My point is that unless the South explicitly says to use military action no one has any business attacking the North. And that I think China will ultimately keep North Korea in line. I massive land war in Asia is not what they need right now.
Printable View
My point is that unless the South explicitly says to use military action no one has any business attacking the North. And that I think China will ultimately keep North Korea in line. I massive land war in Asia is not what they need right now.
Clinton repealing Glass Steagal didn't help as it let more players into the market for the securities which blew up the system, but all those securities would have been created, traded and then done exactly the same damage without the big commercial banks having been involved. The only real damage done by Clinton was when he wanted to regulate derivatives with the same bill but Gramm insisted on no regulation of the derivatives market and inserted no-regulation legislation into the bill that he then wouldn't let through the Senate without it being accepted. But the deregulation of mortgage-related derivatives and other financial products from 2001-5 dwarfed the Gramm legislation in terms of the damage it eventually caused as far as the regulation or lack of with derivatives was concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
As I've said before I'm no economic specialist but Clinton's repealing (I know it was authored by Gramm) of Glass/Steagal set the stage for all of this mess. Both parties can share a some blame. Where was the JEC, Committe on Energy/Commerce or the Commitee for Financial Services? The "its all Bush's fault" tag line is just getting old. He is the President. Once he got swore in they are his problems and he better have a solution. If in a year from now we are not any better will you still be putting the whole thing on Bush and the GOP? I want to hear ideas and solutions from my President not how he got dealt a crappy hand from the last guy. There is no ONE right answer to our crisis and while Lyle's responses can sometimes be likened to rhetoric I think his questioning of our President's plan is very justified. On a side note I didn't like his speech either nor do I care for the celebrity persona but thats just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingSo the crisis caused by a bunch of decisions between 2001 and 2005 deregulating and ending regulatory oversight of the financial industry, a period of time when the GOP controlled all three branches of government and the Bush administration/Bush appointees made all the crucial (disastrous) decisions to let the financial industry go wild is now Obama's fault after two months of office? How does that work exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
I'm only "comparing" the two to show that Bush created the current problems while Obama is trying to clear up the mess, clearing up inaccuracies and general wrongness in Lyle's previous posts, etc.
You can't blame Obama for a crisis that was created and that was in full swing when he took office. The problems we're facing now are Obama's to deal with but weren't created by him. We can blame Obama for how he deals with the crisis Bush created but not the crisis itself. And he's definitely making mistakes in how he's handling it! It looks like the choice Americans have is to have their country badly run by a Democrat or insanely badly run by a Republican. But Bush deserves all the blame for how it started, as I already showed in this thread by using facts and evidence :
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...italism-5.html
That page shows part of the story. Interestingly, in the photograph, the Bush appointee holding the chainsaw over the stack of mortgage regulations was the guy entrusted with monitoring AIG, something he totally failed to even try to do. He just took their word everything was kosher. If I told you the story of the part AIG actually played in the meltdown you'd be reaching for a pitchfork, you just wouldn't believe it possible.
But page 5 only shows part of the story. It doesn't explain how the government ended regulation of the mortgage companies like Countrywide and Ameriquest in 2001, allowing them to write as many mortgages as they wanted then sell them to Wall Street who turned them into (now-toxic) securities. It doesn't explain how when the AGs of every State in the country used Depression-era laws to try and prevent predatory lending to bad debtors (laws brought in after the same shit helped cause the Depression) the Bush administration used the federal regulatory agency that was meant to prevent predatory lending to block the lawsuits and let the mortgage companies continue to make bad loans. It doesn't explain how the Bush administration allowed the banks in 2005 to lever up their debt:asset ratios from an historically safe 10:1 to 30 and 40:1, making the bad debt bubble (and eventual losses) dozens of times bigger overnight. And lots more besides. Too much to mention.
Here's one article about the predatory lending just to confirm some of the above stuff :
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - washingtonpost.com
But there's endless more stuff where this came from.
Yep, they don't want millions of refugees flooding over their border. The whole thing will be resolved peacefully at some point. I could point out the history of negotiations over the last ten years but you'd only accuse me of hating Bush and ridiculing him by pointing out what he actually did re. North Korea while he was in office. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Now now dont get salty Kirk ;) Agree or disagree I am always interested in your posts. I only pointed out your bias b/c it takes away from the objectivity of your usually impeccable research. You rib Lyle pretty good about not providing good stats for his posts but I think a lot of your posts would be stronger if the constant damnation of Bush/GOP were left out. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves? In regards to the other post I've never heard Lyle blame Obama for the crisis. Drastic times call for drastic measures. And drastic measure are always debatable.
Say what you will about George W. Bush but I tend to think his words meant a bit more to other leaders because of what we did to Iraq...and perhaps the leaders are trying to test Barry right now and when he's in Europe just slamming his own country for policies etc...I don't think they take him as serious as W. On the other hand it may be that China is feeling a little bit bolder these days.
And Kirk all I have ever done is get after Barry for how he has dealt with this crisis.
Also with North Korea it's not that they will use the missles but maybe they will sell them to some country that will use them. Is that not a legitimate worry? Didn't North Korea sell nuclear material to Syria and maybe missles to Iran...those countries aren't friendly to us or to our allies.
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/...w420-420x0.jpg
...all W did was dance with the dude
North Korea is a threat to nobody really. They have had their launch and the party is over. No war, no issues.
North Korea has a right to launch satellites, and no country can tell them no. That would just be hypocritical and they will do it regardless. And so they should.
Of course, they could be a threat. But in isolation and left to their own devices, they won't be.
Doesn't your ridiculous country sell weapons to numerous other countries? Doesn't the US supply Isael with too much?? All of that shit should stop, but until arms trade is outlawed then you reap what you deserve. If you say no to North Korea then you are being rather bullshitty. You deserve to be on the receiving end, no use in being a hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Miles I know you feel strongly about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think you can agree that Israel is a stable country who is unikely to distribute nukes to extremists and would only use nukes in self defense. North Korea is woefully unstable and the prospect of it being nuclear armed could lead to even less savory groups obtaining such weapons. This stands true of Iran as well. I think as long as they are calling for the destruction of Israel (even if it is just lip service) and sponsoring terrorist groups the world should be wary of them becoming a nuclear power.
The bad countries already have the bomb. Including your own country and mine. North Korea has the right to defend itself too. It doesn't have nuclear arms but it has the right to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Israel should be destroyed and nuked to oblivion. Are you asking me if that is nice or not? :-\
I doubt we've ever sold nukes to anyone miles and I am sure our ICBM technology is kept from others as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Well I let the facts speak for themselves on the financial crisis but in a day or so you'll be back to blaming both sides equally for it, not that you're biased or anything. And I didn't let the facts speak for themselves over North Korea because I'd either be accused of being a Bush hater or discover that Bush's disastrous NK policy was actually Obama's fault now. If you want to debate either issue then debate away, answer what I already posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
George Bush became a laughing stock because he talked tough then ran away. His signature policy, Iraq, cost the US 4000 lives, tens of thousands so badly wounded they'll need lifelong medical care, three trillion dollars, and handed Iraq, the world's second-biggest oil reserve over to the Iranians. America showed the world the limits of its military capability in Iraq and greatlry reduced the credibility of the president and his ability to get anything else done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
And you keep talking about how Obama is "blaming America", but you can't back it up with facts, and that's because the facts don't exist and you're just parroting some rightwing crackhead as usual. Do you honestly think foreign leaders took Bush seriously? Over what exatly? All the man ever did was talk tough then run away. When he screwed something up he went begging to the UN to get him out of the mess he'd got himself into. Bush was a joke internationally.
What difference does it make how bold China is? Can you explain that one? Define "bold."
NK don't have any missiles to sell to anybody. Nobody wants to buy something that demonstrably doesn't work. And they don't have anything to put on the end of any missile. They don't have anywhere near the technological capability to build an effective missile, nuclear warhead or warhead re-entry capability. If you knew the facts you'd have no reason to wet the bed over this.
So Israel doesn't have the right to defend its self? I mean seriously you can't see that the world is a safer place with North Korea not having a nuclear arsenal?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThe bad countries already have the bomb. Including your own country and mine. North Korea has the right to defend itself too. It doesn't have nuclear arms but it has the right to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Israel should be destroyed and nuked to oblivion. Are you asking me if that is nice or not? :-\
This is laughable. There is no military objective that hasn't been met in Iraq. Someone as schooled in history as you should know that holding a terrain feature or body count do not equate to winning in an asymmetric war. We were not going to kill our way out of there. When American troops were decisively engaged they have slaughtered their counterpart. The 2/30 Inf Battalion while patroling NE Baghdad had 3000+ killed or captured enemy combatants in 14 months. Thats ONE battalion. Even to go back to the beginning of the war the Iraqi Army was quickly routed in what??? 100 Days. American soldiers have taken on such a broad role in Iraq it is a testament to the tremendous level of individuals we have serving. As an Infantry squad leader that has served in both theaters I spent just as much time playing cop, city planner, social worker, intel analyst and lawyer as I have closing with and killing the enemy. These jobs are well outside my normal scope. Considering we started with a military trained to destroy Soviet tank columns and looking at the end state in Iraq: To suggest anything other than the United States Military is the most lethal and dynamic force in the world is just absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAmerica showed the world the limits of its military capability in IraqQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChildsThis is laughable. There is no military objective that hasn't been met in Iraq. Someone as schooled in history as you should know that holding a terrain feature or body count do not equate to winning in an asymmetric war. We were not going to kill our way out of there. When American troops were decisively engaged they have slaughtered their counterpart. The 2/30 Inf Battalion while patroling NE Baghdad had 3000+ killed or captured enemy combatants in 14 months. Thats ONE battalion. Even to go back to the beginning of the war the Iraqi Army was quickly routed in what??? 100 Days. American soldiers have taken on such a broad role in Iraq it is a testament to the tremendous level of individuals we have serving. As an Infantry squad leader that has served in both theaters I spent just as much time playing cop, city planner, social worker, intel analyst and lawyer as I have closing with and killing the enemy. These jobs are well outside my normal scope. Considering we started with a military trained to destroy Soviet tank columns and looking at the end state in Iraq: To suggest anything other than the United States Military is the most lethal and dynamic force in the world is just absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAmerica showed the world the limits of its military capability in IraqQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
America never lost a single battle in Vietnam but still got kicked out by the Vietnamese. And Iraq was a dismal failure by the US militay, who sent every available man there, couldn't defeat a bunch of guys armed with garage door openers and then humiliatingly had to resort to putting Al Quaeda and other terrorists on the payroll to cut the number of US deaths to manageable levels. And then they claimed victory! If Bush had told the American people before he invaded that they'd end up paying taxpayer dollars to Iraqi and other Arab members of Al Quaeda to stop them killing US soldiers I don't think anybody in America would have seen that as a succesful outcome. After Bush spent years claiming that only total victory would do in Iraq and to countenance anything else was anti-Americanism, he ended up forced to pay the terrorists a wage to stop them killing so many American soldiers. The natioanl strategy in Iraq also failed as he was forced into free elections by an Iranian Ayatollah and then saw the country handed over to the Ayatollah's chosen represenatives inthose elections. But the Iraqis wouldn't let the US organise them or the constitution-writing process as nobody trusted them anymore so Bush was forced to go begging to the UN to set up elections/constitution-writing. And then claimed credit for it! Then the US military spent the next few years fighting and dying to keep the Iranian exile parties in power, something covered every day in Arab and world media with a mixture of ridicule and outrage. The stated overarching strategy, to fight terrorism, was also a disaster, Bush giving AQ and Sunni fundamentalist groups in general a huge propaganda victory by installing Shiites, their hated enemy in power in Iraq. And the real overarching strategy, control over Iraq's oil, was foiled by the Iranian exiles who forced Bush into signing a deal that meant all US troops had to leave before the end of 2011. But apart from all that it was a huge success.