Not me. You?Originally Posted by Loki
Not me. You?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Nicaragua and Grenada (both of which we attacked, directly or indirectly) come to mind.
That's my point. There's no reason for Romney to push at foreign policy; it won't get him any votes.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm curious as to why the dodge by Obama and Romney about "getting the call that Israeli bombers are on the way to Iran..." Its a hypothetical (never fun) but what's the problem? Just say "We support Israel and if they feel like this is the only way to stop a nuclear Iran we will back them diplomatically and politically." Not seeing the big deal here.
What does it cost America to green light military activity by our allies against Iran?
Except your current military is like twice what you'd need if you only wanted to defend American soil.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Defending American soil in an era of aviation requires more then just sitting on American soil.
In any event I think we likely agree that America should cut some defense spending, though you probably think it should be far more drastic. My point was that it makes absolute sense for someone to value government spending on military but dislike government spending on public transportation.
All you really need is enough nukes to make anyone who attacks you seriously miserable and maybe enough of a fleet, army and air force to retake any American overseas holdings that someone might try their luck with but aren't really worth using nukes over. And a few surface ships and destroyers to protect sea lanes.Defending American soil in an era of aviation requires more then just sitting on American soil.
Not necessarily, I'm just pointing out that if you think defending America is one of the few things government should be doing, what you actually have is a military that is designed to do far, far more than that.In any event I think we likely agree that America should cut some defense spending, though you probably think it should be far more drastic.
It also makes absolutely no sense to say they dislike government spending, but being perfectly OK with a military machine capable of taking on everyone else in the world three times over.My point was that it makes absolute sense for someone to value government spending on military but dislike government spending on public transportation.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
We did occupy Grenada, didn't we? It's a teeny tiny place, though. Nicaragua would have been a much bigger deal. I think supporting the contras was a much better way to throw a wrench in the Sandinista state than invading. Was that Vietnam syndrome or was that good sense by the Reagan administration?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Probably more than twice.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Reagan wasn't known for his pragmatism or willingness to negotiate. He knew Congress wouldn't allow him to do anything more (in fact, Congress didn't let him do what he did, i.e. Iran-Contra). We "occupied" Grenada for 2 months. We also didn't invade Lebanon after hundreds of our troops were killed there. Reagan didn't do much when Libyan intelligence took down the plane over Lockerbie. And we obviously didn't invade Iran after the hostage crisis.
Hope is the denial of reality
Noted on all this stuff. Here's an interesting thought experiment - what do you think the first term GW Bush Administration would have done in response to all of these cases?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Bush was profoundly changed by 9/11. Before then, he was a borderline isolationist. The only one of those situations he might have acted differently on would be Lebanon due to the loss of American lives. And the president, regardless of his own beliefs, must still take into account the views of the Congress and the public. There was absolutely no appetite for a long-term military conflict in the '80s. Reagan was attacked for being a war-mongerer and he didn't even really do anything.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wow, you're saying you know (or remember) my POV better than I do?
2008 meant McCain vs Obama. On foreign policy, "experience" included their senate voting history on invading Iraq, and whether they embraced the Bush Doctrine. It also meant Palin vs Biden, and their "experience" with global military events.
That's because Obama's policies were, in many ways, Bush Lite. Both the liberal left and the libertarian right were displeased. But that's what happens when our electorate is so polarized, and governing from the center can be made to look bad.
US military spending in 2010 represented 46% of world's military spending. Second place belong to China with 6%. Why is that a nation needs to spend 7 times more than it's potential rival? Does it say something about spending efficiency? This spending is so high that it would take only a cut of 5% in US military spending to fund a trip to Mars.
Ironically with all the US debt, government would be paying interests that are very similar to US spending before 2020. It has been told that it is not a problem, that US has no debt problem as US owes money to itself, that the FED can print as much money as US government needs. According to UBS, US and UK are the nations with higher risk of hyperinflation. If we see yearly QE less than 20% of the government expenditures or less than $720 billion for a period of one year that would still be not hyper-inflationary.
Japan's deficit will be about 41% of it's expenditures in 2012 according to the Budget for FY2012 by the Ministry of Finance. It seems that most of the deficit will be funded by the QE that BOJ runs at $374 billion. Hyperinflation could happen in Japan at any time. But US debt is sensitive to Japanese economy. It could easily take the U.S. financial system and U.S. dollar down with it. That's because the U.S. depends on Japan to fund its own debt binge. Japan is slowly edging toward its own version of a “fiscal cliff” as legislation needed to sell bonds for this fiscal year’s budget languishes in a split Diet, suggesting the government could run out of money by the end of October. What will they do?
