patrick.net

Bigsby says

The reason you have a military is not to invade every country that poses no immediate threat to your nation. I would have thought even you might be aware of that fact but apparently not.

I ask you if you recall the events between 1992..2002. Which led to the invasion... you can either be a coward or a liar.. take you pick !

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

The reason you have a military is not to invade every country that poses no immediate threat to your nation. I would have thought even you might be aware of that fact but apparently not.

I ask you if you recall the events between 1992..2002. Which led to the invasion... you can either be a coward or a liar.. take you pick !

Oh, I recall them. The question is do you because you appear to be as clueless about that period as every other time in history. But hey, please feel free to explain what occurred during that decade that made going to war with Iraq the outstanding success it wasn't.

And I take it from your handle you were all of 6 years old at the beginning of that period, so hey, feel free to enlighten us all of your vast first hand experience of that particular time.

thomaswong.1986 says

Teddy Roosevelt

Say What?

Bigsby says

perhaps you'd care to explain what that has to do with his comment.

We have discussed this on this thread before but I never got an answer.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

perhaps you'd care to explain what that has to do with his comment.

We have discussed this on this thread before but I never got an answer.

Try and equate your response with the actual comment that was made. It might help.

Bigsby says

Oh, I recall them. The question is do you because you appear to be as clueless about that period as every other time in history. But hey, please feel free to explain what occurred during that decade that made going to war with Iraq the outstanding success it wasn't.

No it seems you dont recall the UN resolutions that Saddam keep breaking.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

Bigsby says

And I take it from your handle you were all of 6 years old at the beginning of that period, so hey, feel free to enlighten us all of your first hand experience of that particular time.

Oh do me credit i was much much older than that... But I see you are indeed a coward...

HECK.. dont worry no one is going to draft a coward.. there are plenty of real warriors who will take the fight ... even for your sake.

Bigsby says

Try and equate your response with the actual comment that was made. It might help.

No

thomaswong.1986 says

No it seems you dont recall the UN resolutions that Saddam keep breaking.

Oh, I do. I was actually an adult during that period. Your point being what?

thomaswong.1986 says

Oh do me credit i was much much older than that... But I see you are indeed a coward...

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.
thomaswong.1986 says

HECK.. dont worry no one is going to draft a coward.. there are plenty of real warriors who will take the fight ... even for your sake.

You have to laugh. Were you dressed in your cowboy outfit when you typed that?

Bigsby says

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.

if you want to sit in your little cottage in Cali coast that alright..

but certain you will NOT change the view many had be it in 80s 90s
or what ever...and will will fight with or with out you.. and if you dont like it..

well you can go back to where ever you came from ....

shit im older than you think... and still kicks ass like a youngster..

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.

if you want to sit in your little cottage in Cali coast that alright..

but certain you will NOT change the view many had be it in 80s 90s

or what ever...and will will fight with or with out your.. and if you dont like it..

well you can go back to where ever you came from ....

shit im older than you think... and still kicks ass like a youngster..

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again? As for the rest of your idiotically childish gibberish, well who the fuck knows?

Bigsby says

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again?

and even in Kuwait you dont recall Sadam breaking his agreements for 10 years over inspections to find WMD.

Bigsby says

You derived all that from his response? Impressive powers of complete bullshitting.

you should have stayed in Kuwait.. seems like your place.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again?

and even in Kuwait you dont recall Sadam breaking his agreements for 10 years over inspections to find WMD.

You seem to have singularly missed the point of how that then translates into it being a good idea to invade a sovereign nation even when hindsight demonstrates that it was fucking catastrophic.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You derived all that from his response? Impressive powers of complete bullshitting.

you should have stayed in Kuwait.. seems like your place.

I understand that comprehension of anything isn't your strong point, but just to be clear, I still live in Kuwait, I still have a far better understanding of what is going on in the ME than you, and I still think that you are a clueless bloody idiot who would be best served by keeping your stubby little fingers away from your keyboard.

Bellingham Bill says

again, talking (D) vs (R) confuses the issue.

The real divide in this country is left vs right, liberal vs. conservative, progressive vs. reactionary.

Where would you put Ron Paul in this matrix? Or Bernie Sanders? Dennis Kucinich? I agree that a lot of people distinguish themselves from their political "enemies" along those lines, but there are also quite a few who cannot be categorized that easily. And they often are leaders in preserving civil liberties and freedom while opposing warmongering and fascism.

Bigsby says

I still live in Kuwait, I still have a far better understanding of what is going on in the ME than you, and I still think that you are a clueless bloody idiot who would be best served by keeping your stubby little fingers away from your keyboard.

s
You should stay where your at then.. You still havent spoken about IRAQ, Libya, and Syrians plans to aquired WMD ever since the 70s. Their ties to Terrorist organizations and plenty of wars between them all.

IRAQ war was bound to happen over the past 30 years....

bgamall4 says

No, swaps are unregulated insurance. That is why AIG went belly up. It was not regulated insurance, like regular AIG insurance. But it was insurance.

Always question drivel coming from the NY times.

He means insurance in the sense of a hedge. NOT in the sense of State Farm or life insurance as they are highly regulated.

AIG did not go belly up nor would they have no matter what happened because they are an insurance company and the assets they have are rock solid. The area they got in trouble with was mortgage insurance but that by no means would have put them down it was a small part of their business.

bgamall4 says

Of course. But it was insurance. It insured losses, only problem was that the losses were too great and AIG was bailed out to save GS's ass.

True except not a typical insurance.

I think I recall AIG not wanting the bailout and were suing GS for damages.

bgamall4 says

The Fed is in charge. It is not the government. It has usurped the government.

Do you subscribe to the Jim Mars stuff?

Do you subscribe to the Jim Mars stuff?

bgamall4 says

So, that led to my understanding that nothing much happens by accident. FDR said that very thing.

True but what good does it do you?

Call it Crazy says

BTW, my comment was sarcasm....

I'm sure the generals knew all the details of the agreement but still felt differently about the implementation of it...

Unfortunately, the politicians get the last word...

So why make the comment at all. Bush made the drawdown agreement, Obama honored it. If he didn't honor the right wingnuts would have been just as crazed. That's the reality of dealing with the rabid right, they have no answers, they just know everything is wrong.

Thank god the politicians get the last word, even if they screw it up. The founding fathers didn't want a standing military at all and they were right. Are you suggesting a military coup would be a good thing.?

thomaswong.1986 says

You should stay where your at then.. You still havent spoken about IRAQ, Libya, and Syrians plans to aquired WMD ever since the 70s. Their ties to Terrorist organizations and plenty of wars between them all.

IRAQ war was bound to happen over the past 30 years....

Er, what do you expect me to say? Hmm, 'it's fantastic that brutal dictators were/are developing WMD.' No, no, no, that doesn't sound right. I'll try again. 'It should be of grave international concern when such dictators attempt to develop and/or use WMD. All political and economic sanctions available should be brought to bear with the potential for very limited military action under extraordinary circumstances. Mass ground invasions should not be considered.' Yes, yes, that sounds more like it, most especially because we bloody know that the consequences of the invasion were disastrous.
But hey, most of the time the US (/West) turns a completely blind eye to these types of people anyway as long as they are doing the government's bidding. Remember the huge international reaction to Halabja? Me neither.

Your moaning is meaningless without the context in which that first post was deleted. The second looks like it was deleted for lack of relevance.

bgamall4 says

You are right to a point. And I was too harsh. Sorry. But government protected us in the Great Depression from the banksters. Just because it isn't doing so now does not mean it can't in the future.

The concept of good government becomes less probable the larger it gets.

bgamall4 says

Taxation is not inherently evil.

Depends on the type of tax.

smaulgld says

bgamall4 says

Capitalism has been tried before a failed as well.

Capitalism fails when the capitalists find willing partners in government to back stop their failures, subsidize their success, and write laws to keep competitors at bay, thus ensuring that they reap all the gains without having to serve their customers.

Are you somebody Great?

We need people in Washington saying that stuff!

bgamall4 says

I am saying FDR passed Glass-Steagall and commodity speculation was regulated then.

Whatever good one might point to that big government did in the 30's there are equal if not more examples of abuses- destroying crops and livestock, leaving government "make work" workers (many WWI veterans) vulnerable to a killer hurricane http://hnn.us/article/16158

bgamall4 says

No, in reality they are two different entities. Don't be fooled. Who cares if the president appoints. The 9th circuit court affirmed that the Fed is a private bank and it has a private constituency.

The Fed is a private bank chartered by the US government. It was an act of government relinquishing power to a private entity.

Strategist says

I don't think so. Rules have changed to prevent banks taking undue risk at potentially tax payer expense.

One way of doing it is to ditch the FDIC. Leave the banks to their own devices. Prudent banks won't gamble with depositor money and will pay interest. Ones that don't will go out of business and people will be more careful where they store their money.

Tax payers should not be on the hook for banking mistakes.

CaptainShuddup says

Are you somebody Great?

We need people in Washington saying that stuff!

Send Smaulgld.com to Washington!

Call it Crazy says

But since you're clueless, I'll explain it for you. My posts were to show certain people that rants to try and prove that the Repubs were 100% at fault for Iraq were absolutely not true.... There were MANY Dems that supported the reason we went in. You even had a DEM president that launched attacks for the SAME reason Bush used... a bit of hypocrisy, don't you think??

What dem president attacked iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction and needed to be democratic?

The neocon chickenhawk republican administration of GWB dreamed up the war in iraq, sold the war in iraq to the world, sent the troops into iraq, and declared mission accomplished. There is only one place for blame to be laid.

Entitlemented says

On the propaganda, name one item that you can logically dismiss using past historicals or logical induction.

You attributed massive cause and effect where there is no evidence of it's existance other than in your imagination or the imagination of right wing boobs.

And you want to talk about logical induction ? Nice try.

Entitlemented says

8) Obama does nothing in Syria. Russia sees this and goes into Ukraine.

9) Korea sees this and tests missiles frequently

10) China sees this and is trying to gain islands around their sea in conflict with Japan, Vietnam etc.

11) The complete lack of foreign policy, the fast withdrawals is saying to all communists (or wish they were ) countries that we are losing our will, and so with that Europe as well.

bgamall4 says

My parents and the greatest generation admired FDR.

I am not rewriting history. Reagan admired FDR too. Who admired him and for how long doesn't detract from the man's record.

Try this book- New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
Burton Folsom, Jr.

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

One way of doing it is to ditch the FDIC.

The plan of Larry Summers is a cashless society. That would force you to put your money in the bank or spend it. They could have negative interest rates. How well would getting rid of FDIC work in that bankster NWO scenario? You sound like Mish.

If the FDIC goes, just put your money under the mattress, until they force you to do otherwise.

I don't think it will force people to put their money in mattresses. It may force banks to start banking responsibly- ie serving their customers without which they would not be in business.

The banks' customers today are not the depositors but the government- they buy and sell their bonds, underwrite their states and cities' bonds and count on the federal government to bail them out.

smaulgld says

How well would getting rid of FDIC work in that bankster NWO scenario?

It would take away a guaranteed protection the TBTF banks have. The creation of the FDIC was a government program designed in the 1930's to get the masses comfortable again with putting money back into the "NWO banks". Without the government insurance people would have put money elsewhere outside that banking system.

bgamall4 says

The alternative would have been much worse.

Who knows. The biggest problem with economics is there are so many variable and it is impossible to do A/B testing

smaulgld says

You sound like Mish

and sometimes I sound like you!

Call it Crazy says

On December 16, 1998 President Bill Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Clinton said, "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Whoa - wait a minute, are you suggesting it Clintons fault?

mell says

Where would you put Ron Paul in this matrix? Or Bernie Sanders? Dennis Kucinich?

the fact that these rather anti-war politicians are extreme fringe who have zero ability to win national office -- our pro-war media and general (if latent) pro-war socio-political bias

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/naturally_the_common_people_don-t_want_war/339098.html

underscores the point that the fault is largely in ourselves, not our politicians.

LBJ got stampeded into eventually sending half a million troops into Vietnam via this dynamic of not being able to afford, politically, to look "weak" on "defense" aka national security.

And this fault is not a flaw of liberal thought, it is conservatives banging on the war gong every. chance. they. get, per the Goering quote above.

The only exception to this is the pro-German Establishment in the 1930s -- W's grandfather's clique who wanted to stay out of WW I and WW II prior to PH.

But even Lindbergh flew missions against Japan, LOL.

In 2002 the public polling was curious; 1/3 of the country had a hard-on for "taking Saddam out", 1/3 was strongly against it, and 1/3 was in the mushy middle that was willing to go along if the action had UN sanction, etc.

This last group largely shifted into the first group once Bush sent in our troops anyway, without the UN pre-approval, just the "Coalition of the Willing", Blair, Spain, Portugal, and, let's not forget, Poland.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2007/stories/20030411004911500.htm