|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
But I still don't see how economics and terrorism has anything to do with the original post.
If we were in anyway bankrupt- we would simply pull our forces out of both Iraq (which we are doing right now) and Afghanistan. But since that is not happening, I don't see where bankrupcy is coming into this.
Economic sanctions do work, as we see it now in a limited capacity with North Korea.
But there is something I find amazingly ironic- everyone here is quick to criticize American foreign policy, but they don't look at such things as;
- The way the Iranian government brutally suppresses its citizens in the wake of election fraud in that country.
- The crackdown in Xinjiang where Chinese soldiers and police started shooting at protesters, killing about 150 of them.
- The crackdown on Tibetan protesters right before the Olympic Games in 2008.
- Hamas rocket strikes into southern Israel
- British and Canadian forces protecting Afghan poppy growers in return for a portion of the profits.
- South Korea giving aid to North Korea with full knowledge that it is being diverted to its armed forces
- Brazilian police officers killing homeless people
- Venezuela arming and training militia who are protecting drug growers and traffickers in Peru, Columbia and Equador.
- Russia supporting a corrupt, mafia-like government in Chechnya that is responsible for killing dissidents overseas
- China arming the Sudanese army, who is in turn either using the weapons directly against civilians in Darfur or are training Arab militias to do their dirty work.
I would not have gotten my MPA without knowledge of what happens in the world- god forbid an American has any knowledge of international current events- 
Please, before criticizing American policy, take a good look at what is going on in other places of the world.
It might sound condescending, but people really need to either have a civil discussion or learn how to debate- thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| If we were in anyway bankrupt- we would simply pull our forces out of both Iraq (which we are doing right now) and Afghanistan. But since that is not happening, I don't see where bankrupcy is coming into this. |
That's not true. Rather, we'd simply do exactly what we are doing: borrow money and continue wasting it on inane, non-goal directed military activity. When a nation has substantial debt, and is continuing to increase that debt, what do you call it except bankrupt? The cost of our government's operations exceed its earnings, and have for quite some time.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Economic sanctions do work, as we see it now in a limited capacity with North Korea. |
In my estimation, North Korea is proof that sactions don't work. If anything, I feel like economic sanctions by the West have tightened the grip of the Kim regime on its populace. If our goal is to improve the lives of the citizens of North Korea while weakning the grip of the Kim regime upon them, sanctions are not an effective means of reaching it.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| But there is something I find amazingly ironic- everyone here is quick to criticize American foreign policy, but they don't look at such things as |
I criticize American foreign policy because it involves going to war for reasons of political expediency. But, in response to your examples:
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - The way the Iranian government brutally suppresses its citizens in the wake of election fraud in that country. |
I'm totally disgusted by Iran's behavior on this account and condemn them heavily. The citizens of that country need to revolt. That's all there is to it. This also isn't really relevent to foreign policy.
| mc_jc wrote: |
- The crackdown in Xinjiang where Chinese soldiers and police started shooting at protesters, killing about 150 of them.
- The crackdown on Tibetan protesters right before the Olympic Games in 2008. |
As far as I'm aware, the Chinese don't have the right to freedom of speech or the right to peaceably assemble. I don't support the Chinese government in its handling of protests, but just as with Iran, this is the responsibility of the Chinese people to resolve.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - Hamas rocket strikes into southern Israel |
I think I've personally made it sufficiently clear how I felt about that, but I'll say it again: no country can be expected to tolerate constant attack from another country without retaliating. Israel was totally justified in responding to these rocket attacks with military force, and the people saying they responded with excessive force are just anti-Israeli.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - British and Canadian forces protecting Afghan poppy growers in return for a portion of the profits. |
I think all drugs should be legalized. The only problem with this is hypocrisy in terms of the drug legislation in these countries.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - South Korea giving aid to North Korea with full knowledge that it is being diverted to its armed forces |
Given South Korea is the nation primarily being put at risk by said military, I really don't have much to say about this.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - Brazilian police officers killing homeless people |
This isn't really foreign policy related at all.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - Venezuela arming and training militia who are protecting drug growers and traffickers in Peru, Columbia and Equador. |
Again, the problem here is the ridiculous illegalization of drugs, nothing more.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - Russia supporting a corrupt, mafia-like government in Chechnya that is responsible for killing dissidents overseas |
I'm no supporter of the Russian government.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| - China arming the Sudanese army, who is in turn either using the weapons directly against civilians in Darfur or are training Arab militias to do their dirty work. |
Economically strong nations selling weapons to economically weak nations is highly unethical no matter how you look at it, because it's intended to keep those nations war-torn and depressed.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| It might sound condescending, but people really need to either have a civil discussion or learn how to debate- thank you. |
Maybe it's you that needs to learn how to debate. Most of the people here in no way support most of what you've brought up, and you're essentially engaging in strawman argumentation by arguing otherwise. If you want to have a discussion about Chinese foreign policy, or Iranian domestic policy, or whatever, go ahead and start a thread on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When our grandparents were our age, they were earning their own money. America was self-sufficient.
Look at America now. America has become a welfare state. We're a dependant. The USA is the biggest dependant in the history of mankind. Our way of life exists only as a function of the money people in other countries are willing to let us borrow, since we're no longer willing nor able to earn it all ourselves. It's sad. It's pathetic. It's embarrassing.
If we're going to continue to pursue the American Dream on the welfare gravy train, it's critically important that we're able to make the interest payments on our debts instead of blowing that money on frivolous bullshit like missiles near Russia. Wasting money on this military bullshit is going to bring the welfare gravy train to a halt a lot sooner than we want. When Americans, for the first time in our generation have to start earning our own money for ourselves instead of peasants in China earning the money for us, missiles near Russia won't seem important anymore. That, I can guarantee you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand that no government can fully make their citizens happy- the debate we are engaging here, although stimulating to say the least, has absolutely no bearing on the main topic.
So again- what does the US economy have to do with Russia's missile capabilities?
| Quote: |
| That's not true. Rather, we'd simply do exactly what we are doing: borrow money and continue wasting it on inane, non-goal directed military activity. |
But it is this "inane, non-goal oriented" military actions that allow us to have this discussion.
Also, if anyone had ever been to a state that went bankrupt, the government would shut down except for essential services.
All governments borrow money- Korea, as well as many other countries in Asia, borrowed money from the IMF in the late-90's and Korea as well as other nations borrowed from the US during the Cold War to pay for their armament programs. In addition to that, China and the Soviet Union gave money to arm their client states.
So how is this all new? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| So again- what does the US economy have to do with Russia's missile capabilities? |
The US economy has very much to do with the concept of missile defenses created at US expense. If this was being funded at zero cost to the United States, perhaps we could dismiss concerns about the US economy. Given that's not so, the economic situation in the United States is a factor.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's not true. Rather, we'd simply do exactly what we are doing: borrow money and continue wasting it on inane, non-goal directed military activity. |
But it is this "inane, non-goal oriented" military actions that allow us to have this discussion. |
Are you seriously suggesting that, had the United States not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, that we'd be unable to have this discussion? If so, I really don't know what to say, because that's incredibly out-of-touch with reality. If not, then your statement makes no sense.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Also, if anyone had ever been to a state that went bankrupt, the government would shut down except for essential services. |
This is only true if other countries and organizations don't continue to lend money to the bankrupt country in question.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| All governments borrow money- |
There's a difference between borrowing money in general, and borrowing money while running a budget deficit and simultaneously having insufficient assets to settle your debt.
If you have more debt than assets, and you're losing money each year, and the only way you continue to persist is to borrow progressively more money, what term would you use for that situation mc_jc? Because that's the situation the United States is in.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| So how is this all new? |
It's not new. This ridiculous situation has been persisting for some time now, and people have been trivializing it and dismissing it just as you are for that entire time. That's part of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's a difference between borrowing money in general, and borrowing money while running a budget deficit and simultaneously having insufficient assets to settle your debt.
If you have more debt than assets, and you're losing money each year, and the only way you continue to persist is to borrow progressively more money, what term would you use for that situation mc_jc? Because that's the situation the United States is in.
|
Ok- so what's the difference between the US borrowing money and any other nation?