From a macroeconomic point of view, government spending is a valve of liquidity. But it is funded with debt, not taxes. Argentina already tried expanding its economy with debt on Falkland's war in 1982 and it ended up with a hyperinflation in 1989, where people starved in a country that produces meat and fruits.
Military spending efficiency is hard to measure as it can only be put to the test in a war. Instead if money was spent on healthcare, the efficiency of spending would be very visible. So military spending has the inconvenience of being out of public scrutinity, and therefore very likely to be subject to corruption.
Triggering a war to increase spending even more is easy. Japanese did it in the 1930s where they planned a self-inflicted attack in Manchuria, that was uncovered later. The intention was to make population to support war by victimizing itself, a victimization trick the nazis used too in their propaganda.
Wars are a cock fight where the poor put the casualties, the middle class puts the money, and a few people become richer. It is a cock fight, a sport, were hooligans can easily be brought to the lines with propaganda. But in the end, national economy will suffer the impact of the game.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
You get no argument from me on any of this....
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Conversely, Carter was criticized for not being "tough enough" during the Iranian hostage crisis, and being too "Green" on energy. Reagan won election on the heels of the oil embargo, newly constructed EPA standards, and the fight between domestic and foreign auto manufacturing. Economic Malaise of that era was directly tied to an expanding -- and unstoppable globalization. Carter's administration bore the brunt of all that, politically.
I reckon twice in terms of numbers, more than twice in terms of budget.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Does anyone actually believe we'd need 700k troops to defend the US?Let's be honest here, no major power, especially a naval power, has troops just to defend itself.
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course not. But what's at the root of that little exchange is Lewkowski reconciling his belief in small government with his support for defense spending by saying one of the government's roles is to defend the nation. I'm just pointing out the the military the US has is far, far bigger and more capable than it needs to be do that, so if he really wanted to be consistent he would support cutting the DoD budget by half or more.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Some info you may consider relevant:
Source: George Soros. http://www.georgesoros.com/interview...economic_theo/I have formulated a specific hypothesis for the crash of 2008 which holds that it was the result of a “super-bubble” that started forming in 1980 when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The prevailing trend in the super-bubble was also the ever-increasing use of credit and leverage; but the misconception was different. It was the belief that markets correct their own excesses. Reagan called it the “magic of the marketplace”; I call it market fundamentalism. Since it was a misconception, it gave rise to bubbles. So the super-bubble was composed of a number of smaller bubbles -- and punctuated by a series of financial crises. Each time the authorities intervened and saved the system by taking care of the failing institutions and injecting more credit when necessary. So the smaller bubbles served as successful tests of a false belief, helping the super-bubble to grow bigger by reinforcing both credit creation and market fundamentalism.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
You sure it didn't start in 1776 with the popularization of capitalism?
Hope is the denial of reality
Again in the era of aviation defending the nation does not just mean having troops sitting on our soil. We have to be able to project power and decimate crazy countries that could get nukes.
You'd bomb Iran, huh.
"The prevailing trend in the super-bubble was also the ever-increasing use of credit and leverage; but the misconception was different. It was the belief that markets correct their own excesses. Reagan called it the “magic of the marketplace”; I call it market fundamentalism. Since it was a misconception, it gave rise to bubbles. So the super-bubble was composed of a number of smaller bubbles -- and punctuated by a series of financial crises. Each time the authorities intervened and saved the system by taking care of the failing institutions and injecting more credit when necessary. So the smaller bubbles served as successful tests of a false belief, helping the super-bubble to grow bigger by reinforcing both credit creation and market fundamentalism."
Chairman Greenspan also believed that markets were self-correcting, as part of the Randian ideology of self-interests in making money (greed). There probably was a Super Bubble forming, going back to the 1970's when wages started flattening out, and credit was used to keep up. Monetizing all that credit/debt made billions for banking and financial industries, but when the bubble burst it was average consumers who suffered.
People forget that credit cards weren't commonly used just a couple of decades ago. Tourists used Traveler's Checks, personal checks weren't honored everywhere, people still used the Bank to get cash, etc. Credit card interest used to be tax-deductible as an incentive to use credit, using debt as a way to build credit became the norm, and credit scores became the way to extend more credit. Creating all those CDOs and home equity loans based on mortgages and debt, was like a super bubble filled with kool-aid.
I'd agree with 1776 but imagine most would with that date think of a certain declaration on American soil rather than a book on British one that I'd credit.You sure it didn't start in 1776 with the popularization of capitalism?
Need? No.Does anyone actually believe we'd need 700k troops to defend the US?
But I thought part of military doctrine was to have such overwhelming force so as to minimize casualties and length of combat. (Not that we've been using those troops effectively it seems)
So, if 700k is way more than enough...what should it be? +50% more than enough? +25%? Just barely enough?. Did we drop the 2 wars/fronts doctrine?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The problem of credit is that credit creates an excess of demand in the credit markets that need to have an equivalent in other markets, like inflation in the market of goods, or changes in interest rates, or variations in money exchange, or many other prices in several markets. Also, if total credit is higher than GDP, debt is unpayable, so there are two ways, either default or hyperinflation. Nowadays US looks more like China during WWII, with citizens in crisis, a government entering wars and unable to afford people's development and jobs.
If you replace houses with stocks, you move from 2008 to 1929, as the same scenario was present. First unpayable debts, then financial crisis, then economic crisis and unemployment. Same crisis, different year.
Some people who may be ignorant of history may think the way out is war. Problem is war will increase debt and may lead to a hyperinflation, and there is no war where spending can be subject to austerity. Nowadays the industrial power is China, not US.
Japan in 1945 had almost 100 years of engaging in many military adventures with no harm. No wonder why in 1941 they were acting so carelessly towards US.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
If the purpose was entirely defense, why would we need to prepare for a two-front war? Given our nuclear capability, what kind of a country would actually attack us? And given the difficulty of mounting a land invasion across an ocean, I doubt anything more than 100-200k troops would be necessary to fight off any potential attack.
Hope is the denial of reality
Projecting power abroad makes you more likely to become a target of crazies with nukes, not less. Crazies without nukes have a history of suddenly becoming very, very sober when they get them and they figure out just what that means. Here is a quote for your edification about dictators and nukes from someone who was 'in the business'
Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator? Its interesting to note that mad, homicidal aggressive dictators tend to get very tame sane cautious ones as soon as they split atoms. Whatever their motivations and intents, the mechanics of how nuclear weapons work dictate that mad dictators become sane dictators very quickly. After all its not much fun dictating if one's country is a radioactive trash pile and you're one of the ashes. China, India and Pakistan are good examples. One of the best examples of this process at work is Mao Tse Tung. Throughout the 1950s he was extraordinarily bellicose and repeatedly tried to bully, cajole or trick Khruschev and his successors into initiating a nuclear exchange with the US on the grounds that world communism would rise from the ashes. Thats what Quemoy and Matsu were all about in the late 1950s. Then China got nuclear weapons. Have you noticed how reticent they are with them? Its sunk in. They can be totally destroyed; will be totally destroyed; in the event of an exchange. A Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise) produced the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So his hosts got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks - and got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal. The guest stared at the map for a couple of minutes then went and tossed his cookies into the toilet bowl. The only people who mouth off about using nuclear weapons and threaten others with them are those that do not have keys hanging around their necks. The moment they get keys and realize what they've let themselves in for, they get to be very quiet and very cautious indeed. Another great - and very recent example - look how circumspect the Indians and Pakistani Governments were in the recent confrontation - lots of words but little or no action to back them and both sides worked very hard not to do anything that could be misunderstood. (When the Pakistani's did a missile test they actually invited the Indians over to watch in order to ensure there was no ground for misunderstanding. The test itself was another message from both countries to the rest of the world - basically it read "Don't sweat it, we know the rules")
One anayst from The Business was asked what Saddam Hussein would have done if Iraq had possessed nuclear weapons in 1990. He replied that he didn't know what he would have done but he did know what he would not have done - he would not have invaded Kuwait.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I should note that this line of reasoning has also been generally discredited in IR. There's no logical reason why having nukes would moderate you (and it certainly hasn't moderated the behavior of Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, nor that of the US, UK, France, and USSR/Russia for that matter).
Hope is the denial of reality
Sorry, you mean my line of reasoning or Lewkowski's?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Well, both. The flaw in Lewk's logic is that countries wouldn't randomly decide to nuke the US, especially if the US wasn't involved in their affairs (why would they?). The flaw in the quote you cited is that there's no inherent reason why having nukes would make more you more moderate. It's not at all clear why having nukes would make Hussein less willing to invade Kuwait. If anything, having nukes would more or less guarantee that no one would take the risk of getting nuked to liberate Kuwait.
Seriously, I can all but guarantee that no other country would attack the US if the US completely withdrew militarily and economically (in terms of providing aid) from the rest of the world. Even if someone is unwilling to buy that guarantee, having a hundred nukes in secret locations and submarines, along with a force of perhaps 100k troops would make an attack against the US incredibly unattractive to any country on the planet.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote