|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Just now watching the Today program. Of course, they are reporting all the crazy stuff going on over there. But it appears that the world is waiting to see what Obama will do. I guess he's weighing our options.
I have a question, why do we have to do anything? I mean, it's not like we need to get tied up in another conflict.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
Well, when you use phrases like "game changer" and "red line," and the other side calls your bluff, you have the choice of either getting involved where you shouldn't, or looking like a spineless pushover with little credibility.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Quote:
Well, when you use phrases like "game changer" and "red line," and the other side calls your bluff, you have the choice of either getting involved where you shouldn't, or looking like a spineless pushover with little credibility.
Ah, that's sticks and stones..
I'm looking for a reason to get involved and I honestly can't find one.
Yes, it's political unrest and that's never good for the world, but generally, why is it seeming to fall on the US again. aren't you getting tired of being the worlds policeman? I sure as hell am.
The wars in Iraq and Iran and Afganistan have cost us plenty in terms of American lives. Too much.. I haven't even discussed the economic ramifications of those wars yet. (and it sickens me to think about it)
But what my question boils down to is this, why us? Why are we the policemen to the world?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
It may look like sticks and stones on its surface, but I believe it's really a lot more than that. My guess is Obama's statements were meant as a deterrent for using chemical weapons, while at the same time appeasing our multitude of bellicose allies from the Middle East all the way through western Europe. I don't think we had a Plan B.
Now that our hand is forced, not doing anything would make us lose a lot of credibility with our allies, while emboldening Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and others to keep pressing us. If our intention was never to intervene military, we shouldn't have blatantly presented it as an option.
This is quite a big proxie war.. My guess, though, is that this will be more similar to the Balkans. I highly doubt we're going to see any boots on the ground. I do expect missile strikes.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929 |
j/c "If the United States decides to take military action, it will likely do so with allies. Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons." If the United States decides to take military action, it will likely do so with allies. Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/25/syria-chemical-weapons/2696649/I say let Britain and France take charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
What's the phrase? "I'd rather have a German army in front of me than a French army behind me." What's the phrase for wanting to be behind a French army? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
I understand the whole paper tiger thing when it comes to red lines and such. Obama has already shown weakness, imho, and I expect nothing more or less from him. Russia is winning a new cold war. Syria and the Snowden train wreck are the latest.
I have been wishy washy on this Syria thing as I see no positives coming from doing nothing and no positives from doing something. JUST ONCE, I think we should let the French, Brittish or whomever be the trigger pullers to start this thing. Then I don't have an issue lobbing missiles on these guys even though it will just be another vacuum created for those even more extreme to come into power. In an ideal world some other Mid-East country deals with this. It's their world over there, but alas they always do nothing, quietly asking the US to do the dirty work and give them cash and then spit on our backs.
I just hope this thing doesn't get to the point where the Israelis have to take care of their own backyard.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,852
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,852 |
The Middle east is all about strength, and the perception of strength.
How do you think that Saddam stayed in power for so long.
"The people" in most countries in the Middle east have little power, and no leader of a country wants to look weak enough that those same weak and powerless people could bring him down. (especially since exactly that happened in Egypt) Hyberbole and rhetoric almost always mixed with religious fervor and a strong security force and military is how the despotic leaders stay in power. (and alive)
If we decide to take a path of looking weak, then we will be seen as weak. If we are seen as weak by the more radical forces in the Middle East., it will be sold as Satan starting to fall .... and an invitation to attack us.
Is it sticks and stones ...? not really. Perception is reality in that part of the world, and we need to be perceived as strong for our own safety.911 happened because we were hit with escalating degrees of attacks, and did little to respond. Unfortunately, that's how it works in the Middle East.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348 |
So, does anyone have a Clif Notes version of what is going on over there?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
I really wasn't trying to make this about politics or Obama or any of that rubbish.
I just wanna know why we have to be the worlds police force. I mean, OK,, you want us to clean up a mess.. then two things have to happen..
1. Don't tell us how and once it's done, shut up and go away
2. Pay us
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
How do you think that Saddam stayed in power for so long.
The United States of America is as good an answer as any.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
"Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons."
Maybe I'm missing the point.. it is estimated that more than 70,000 have died in Syria due to this fighting in the last couple years and most of the world has stood by and done nothing... now they think a few hundred might have been killed by a chemical agent and suddenly everybody is supposed to respond?
To put that in perspective, 70,000 (according to CNN) is about .311% of the population.. by comparison, that would mean almost one million deaths by percentage to the US population...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
Arab Spring - peaceful protests
Peaceful protesters arrested
More protests as a result of arrests
Violence and killing of protesters
Rioting
More crackdown
Becomes Sunni v. Shia revolution
Full military assault against revolution
Foreigners (e.g. AQ fight alongside rebels)
Rebels start taking over important cities/territory
Russia/Iran begin to back Syria. Both provide arms
Saudi Arabia/Qatar/UAE/US/Western Europe back rebels. Arab countries and Europe provide arms
Obama talks about Syria using chemical weapons as "red line" creating "game changer"
Rebels keep gaining
A few reports come out that Assad uses sarin gas
Hezbollah gets involved and fights with Assad
Cities/territories recaptured by Hezbollah/Assad
U.S. cites evidence of sarin gas and says it will provide arms to rebels. Hasn't yet.
Rebels regain grounds in other areas
Over 100,000 dead
Millions displaced to other countries
Wider evidence of other incidents of sarin gas
World waits for U.S. response
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
Maybe I'm missing the point.. it is estimated that more than 70,000 have died in Syria due to this fighting in the last couple years and most of the world has stood by and done nothing... now they think a few hundred might have been killed by a chemical agent and suddenly everybody is supposed to respond?
I see it with two things
1) As someone said, our credibility. There's nothing worse than saying there's a consequence and not following through. That applies to work, it applies to when I was a teacher. I imagine it also applies to being a parent.
2) The reason this consequence was made was to make it clear that the use of chemical weapons in warfare is unacceptable. Debate whether it should be or not, that's fine. But it's been one of those sensitive issues that people have made clear. Chemical and Biological Warfare are often seen as off limits. At least with most politicians in this country.
Most countries don't want chem/bio warfare to become the norm. That's why our president drew this line (right or wrong).
They crossed the line, and so our hands are sort of tied. The USA has to show it keeps its word. Especially on something we made as clear as this (and being consequences we have given to another nation).
The way I see it, whether I like it or not, our President tied our hands. We'll be dropping bombs soon. The tide of that war over there will be changing
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 08/26/13 11:03 AM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
Quote:
I really wasn't trying to make this about politics or Obama or any of that rubbish.
I understand that, but the two are not mutually exclusive in this case.
Quote:
I just wanna know why we have to be the worlds police force. I mean, OK,, you want us to clean up a mess.. then two things have to happen..
1. Don't tell us how and once it's done, shut up and go away
2. Pay us
I agree.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
Quote:
j/c
"If the United States decides to take military action, it will likely do so with allies. Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons." If the United States decides to take military action, it will likely do so with allies. Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/25/syria-chemical-weapons/2696649/
I say let Britain and France take charge.
That's fine with me, too. The problem is they took charge in Libya, and while the regime was toppled, by all accounts you could tell those countries engaging in a military conflict without the U.S. leading them looked like the Colts without Manning.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348 |
Quote:
Arab Spring - peaceful protests
Peaceful protesters arrested
More protests as a result of arrests
Violence and killing of protesters
Rioting
More crackdown
Becomes Sunni v. Shia revolution
Full military assault against revolution
Foreigners (e.g. AQ fight alongside rebels)
Rebels start taking over important cities/territory
Russia/Iran begin to back Syria. Both provide arms
Saudi Arabia/Qatar/UAE/US/Western Europe back rebels. Arab countries and Europe provide arms
Obama talks about Syria using chemical weapons as "red line" creating "game changer"
Rebels keep gaining
A few reports come out that Assad uses sarin gas
Hezbollah gets involved and fights with Assad
Cities/territories recaptured by Hezbollah/Assad
U.S. cites evidence of sarin gas and says it will provide arms to rebels. Hasn't yet.
Rebels regain grounds in other areas
Over 100,000 dead
Millions displaced to other countries
Wider evidence of other incidents of sarin gas
World waits for U.S. response
Thanks!
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a US response. If we continue to back the rebels along with Western European allies, then the administration gets labelled as aiding Al Quaida. If it does nothing, it merely gets labelled as doing nothing while people in another country die.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,321
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,321 |
Back the UN thats all we have to do.
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,321
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,321 |
Quote:
What's the phrase?
"I'd rather have a German army in front of me than a French army behind me."
What's the phrase for wanting to be behind a French army?
Switzerland?
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
I hear you. Taking all the humanitarian problems aside, you'd think this would be an idea scenario for the U.S. Our greatest enemies are exhausting themselves fighting against each other.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929 |
Quote:
Quote:
"Britain and France have both advocated a strong response if it is proven that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons."
Maybe I'm missing the point.. it is estimated that more than 70,000 have died in Syria due to this fighting in the last couple years and most of the world has stood by and done nothing... now they think a few hundred might have been killed by a chemical agent and suddenly everybody is supposed to respond?
To put that in perspective, 70,000 (according to CNN) is about .311% of the population.. by comparison, that would mean almost one million deaths by percentage to the US population...
I wasn't trying to make any point, other than exactly what the article said: Britain and France have BOTH advocated a strong response......"
So, let Britain and France advance that "strong response".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
J/C
I hate to see people suffering.
I hate the fact that we are world police, but I also understand why and how its crippled us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I wasn't trying to make any point, other than exactly what the article said: Britain and France have BOTH advocated a strong response......"
So, let Britain and France advance that "strong response".
Sorry Arch, wasn't referring to "your point" as much as I was the point of the debate... why is it ok to kill 70,000 people with conventional weapons but it becomes a global travesty if 300 people die from chemical agents?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Quote:
Quote:
I wasn't trying to make any point, other than exactly what the article said: Britain and France have BOTH advocated a strong response......"
So, let Britain and France advance that "strong response".
Sorry Arch, wasn't referring to "your point" as much as I was the point of the debate... why is it ok to kill 70,000 people with conventional weapons but it becomes a global travesty if 300 people die from chemical agents?
Who says it's ok to kill 70,000 people? It just happens to worry the world even more when a govt uses chemicals to kill more people. Although I don't want to see us get involved with yet another war in the Middle East. NATO will probably be the trigger IMO. Still it's a very sad state of affairs.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wasn't trying to make any point, other than exactly what the article said: Britain and France have BOTH advocated a strong response......"
So, let Britain and France advance that "strong response".
Sorry Arch, wasn't referring to "your point" as much as I was the point of the debate... why is it ok to kill 70,000 people with conventional weapons but it becomes a global travesty if 300 people die from chemical agents?
Who says it's ok to kill 70,000 people? It just happens to worry the world even more when a govt uses chemicals to kill more people. Although I don't want to see us get involved with yet another war in the Middle East. NATO will probably be the trigger IMO. Still it's a very sad state of affairs.
It's terrible,, awful,, Just crazy sick the way the folks over there are being killed. It's disgusting.
But let me ask again, why are WE expected to do something about it. I'm good if we are an EQUAL part of the UN Force to go in there, But I just don't want us to be the lead dog with the most skin in the fight.
France puts in 1000 troops, Britain puts in 1000 troops I'm ok if we match that number with 1000 of ours.
If they put up a Billion each, ok, I'll throw us in for a Billion. But let's get more countries to join in the fight.. Russia, Canada, how about some south american countries. Where's China and Japan in this?
But Ithe idea of us putting in 10000 troops and 5 Billion a month and the rest of the freakin world puts in 500 troops and some chump change in total? No thank you..
I'm tired of spending 10 billion dollars a month when we have the need to develop our own infrastucture here at home,, We have Kids living on the street.. but let's not help them, let's spend a billion on a war that doesn't and never did need fought. We wanted Bin Laden, that's what we need to do. everything else was window dressing.
Does anyone know what it's cost us so far to run the wars we're in right now? I mean from day one to present.. Any ideas? I'm not talking human life, that's a whole other story.
I'll take a dumb guess and say a trillion or more. Probably more like 4 or 5 Trillion. They are saying that at one point, it was costing us 10 Billion a month.. Not sure if that's real. I think it's way higher. Just think of all the graft that is taking place that I guarantee they don't account for when reporting war costs to the public.
And that's just the money angle.. Our troops are getting killed over there.. I'm sick to death of that.
So, back to the question, why is it that we are expected to do anything or lead anything.
It is because we are the strongest nation on the planet? cause if we keep this up, we won't be much longer.
We can't afford to run those wars any more than we can afford all the giveaways here at home. Although, if I'm going to waste money, I'd rather waste it on our citizens rather than anyone else.
That's just my opinion....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wasn't trying to make any point, other than exactly what the article said: Britain and France have BOTH advocated a strong response......"
So, let Britain and France advance that "strong response".
Sorry Arch, wasn't referring to "your point" as much as I was the point of the debate... why is it ok to kill 70,000 people with conventional weapons but it becomes a global travesty if 300 people die from chemical agents?
Who says it's ok to kill 70,000 people? It just happens to worry the world even more when a govt uses chemicals to kill more people. Although I don't want to see us get involved with yet another war in the Middle East. NATO will probably be the trigger IMO. Still it's a very sad state of affairs.
It's terrible,, awful,, Just crazy sick the way the folks over there are being killed. It's disgusting.
But let me ask again, why are WE expected to do something about it. I'm good if we are an EQUAL part of the UN Force to go in there, But I just don't want us to be the lead dog with the most skin in the fight.
France puts in 1000 troops, Britain puts in 1000 troops I'm ok if we match that number with 1000 of ours.
If they put up a Billion each, ok, I'll throw us in for a Billion. But let's get more countries to join in the fight.. Russia, Canada, how about some south american countries. Where's China and Japan in this?
But Ithe idea of us putting in 10000 troops and 5 Billion a month and the rest of the freakin world puts in 500 troops and some chump change in total? No thank you..
I'm tired of spending 10 billion dollars a month when we have the need to develop our own infrastucture here at home,, We have Kids living on the street.. but let's not help them, let's spend a billion on a war that doesn't and never did need fought. We wanted Bin Laden, that's what we need to do. everything else was window dressing.
Does anyone know what it's cost us so far to run the wars we're in right now? I mean from day one to present.. Any ideas? I'm not talking human life, that's a whole other story.
I'll take a dumb guess and say a trillion or more. Probably more like 4 or 5 Trillion. They are saying that at one point, it was costing us 10 Billion a month.. Not sure if that's real. I think it's way higher. Just think of all the graft that is taking place that I guarantee they don't account for when reporting war costs to the public.
And that's just the money angle.. Our troops are getting killed over there.. I'm sick to death of that.
So, back to the question, why is it that we are expected to do anything or lead anything.
It is because we are the strongest nation on the planet? cause if we keep this up, we won't be much longer.
We can't afford to run those wars any more than we can afford all the giveaways here at home. Although, if I'm going to waste money, I'd rather waste it on our citizens rather than anyone else.
That's just my opinion....
I agree. I feel exacly the same way. I just don't understand how China, France, England, Russia and the rest of the world wait for us to act, before gettng involved at all. This is a battle on their side of the Earth! China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror, while reaping many benefits of a stronger economy by staying out of these fights altogether. Then they ignore N Korea. It makes me sick to my stomach when I think about it. I'm with you Daman.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Quote:
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
LOL....and the intrest compounded daily. Isn't that a crock? Maybe we should demand boots on the ground in N. Korea before paying a single cent back now.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Quote:
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
They don't fund the war, they fund us.. We pay for the war.. we still owe China.
They put no skin in the game at all..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171 |
Dawg- you pretty much answered your own question in response to Dam.
Personally, I have no problem with staying out of this mess. I also had no problem with our approach to Libya, even though some called it "leading from behind."
I see nothing wrong with "leading from behind." At least it's leadership of some sort.... as opposed to the junk countries you listed, who do absolutely nothing.
It's well-past the time that others step tf up. Buncha freeloaders.... I have trouble respecting any of them.
.02
p.s. I'd LOVE to see the US adopt a 5-year moratorium on all these dust-ups... just to see which other countries might actually grow a spine.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
They don't fund the war, they fund us.. We pay for the war.. we still owe China.
They put no skin in the game at all..
China's not getting that money back. Most people/nations who lend us at this point are aware that we're likely to topple and default eventually, or at the least extremely fearful of it. Our creditors fund us because we're necessary to their economic or defense structure.
If you believe we're going to pay China back...could you float me a few bucks? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
j/c
I think the 'other guys' only invest the little they do merely to watch us weaken ourselves. If we don't watch it, China is going to fly right by us to become the preeminent country on the planet.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
They don't fund the war, they fund us.. We pay for the war.. we still owe China.
They put no skin in the game at all..
China's not getting that money back. Most people/nations who lend us at this point are aware that we're likely to topple and default eventually, or at the least extremely fearful of it. Our creditors fund us because we're necessary to their economic or defense structure.
If you believe we're going to pay China back...could you float me a few bucks?
I do not believe for 1 second that China does not expect to get their money back.
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong? The way I read your post, you think China is just giving us money with no expectation of being paid back.
ANY country that lends us money fully expects to get their money back one way or another.
You state: "Our creditors fund us because we're necessary to their economic or defense structure."
I ask: How so? If China loans us $1 dollar, so that we can buy 50 cents worth of their products and spend the rest on war/military........how does that help China long term? it doesn't. If we can't afford to pay the interest on the loans.........how does that help China? It doesn't.
What you are insinuating, in my understanding of your post, is that China will give us more money than they think we can re-pay, yet somehow that benefits China? I don't follow that logic. They expect their money back, or else.
It's akin to you lending me money. (your statement.....) Money you know I can't pay back, but you need to give me money so I can continue to have my clothes dry cleaned by you/your company.
Help me out. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,878 |
Just clicking.
If people want to know what Russia and China are doing on this issue, Russia is arming Assad. China is going "whatever Russia says." Both have blocked security council resolutions.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Who says it's ok to kill 70,000 people?
Well nobody technically said "It's ok"... but this little civil war has been dragging on for a couple years and that is a conservative estimate of the number of people that have died and up until this alleged chemical attack, there was no global cry to get involved and do anything about it... so logically, one has to assume that the world is more accepting of tens of thousands of conventional weapons deaths than they are of a few hundred chemical weapons deaths.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I do not believe for 1 second that China does not expect to get their money back.
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong? The way I read your post, you think China is just giving us money with no expectation of being paid back.
ANY country that lends us money fully expects to get their money back one way or another.
'Or another' being the key part of your phrase.
It would be unwise to assume we will repay that debt. But China isn't stupid. They know that.
Think of it like a mob organization lending out to an addict with collateral. Best case, they pay you back with interest. Worst case, you bust them out, figuratively speaking. You force them to burn what's left of their good name for your benefit and leave the husk.
Quote:
I ask: How so? If China loans us $1 dollar, so that we can buy 50 cents worth of their products and spend the rest on war/military........how does that help China long term? it doesn't. If we can't afford to pay the interest on the loans.........how does that help China? It doesn't.
China's rapidly growing economy cannot sustain without us. We are the core of their consumer base.
Right now, economically, if we go, they go. They need us as much as we need them. If we go belly up, they're screwed.
Sooner or later, there's a good chance they will be powerful enough to thrive as we falter, but that wouldn't be until a time when the tables have turned.
We will always have a trump card militarily, but our military acts primarily out of financial interests, and fighting with China would be ill-advised for both sides financially.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
China hasn't helped with anything with the war on terror
You mean outside of funding it?
They don't fund the war, they fund us.. We pay for the war.. we still owe China.
They put no skin in the game at all..
China's not getting that money back. Most people/nations who lend us at this point are aware that we're likely to topple and default eventually, or at the least extremely fearful of it. Our creditors fund us because we're necessary to their economic or defense structure.
If you believe we're going to pay China back...could you float me a few bucks?
Don't confuse what's supposee to happen with what might happen. We ARE SUPPOSED to pay that money back. We are paying interest on that money.
If at some point, its apparent we can't repay it, that's a horse of a different color and at this point, is only what some folks (including you apparently) believe will happen.
But none of those feelings and beliefs change the fact that we are SUPPOSED to pay it back.
that's the assumption we have to work with today..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,929 |
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your original post said "...China is not getting that money back....".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
If two groups that both hate my guts are fighting, I'd be inclined to sit back and let them. I feel bad for the innocents, but they need to get the hell out of there. The only role the UN should have is with regards to refugees, imo. I certainly do not want American fighting forces going into conflict under command of the UN. If, as the saying goes, a camel is a horse created by a committee, then the UN is a double-humper. Pretty much a toothless, worthless organization, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc.
We better be damn sure 100% that it is the work of the Syrian government before we go stomping in there, and not some 3rd party looking to start something.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Syria
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
