Yes which led to hostages 20 or so years later, and then Iran vs Iraq, Iraq refusing to pay back loan to kuwait, instead invading kuwait, and then first gulf war, and then troops in Saudi Arabia which led to al-Qaeda, and then 9/11 and so on and so on.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Forgot to mention Nixon and Carter propping up the Shah which contributed greatly to the all the dominoes falling. And also Reagan reneging on a secret deal made with hostage takers during 1980 presidential campaign. Zbigniew Brzezinski also played his part in the Carter administration.
Not funny
His doppelgänger in more than name may become the next speaker of the House.
McCarthy allies say he wants to be speaker, not chief of staff
His doppelgänger in more than name may become the next speaker of the House.McCarthy allies say he wants to be speaker, not chief of staff
Thank goodness we got a tax plan to shovel some more towards the military
The irony, as painful and sharp as a burst appendix, is that massive new increases in military spending are to retain and enhance our ability to start multiple wars anywhere around the world, while the poor men and women in the armed forces are exhausted by the last and current round of wars and the couple of trillion dollars spent (or to be spent on veterans care) on those all went on the National Debt credit card. Monthly payments mainly to China. China can easily afford to ease up on it's protectionist tariffs and foreign ownership restrictions and look like the new adult on the world stage as the U.S. falls into the orchestra pit. U.S. is becoming more irrelevant in the world every month under the great leader, except for it's ability to start new wars it can't afford. And spend hundreds of billions on new military hardware rather than investing in it's deteriorating infrastructure.
Also, in a way if we are lucky to avoid the war or wars anticipated by the wrong hardware spending, we know terrorism is usually the result of failed states. In Syria's case the failure of Asad to deal with disaffected farmers wiped out by a drought, probably augmented by global warming. In public when the Committee on the Present Danger was again alerting us of the Russian threat prior to and during the Carter/Reagan military buildup of missiles, former CIA Director William Colby couldn't understand that concern. He said, "I'm more worried about Mexico." Drugs, immigration, whatever, I don't remember his case. At the time I thought he was saying, "we must make them rich."
On the military front I would urge investing in defense against cyber war, perhaps in collaboration with the Russians, Chinese and lessor and more neutral partners, like the Swiss. (Not to neglect the pool of talent untapped in Africa and elsewhere.)
We must also make rich many at home and abroad.
Last week at monthly lunch with my local brain trust:
The politician asked the distinguished economist what he found important about the recent comprehensive tax reform bill. His immediate response replicated most of the arguments we have heard on these fora. Generic (not exact, from memory). "It violates all of what we teach as economists in Econ 101 by a massive shift of resources to those least likely to spend it and more likely to invest in the wrong things," where I barged in to his clear annoyance, "but Tesla is investing in the right things." But he persisted, "I'm not talking about the spending of those who have on things they want. I'm talking about those who don't where real contribution to GNP is massive and where people have needs even at the subsistence level." Bread, not cars.
The politician tried to take charge again, What about the recent jobs report, he, and I interrupted again, "it was only 103,000!" But in his quiet voice the distinguished economist continued with an empirical observation. "There may already be objective evidence of the negative effect of the skewed tax cuts. The projected increase in jobs by economists was 190,000. That's a gap between actual reports of nearly 90,000. That's incredible." The rest of the discussion was sports at which I don't even speak the language except to blurt out an expletive not worthy of this family-oriented forum.
We need to see whether that "trend" of job reporting gap continues. I know there are ways economists talk about actual or anticipated reports, say, on trends versus possible full employment. Further, my takeaway with my friends' clarifications, did not include the problematical differences in job reporting which are well understood. See Five Thirty-eight discussions. If memory serves, one should take U3 with a grain of salt, 70 to 120 thousands plus or minus, and the real worry is U6.
On the military front I would urge investing in defense against cyber war, perhaps in collaboration with the Russians, Chinese and lessor and more neutral partners, like the Swiss. (Not to neglect the pool of talent untapped in Africa and elsewhere.)
We must also make rich many at home and abroad.
Last week at monthly lunch with my local brain trust:
The politician asked the distinguished economist what he found important about the recent comprehensive tax reform bill. His immediate response replicated most of the arguments we have heard on these fora. Generic (not exact, from memory). "It violates all of what we teach as economists in Econ 101 by a massive shift of resources to those least likely to spend it and more likely to invest in the wrong things," where I barged in to his clear annoyance, "but Tesla is investing in the right things." But he persisted, "I'm not talking about the spending of those who have on things they want. I'm talking about those who don't where real contribution to GNP is massive and where people have needs even at the subsistence level." Bread, not cars.
The politician tried to take charge again, What about the recent jobs report, he, and I interrupted again, "it was only 103,000!" But in his quiet voice the distinguished economist continued with an empirical observation. "There may already be objective evidence of the negative effect of the skewed tax cuts. The projected increase in jobs by economists was 190,000. That's a gap between actual reports of nearly 90,000. That's incredible." The rest of the discussion was sports at which I don't even speak the language except to blurt out an expletive not worthy of this family-oriented forum.
We need to see whether that "trend" of job reporting gap continues. I know there are ways economists talk about actual or anticipated reports, say, on trends versus possible full employment. Further, my takeaway with my friends' clarifications, did not include the problematical differences in job reporting which are well understood. See Five Thirty-eight discussions. If memory serves, one should take U3 with a grain of salt, 70 to 120 thousands plus or minus, and the real worry is U6.
To add to this, the Soviet Union collapsed because its military budget was too much to bear.
What to do...Vote for one thing. But the problem with that is the curios case of all those that vote against their own self interest.
Those of us in flyover country see/hear it all the time. The "other" must be stopped and the current orange oligarch is the only one to do it.
Never mind the real riches that could be found as the world leader in solar/wind turbines/battery storage ect.
Instead lets dig up more coal and frack our way to a hotter more unstable planet. Thereby needing more military power to deal with the inevitable fall out.
Those of us in flyover country see/hear it all the time. The "other" must be stopped and the current orange oligarch is the only one to do it.
Never mind the real riches that could be found as the world leader in solar/wind turbines/battery storage ect.
Instead lets dig up more coal and frack our way to a hotter more unstable planet. Thereby needing more military power to deal with the inevitable fall out.
Attorney/client privilege only covers communication on legal matters and advice. Doesn't cover business dealings, nor discussions regarding criminal activities by attorney alone or with client. A team of prosecutors (separate from the ones whose investigations uncovered evidence of crimes by Cohen, which convinced the responsible Judge to grant the search warrants so destruction of evidence could be prevented) is reviewing all seized evidence to exclude any communications that may be covered by legitimate attorney/client privilege. Finally the raid was approved and signed off by the deputy attorney general, life long Republican and Trump appointee Rob Rosenstein. This is all part of 'due process'.
As this unfolds, it is a great idea to use the internet to find objective explanations of important (but less than familiar to many) democratic concepts like 'the rule of law'. This article details how far back the concept of 'no man is above the law' goes, and how the U.S. founders set up systems of checks and balances to ensure the rule of law would be maintained in times like these. That is the peeling away of the checks on power to obstruct justice.
https://www.americanbar.org/content...ed/features/Part1DialogueROL.authcheckdam.pdf
It's funny and appropriate that a porn star would be the downfall of Trump. Dems should easily win back the house but we could see constitutional crisis before that happens. What a tangled web we weave. Thanks Facebook.Not funny
McCarthy allies say he wants to be speaker, not chief of staff
Certainly did not help the Soviet economy. There's an Atlantic article cerca 1989 which claimed the CIA determined there was little increase in Soviet military spending during the period of Carter/Reagan buildup. (Stable with inflation in rubles.) I've remarked above, I believe, that among the fumbling efforts to reform the economy Gorbachev was also inept at affirmative action so the proximate, if not the main cause of collapse was clumsy handling of the nationalities question. That resulted as he took aim at corruption in the other republics, and even Russia. If I remember correctly even Tartarstan declared independence completely surrounded by Russia. Though issues in Nagorno-Karabakh started the decline, an exemplar of his policy mistake was putting a Russian in as head of Kazakhstan. He didn't even speak the local language just as the titular nationality achieved a plurality if not a majority of population. Stalin's successful determination of boundaries (divide and conquer) when he was Commissar of Nationalities bore fruit only with the treat of force from the center. At one point in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (mostly Christian and Armenian, surrounded by Azerbaijian, mostly Muslim) the locals seized the tank of a general! A quick google revealed conflict is still hot there.
What most Americans don't know is that letting go of Eastern Europe actually helped the Soviet economy as it was heavily subsidized by Moscow, probably mostly through oil and gas pricing advantages. When I was doing my dissertation I came across an article by an economist named Horst Mendershausen who asserted as early as 1950 the terms of trade with Eastern Europe were very unfavorable to the Russians and Moscow did not know it.
Last edited:
The US shouldn't be worried of anyone :
Spending the most money doesn't mean you get a military which actually *works*.
The US was defeated in Afghanistan by guys in caves.
Tbh this is completely different.
Afghanistan was like looking for a needle in a hay stack.
A true war like invading a country and taking full control, the US would completely obliterate any other country.
Basically, an answer relating to it :
"
There have been a lot of military simulations and training exercises trying to answer this question, and the answer is always the same:
The US wins every single time, especially if we got pushed back and fought a defensive war on our own soil.
The US has a lot of factors that would help it win a war against the world.
The US Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world. We have 430 ships in active service and reserves, and the most amount of aircraft carriers in the world. France and the US are the only countries to operate nuclear powered aircraft carriers. France has 1, and the US has 11, so no contest there.
Any attempt to invade the US by crossing the ocean would be stopped by the US Navy, and don’t forget the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has plenty of C-130s and other aircraft that could be used as reconnaissance and liaison planes.
The US military also has air power on its side. The US has over 14,000 aircraft on its side spread out over the 5 branches. That’s larger than the next 7 largest combined. They would completely destroy any enemy air support, which would give use complete control of the skies. That would allow us to attack when we please. They have enough aircraft to patrol the coast and intercept any enemy fighters and bombers, and still have enough to cover our troops and armor, which brings me to my next point.
The Army and the Marine Corps have 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks spread out between them, not including the M60 Pattons in reserve. The M1 Abrams is the most powerful tank in the world, and would destroy any opponent in a land battle. On top of that, AH-64 Apaches and AH-1 Cobras would provide support and covering fire.
Also, 43% of Americans own guns, and they won’t stand idly by while there’s an enemy army marching through their neighborhood, and don’t forget the 21.8 million veterans that probably won’t hesitate to reenlist if the situation calls for it.
America isn’t just scary, it is formidable, especially when you attack her own soil. "
Yes, and a single modern electric sub can take out a U.S. super carrier worth 5 billion and it's planes worth 10 to 20 billion.
Mod: unless you count von Clausewitz, who said "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.", I'm going to request that we don't go down this path, as it is not market politics. Also, @Starno, if you quote something please also give the attribution. --ggr.
Cohen Threat Addendum, Stormy Market Tomorrow?
A coverup need not be a crime when successful, even when a crime has been committed as we often see years later–especially where the statute of limitations has worked its timely magic. Coverup of a political embarrassment once discovered is an entirely different animal given intense media interest in all celebrities. BFO.
Weinstein may be spared by the media because his cover worked, at least earlier, but Trump certainly believes attacking his attorney unfair. He’s so intent on cover he believes such investigations are “an attack on America.” Thus he wraps himself in the armor of the flag whilst planning an attack on another country. And so the recent Syrian bombing is considered by some in the media a real-life “Wag the Dog” incident. That would be tragic if true, but probably unknowable in any case.
Knowable is Trump and his lawyers are their own worst enemies, just like Nixon and Clinton. That’s where coverup becomes a potential crime. There are a few ironies so wild they both provide evidence in themselves of crime, but a good deal of hilarity. Even the redoubtable Sean Hannity is now implicated and may potentially be fired like his mentor, Roger Ailes, and co-worker, Bill O’Reilly. Certainly he is compromised.
I have no idea whether Trump plays poker. His tweets and interviews, especially those released to us by Russian media, reveal “tells” of collusion with Russians if not Putin. Also, as some attorneys have argued, there is his statement on Air Force One. No communication, no privilege, no reason for the Feds not to swoop and snoop away.
Hilarity and Shady/Incompetent Lawyers
It is often the case a fixer-attorney will be considered a shady lawyer because, like a good tax advisor, they use the limits of the law to protect their clients. When they are successful they may be rewarded with high government positions like James A. Baker, a fixer for the Bush family. On the Democratic side you have Clark Clifford who advised all Democratic presidents during the Cold War but eventually had his comeuppence when connected to the BCCI scandal.
Mr. Trump has a shady lawyer who is so shady he can’t shade himself and in the process simultaneously makes his clients look bad! Already one, a high RNC official has resigned once news of his “love conception” was uncovered.
Hilarious to behold is the situation revealed only this day in the courtroom of Federal Judge Kimba Wood. As a CNN attorney/consultant disclosed, Michael Cohen may well regret his petition for injunction to stop the government from using the contents, or at least delaying it and causing request only for subpoena. He has been forced to massively protect the name of his client, Sean Hannity. Hannity claims that is not true. He only contacted Cohen for discussions of legal matters as a reporter. His denial may well be another cleansing agent like Trump’s on Air Force One. Then the prosecutor can use any communications with Hannity, say, “How can I help the president lie about his Russian connection in my next broadcast?” Echoes of Watergate; are we at the Butterfield tapes stage in this investigation?
Another attorney, hoisted by his own petard, because he has a petard for a client, among other clients who are petards, who are implicated and hoisted as well in time.
In short: Something smells in Denmark. A real Shakespearian drama, our Washington, when the FBI is sniffing around. Wasn’t it Jack Webb, quite a television personality in his time, who said “the FBI always gets its man.”
It
It would be funny if it was not so depressing and sad.
Instead of a corny netflix series this is playing out in real time with real consequences.
It would be funny if it was not so depressing and sad.
Instead of a corny netflix series this is playing out in real time with real consequences.
Moving this to market politics ...
I don't see how Big Brother AI supports "greater autonomy for citizens and some democracy." But seems like a great tool to suppress dissent and enable totalitarianism. China’s people surveillance AI startup tops $4.5B valuation
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
One drone sub could put a nuclear warhead a few hundred miles off the US coast.
Nearly everything you typed was rendered irrelivant between 1945 and 1990. Guns? No sincere existential war involving the US will be fought in that fashion again.
Agreed. But on the other hand please consider since we are supposedly schooled in democracy and the virtues of civil rights and civil liberties while the Chinese live in a different historical and social context.
Unfortunately people are lazy. Jefferson always felt democracy required an informed electorate and much depends upon leadership and what it does. Hillary Clinton herself and other so-called liberals were not informed about, or better, were incapable of imagining the misery and desperation of Appalachia (symbolic of less educated voters). Bernie Sanders was aware and thus able to extend sympathetic understanding of those including women, minorities, the young, and white men everywhere. However, millions of women of a generation felt their time had come. I had an interesting encounter during the Democratic primary battle with a friend, also a retired professor, who is a wonderful chemist, Harvard Ph.D. and a shrewd social observer. She and her oldest daughter planned to vote for Hillary, while her youngest, now a professor, was for Bernie, schooling me on the age break.
Less well educated are concentrated in Appalachia, rural, and central parts of the country. That's a lot of Trump support, and now and in future they will benefit least from Congress' priorities as many have said here. So expect trouble as things get worse.
In China, on the other hand, the middle class is growing and thus willing to put up with a lot of clear **sugar** so long as the party delivers. (Think Chinese Joe Sixpacks who could care less so long as the money keeps coming.) Presently Xi is concentrating on the carrot, abroad and at home. He already has powerful tools at his command. He's also stoking nationalism, just like Trump. The most frightening to me are recent changes permitting life-time tenure as president and enshrining in the constitution priority for his policies. He doesn't need AI; it's an insurance play now. In future it may be necessary when the house of cards is shuffled again by history. Give or take a generation or so and we will see how things turn out.
George Orwell was so ahead of his time.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