Again, are other nations endebted to other nations for one reason or another?
| Quote: |
The US economy has very much to do with the concept of missile defenses created at US expense. If this was being funded at zero cost to the United States, perhaps we could dismiss concerns about the US economy. Given that's not so, the economic situation in the United States is a factor.
|
A nation's defense costs money. There is no way around it. The US is borrowing money to pay for what it needs, but we are not a total borrowing nation. If that were the case, the stock exchange would be closed.
| Quote: |
| Are you seriously suggesting that, had the United States not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, that we'd be unable to have this discussion? If so, I really don't know what to say, because that's incredibly out-of-touch with reality. |
So listening to organizations, nations or simple groups and compromising with what they have to say is a better way?
The Philippines government did it in the past and terrorism persisted. So did Spain and even England during periods of insurrection in their countries. Most nations will agree that a good defense is to go after those that perpetrate such acts since talk does little.
The US left Saudi Arabia as part of a compromise with the Saudi royal government as a way to possibly appease Al Qaeda, since that was what they were initially fighting for (to expel the foreign military presence from the country). But they ended up changing their goals to helping the Palestinians. As a way to speed up the exit of American forces from Saudi Arabia and possibly alleviating the terrorist threat in the Gulf region, GCC representatives offered up Iraq as a possible basing point for American forces and they would offer no resistance to the US invasion (in fact, GCC member states provided logistics and intel to American soldiers all the way to now)- this became known as the Doha Compromise (you will learn about it in more detail once the statute of limitations runs out). Most members of the GCC see Iran as a dire threat in the region and rely heavily on the American military presence to provide a balance against Iran. Now this was the main reason for the war in Iraq and why our government thought it was going to be "a cake walk".
The point is- we have tried to appease terrorists before.
In regards to Afghanistan- the Bush administration wanted to have the Taliban as allies at first because of their efforts to stomp out the illicit poppy fields and tried to provide economic aid to the "Emirate of Afghanistan" prior to 9/11 in exchange for that government's reneging on its alliance with Al Qaeda. After 9/11 occurred, the windfall of the government's dealings with the Taliban was going to prove embarrassing for the Bush administration. The US threatened to pull millions from development projects if they didn't hand Bin Laden and his group over to the US. But at the same time, if the Taliban had cooperated with the US, it would fall victim to insurrection because there were literally hundreds of Arab and Muslim fighters in the country fighting with the Taliban against the Russian-backed Northern Alliance. So they picked the closer evil to appease it became a big mistake.
| Quote: |
Also, if anyone had ever been to a state that went bankrupt, the government would shut down except for essential services.
This is only true if other countries and organizations don't continue to lend money to the bankrupt country in question.
|
 ...are you American? Don't you understand the question? Who said I was talking about another country?
What I find amazing is how non-Americans could quickly criticize the US government without knowing the inner workings of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
Ok- so what's the difference between the US borrowing money and any other nation?
Again, are other nations endebted to other nations for one reason or another? |
Other nations are irrelevent. You're trying to claim the United States -- whose debts outweigh its assets, and whose yearly expenditures outweigh its yearly gains -- is not de facto bankrupt. You will continue to be unwilling to accept this, you say, until the United States government shuts down all non-essentially services. That's completely insane policy, though; ignoring a problem until you start to massively suffer because of it is ridiculous policy.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
The US economy has very much to do with the concept of missile defenses created at US expense. If this was being funded at zero cost to the United States, perhaps we could dismiss concerns about the US economy. Given that's not so, the economic situation in the United States is a factor.
|
A nation's defense costs money. There is no way around it. |
Our nation is adequately defended without this missile system, and we don't have the money to be wasting on extravagant non-necessities. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be here.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| The US is borrowing money to pay for what it needs, but we are not a total borrowing nation. If that were the case, the stock exchange would be closed. |
What?
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you seriously suggesting that, had the United States not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, that we'd be unable to have this discussion? If so, I really don't know what to say, because that's incredibly out-of-touch with reality. |
So listening to organizations, nations or simple groups and compromising with what they have to say is a better way? |
Hold on. You said that if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we 'wouldn't be able to have this conversation.' Defend that statement or retract it. I'm not playing the "I was proven wrong so I'm going to just start talking about something else as if I was making a different point all along," game. Whether we "appease terrorists" as you put it or not, we'd still very clearly be able to have this conversation. Unless you think you can make a convincing case otherwise?
| mc_jc wrote: |
| ...are you American? Don't you understand the question? Who said I was talking about another country? |
Yes, I'm an American, and I was talking about America too. Specifically, I was talking about America receiving loans from other countries and organizations.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| What I find amazing is how non-Americans could quickly criticize the US government without knowing the inner workings of it. |
By contrast, what I find totally unamazing is that one of my fellow Americans doesn't understand the basics of fiscal responsibility and is using talking points which he poorly understands to defend policies which have been hurting our nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| By contrast, what I find totally unamazing is that one of my fellow Americans doesn't understand the basics of fiscal responsibility and is using talking points which he poorly understands to defend policies which have been hurting our nation. |
I understand perfectly- which is why I am disputing everything that is being said. If I were not working for the government, I might come to the same conclusions as you and call the US fiscally irresponsible.
| Quote: |
You will continue to be unwilling to accept this, you say, until the United States government shuts down all non-essentially services. That's completely insane policy, though; ignoring a problem until you start to massively suffer because of it is ridiculous policy.
|
I don't accept it because it is simply not true. If I thought working for the government was going to be an unstable gamble, I would've left my job and gone back into teaching ESL.
| Quote: |
| Our nation is adequately defended without this missile system, and we don't have the money to be wasting on extravagant non-necessities. |
But you're talking isolationism- we are part of an alliance with NATO. As such, we have an obligation to not only protect ourselves, but our allies.
And there is one thing you do seem to miss- We are not shouldering the burden of providing for the missile defense by ourselves. Please read the SOFA our government draws up with host nations and read the clauses about the financial responsibilities of the host nations.
We are, by tradition, an isolationist nation. Up until the start of WWI, we didn't have anything to do within the realm of European politics and European imperialism. It was Germany who prodded us into going to war in 1917 and it was Japan who prodded us in 1941 to go to war.
| Quote: |
| Hold on. You said that if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we 'wouldn't be able to have this conversation.' |
I am going to defend this statement. Like I said before and I could keep on repeating, if our government were to compromise with every demand terror groups made, we'd only be emboldening them to make up more demands.
| Quote: |
| Specifically, I was talking about America receiving loans from other countries and organizations. |
So you have no problem on the US dishing out money to other nations but you feel offended when the US asks its allies and friends to help out during its time of need?
Please, explain to me exactly how much is the US borrowing that is being used for the war effort?
Had these loaner nations knew where the money was going to be spent, do you think they would lend it to the US? What do they have to gain from the US fighting in two separate wars?
| Quote: |
| By contrast, what I find totally unamazing is that one of my fellow Americans doesn't understand the basics of fiscal responsibility and is using talking points which he poorly understands to defend policies which have been hurting our nation |
Please read more about the geopolitical relationship the US has with the different regions of the world. Also, please read the different SOFAs the US signs with other nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My last word:
The United States defaulted as a result of the Vietnam war (closing the gold window). It will default again. Prolly a massive devaluation (more than the 11% since March already achieved).
You might get another war out of the old girl. Who knows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok. One more!
| Quote: |
| But I still don't see how economics and terrorism has anything to do with the original post. |
Because America can't afford to anger Russia.
| Quote: |
| If we were in anyway bankrupt- we would simply pull our forces out of both Iraq (which we are doing right now) and Afghanistan. But since that is not happening, I don't see where bankrupcy is coming into this. |
The US total liabilities is in excess of 100 trillion, according to the Dallas Fed. She has a 12trillion economy.
That's bankrupt. What's dragging this show on is the Bretton Woods 2 system.
| Quote: |
| Economic sanctions do work, as we see it now in a limited capacity with North Korea. |
Yes. The government keeps going and the people starve.
| Quote: |
But there is something I find amazingly ironic- everyone here is quick to criticize American foreign policy, but they don't look at such things as;
- The way the Iranian government brutally suppresses its citizens in the wake of election fraud in that country.
- The crackdown in Xinjiang where Chinese soldiers and police started shooting at protesters, killing about 150 of them.
- The crackdown on Tibetan protesters right before the Olympic Games in 2008.
- Hamas rocket strikes into southern Israel
- British and Canadian forces protecting Afghan poppy growers in return for a portion of the profits.
- South Korea giving aid to North Korea with full knowledge that it is being diverted to its armed forces
- Brazilian police officers killing homeless people
- Venezuela arming and training militia who are protecting drug growers and traffickers in Peru, Columbia and Equador.
- Russia supporting a corrupt, mafia-like government in Chechnya that is responsible for killing dissidents overseas
- China arming the Sudanese army, who is in turn either using the weapons directly against civilians in Darfur or are training Arab militias to do their dirty work. |
First, every one of those topics has 5 or more threads (many started by me) on it. Second, the United States isn't the global superman. MYOB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By contrast, what I find totally unamazing is that one of my fellow Americans doesn't understand the basics of fiscal responsibility and is using talking points which he poorly understands to defend policies which have been hurting our nation. |
I understand perfectly- which is why I am disputing everything that is being said. |
Disputing, but not refuting. Good choice of words.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| If I were not working for the government, I might come to the same conclusions as you and call the US fiscally irresponsible. |
And in the process, you'd be correct. Habitually spending more than you earn is fiscal irresponsibility. There's no other word for it.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| I don't accept it because it is simply not true. If I thought working for the government was going to be an unstable gamble, I would've left my job and gone back into teaching ESL. |
The fact that you work for the government in no way makes you more qualified with regards to this conversation, mc_jc. I don't know why you keep mentioning it. Indeed, it actually makes me more inclined to view you as arbitrarily standing up for your employer due to the fact that you realize the US government becoming more fiscally responsible would put your employment in peril.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| But you're talking isolationism- we are part of an alliance with NATO. As such, we have an obligation to not only protect ourselves, but our allies. |
No, I'm not talking about isolationism; stop straw manning me. One can choose not to build expensive missile defense systems in a time of economic crisis without simultaneously supporting isolationism.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| And there is one thing you do seem to miss- We are not shouldering the burden of providing for the missile defense by ourselves. |
That's completely irrelevent. We are in a position to shoulder 0% of said burden.
| mc_jc wrote: |
| I am going to defend this statement. |
Okay, so you genuinely believe that, had we not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the consequences would be so severe that it wouldn't be possible for us to have this conversation in this fashion. That puts you firmly on the ground of the irrational, and I'll stop wasting time with you. Good day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Because America can't afford to anger Russia.
|
What is Russia right now? If you think the US is in bad shape- do you think Russia is in any kind of shape to take on the US?
| Quote: |
| Second, the United States isn't the global superman. |
Because....
Who is? China- ha!
In the next 20 years, there is a good possibility you might see China fracture into several small states or see the Han Chinese fight a similar war like the Serbs did after the break-up of Yugoslavia.
In all- don't put too much faith in either China or Russia in the long-term.
| Quote: |
| Habitually spending more than you earn is fiscal irresponsibility. |
If the government knew this- why are we still going? Wouldn't we've stop and take a look at the situation before we continue?
| Quote: |
The fact that you work for the government in no way makes you more qualified with regards to this conversation, mc_jc. I don't know why you keep mentioning it. Indeed, it actually makes me more inclined to view you as arbitrarily standing up for your employer due to the fact that you realize the US government becoming more fiscally responsible would put your employment in peril.
|
How would a stable economic situation put my job in peril?
| Quote: |
No, I'm not talking about isolationism; stop straw manning me. One can choose not to build expensive missile defense systems in a time of economic crisis without simultaneously supporting isolationism...That's completely irrelevent. We are in a position to shoulder 0% of said burden.
|
Then I ask- if we were in no position to shoulder any cost of defending our allies- why are we still there?
So according to you, we should abandon our allies because we are too poor to take care of them, let alone ourselves.
The reason I keep mentioning that I work for the government for the fact that I have to look at fiscal reports all the time and what I read and what you say really don't add up.
| Quote: |
| Okay, so you genuinely believe that, had we not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the consequences would be so severe that it wouldn't be possible for us to have this conversation in this fashion. |
I believe we are from very diverging viewpoints, which makes the debate very heated.
What is told to you, the public and what is known by me, an official, are completely different facts and figures.
Unlike China or Russia, the economic situation in the US is transparent. This allows you to argue over whether the US is fiscally sound or not. Had we talked about China's defense spending, we could only guess since their figures are kept hidden as "state secrets"
Most nations have a deficit and many are at the whims of the World Bank and the IMF. We are not and will not because we have many safeguards in place to prevent against a total economic collapse.
Now, in regards to the war effort, it is keeping us safe because it keeps the groups off American and European soil- simple as that. The media might paint a picture that the military is not winning the war, but neither are they and we are wearing them down considerably- and we didn't have to resort to the genocide-type doctrines the Soviets used in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The evidence is overwhelming. |
You said that just a few posts ago...and it's still a lie. |
You lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
Because America can't afford to anger Russia.
|
What is Russia right now? If you think the US is in bad shape- do you think Russia is in any kind of shape to take on the US? |
Yes, Russia could take us on. They're seriously outgunned in conventional warfare, but they have nukes. Lots and lots of very big nukes (some bigger than ours even). The question of nonchalantly going to war with Russia is absurd.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Second, the United States isn't the global superman. |
Because....
Who is? China- ha!
In the next 20 years, there is a good possibility you might see China fracture into several small states or see the Han Chinese fight a similar war like the Serbs did after the break-up of Yugoslavia.
In all- don't put too much faith in either China or Russia in the long-term. |
Wishful thinking. China has some serious problems, but it's definitely not going to fall apart. Our country is equally as corrupt, but we are on a slippery slope, and as was mentioned, bankrupt. China could dump it's dollar reserves ($2+ trillion) and take a serious (but not existentially threatening) hit, whereas the US dollar would be destroyed. China has us by the balls in this matter. Likely the only way our government could get around the severe consequences this would cause and not lose control, would be to declare martial law and do something drastic like start a new world war. Not a pleasant thought.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Habitually spending more than you earn is fiscal irresponsibility. |
If the government knew this- why are we still going? Wouldn't we've stop and take a look at the situation before we continue? |
Because they can't stop. The monetary system is a ponzi scheme, and quite fragile. All they can do is keep borrowing, or the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards. The biggest issue is trying to keep people convinced that the economy is healthy (hence all the propaganda and lies) - once they realize the truth, it will just implode on itself. It didn't have to end up this way, but that's what the banking establishemt did to us.
| Quote: |
| How would a stable economic situation put my job in peril? |
The situation is not stable. You are denial if you think our country is special and that the dollar could never be devalued. Look at what happened to Argentina - which used to be the wealthiest country in South America with a large middle class. The government became extremely corrupt and the banks came in and ruined the country. People working for the Weimar Republic probably though their jobs were stable too.
| Quote: |
Then I ask- if we were in no position to shoulder any cost of defending our allies- why are we still there?
So according to you, we should abandon our allies because we are too poor to take care of them, let alone ourselves.
The reason I keep mentioning that I work for the government for the fact that I have to look at fiscal reports all the time and what I read and what you say really don't add up. |
You fail to understand how global power politics work. The people who run our country are NOT patriotic, loyal Americans. They are elite globalists who care nothing about our sovereignty or the Constitution. Bush, Clinton, Obama, and everyone in their administrations are part of a political elite all working for the same globalist banking establishment. Look up the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group (all funded and chaired by arch-elitist bankers like David Rockefeller) and you will see that all the major players in both parties are members.
This is not about America protecting its allies, this is about globalists using the US military to enforce their globalist agenda around the world, at our expense. It absolutely runs against the best interests of the American people, but our country has been hijacked and we have little say in it. This is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the vast majority of people are against the wars.
| Quote: |
I believe we are from very diverging viewpoints, which makes the debate very heated.
What is told to you, the public and what is known by me, an official, are completely different facts and figures.
Unlike China or Russia, the economic situation in the US is transparent. This allows you to argue over whether the US is fiscally sound or not. Had we talked about China's defense spending, we could only guess since their figures are kept hidden as "state secrets"
Most nations have a deficit and many are at the whims of the World Bank and the IMF. We are not and will not because we have many safeguards in place to prevent against a total economic collapse. |
Oh man... this could not be further from the truth. American finance is absolutely NOT transparent! Haven't you been watching the news? Even mainstream media is filled with stories of the bailout money going missing. The Fed is a private bank that has never been publicly audited, and the chairman (Bernanke) has repeatedly told congress that the Fed is above the law and does not have to share any information. When he and Geithner were asked where the money went (the amount of which is now in excess of $20 trillion) they either answer that they don't know, or that they won't tell.
I will honestly say the US is probably even more corrupt than China. You have the current secretary of the treasury as the prior New York Fed chairman, and Paulson before him was the head over at Goldman Sachs. Every single member of Obama's admin is pure Wall Street, former employees at major banks. It's a revolving door, an open sewer of corruption.
| Quote: |
| Now, in regards to the war effort, it is keeping us safe because it keeps the groups off American and European soil- simple as that. The media might paint a picture that the military is not winning the war, but neither are they and we are wearing them down considerably- and we didn't have to resort to the genocide-type doctrines the Soviets used in Afghanistan. |
This is naive beyond measure... We've been mass murdering, destroying, and torturing innocent people for years. It is not keeping us safe, because there is no threat. Al Qaida is a sick joke - funded by the CIA from the start, and Osama bin Laden is a member of the richest family in Saudia Arabia, who are very close friends with the Bushes. These people are elite, and they operate outside the law.
Iraq was never a threat, nor is Iran, nor was Afghanistan. The US has no real threats, except the domestic terrorists who run our country. The CIA is the biggest terrorist organization on earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Russia could take us on. They're seriously outgunned in conventional warfare, but they have nukes. Lots and lots of very big nukes (some bigger than ours even). The question of nonchalantly going to war with Russia is absurd.
|
No one ever mentioned about going to war with Russia. Besides, the missiles defense is working perfectly around CONUS and North Asia.
BTW- have you ever heard of M.A.D.? That is what really keeps the balance between us and the Russians.
| Quote: |
Wishful thinking. China has some serious problems, but it's definitely not going to fall apart. Our country is equally as corrupt, but we are on a slippery slope, and as was mentioned, bankrupt. China could dump it's dollar reserves ($2+ trillion) and take a serious (but not existentially threatening) hit, whereas the US dollar would be destroyed. China has us by the balls in this matter. Likely the only way our government could get around the severe consequences this would cause and not lose control, would be to declare martial law and do something drastic like start a new world war. Not a pleasant thought.
|
So you are completely dismissing the unrest in Xinjiang, Tibet, Assam and other areas in the western and southern parts of China. Although China has become rich on the backs of American consumers, the money has been squelched away to government officials and thr rich associated with them. However, there economy is subjected the comsumer power of the US and west- if they can't buy Chinese goods, Chinese companies will go out of business. This could being China's economy down and with how large the country is, the reserves could be depleted in a very short time.
| Quote: |
All they can do is keep borrowing, or the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards. The biggest issue is trying to keep people convinced that the economy is healthy (hence all the propaganda and lies) - once they realize the truth, it will just implode on itself. It didn't have to end up this way, but that's what the banking establishemt did to us.
|
The only thing a lot of poster have to go on is the fact that the US borrows money from foreign sources. The fact of the matter is the US is borrowing against its reserves- thats it. The economy and government is not going to collapse like a house of cards as you said. If so, gas prices would go through the roof and people would not be able to buy anything. Gas prices have remained stable for the last 2 years and people are still buying things- which are signs that the economy is still going well.
The US still has millions to spend on education and billions to spend on defense- it is just that simple.
| Quote: |
The situation is not stable. You are denial if you think our country is special and that the dollar could never be devalued. Look at what happened to Argentina - which used to be the wealthiest country in South America with a large middle class. The government became extremely corrupt and the banks came in and ruined the country. People working for the Weimar Republic probably though their jobs were stable too.
|
Did you know as an emergency measure, Argentina used the $US to keep itself afloat? The $US is still the major trading currency in the world. Many exporting countries want to keep the American dollar weak so they could export their goods to the US. Also, it provides a cheap way for developing countries, like Korea, to build their dollar reserves. If the US dollar becomes strong right now, many economies in the world would crumble, including Korea's. All one has to do is go to markets in Namdaemun and Itaewon, where vendors still take dollars, to know the US economy is still in good shape, despite the hype.
| Quote: |
You fail to understand how global power politics work. The people who run our country are NOT patriotic, loyal Americans. They are elite globalists who care nothing about our sovereignty or the Constitution. Bush, Clinton, Obama, and everyone in their administrations are part of a political elite all working for the same globalist banking establishment. Look up the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group (all funded and chaired by arch-elitist bankers like David Rockefeller) and you will see that all the major players in both parties are members.
This is not about America protecting its allies, this is about globalists using the US military to enforce their globalist agenda around the world, at our expense. It absolutely runs against the best interests of the American people, but our country has been hijacked and we have little say in it. This is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the vast majority of people are against the wars.
|
I am sorry, you sound like a conspiracy theorist to me here. The US government is still in control of the country. It is like saying that Korea is a colony of the US, it is simply not true.
| Quote: |
this could not be further from the truth. American finance is absolutely NOT transparent! Haven't you been watching the news? Even mainstream media is filled with stories of the bailout money going missing. The Fed is a private bank that has never been publicly audited, and the chairman (Bernanke) has repeatedly told congress that the Fed is above the law and does not have to share any information. When he and Geithner were asked where the money went (the amount of which is now in excess of $20 trillion) they either answer that they don't know, or that they won't tell.
I will honestly say the US is probably even more corrupt than China. You have the current secretary of the treasury as the prior New York Fed chairman, and Paulson before him was the head over at Goldman Sachs. Every single member of Obama's admin is pure Wall Street, former employees at major banks. It's a revolving door, an open sewer of corruption.
|
The US gov't is dealing with those corporations that used the money to pay for the raises of its executives and the US Treasury is in the process of freezing their domestic and overseas assets- something that is not mentioned in the mainstream media. The stimulus money lost will be recouped, that much is for sure.
The government are indeed very transparent because we provide access to what is in the budget. Again, I work for a US government agency here in Korea and we get a copy of the federal budget at the beginning of every fiscal year. We know where the money is going and what it is going for. Unlike China, you can't go up to an official and bribe him go get what you need or want done. I will admit, there are some that do, but they get caught in the long run.
| Quote: |
We've been mass murdering, destroying, and torturing innocent people for years. It is not keeping us safe, because there is no threat. Al Qaida is a sick joke - funded by the CIA from the start, and Osama bin Laden is a member of the richest family in Saudia Arabia, who are very close friends with the Bushes. These people are elite, and they operate outside the law.
Iraq was never a threat, nor is Iran, nor was Afghanistan. The US has no real threats, except the domestic terrorists who run our country. The CIA is the biggest terrorist organization on earth. |
Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder and obviously not an American (saying you are here is not proof enough), so you say all this stuff. The ties between the US and Bin Laden family ended during the first Gulf War when Bin Laden's men went to Kuwait to steal identities to use in their new crusade against the US. The funding for Al Qaeda ended during the Iran-Contra scandal when Oliver North testified to the dangers of funding radical Islamic movements in Afghanistan.
Please read my above post about the deal between the US and the GCC to understand why we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan was invaded to let terrorists know there is no safe haven for them (also keep your eyes on the news for another very familiar place).
Just because there was no terrorist strike in Canada doesn't mean there is no threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
