Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
running commentary on middle east policy and news.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 49130" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmm creative editing. I guess I'll have to cut and paste...to respond. </p><p></p><p>Again a bit of a pivot from my understanding of current discussion.. Even Israel is only talking about preventing the nuclear weapons program from completing. Were israel to engage Iran in more conventional attack, they would surely draw counter attacks from many of their neighbors. The reality is nobody in the middle east wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, except Iran, and even Hamas has offered israel a pass to de-nuke them. </p><p></p><p>We (the west) are currently imposing economic sanctions on Iran that unfortunately apply pressure only indirectly on the government, and mainly hurt the iranian people, but this is pretty much the extent of UN sanctioned activity. I don't think they ever sanction pre-emptive bomb strikes. AFAIK, and I only know what I see and read, only military targets are in play, while the attempt to characterize the nuclear development program as peaceful does not ring true, in the context of their full statements and military exercises.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see Israel as not much different than every other democracy in the world that we openly support. If their existence is threatened we routinely step up to help, but Iran's imperative is more than a personal conflict with Israel. That is just the most obvious and colorful. Hegemony by Iran in the region affects our self-interest too, directly and indirectly (think straits of Hormuz and free passage of oil tankers). </p><p></p><p></p><p>The UN is as toothless as it is overly optimistic. Anything of any impact is decided in the security council and real action is routinely thwarted by competing self interests of the few world powers. As ineffective and sometimes ludicrous speeches routinely made to the general assembly by our detractors, they deserve a forum to speak openly, and we can always afford to talk, before rolling up our sleeves and doing the real work. But examples where talk alone resolved difficult conflicts are few and far between.. here's my list................ </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> I suspect there is more chance of an Eisenhower type military industrial complex spinning up modern terrorism as a national threat, than public leaders trying to accumulate power by using it, but we do need to remain vigilant to governments constant desire to gain power at the expense of our personal privacy and freedoms. It is a fair debate whether terrorism is on the scale of a global war, or a simple criminal activity that should be handled as a police matter. For police to work, they need to exist in every remote corner of the world, to prevent bad behavior. How do you punish a suicide bomber after the attack? (rhetorical.. we can't take away his virgins). </p><p></p><p>I certainly see what appears to be global ambitions from sundry terrorist groups, but ambition alone does not make them effective or dangerous. The lack of order and rule of law, is how and where these groups gain a foothold to launch their attacks against the west. While a little distasteful we have a pretty long history of looking the other way or working with tyrants who don't spread their brand of bad behavior outside their local area. Even Holder is arguing his right to kill american citizens with drones, under his interpretation of rules of war (paraphrased I didn't read his actual statement). THis doesn't strike me as remotely simple or open and shut. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile :-)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> I wish the crew so intent on spending other people money would stop whining about the wealthy getting some kind of free pass. </p><p></p><p>If you listen to what I said... this whole rate debate doesn't matter since they can only get so much blood from this host, before they injure the economy and get less blood. Carried to the extreme a 100% tax rate would not raise much revenue. Who would ever work for nothing. The only remaining debate is where exactly does this productive percentage for taxation sit. (note: this is aggregate or average taxation, not specifically who pays, which is another political misdirection. They will always tax the people with jobs and income, there aren't enough rich people to change that Willie Sutton calculus. )</p><p></p><p>The class warfare is just a distraction from the real situation, while some in politics are so clueless that they still don't get it. </p><p></p><p>Apparently this isn't as obvious as it looks to me... but i have been paying attention for a long time.. </p><p></p><p>Didn't anybody ever wonder where the banks got the $25B in funds to make that settlement with the government, after being bankrupt only a few years before? (rhetorical- they got it from the same government who has pumped money into banks via silly low interbank fed fee interest rates... now they give a fealty (more like a fee-lty) back to their political keepers to distribute. Surely they won't buy votes with that $25B slush fund? (rhetorical of course they will). </p><p></p><p></p><p>Last I read, the Chinese were mining minerals in Afghanistan today.</p><p></p><p>You really buy that class warfare screed, with echoes of the occupy movements musings (none of which are novel or unique to here and now). I actually agree with one (only one) of the later occupy movement's concepts, that there should be a separation of "business and state", just like the separation of church and state. Small business owners can be considered "wealthy" by the modern tax tables, but they are not the problem. IMO it is crony capitalism where big business "partners" with big government to accumulate more power and wealth. Rather than a problem with the wealthy, this is problem with corrupt politicians, and the lobbyists who own them. </p><p></p><p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth and success... but the government does not create wealth (it does print money though). Wealth creation only comes from a private sector allowed to operate without too much government imposed friction. </p><p></p><p>There is even a place for some regulation. The bank system collapse occurred around ten years after Glass-Stegall ('33) was repealed by Bill Clinton. Maybe we don't need a new Volker Rule, how about reinstating the old Glass Stegall? (not rhetorical) </p><p></p><p>Of course opinions vary, I'm always glad to share in a thoughtful exchange, when I'm caught up with my back order, and plumbing emergencies. </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 49130, member: 126"] Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news. Hmm creative editing. I guess I'll have to cut and paste...to respond. Again a bit of a pivot from my understanding of current discussion.. Even Israel is only talking about preventing the nuclear weapons program from completing. Were israel to engage Iran in more conventional attack, they would surely draw counter attacks from many of their neighbors. The reality is nobody in the middle east wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, except Iran, and even Hamas has offered israel a pass to de-nuke them. We (the west) are currently imposing economic sanctions on Iran that unfortunately apply pressure only indirectly on the government, and mainly hurt the iranian people, but this is pretty much the extent of UN sanctioned activity. I don't think they ever sanction pre-emptive bomb strikes. AFAIK, and I only know what I see and read, only military targets are in play, while the attempt to characterize the nuclear development program as peaceful does not ring true, in the context of their full statements and military exercises. I see Israel as not much different than every other democracy in the world that we openly support. If their existence is threatened we routinely step up to help, but Iran's imperative is more than a personal conflict with Israel. That is just the most obvious and colorful. Hegemony by Iran in the region affects our self-interest too, directly and indirectly (think straits of Hormuz and free passage of oil tankers). The UN is as toothless as it is overly optimistic. Anything of any impact is decided in the security council and real action is routinely thwarted by competing self interests of the few world powers. As ineffective and sometimes ludicrous speeches routinely made to the general assembly by our detractors, they deserve a forum to speak openly, and we can always afford to talk, before rolling up our sleeves and doing the real work. But examples where talk alone resolved difficult conflicts are few and far between.. here's my list................ I suspect there is more chance of an Eisenhower type military industrial complex spinning up modern terrorism as a national threat, than public leaders trying to accumulate power by using it, but we do need to remain vigilant to governments constant desire to gain power at the expense of our personal privacy and freedoms. It is a fair debate whether terrorism is on the scale of a global war, or a simple criminal activity that should be handled as a police matter. For police to work, they need to exist in every remote corner of the world, to prevent bad behavior. How do you punish a suicide bomber after the attack? (rhetorical.. we can't take away his virgins). I certainly see what appears to be global ambitions from sundry terrorist groups, but ambition alone does not make them effective or dangerous. The lack of order and rule of law, is how and where these groups gain a foothold to launch their attacks against the west. While a little distasteful we have a pretty long history of looking the other way or working with tyrants who don't spread their brand of bad behavior outside their local area. Even Holder is arguing his right to kill american citizens with drones, under his interpretation of rules of war (paraphrased I didn't read his actual statement). THis doesn't strike me as remotely simple or open and shut. :-) I wish the crew so intent on spending other people money would stop whining about the wealthy getting some kind of free pass. If you listen to what I said... this whole rate debate doesn't matter since they can only get so much blood from this host, before they injure the economy and get less blood. Carried to the extreme a 100% tax rate would not raise much revenue. Who would ever work for nothing. The only remaining debate is where exactly does this productive percentage for taxation sit. (note: this is aggregate or average taxation, not specifically who pays, which is another political misdirection. They will always tax the people with jobs and income, there aren't enough rich people to change that Willie Sutton calculus. ) The class warfare is just a distraction from the real situation, while some in politics are so clueless that they still don't get it. Apparently this isn't as obvious as it looks to me... but i have been paying attention for a long time.. Didn't anybody ever wonder where the banks got the $25B in funds to make that settlement with the government, after being bankrupt only a few years before? (rhetorical- they got it from the same government who has pumped money into banks via silly low interbank fed fee interest rates... now they give a fealty (more like a fee-lty) back to their political keepers to distribute. Surely they won't buy votes with that $25B slush fund? (rhetorical of course they will). Last I read, the Chinese were mining minerals in Afghanistan today. You really buy that class warfare screed, with echoes of the occupy movements musings (none of which are novel or unique to here and now). I actually agree with one (only one) of the later occupy movement's concepts, that there should be a separation of "business and state", just like the separation of church and state. Small business owners can be considered "wealthy" by the modern tax tables, but they are not the problem. IMO it is crony capitalism where big business "partners" with big government to accumulate more power and wealth. Rather than a problem with the wealthy, this is problem with corrupt politicians, and the lobbyists who own them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth and success... but the government does not create wealth (it does print money though). Wealth creation only comes from a private sector allowed to operate without too much government imposed friction. There is even a place for some regulation. The bank system collapse occurred around ten years after Glass-Stegall ('33) was repealed by Bill Clinton. Maybe we don't need a new Volker Rule, how about reinstating the old Glass Stegall? (not rhetorical) Of course opinions vary, I'm always glad to share in a thoughtful exchange, when I'm caught up with my back order, and plumbing emergencies. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
running commentary on middle east policy and news.
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
