's important to them not just because of the % growth targets, but also supporting the consumer economy (16% of urban employment is in construction in China). Restricting the supply of housing in future will exacerbate the already existing problem of surplus construction capacity.
I was saying that we were going to be in Afghanistan forever 10 years ago. No, I don't have proof of that since this board didn't exist at that time but I did say it.
I don't think you need to prove it, since it is what most historians said when the USA first went in, based on the experience of Britain in the 19th century and Russia in the 20th.
Probably so--reading from a teleprompter is more than just speaking the words you are seeing because you have to read the text in a manner that doesn't sound like you are reading text.
In the meantime, Rossello has sworn in the team which Puerto Rico will be sending to Congress next month in an attempt to bid for recognition as a State. I have made it clear several times that I think they should be brought in as the 51st State because this would be the best option for the citizens of Puerto Rico, but I will be shocked if Congress manages to find the time to listen to them when they come back from recess.
Comments
A poster in this tweet's thread raises great point: Why is it only the South who feels they need to be represented by a symbol of "pride"?? There is no Upper-Midwest flag, no West Coast or East Coast flags, no flag that the Great Plains States are insisting on protecting. Aside from all the racist connotations, why are it's supporters arrogant enough to think their "culture" is special enough that they need more than the American flag?? Also, demographically, these are the EXACT same people who would like to make flag-burning illegal, while supporting the battle standard of a traitorous uprising. The fact that these people are the first to lay claim to patriotism proves that for a significant portion of them, America, and being a good American, means being white and conservative.
Other regions may have other symbols significant to their culture besides a flag.
It is like the fleur du-lis for Quebec. They have a distinct culture different from the rest of Canada and you are allowed to be proud of that culture and still want to remain part of a larger community which is Canada.
Now, people from the southern states may be ignorant to the fact that thier symbol of pride can be construed as something as racist. Southern Hospitality doesn't reflect a racist attitude and that maybe that is what s outherns have pride in.
It could also hanker back to TV shows like Duke's of Hazard that used the symbol of he flag to repersents their ideal culture.
The "Confederate Flag" is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and was revived as a symbol for the opposition to civil rights during the 50s and 60s. If the goal was to represent the Confederacy as historical heritage they would be much better served using the actual flag of the CSA instead of the one championed by the KKK during the fight for racial equality.
I'm not saying that people have to accept communism or Marxism or anything like that. Fine, whatever. It's not like any new revolutionary party would even use those terms because that would be very unwise. I'm just saying that people aren't aware of just how much $$$ and power is invested in the hands of so few, and how they use that power to divide us. And some people know but don't care, because all they care about is their ipads and coca-cola, and as long as they have their petty comforts they don't give two shits about the overall scheme of things.
Everyone...every human being in the west desires to live in a society among like people. Nobody inherently wants division (except for a handful of insignificant Nazis). But there is so much social injustice right now...people talk about the dudes carrying torches as if that's white supremacy - it's uglyness. It's disgusting. It's white nationalism and should be opposed. But white supremacy is better represented by the savings accounts of the very people on TV railing against white supremacy? Does anyone care to challenge this hypocrisy? Do you care that 1% of the population controls a disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth? And that these people have set themselves up as the moral vanguard???
I talk a lot about unity and the way in which the current political and cultural establishment seek to divide working class people. While I'm not a social democrat, the thing that was so inspiring about Bernie Sanders' campaign was the way he was able to penetrate social barriers and reach such a diverse group of voters. It was so incredible. I have no doubt...people are hungry for unity and a mass-movement for true social justice. Not the superficial kind where the privileged class looks for people to share the blame with...but actual social justice. And in these hectic, polarized times that's what I long to see.
So again, sorry if I came on too strong. I get that communism is a scary word and shit. But no one is looking to emulate the communists of a century ago. Even democrats back in those days were bad ...but that's beside the point. We have to realize that right now we do not own the means of production and that it is rightfully ours. A man is entitled to that for which he sweats; the fruit of labour belongs to the fruitful. In our society that's not the way it is and that is totally not okay. It has to change and we have to be the ones to change it.
Socialism has bred some effective competitors with very high happiness and much better equality, and China, perhaps the largest economy ever known, is hardly an economic disaster. Central planning is only as good as its planners, and most communist states developed rampant corruption as morale plummeted.
I personally see the US as being in an increasingly untenable situation itself, as capitslism is running rampantly. The tax system was designed to enable the rich to make more money I think, and thats an inevitable (eventual?) effect of capitalist democracy. Money is very powerful in capitalism, and money will tend to flow to those best equipped to 'fleece the sheep'.
As I age, I've seen many faults in our Western democratic system, as we constantly change national goals and visions. 8 years is actually an awfully short mandate, hence our governments traditional strict reliance on experts, both political and scientific. 'Deep State' was actually a great enabler of American success, but the system is so partisan that heaps of intelligent, proven people get either disregarded/silenced, or even fired for being associated with the wrong party.
I've hardly got solutions, but I think a few good truisms include (imho): central planning can out perform aggregate (read uncontrolled capitalist) decision making if the planners are smart enough, real socialism creates happier people, political violence breeds more of the same eventually, and changing leaders constantly is very contrary to longer term vision.
@Stormvessel Don't you worry about strong wording, people here are used to much more heated discussions, like "who is better LI - Jaheira or Viconia". Or alignment definitions and accuracy - try to survive THAT! We can take a little politic to the head
With all seriousness, though, the topic is about "feeling", opinion, situation views. You are entitled to your own as anyone else here.
Says "we will win". Win what?? What are we aiming for?? What are our goals in Afghanistan?? Will anyone in this forum still be alive when we leave??
Fact is, he just went on TV to talk about this, and said.....nothing. The plan is a secret. We have a secret plan to win in Afghanistan. Shame on the networks for running this garbage. The bar for Trump has been set so low that when he announces NOTHING about the subject he was supposed to be talking about and doesn't shit in his hand and throw it at the camera, he gets praise for doing so.
But seriously, go back and check the main reasons Trump supporters voted for him over Clinton. See the issue of foreign entanglements and how he is the best person to get us out of them come up again and again again. Then notice people like me in those discussions telling those people they were full of shit up to their ears. Then fast-forward to tonight.
He also called out Pakistan (who is at least a nominal ally) and then called on India (??) to get more involved in Afghanistan, basically throwing an needless match on a long-simmering fire between two nuclear powers. Because he has not idea what he is doing. None.
I saw this speech about 100 times during the Bush Administration. Let me translate for you: If the President says there is "no timetable for withdrawal" that means "we are going to be there forever".
If Trump is going to make this a centerpiece issue (as he has obviously tried to do tonight) then it is high time the media start reporting on military deaths in Afghanistan the same way they did during the height of the Iraq War.
If I were Pakistan, I wouldn't do anything the United States asked me to do until the drone strikes there stop. Do you like sunny, cloudless days? Great for being outdoors, right? Well, in Pakistan they don't--a sunny, cloudless day means the drones can see you--so you had best stay indoors if you are a young male. All victims of drone strikes are quantified as "military combatants" or "enemy militants" (or some such ridiculous nonsense) until they can prove otherwise.
Money corrupts a democracy or republic when people are allowed to donate to political campaigns. If I am a billionaire--hah! if I were a billionaire I probably wouldn't be posting here--and I contribute the legally-allowed maximum to a candidate and my candidate wins, I am going to expect a return on that investment in the form of favorable legislation or regulation in areas where my businesses will benefit; that favorable legislation/regulation should also have a positive impact on my quarterly bottom line. If you don't deliver then I will dump you and back someone else who will be more agreeable. Oh, and when my lobbyist drops by with pre-drafted legislation for you to introduce into Congress, I expect my bill to be on the docket within a week.
In other words, end *all* private donations to political campaigns and you will see somewhat of an end to this corrupting influence. Not a complete end, mind you, but it should subside to a degree. Also, if a Member of Congress didn't draft a bill on their own then it cannot be introduced--this will end pre-drafted legislation, whether from an industry group or some private group like ALEC. We can set up some sort of sliding scale as to how much money gets allocated to your campaign, something like $500,000 for State seat, $2,500,000 for House seat, and $5,000,000 for Senate seat. Just a ballpark, mind you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-mineral-deposits.html?mcubz=3
"President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted by Western companies.
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan, is also looking into ways to exploit the country’s minerals, according to a person who has briefed him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play a role in guarding mines — a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan’s richest deposits are in areas controlled by the Taliban."
'No more blood for minerals' doesn't have a great ring to it but hey if the shoe fits...
I have no problem with personal contributions from individuals with a low maximum limit, to make the amount of donors matter more than getting a few rich donors, but major money from private organizations or individuals is an issue.
Like I posted earlier, they ain't leavin'. Iraq, Lybia and Afganistan are theirs.
When Sanders wins the next election, they'll make up another excuse. (and the show goes on.)
Libya was a joint NATO effort that ended 11 days after Gaddafi was killed.
In the case of China their economy was centrally planned from the establishment of the modern state in 1949 up until the late 1970s - and by any economic and social measures that performed poorly. I don't believe the fast economic growth since then is the result of central planning, but the result of the free market reforms they gradually introduced from that point onwards (including specifically decentralising much of the economic planning). I visited China in 1993 when those reforms were still working through the system and it was incredibly striking the difference between visiting shops working on the old communist model (service not a priority
The unleashing of market forces in China has also resulted in many of the problems currently being discussed here, e.g. concentration of wealth and corruption. While I think the country has been quite successful in dealing with those to date there's still considerable potential for social upheaval as a result.
I also wouldn't be keen to invest in China at the moment. In recent years the Chinese economy appears to have been slowing down and they've struggled to maintain the growth rate set in their 5 year plans. In order to maintain the perception that is not the case there has been increasing intervention in areas like infrastructure projects and foreign investment where the economic case is poor. I think it's highly likely the debt incurred in these ventures will never be paid back and there is a real danger in the future of a financial crash as a result. Although the banking system is still heavily state-controlled, the result of market liberalisation is that the stock market is now far too large for direct intervention to manage (they've tried and failed with that in the past). If there were a future loss of confidence in the banking system the state would be unable to prevent the consequences spreading across the financial system as a whole and into the general economy.
What China did do imho in the 70s was open its borders to trade, and in part because of the work of Nixon of all people. That allowed them to actually produce and sell consumer goods; its not like China of 1970 was equipped to be a consumer nation, so having opened up internally was nowhere near as significant. Tourism also opened up, and thus businesses to service tourists were needed, but again, these shops were not primarily for the Chinese any more than tourist shops in Cuba are for the Cuban people.
Its often forgotten that China was a largely medieval country before Europeans forced their way in; there were certainly advanced things, but China was very much pre-industrial revolution. Their development with minimal trade following WW2 during this period is quite staggering actually, and allowed them to become the giant they are.
I wouldn't argue with Xi that the Chinese stock markets are too big for government management, because they still do help manage it, in part through shenanigens like currency manipulation. Real estate is a truly colossal market in China... Housing was set to be a bubble uglier by far than the US sub-prime collapse, and direct government intervention managed to help curb runaway prices.
I will agree freely however that China does indeed have more market freedoma than a strictly communist country would have, yet from everything I read, the government does not hesitate to intervene if deemed necessary. So far it has served them well, it'll be seen how it does in the future. Regarding failure to meet targets, well, they do set very high goals, and they are as big or bigger than anyone they are supplying, a feat even Japan couldn't achieve.
I personally see the emphasis Westerners like to put on the free market to be akin to propaganda, ymmv.
I don't believe anyone in the Bush Administration had anything to do with 9/11. I find the idea there was some conspiracy behind the whole thing preposterous. I'm not quite sure why anyone even needs to reach for some nefarious plot to explain what happened that day. It is easily explained by simple incompetence, which they proved in spades for the next 7 years afterwards in all aspects of governance.
The Bush thing, I was just kidding. Or was I. O_o
Your second post seems to refine your earlier statement though - suggesting you believe that intervention in the free market can improve its performance, rather than that all aspects of the economy should be controlled. On that principle we can agree
In relation to the ability of the government to intervene I referred above to the stock market in China as already having passed the stage where they could directly control it, but the same is also true in other areas of the economy. You mention housing for instance where I think there is still a significant danger of future problems. Housing prices have been forced very high by international standards, which has helped to fuel the consumer boom in China. However, there are now significant numbers of empty houses in China, which means confidence in current pricing is potentially fragile. It would probably be possible to keep prices stable if supply were controlled in future, but that's where problems are likely to occur for the centrally planned economy. I already referred to the way China has supported growth in recent years by investing in dubious infrastructure schemes. That's important to them not just because of the % growth targets, but also supporting the consumer economy (16% of urban employment is in construction in China). Restricting the supply of housing in future will exacerbate the already existing problem of surplus construction capacity.
If nothing else it would be a laugh for Trump to not be himself and spout racist or sexist stuff every two seconds when talking about her.
He'd have to read off a teleprompter every time he was talking about her.
In the meantime, Rossello has sworn in the team which Puerto Rico will be sending to Congress next month in an attempt to bid for recognition as a State. I have made it clear several times that I think they should be brought in as the 51st State because this would be the best option for the citizens of Puerto Rico, but I will be shocked if Congress manages to find the time to listen to them when they come back from recess.