GameBanshee Forums

Considering the current state of the US (=/=global) financial system, I think it is safe to say that we will see another US initiated local armed conflict in the near future.
The administration (and the forces behind it) need to solve the problem of the huge national debt and other well-known issues. Up till now they've been finding salvation in the exultant printing of "green paper", but as any sane person might understand, this policy cannot last forever. Right now there is no easy way out of the crisis - only painstaking and harsh measures can give the economy a new hope, and the longer they are postponed the less likely they are to work.
Since a shift (or rather - a revolution) in the economic policy may no longer be enough, other instruments will be brought into play, those that America already used with varying success in the past. Recent incidents between N. and South Korea, the growing tension on the Columbia-Venezuela border and the Iran deadlock show that Washington is currently stalling for the most politically lucrative moment/place to strike. Only time will tell what card will be played next.
Discuss.

PS. The painful economic transition I was referring to in the above post is the transition from the "stock-market" economic model to the grounded in reality "old-fashioned" production based model (major).

So...because our economy is in the crapper from starting a war in a country for flimsy reasons, you believe that the solution to this problem is highly likely to be to start another war in a country for flimsy reasons?

"because our economy is in the crapper from starting a war in a country for flimsy reasons"

No among the other reasons for economic instability, the main trigger for the current problems stem from irresponsible lending to people and institutions that couldn't afford them, i.e. over 'investment' in the sub-prime market.

That doesn't mean that I believe that starting another war for flimsy reasons is the answer mind. Although the fact that Obama is extending one for flimsy reasons, after lieing about his intentions all the way through the election campaign, does make one wonder.

Sadly if the US does decide to go that route it's pet poodle, the UK, will no doubt slavishly follow it's master.

The US has declared many regions of the world areas of its national interest. It's only natural that national interests must be protected, however, as in all things, a price must be paid (both pecuniary and people-wise). The key to this equation is that the main benefits of military operations are reaped by big corporations and government affiliated power groups, while the price is of course paid by the common soldiers, mothers who lost their sons and in the end by all taxpayers. Its a matter of balancing profit and loss, but in the case of oil-rich regions like Venezuela and Iraq the former can easily outweigh the latter in the event of (even partial) success. Its a gamble, I admit, but why wouldnt you gamble with resources that aren't even yours? ) Its a win-win scenario and the administration can be blamed for all mistakes and discarded when necessary.
"In exchange" the populace is presented with a clear and tangible object of hate, be it Al Qaida, WMD in Iraq or Venezuelan "communists". The nature of the scarecrow is nonessential as long as it does its job of distracting everyones attention from the real issues nations face at the moment (their name be legion). Certainly the PR-apparatus must be activated to downplay losses and underscore gains of these campaigns.
Notice that I do not insist on the exclusiveness of economic factors in these equations, political considerations also play their part (often they are so intertwined as to be near inseparable),

Sorry for a long post

The whole middle east thing, it's really a clusterf*** of awfulness right now and I'm willing to give obama the benefit of the doubt and admit he has a lot on his hands and can't just outright pull out without thinking of the consequences.

I don't like us being there and I don't like Obama not really doing anything about it yet but considering the major crap pile Bush left for Obama, whatever.


If we start a full blown war in another country again though, I'm getting the hell out and moving to Canada.

Siberys wrote: If we start a full blown war in another country again though, I'm getting the hell out and moving to Canada.

Don't get too enthused.. It's hardly all roses and sunshine up here either...
For the past several years we've had minority governments headed by a guy who is basically a Dick Cheney clone. The only thing stopping him from tilting full-on to the right and demolishing institutions like universal healthcare is that voters would toss him out on his ear (It would be the equivalent of Obama banning guns). Not that I generally have much use for the average Cdn voter, but that's another topic entirely.

Oh I've already accepted the fact that there is at least one person who is pure evil and actually has power in every country, like Dick Cheney.

Even so, Canada is still a damn sight better than America at the moment. I mean, I don't hear things from Canada about how an army jock went online as Bradass87 (who's real name is Brad and was born in 1987 making him ridiculously easy to track) decided to send over 92,000 documents of classified military secrets on tapes labeled "Lady gaga," and the only thing he did to disguise it was lip sync to a couple of songs at the beginning of the CD.

I like Jon Stewart, hilarious person, but just once I'd like him to be out of a job because of a lack of funny material.

Siberys wrote:The whole middle east thing, it's really a clusterf*** of awfulness right now

Middle East was never the most stable region of the world, and I agree that now it looks worse than ever (one cannot help but ask oneself why). Whatever happens, America will never permit its main ally here (Israel) to come to harm, and here lurks the most obvious potential for new conflicts.

I'd like to digress a bit and speak about the cultural/ideological aspect of the latest American military campaigns. The official motto was about bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. And so at first American soldiers were genuinely amazed when instead of flower strewn streets they met with mistrust and often open hostility of the locals - "I mean, what the ****? We' ve liberated these guys, right?" Here we witness a fundamental cultural blindness, which is forgivable on the level of the common joe, but unacceptable on the level of strategic planning\goal-setting. When Iraqi/Afghan citizen sees foreign soldiers in his backyard putting his countrymen face down in the dust, does he think about the ideals of the American constitution (which he knows/little nothing about) or does he maybe think about something else?

Another common misconception widely-spread in the West is that the westernized democratic model of governance is not only universally applicable, but is also universally accepted and admired. Evolution of society and its institutions gradually brings about change in the political structure of each nation, these changes have to be understood and endorsed by the majority of the indigenous population. Therefore an outside attempt to convert eg. a totalitarian society into a democracy is of necessity doomed from the start.

Will probably add more later on.

With all possible respect if the US truly wanted a more stable world it would stick to it's own borders fro a bit and let the rest of the world settle it's own differences. This of coarse would have to be helped along by any other world scale powers doing the same. The very best thing that could happen to the middle east right now would be for the entire world to ignore it and let them settle things. Not going to happen.

Starting some kind of war has been traditionally something of a distracting element for the people over the last 20 years or so. Not popular at home? That's OK crush a third world country into oblivion, say it is for national security and watch the population feel better about things so you can get that second term.

Unfortunately I have seen very little sign that the financial markets have learned anything from 2008. Next time they screw the pooch I say let em fry and switch to metal currency until bankers actually learn money actually has to be backed up by something of value to work. I think every 1st world government should be working on that contingency right now.

I think I am done ranting now.

Sidenote: to anyone who craves a gulp of fresh air in the stale climate of government controlled media I recommend the resource wikileaks.org, while its still out there...
Don't let them play you for a fool.

And to the above poster - markets will learn the hard way, its only a question of time.

Pekka wrote:markets will learn the hard way, its only a question of time.

Don't hold your breath, it''s been four hundred years since the 'South Sea Bubble' and they ain't learned yet!

galraen wrote:Don't hold your breath, it''s been four hundred years since the 'South Sea Bubble' and they ain't learned yet!

And when you get right down to it the huge tulip craze in Holland was no more absurd than the subprime market. IF we do not let the current banking system burn for it's absurdity it will never learn. The big banks essentially got a "get off scott free for ruining the economy" card.

It's naive at best to believe they have learned anything.

jklinders wrote:It's naive at best to believe they have learned anything.

Now let's be fair here - they learnt that if they really get into trouble through their own criminal negligence they'll get bailed out with sweet FA cost to them. That's a valuable lesson.

Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:Now let's be fair here - they learnt that if they really get into trouble through their own criminal negligence they'll get bailed out with sweet FA cost to them. That's a valuable lesson.

Hence my get off scott free remark Nothings gonna change simply because regulation is the only safeguard from this idiocy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper up here wanted desperately to deregulate our markets up here too but could not swing the votes. When the whole damn house of cards came down in 08 he tried to take credit for us only being partially flushed down the drain.

Regulation is very much a four letter word in the US. I think the idiot bankers should be stripped of every penny they own to pay back what they lost while playing the stock market with fake money. Then afterwards be shot as an example.

Do you know that there are special trader programs on the market that make thousands of transactions per second, buying and selling stocks? Once they replace all human players, we'll be on our way to the virtual paradise. At least all those jobless computer/cellphone appendages will actually have to make something tangible to earn a living.

Found this amusing vid on youtube: YouTube - ‪Obama and Rockefeller 1‬‎

I don't want to see another war. We have to end our Military Industrial Complex. American should never be in a permanent war economy.

I think we got a winner.

dragon wench wrote:Don't get too enthused.. It's hardly all roses and sunshine up here either...
For the past several years we've had minority governments headed by a guy who is basically a Dick Cheney clone. The only thing stopping him from tilting full-on to the right and demolishing institutions like universal healthcare is that voters would toss him out on his ear (It would be the equivalent of Obama banning guns). Not that I generally have much use for the average Cdn voter, but that's another topic entirely.

As opposed to Dion, who wanted to pull a Trudeau with a "screw the West" tax scheme. Or Ignatieff, who seems more interested in throwing around his ever-diminishing political capital than taking the time to get his party back together. Or Layton, who criticizes others for being too American from democratic party functions or speeches in the States. Or May, who still hasn't managed to put the Green on the map and seems to have lost the attention of the electorate altogether. Or the Bloq which seems to be revving for another round of bawling for separation which fewer Quebecers than ever have wanted.

We don't have any leaders worth leading the country at the moment. I want Harper gone, but I certainly don't want any of the other parties to come in, especially with the sense of entitlement the Liberals possess. In my mind, the best thing that could happen is Harper stepping aside for a more centrist Conservative member and the Liberals being reduced to third party status behind the NDP so they can take the time to rebuild rather than bailing out a boat which is sinking like crazy.

To be honest, I really felt like calling Harper "Bush-like" or "Cheney-like" is an overstatement, and is a stance which causes a knee-jerk polarization of the topic from others who may be more inclined towards Harper, which reduces a topic unnecessarily to a black and white format. Sorry if I'm bugging you on this one but I think calling Harper "Cheney" is way across the line. After all, he still hasn't managed to get us into any wars, hasn't given support to terrorist groups who later bit us in the ass, or got super friendly with dictatorships. That was more of a Liberal party (not-so-liberal these days) thing. :laugh: