23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of ISIS?
In major escalation, Russia moves trucks, troops, artillery into Ukraine
** 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of ISIS?
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140823
Contents:
Chinese fighter jet buzzes U.S. surveillance plane in international waters
Who's to blame for the rise of ISIS?
In major escalation, Russia moves trucks, troops, artillery into Ukraine
Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, J-11 fighter jet,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL,
Iraq, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Navi Pillay,
Israel, Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu,
International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC,
Nato, Russia, Ukraine, Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
Vitaly Churkin
23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of ISIS?
-
octavian61
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
Well, if anyone is to blame for the rise if ISIS, I would blame Clinton, when she was Sec. of State. She and her cohorts were formenting revolutions in the ME, trying to depose any dictators they do not like. They had "liberal" minded opposition members come to D.C., at taxpayer's expense, and teach them how to start uprisings. It backfired in many states in the ME. So here you have Assad, who in my opinion is not even human, even BEFORE the uprisings, fighting against those who are FAR worse than he is. Those who run ISIS just needed an excuse to begin their version of jihad, an ideology that has been battling the world since Mohammed rose from the sands of Arabia. Ironic that the pig Assad was asked about Islamists, in an interview many, many years ago. His reply was,"Out of the billion Muslims in the world, only one percent are extremists." Well, one percent of one billion is ten million. That's a pretty good size force, ready to take as many people with them to the otherside. Look at what 19 did on 9/11.
As for Putin, nothing is said about the expansionist inclinations of the EU, as expressed by Mario Barroso, in the following, (short version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE. (Copy and paste). I guess you can give us your ideas about it. Thank you for all your work, Jose garcia.
As for Putin, nothing is said about the expansionist inclinations of the EU, as expressed by Mario Barroso, in the following, (short version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE. (Copy and paste). I guess you can give us your ideas about it. Thank you for all your work, Jose garcia.
-
Guest
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
With America being destroyed by free trade and open borders, I have one question: when is someone going to defend Americans? Why do we have to defend everyone else?
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
My grandmother in the 1950's said the US is treated like a cow, milked.Guest wrote:With America being destroyed by free trade and open borders, I have one question: when is someone going to defend Americans? Why do we have to defend everyone else?
In the 1950's the wealth of the US was the result of active and more or less free entrepreneurship. This has been activity restricted and stifled by ( lets be charitable ) wronged headed thinking. ( or a group of evil ones ) This kind of thinking is spreading through out the world. --- At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was thought to be the next wealthiest country in the world, wrong headed thinking took care of that.
"At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GDP. There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity." http://donttweetblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... argentine/
-
Anon
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
The wrong headed part is simply allowing corporations to patent or copyright nonsense and then use those "patents" to sue new competitors out of existence.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/i ... tent-month
And there are the patent trolls
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j- ... 08909.html
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/i ... tent-month
And there are the patent trolls
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j- ... 08909.html
-
Anon
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
When there's more money to be made with less investment by feeding the cow rather than milking it. Which is to say, after things crash so badly there's no hope of making a dime in the USA without serious investment in building it up again.gerald wrote:My grandmother in the 1950's said the US is treated like a cow, milked.Guest wrote:With America being destroyed by free trade and open borders, I have one question: when is someone going to defend Americans? Why do we have to defend everyone else?
In the 1950's the wealth of the US was the result of active and more or less free entrepreneurship. This has been activity restricted and stifled by ( lets be charitable ) wronged headed thinking. ( or a group of evil ones ) This kind of thinking is spreading through out the world. --- At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was thought to be the next wealthiest country in the world, wrong headed thinking took care of that.
"At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GDP. There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity." http://donttweetblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... argentine/
-
anon
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
ISIS is to blame for the rise of ISIS. Saudi money, flowing through Kuwait funded the rise of ISIS, under the guise of "arming the rebels in Syria".
And there never were any "moderate" rebels in Syria, and no chance of better outcomes. Had the USA bombed out Assad in the first days of the rebellion, we'd have simply transferred the rebels to power directly and had ISIS in control of a country as a "legitimate" government. Had we armed the rebels instead of Saudi, we'd have had the same outcome but faster.
Sometimes, there just isn't going to be a good choice leading to a good outcome. Moderates in Syria is a fantasy. If there are so many moderates in Syria why aren't they fighting ISIS?
You get to pick a side, and when both sides suck, there's no good choice.
And there never were any "moderate" rebels in Syria, and no chance of better outcomes. Had the USA bombed out Assad in the first days of the rebellion, we'd have simply transferred the rebels to power directly and had ISIS in control of a country as a "legitimate" government. Had we armed the rebels instead of Saudi, we'd have had the same outcome but faster.
Sometimes, there just isn't going to be a good choice leading to a good outcome. Moderates in Syria is a fantasy. If there are so many moderates in Syria why aren't they fighting ISIS?
You get to pick a side, and when both sides suck, there's no good choice.
-
NoOneImportant
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
Gerald wrote:
No one has a lock on perpetual prosperity, especially America. And the truth be told, America ate itself. You don't have what you have because of what you have. You have what you have because of what you believe, and how you think. When you no longer believe in, and practice what made you prosperous your prosperity is fleeting - apparently an observation lost on those in America who believe that they can steal their way to affluence. The blog referenced above is particularly telling. It starts with the observation regarding Argentina's great past prosperity. It notes the demise of that Argentine prosperity because of an erroneous belief that they - Argentina - could legislate, and borrow their way to affluence and prosperity. The Argentine focus, as is always the case, was on the acquired borrowed cash, and never upon the debt incurred, and the cost of the debt service necessary to obtain the cash.
The blog further notes the method used by Argentina to "repay" their incurred debt. Once forced to face the prospect of repaying the enormous amount of money they had borrowed, they - the Argentine government - quickly came to the conclusion that the squandered borrowed cash had not generated the hoped for return (growth, and return); thus the recurring tax revenues were not sufficient to meet the debt repayment schedule. What to do? Default on the debt?; but that would ruin the country's credit rating? Nope, couldn't do that, so the answer was clear, as it is always clear to politicians - simply print more pesos; inflate the debt away, and in fact the inflation would permit the borrowing of even more money. And after all, Who will be able to tell; who would be the wiser?
Unfortunately, those who are elected often times fail to realize, or don't care that all economies (both controlled, and free) are one enormous continuous ongoing 24/7 auction. It is an auction where everything is on display and for sale in a bid/asked manner. The bid/asked prices are dependent upon a stable supply and quality of the supplied products, and the corresponding price based upon the cash available to purchase those available products (essentially an equilibrium of quantity of products, and amount of cash resulting in an orderly market of supply and demand based upon a stable price). The runaway printing of money grossly distorts the operation of this invisible continuous auction. It creates an excess of money for purchase; money that quickly distorts demand, and thus absorbs the the available product at the current price - a price that was, but is no longer, a stable price.
The result of this "excess" cash distortion is that products become scare, as there has been a step increase in the amount of cash in circulation for product purchase; to moderate this "artificial" increase in demand, product prices are increased in an effort to reduce product demand - inflation. The resultant run-away inflation of the Argentine currency is clearly described in the blog. There are those who would contend that "managed" economies are not subject to these distortions, but those who hold those Nixonion points of view simply deny the rise, and the existence of the black markets that develop and flourish in those "managed" economies.
As always - interesting, Gerald.
Regarding ISIS: the boobs in Washington didn't even recognize the jeopardy until far too late, ref. Obama's clueless JV comment. It is what I mean when I say: "that no one controls any of the antagonists in a conflict once the shooting starts." With US troops remaining in Iraq, however, perhaps those US troops may have impeded the ISIS entry into Iraq. Obama aside, a case might be made for Bush being responsible for ISIS by not removing Assad immediately after having removed Saddam - it would have been very unpopular, as those I suggested it to at the time looked at me like I had two heads; but had it been attempted things would certainly have ended up differently. Short of that, I second Anon, who wrote:
Great observations - sorry for the length."At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GDP. There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity." http://donttweetblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... argentine/
No one has a lock on perpetual prosperity, especially America. And the truth be told, America ate itself. You don't have what you have because of what you have. You have what you have because of what you believe, and how you think. When you no longer believe in, and practice what made you prosperous your prosperity is fleeting - apparently an observation lost on those in America who believe that they can steal their way to affluence. The blog referenced above is particularly telling. It starts with the observation regarding Argentina's great past prosperity. It notes the demise of that Argentine prosperity because of an erroneous belief that they - Argentina - could legislate, and borrow their way to affluence and prosperity. The Argentine focus, as is always the case, was on the acquired borrowed cash, and never upon the debt incurred, and the cost of the debt service necessary to obtain the cash.
The blog further notes the method used by Argentina to "repay" their incurred debt. Once forced to face the prospect of repaying the enormous amount of money they had borrowed, they - the Argentine government - quickly came to the conclusion that the squandered borrowed cash had not generated the hoped for return (growth, and return); thus the recurring tax revenues were not sufficient to meet the debt repayment schedule. What to do? Default on the debt?; but that would ruin the country's credit rating? Nope, couldn't do that, so the answer was clear, as it is always clear to politicians - simply print more pesos; inflate the debt away, and in fact the inflation would permit the borrowing of even more money. And after all, Who will be able to tell; who would be the wiser?
Unfortunately, those who are elected often times fail to realize, or don't care that all economies (both controlled, and free) are one enormous continuous ongoing 24/7 auction. It is an auction where everything is on display and for sale in a bid/asked manner. The bid/asked prices are dependent upon a stable supply and quality of the supplied products, and the corresponding price based upon the cash available to purchase those available products (essentially an equilibrium of quantity of products, and amount of cash resulting in an orderly market of supply and demand based upon a stable price). The runaway printing of money grossly distorts the operation of this invisible continuous auction. It creates an excess of money for purchase; money that quickly distorts demand, and thus absorbs the the available product at the current price - a price that was, but is no longer, a stable price.
The result of this "excess" cash distortion is that products become scare, as there has been a step increase in the amount of cash in circulation for product purchase; to moderate this "artificial" increase in demand, product prices are increased in an effort to reduce product demand - inflation. The resultant run-away inflation of the Argentine currency is clearly described in the blog. There are those who would contend that "managed" economies are not subject to these distortions, but those who hold those Nixonion points of view simply deny the rise, and the existence of the black markets that develop and flourish in those "managed" economies.
As always - interesting, Gerald.
Regarding ISIS: the boobs in Washington didn't even recognize the jeopardy until far too late, ref. Obama's clueless JV comment. It is what I mean when I say: "that no one controls any of the antagonists in a conflict once the shooting starts." With US troops remaining in Iraq, however, perhaps those US troops may have impeded the ISIS entry into Iraq. Obama aside, a case might be made for Bush being responsible for ISIS by not removing Assad immediately after having removed Saddam - it would have been very unpopular, as those I suggested it to at the time looked at me like I had two heads; but had it been attempted things would certainly have ended up differently. Short of that, I second Anon, who wrote:
AnonISIS is to blame for the rise of ISIS. Saudi money, flowing through Kuwait funded the rise of ISIS, under the guise of "arming the rebels in Syria".
And there never were any "moderate" rebels in Syria, and no chance of better outcomes. Had the USA bombed out Assad in the first days of the rebellion, we'd have simply transferred the rebels to power directly and had ISIS in control of a country as a "legitimate" government. Had we armed the rebels instead of Saudi, we'd have had the same outcome but faster.
Sometimes, there just isn't going to be a good choice leading to a good outcome. Moderates in Syria is a fantasy. If there are so many moderates in Syria why aren't they fighting ISIS?
You get to pick a side, and when both sides suck, there's no good choice.
-
Guest
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
So what should America do, John? Just leave Iraq? I say let ISIS win. Can't we just buy oil from them?
It seems to me that knocking out Saddam and Gaddafi were really big mistakes. The worst part is, I remember people actually warning people what would happen if America did knock them out of power. Yes, we have made a mess; but what can we do about it now? We can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Or, is that what the West is trying to do now? Install new secular leaders like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? Is that it? Are we trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
It seems to me that knocking out Saddam and Gaddafi were really big mistakes. The worst part is, I remember people actually warning people what would happen if America did knock them out of power. Yes, we have made a mess; but what can we do about it now? We can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Or, is that what the West is trying to do now? Install new secular leaders like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? Is that it? Are we trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
Re: 23-Aug-14 World View -- Who's to blame for the rise of I
Hi, hello, Air Force Gulf War vet here, and I'll say that in 1991, me and others in my unit understood that we (US forces) were mercenaries for Saudi Arabia (especially after we were told the Saudis proposed paying us some money, which Pres. Bush said no thanks, we're not mercenaries) and that it was to keep the oil market stable, nevermind the steady rise in prices. Haha. I always wondered that if Iraq had taken over the Arabian Peninsula, would we have bought oil from them, or would we had drill, baby, drilled, or looked to other exporters? Those are interesting counter factuals to ponder, but what happened was that we left a mess after Pres. Bush saw the Highway to Hell leading out of Kuwait into Iraq, and got cold feet about continuing the slaughter all the way into Bagdad. So we stopped after two months and went on hold. But we can never know what the worse outcome of any of the choices we didn't make would have been. And it's a pointless exercise to say "well, if we had only done this." And it's pointless to keep going back in time to find that one pivotal moment that is the blame for all the trouble that is now in the world's lap. Shoulda coulda woulda. Damned if we stay home, damned if we get involved. Which damnation is the better choice for America? Which for the Middle East? Which for the rest of the world? I don't know.
I do know that after the events of September 11th, 2001, I wanted to know more about Islam, so I browsed the local bookstore and bought some books by Bernard Lewis and learned some history and some motivations, and later balanced that with Reza Aslan (No god, but God). Before we went back into Iraq in 2003 to finish--or exacerbate--what we started in 1991, I realized--after doing a minimal amount of studying--that we couldn't do to the Middle East what we did to Japan and (West) Germany after WW2, essentially turn them into versions of ourselves, and that if our policymakers and war chiefs did not understand Islam and the Muslim point of view, that we wouldn't enable ourselves to win a war, or create a lasting peace. And we haven't.
I do know that after the events of September 11th, 2001, I wanted to know more about Islam, so I browsed the local bookstore and bought some books by Bernard Lewis and learned some history and some motivations, and later balanced that with Reza Aslan (No god, but God). Before we went back into Iraq in 2003 to finish--or exacerbate--what we started in 1991, I realized--after doing a minimal amount of studying--that we couldn't do to the Middle East what we did to Japan and (West) Germany after WW2, essentially turn them into versions of ourselves, and that if our policymakers and war chiefs did not understand Islam and the Muslim point of view, that we wouldn't enable ourselves to win a war, or create a lasting peace. And we haven't.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests