quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I'm just gonna point out (even though I'm assuming you're being facetious here) that there is a major difference between having a huge debt and being bankrupt. There are some majorly shady financial dealings in this country - especially in light of the confirmations in the TAL recordings from today - but we're not bankrupt, nor particularly close to it.

As far as ISIS, anyone without a strong opinion hasn't watched the videos. I hope more anti-privacy laws aren't pushed through as a result of their ****, but who can really argue against dealing with them? I somewhat wish that we could support the Kurds more, but here we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
The Peshmerga are key in that region. They may not be doing it out loud but the coalition (the US) is counting on and helping them a lot. Believe it.

---

To the two different thoughts on religion:
- 1, if a religion tells you that it's okay to harm others in the name of that religion then that really isn't religion. Read "The art of Peace"
- 2, I'd agree that if there was no organized religion that people would just find some other reason to kill each other too.

Now if we could only agree on ways to pay off the national debt!

U. S. boots on the ground will not work, and will not stop ISIS. Local populations and nations, including the Kurds, the Free Syrian forces, Iraq (meaning Shia and moderate Sunni) and to a lesser extent, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia must somehow put aside historic differences to be the boots on the ground. If not, all of these countries will be consumed by ISIS strength and the purity of the ISIS message of hate. Historically that message has played well as it empowered forsaken peoples. There should be no expectation that ISIS, left on its own, will play any differently.

Saying that the U. S. is bankrupt is like saying every homeowner with a big mortgage is bankrupt. The Government owes a lot of money, but has a lot of valuable resources as well. More importantly, the government has the ability to collect taxes to pay off debs.

When you exclude Social Security and Medicare, the U.S. Federal government is much smaller today than when Obama took over. This is despite Obama putting ALL government expenses on the books, unlike George Bush, who kept most of the trillion dollar costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars off the books. And this is despite Obama not having huge Social Security surpluses. George Bush was able to reduce operational debt during his administration by almost another trillion because of the huge Social Security surpluses that were collected. Obama has done this despite getting virtually no help from Congress. His one large loan program from 2009 was paid back with interest. There have been no subsequent major job-bills approved.

Given the existing environment, there are rather simple, although politically tough, actions that would immediately and dramatically improve the long-term finances of the U. S.

1 - Reform Social Security. A gradual reduction of benefits paid to about 90% of current expectations, combined with a 5% annual increase in the top earnings that can be taxed (or alternately, 2% total contributions on earnings above the wage maximum, or 1% total contributions to Social Security on passive income).

Social Security will be a drag on the U. S. budget for at least the next 30 years, because the U. S. collected trillions in surpluses and now must pay that money back to beneficiaries. Problem is that the government spent that money, with most of the collected surpluses distributed as tax cuts for the rich. In addition, the asymmetric growth in U. S. wages (richest getting all the increases) means that only about 80% of wages are now subject to Social Security deductions, when the historical amount was above 90%.

Mathematically, Social Security is easy to fix. But politically, the Republicans have no desire to try and fix the system the way Ronald Reagan did in the 80's. The Republican position is that Social Security is broken and must be dismantled. Fixing it obviously undermines this position. The Democrats are locked into wanting no changes, because they fear Republicans will use any "change" discussion to try to privatize the whole system. Privatization was specified by the Republicans in their recent Party platforms. Based upon recent financial history and the current Wall Street culture, I personally think privatization would be an economic disaster.

2. Making our tax simpler and fairer. The existing tax system is totally broken, and ridiculously complex. More than 90% of the complexity is in the form of loopholes that can only be utilized by the rich, or by specific corporations. And the IRS is so underfunded it can't keep up (A recent government study determined that every additional $100,000 spend on IRS employees would result in addition annual tax collections of something like $3,000,000. The Republican House response was to cut IRS funding. (note: The IRS can't use tax recoveries to lower its expenses, as tax recoveries go to the government's general fund).

Everyone knows the system is broken, but every tax complexity and every tax loophole ends up benefiting some one or some company, so cleaning up the tax code is often political suicide. But the anomalies, like giant pimples on Woogie's face (in the movie "There's something about Mary") are growing at a disgusting rate. There is a huge divide between those who are able to use the loopholes and those that can't. The top 1%, collectively, make something like 35% of all earnings. Collectively they now pay lower, and in many cases, much lower actual tax rates than the upper and middle class. Anyone who only gets W-2 income (works for a regular company) pays much higher taxes on their income than someone who gets income from other sources. This situation will continue to get worse until something s finally done to fix the tax cose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Fixing it obviously undermines this position. The Democrats are locked into wanting no changes, because they fear Republicans will use any "change" discussion to try to privatize the whole system. Privatization was specified by the Republicans in their recent Party platforms. Based upon recent financial history and the current Wall Street culture, I personally think privatization would be an economic disaster.

---

I was with you right up to the above quote. You realize that Bush Jr. actually attempted to privatize Social Security? Every Congress person's butt got super tight, and the Republicans did everything they could to turn him into a lame duck. It was one of the few public things I admired about Bush Jr. He simply called their bluff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
ISIS is an abomination. It is Pol Pot on steroids, with a goal of eventual world domination. You either deal with it now or deal with a much larger issue in the near future. It is political Ebola.

---

I actually rather disagree. I don't mean to defend ISIS--they hardly deserve it--but it looks to me like the "situation" with them has been blown vastly out of proportion. As best I can tell, ISIS is no worse than Saddam Hussein was, or than Bashar Al-Assad is. Actually, they're probably still less awful on the whole than those two, at least for now. The scope and atrocity of their crimes so far is, as far as I can tell, much lesser. How quickly we forget the mass tortures and gassings, the rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes (which we supported/turned a blind eye to, no less!).

That isn't to say they're Care Bears or anything, but I think we've forgotten what things were like before ISIS all too easily. The recent beheading are a deliberate provocation geared towards filling ISIS's roster and coffers once the West retaliates. Nothing more. Hell, we're reacting like it's the first time white people have been beheaded in the region...

As far as world domination goes... again, as best I can tell, they're not a particularly united group. Rather, they're a well-coordinated collection of loosely overlapping interests operating in power vacuums. Some members are more radical and ambitious than others, others less so. For now, they have a common set of short-term goals. But it doesn't look like you're going to get much in the way of long-term goals aside from chest-thumping rhetoric.

What we have to remember is that the borders in the Middle East right now are pretty much entirely artificial, and have been for at least a century now, if not longer. They're borders that were created by colonial powers for colonial purposes--the unstable fusions of majorities and minorities were deliberate, and aimed at facilitating governance by other powers. Just look at Iraq. Thinking of it as one country rather than three is pretty a bad joke. And it's fracturing along exactly those lines. And frankly, unless we're willing to take a lesson from Britain and colonize properly, or from Hussein and Assad and oppress properly, there's no real way of maintaining those artificial borders at this point. Looks to me like the region is re-establishing some semblance of a natural balance. That's a violent and awful process, to be sure, but it seems kind of inevitable to me.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

Thanks in advance for posts regarding this,
Jesse

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Wow, I go away for a while and you guys and gals resurrect the PFP?!

I actually rather disagree. I don't mean to defend ISIS--they hardly deserve it--but it looks to me like the "situation" with them has been blown vastly out of proportion. As best I can tell, ISIS is no worse than Saddam Hussein was, or than Bashar Al-Assad is. Actually, they're probably still less awful on the whole than those two, at least for now. The scope and atrocity of their crimes so far is, as far as I can tell, much lesser. How quickly we forget the mass tortures and gassings, the rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes (which we supported/turned a blind eye to, no less!).

That isn't to say they're Care Bears or anything, but I think we've forgotten what things were like before ISIS all too easily. The recent beheading are a deliberate provocation geared towards filling ISIS's roster and coffers once the West retaliates. Nothing more. Hell, we're reacting like it's the first time white people have been beheaded in the region...

As far as world domination goes... again, as best I can tell, they're not a particularly united group. Rather, they're a well-coordinated collection of loosely overlapping interests operating in power vacuums. Some members are more radical and ambitious than others, others less so. For now, they have a common set of short-term goals. But it doesn't look like you're going to get much in the way of long-term goals aside from chest-thumping rhetoric.

What we have to remember is that the borders in the Middle East right now are pretty much entirely artificial, and have been for at least a century now, if not longer. They're borders that were created by colonial powers for colonial purposes--the unstable fusions of majorities and minorities were deliberate, and aimed at facilitating governance by other powers. Just look at Iraq. Thinking of it as one country rather than three is pretty a bad joke. And it's fracturing along exactly those lines. And frankly, unless we're willing to take a lesson from Britain and colonize properly, or from Hussein and Assad and oppress properly, there's no real way of maintaining those artificial borders at this point. Looks to me like the region is re-establishing some semblance of a natural balance. That's a violent and awful process, to be sure, but it seems kind of inevitable to me.

---

I think you should investigate the "caliphate" a bit more closely. Their message is to kill or convert everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly concur, with a preference on the killing. Their brutality is purposeful, as a show of Muslim strength against all infidels. I agree the beheadings are for show, to infuriate the West. But their brutality upon the local populations, especially local Shia populations, is even worse.

Both their Bureaucratic Organization and Public Relations are advanced. Put another way, they seem much better at "Nation Building" the Mid-East than the US and Western Europe. They are insiders while we are not.

While ISIS seemingly uses religion as a pretext rather than a core philosophy, they understand the power of religion over the local Muslim populations. Their government model makes ISIS both Saddam Hussein and the Grand Ayatollah all in one. They have everything they need to construct a Mid-East nightmare.

ISIS' extremism has a Sunni basis. This has allowed them to align with Iraqi Sunni populations that were disenfranchised in current Iraq, given them a pre-made support for their caliphate. They have a tremendous resource in people who long for the regional power they weilded before the last Gulf War. It also aligns ISIS with Al-Qaeda and other radical Muslim movements, which profess a fervent religious component that Saddam Hussein never claimed. This provides ISIS with a "high ground" position among radicalizing Muslims from all around the world, who are now flocking to the region to join jihad.

ISIS promotes all claims that other Muslim countries in the region are either too secular or too beholden to the West (Jordan, Turkey, Assad's Syria, Saudi Arabia) or are heretical Shia regimes (Iraq and Iran) or both. This provides a "moral imperative" to replace all other local Muslim governments with new and improved ISIS leadership. The remnants of the Arab Spring have left many Muslim countries weaker and far more chaotic than before (just look at Egypt and Libya), so the potential for ISIS successes are greater. And they can chose their opponent on the basis of the path least defended. Their next battle may be Iraq, or Turkey, or Assad's Syria. Or it may be a short trip to Jordan, or a slightly longer trip to Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:

I was with you right up to the above quote. You realize that Bush Jr. actually attempted to privatize Social Security? Every Congress person's butt got super tight, and the Republicans did everything they could to turn him into a lame duck. It was one of the few public things I admired about Bush Jr. He simply called their bluff.

EDIT: In my opinion, privatization would do two things. First, it would expose ****-poor fiscal management by the government. Then, it would expose how ****-poor the general public is about managing their own future. In a way, it's only a disaster for people who can't figure out (assuming the tax code gets fixed).

---

There is no ****-poor financial management by the government when it comes to Social Security retirement (I'll leave the much smaller disability fund out of the discussion for the moment). Social Security receipts purchase Government Bonds directly from the Treasury. Disbursements are made to eligible recipients. The entire government apparatus for both receipts and disbursements is handled for approximately the typical load charged by active asset managers to just get into (or out of) their funds. And the entire operation is backstopped by the good faith and credit of the US government.

Letting Investment firms (or insurance companies like AIG) handle the multi-trillion dollar Social Security fund is scary on a number of levels. The Investment Firm model requires that a percentage get taken up front, at the end, and annually. Wall Street never guarantees anything. Wall Street typically requires that they be allowed to play games with deposits (derivatives, etc.) while they hold them. The only promise Investment Banks ever make is that they get theirs, no matter how well or how poorly they perform.

I'm not saying there are no good or moral Investment Firms. But I am saying that there are a large number of players in that space who are not moral, who have little National pride, who could care less about anything other than their cut, and who are better than everyone else at gaming any system they participate in.

Think of it another way. Many of the most profitable activities of Investment Firms, if done by any other group or industry, would be defined as outright gambling. The implied risk on these financial activities is enormous, but the Investment Firms almost always find a way to make their profit by dumping the risk on the unsuspecting. The 2008 financial meltdown was a perfect case in point. Investment Firms made a fortune packaging very risky assets and effectively coercing rating agencies into claiming they were low risk. The risky assets were dumped on unsuspecting entities around the world. When the bubble burst, trillions of dollars worth of assets became nearly worthless overnight. That a few investment firms, like Lehman, were caught up in the devastation is little consolation.

Lawmakers struggle to control Investment Firms as it is. Just look at the number of criminal charges resulting from the 2008 meltdown. If Investment Firms are allowed to manage Social Security assets, I have no faith that lawmakers or the US Government can ever adequately control the Investment Firm activities (maybe allowing the death penalty to be used on any investment manager who tries to game the system, plus 10-year clawbacks of every dollar given to every manager in a firm that commits fraud. But of course the Investment community would find a way to keep draconian penalties from ever occuring).

Instead, the increased lobbying dollars will find a way to corrupt the political process further. The Investment Community currently spends as much as 0.5% of assets under management in overall lobbying activities. Every trillion you give them is another five billion they can spend ensuring that politicians see things there way.

We have seen how huge investment firms are being hacked on a regular basis. Social Security numbers are the single most important identifier if someone wants to commit ID theft. So much other personal info is already in the public domain. Do you really want to give control of Social Security accounts, at the most fundamental level, to big banks and investment entities? At present, you get to choose what entities you wish to have a business relationship with. Privatizing Social security means your account relationships leave your control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I'm just gonna point out (even though I'm assuming you're being facetious here) that there is a major difference between having a huge debt and being bankrupt. There are some majorly shady financial dealings in this country - especially in light of the confirmations in the TAL recordings from today - but we're not bankrupt, nor particularly close to it.

---

I was exaggerating. The news always make things come across worse than they really are. Still, I believe I don't even know the actual word for the amount the US has in debt. It's probably something I fail to grasp, but for me, I hate debts and would try to get rid of it ASAP instead of letting it get worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Wow, I go away for a while and you guys and gals resurrect the PFP?!

---

Yeah. I do what I have to to keep the site alive. I find that quite a few MOTL members have a good Politics opinion and are able to put it down on paper.
Plus it's probably the only post hammr7 replies to, and I for one enjoy reading his posts. [/B][/QUOTE]

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
~Stuff~

---

I had a longer diatribe typed up, but to your point I feel like the entire system is a house of cards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
I had a longer diatribe typed up, but to your point I feel like the entire system is a house of cards.

Several years ago, the US government allowed investment banks to take on FDIC-insured deposits as your local bank would. Maybe I don't get it, but it seems like we're letting them play roulette with house money now. This was a decision that was made AFTER the economic collapse. The US government even loaned money to these firms that made terribly risky decisions that burned them (with the exception of Lehmann Brothers). How does any of that make any sense?

---

I'm not fully aware of the consequences should they stay or leave the Eurozone, but I say though luck to them. That's what you get from not paying taxes like the rest of us. That being said, Italy could be next. Europe/Euro zone should only consist of countries that are actually trying to make it work.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
No love eh? I fear that when Greece leaves the Eurozone Russia is all too eager to step in. Greece has had enough chances so I won't mind seeing them leave, but I'd be scared as hell when Russia takes over and starts building bases there.

---

I've been paying attention to it peripherally but I feel I don't fully understand it. I'm curious to see what would happen if Greece does leave the Eurozone, but I for one had no idea Russia was being considered as a potential replacement....? That doesn't seem like something that would happen, I can't see Putin turning over control of anything to anyone that isn't first a Russian, and second, Putin.

It concerns me. Especially that in the last few years more and more Russian bombers entering Scandinavian/Dutch/British airspace. He's testing the response times.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
Russia has already indicated that when Greece leaves, they will probably step in and help them. I believe it was the Russian minister of Finance that did so. Of course it is only for their own interest.

It concerns me. Especially that in the last few years more and more Russian bombers entering Scandinavian/Dutch/British airspace. He's testing the response times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:

It concerns me. Especially that in the last few years more and more Russian bombers entering Scandinavian/Dutch/British airspace. He's testing the response times.

---

In fairness, Russia's been provoked by NATO the whole way. If Russia had done to NATO countries what we've done to her, we'd be at war already.

I hadn't heard about Russia bailing out Greece, however. That's a pretty bold move. Or, it would be. It's also probably Greece's best case scenario at this point. Actually, Greece could probably use it as leverage to get funds out of NATO countries...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:
What is their economic base at this point anyway, service/tourism or do they have any strong exports? I suppose I could Google all this but ya know, sake of conversation and all that, keep the boards a bit lively!

---

Mostly tourism, some shipping.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
In fairness, Russia's been provoked by NATO the whole way. If Russia had done to NATO countries what we've done to her, we'd be at war already.

---

example? I'm not saying NATO plays fair, but taking over The Krim and flying bombers across Europe is something else imo.

quote:

---

I hadn't heard about Russia bailing out Greece, however. That's a pretty bold move. Or, it would be. It's also probably Greece's best case scenario at this point. Actually, Greece could probably use it as leverage to get funds out of NATO countries...

---

I'm not sure it's official, I know there have been talks and they're just waiting until Greece falls out of it. We'll see. European leaders meet on Sunday.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
example? I'm not saying NATO plays fair, but taking over The Krim and flying bombers across Europe is something else imo.

---

Expanding NATO into Russia's sphere of influence despite promises not to. Remember when the communists expanded into the US's sphere of influence? The US went to war with those states, staged coups and assassinations, etc. Remember that NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russia organization, and it's been extending membership to states within Russia's traditional and actual sphere of influence for years now. Hell, Ukraine very nearly became a member! There is no way the US would tolerate Mexico, or Cuba, or Canada joining an explicitly anti-US international alliance. For decades, the West has been acting as though Russia weren't a major world power. Russia is just reasserting itself.

NATO's intervention in Kosovo was not well received by Russia either. More serious and more recent damage, however, was caused when the US became involved in a coup overthrowing Ukraine's democratically-elected and pro-Russian president. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, and was publicly admitted by Obama. Unfortunately, that's MAJOR provocation, and we're kidding ourselves if we think that any major power would tolerate anything similar. This is what led directly to the Crimea's annexation.

Yes, Russian exercises off the coasts of Europe and England are scary. What we should notice, however, is that they've been preceded by American shows of force right on the Russian border (e.g. in Estonia, where the displays took place 300 yards from the border!). Between April and October of 2014 alone, there were 67 significant military shows of force in the Baltic states and Poland, plus a number of speeches promising unwavering military support for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (never mind their fascistic governments! What matters is that they're anti-Russia, I guess.).

So... yeah. Russia's definitely in the wrong here, but unfortunately NATO is even further in the wrong. Russia is responding to a number of serious geopolitical provocations on NATO's part. In fact, Russia's response has been entirely predictable (a number of lawmakers in NATO countries have been warning us about this for some time now), so it's kind of unthinkable that NATO should be blundering so hard (or is it deliberate? I don't believe it, but the blunders seem so obvious...).

I think you're right to be worried: we're drawing closer and closer to war with Russia. But it's mostly our fault.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

So... yeah. Russia's definitely in the wrong here, but unfortunately NATO is even further in the wrong. Russia is responding to a number of serious geopolitical provocations on NATO's part. In fact, Russia's response has been entirely predictable (a number of lawmakers in NATO countries have been warning us about this for some time now), so it's kind of unthinkable that NATO should be blundering so hard (or is it deliberate? I don't believe it, but the blunders seem so obvious...).

I think you're right to be worried: we're drawing closer and closer to war with Russia. But it's mostly our fault.

---

This is what stuck out to me. It really IS hard to believe that all of these moves are blunders. Generally speaking, people making decisions at this high a level can't afford to "blunder" that hard, that frequently, or with what could clearly be mistaken as goal-driven intent, if the world didn't know better of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:
This is what stuck out to me. It really IS hard to believe that all of these moves are blunders. Generally speaking, people making decisions at this high a level can't afford to "blunder" that hard, that frequently, or with what could clearly be mistaken as goal-driven intent, if the world didn't know better of course.

What, however, would we gain from war with Russia? This is no rag tag band of ultimately isolated extremists. The American Public is war-weary as it is, and lets not even speak of the threat of nuclear war hanging over everybody's heads again. I'm not sure this generation of Americans has what it takes to bear up under that threat without buckling. You're right though, everything you mentioned was completely blatant and frankly, Russia's response in the face of such is quite predictable, so one must assume it was predicted. What, then, is the "endgame" for NATO?

---

No clue, really. It's pretty clear what Russia stands to gain from elevated tensions (prestige and influence, particularly on the European scene, as well as security). But I have no idea what everyone else gets for playing along.

To be honest, I think that the best explanation has to do with serious blunders motivated by all kinds of posturing. There aren't that many active NATO-side policy-makers who remember when Russia was inviolably strong, and most (especially in the American political and military establishments) cut their teeth as Russia's influence waned and the USSR broke apart. Probably they've forgotten that its nuclear arsenal alone suffices to make it a major world player (to say nothing of its population or GDP). They're ignorant and foolhardy, and trying to increase their own budgets.

I mean, I'm pretty much certain that's what's behind Canada's role in all this: our PM is blustering in preparation for the upcoming election campaign, and trying to drum up some Canadian jingoism (and, given our significant Ukrainian population, it'll likely play well). Britain aside, the EU seems to have been much more cautious. Angela Merkel, for example, has been very even-handed, refusing to dismiss Russia and Putin outright and reminding everyone that their cooperation is key to resolving the crises with Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. Compare that with the bluster from the US, Britain, and Canada, according to which Russia is so far past its prime it's irrelevant. Shrug. I think they're just dumb. It would be nice if they were malevolent super-geniuses plotting some major geo-political move, but I think that's giving everyone way too much credit, and making too little of the breakdowns in communication between governments and between government departments.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
No clue, really. It's pretty clear what Russia stands to gain from elevated tensions (prestige and influence, particularly on the European scene, as well as security). But I have no idea what everyone else gets for playing along.

To be honest, I think that the best explanation has to do with serious blunders motivated by all kinds of posturing. There aren't that many active NATO-side policy-makers who remember when Russia was inviolably strong, and most (especially in the American political and military establishments) cut their teeth as Russia's influence waned and the USSR broke apart. Probably they've forgotten that its nuclear arsenal alone suffices to make it a major world player (to say nothing of its population or GDP). They're ignorant and foolhardy, and trying to increase their own budgets.

I mean, I'm pretty much certain that's what's behind Canada's role in all this: our PM is blustering in preparation for the upcoming election campaign, and trying to drum up some Canadian jingoism (and, given our significant Ukrainian population, it'll likely play well). Britain aside, the EU seems to have been much more cautious. Angela Merkel, for example, has been very even-handed, refusing to dismiss Russia and Putin outright and reminding everyone that their cooperation is key to resolving the crises with Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. Compare that with the bluster from the US, Britain, and Canada, according to which Russia is so far past its prime it's irrelevant. Shrug. I think they're just dumb. It would be nice if they were malevolent super-geniuses plotting some major geo-political move, but I think that's giving everyone way too much credit, and making too little of the breakdowns in communication between governments and between government departments.

---

Whew. The implications of that are staggering. I genuinely hate to think we could be on the verge of war with Russia because everyone involved in making these decisions is just....dumb. Like, they never had a history class or something? They can't see what's in front of them? Could they be so severely under-qualified? Ugh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:
This is what stuck out to me. It really IS hard to believe that all of these moves are blunders. Generally speaking, people making decisions at this high a level can't afford to "blunder" that hard, that frequently, or with what could clearly be mistaken as goal-driven intent, if the world didn't know better of course.

---

Do you really believe politicians actually think and are concerned about what actions they take? If it gets them through the next election cycle, nothing else matters.

quote:

---

What, however, would we gain from war with Russia? This is no rag tag band of ultimately isolated extremists. The American Public is war-weary as it is, and lets not even speak of the threat of nuclear war hanging over everybody's heads again. I'm not sure this generation of Americans has what it takes to bear up under that threat without buckling. You're right though, everything you mentioned was completely blatant and frankly, Russia's response in the face of such is quite predictable, so one must assume it was predicted. What, then, is the "endgame" for NATO?

---

We gain absolutely nothing, but NATO also doesn't really know what it's doing either. They run a lot of drills in Europe and talk bad about Russia, but they're still stuck in a Cold War mentality that doesn't reflect the reality today. I literally can't remember any time in my life that NATO seemed marginally useful for anyone. I think China and Iran present more of a present-day danger than anything else going on besides world hunger and pollution.

__________________
"Message to women worldwide: Girls....we're stupid. We don't like games. We don't know games. We can't read minds. Say it like you mean or STFU." -rockondon

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
Do you really believe politicians actually think and are concerned about what actions they take? If it gets them through the next election cycle, nothing else matters.

---

Partially yes, and partially no. I certainly don't think they generally have the best interests of those they represent in mind, but to some degree I hope they have the simple common sense not to commit their respective nations to wars that they will actually have to FIGHT, and might possibly LOSE, over something so obvious and avoidable. If the plane goes down, let it be for something we couldn't foresee, not because we smashed into the world's tallest mountain. Guess that's too much to ask :P

quote:

---

We gain absolutely nothing, but NATO also doesn't really know what it's doing either. They run a lot of drills in Europe and talk bad about Russia, but they're still stuck in a Cold War mentality that doesn't reflect the reality today. I literally can't remember any time in my life that NATO seemed marginally useful for anyone. I think China and Iran present more of a present-day danger than anything else going on besides world hunger and pollution.

---

Iran concerns me much less than China. I am much less inclined to believe the hyperbolic propaganda fed to us by our politicians regarding the "big bad muslims" at this point than I am inclined to keep a very watchful eye on The Sleeping Dragon. Well, formerly sleeping anyway. Russia should be concerned with them as well; Putin is a savvy leader in many regards but he's been sippin' that Jingo Soup a bit too long I think. North Korea frankly worries me more than Iran as well, any government that has so few qualms about utterly oppressing its own people doesn't give me the warm fuzzies when I think about the character of its foreign policy, to say nothing of its trajectory!