On September 22 2012 04:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: What harm exactly would come about if the US counted capital gains as normal taxable income?
The primary problem that comes to mind is the simple volatile nature of investments. For example, I used to play poker for a living, and it was sort of absurd that if you won X dollars you would be taxed on it, and then if you lost those X dollars later, which is very possible in a game with variance, you would still owe those taxes on the money you no longer had. It's difficult to come up with a solution to this at least, unless you could count losses as deductions later I suppose. In either case we could still have a highly progressive tax rate on capital gains so that grandmothers investing for retirement don't take a huge hit, but those earning millions a year do.
You're butting up against the second head of tax policy. The first and obvious one is that the government uses it to collect revenues. But the reason why gambling is penalized by the tax system while capital gains are rewarded is that the government is subtly trying to manipulate your behavior.
But why not tax capital gains as ordinary income? Consider who the biggest losers would be. The rich is certainly one group that would face higher taxes. But it's also people who sell their homes and cash out their 401(k), in a word, the elderly (who comprise most of the population of the rich as well). But also workers would be big losers. Most of America's productivity gains (and by extension, income gains) over the last century have come from increased capital to worker ratios. You just cannot have a situation where workers are similarly or less productive but being paid more.
On September 22 2012 03:16 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
Yeah... im sure a missile defense that Russia hates in your backyard while there in walking distance really makes you feel very secure...
It absolutely makes you secure because it brings your country under the protection of the US military by treaty. You can't get better protection than that, particularly when you have a bad Russian neighbor that has a long history of invading you.
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
Its a comedy show but it basicly shows the correct point
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
On September 22 2012 03:19 xDaunt wrote: [quote] It absolutely makes you secure because it brings your country under the protection of the US military by treaty. You can't get better protection than that, particularly when you have a bad Russian neighbor that has a long history of invading you.
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
On September 22 2012 03:19 xDaunt wrote: [quote] It absolutely makes you secure because it brings your country under the protection of the US military by treaty. You can't get better protection than that, particularly when you have a bad Russian neighbor that has a long history of invading you.
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
Yeah, that's a pretty absurd statement as far as xDaunt statements go. I'm pretty sure most people regard the foreign policy of the Bush years as an almost complete failure that left the U.S. in two seperate quagmire wars and pissed off the entire world. His foreign policy was costly in real dollars and international political capital and not very effective (please elaborate how any of the things he did improved the global position of the U.S).
And what shit did he get done? Sign a few free-trade treaties with minor, economically unimportant nations that were probably going to sign them anyways? Openly establish torture as an acceptable practice? Ignore ballistic missile treaties?
I really don't see how anything he's done has improved the situation of the U.S.
On September 22 2012 03:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
And Obama has done....what, again?
Does killing Bin Laden, the covert drone strikes against Al Qaeda, sanctions against Iran, covert operations against Iran and its nuclear program, and the overthrow of the Qaddafi* not count as 'doing things'?
*As clarified in the Vanity Fair article, the successful liberation of Lybia was a direct result of Obama's pushing for a UN resolution to take military action instead of settling for a no-fly zone.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
And Obama has done....what, again?
Does killing Bin Laden, the covert drone strikes against Al Qaeda, and the overthrow of the Qaddafi* not count as 'doing things'.
*As clarified in the Vanity Fair article, the successful liberation of Lybia was a direct result of Obama's pushing for a UN resolution to take military action instead of settling for a no-fly zone.
I'm sure the years of Bush searching him down has nothing to do with Osama's death though right? All Obama? And how about that Navy Seal from the raid who has basically been covered up his book given no coverage because it shows that the Obama Administration lied.
He want no part of the Economy that was all Bush's fault but the good stuff killing Osama that's all him he was in there knife in hand hunting him like a dog for 3 years.
On September 22 2012 04:03 jdseemoreglass wrote: So here's a question for xDaunt, the conservative authority in this thread.
What harm exactly would come about if the US counted capital gains as normal taxable income?
The primary problem that comes to mind is the simple volatile nature of investments. For example, I used to play poker for a living, and it was sort of absurd that if you won X dollars you would be taxed on it, and then if you lost those X dollars later, which is very possible in a game with variance, you would still owe those taxes on the money you no longer had. It's difficult to come up with a solution to this at least, unless you could count losses as deductions later I suppose. In either case we could still have a highly progressive tax rate on capital gains so that grandmothers investing for retirement don't take a huge hit, but those earning millions a year do.
There are a lot of reasons not to tax capital gains as a regular income. The most important of these is to encourage investment spending, which has incredibly important and powerful positive economic externalities. Jacking up the tax rate on capital gains means jacking up the tax rate on investment spending. Economics 101 dictates that increasing the cost of an activity decreases the incidence of that activity. So if we tax capital gains income like regular income, thereby more than doubling the effective tax on capital gains (in most situations, because let's face it, most investment spending comes from the rich because they have the money), investment spending will be depressed, liquidity will dry up, and we'll be stuck again in another economic environment where capital is difficult to come by.
Why would a tax on investment gains reduce the amount of investment? Are the rich going to stuff their money in their collective mattresses?
They'll do any number of different things, including spending money on new toys or investing the money offshore (in other countries) where they won't have to worry about the tax.
Yes, it will slow down the trickle-up of wealth. Which would leave the middle class with more money - money spent on consumption - money that is the actual driver of the economy. All the investments in the world don't matter when there's nobody who can afford to buy your company's products.
I'd love to hear an explanation on how this money typically spent on investment will somehow work its way to the middle class. If the capital dries up, companies have less money to create and sell their products, which means that the middle class takes it in the shorts in terms of lost jobs and lower wages.
Well, tax increases on capital gains could offset tax breaks for the middle class. Basically a balanced approach to taxation, shifting the tax burden so to speak. Sure in a vacuum, increasing the capital gains tax will lead some sort of change in behavior of the investor and business owner (and less productivity and less jobs), but pair that tax increase with a tax break for the consumers and demand goes up, encouraging businesses to expand production and new businesses to start up.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
And Obama has done....what, again?
Does killing Bin Laden, the covert drone strikes against Al Qaeda, sanctions against Iran, covert operations against Iran and its nuclear program, and the overthrow of the Qaddafi* not count as 'doing things'?
*As clarified in the Vanity Fair article, the successful liberation of Lybia was a direct result of Obama's pushing for a UN resolution to take military action instead of settling for a no-fly zone.
Actually, given the criticisms you had of Bush, I'm pretty surprised you're supportive of drone strikes, "covert operations" against Iran (without proof that they even have a nuclear weapons program), and the civil war in Libya.
It's not that I think your criticisms are invalid or that xDaunt is right that Obama has been a miserable failure on foreign policy. But you should be far more wary about Obama's policies than you are. Bush at least had to come up with some BS to justify drone strikes, indefinite detentions, and covert operations. Obama has turned it into a boilerplate form and assumes it's legal.
Also, do you honestly think the US position on the global stage has improved since 2008? I think maybe, but only because everyone else has suffered worse crises that make it laughable to listen to them. Are we taking advice from the EU on fiscal discipline? Are we going to ask the Japanese what they think about territorial disputes or disaster prevention? Are we going to ask China about anything? No.
On September 22 2012 03:19 xDaunt wrote: [quote] It absolutely makes you secure because it brings your country under the protection of the US military by treaty. You can't get better protection than that, particularly when you have a bad Russian neighbor that has a long history of invading you.
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
On September 22 2012 04:02 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
And Obama has done....what, again?
Does killing Bin Laden, the covert drone strikes against Al Qaeda, and the overthrow of the Qaddafi* not count as 'doing things'.
*As clarified in the Vanity Fair article, the successful liberation of Lybia was a direct result of Obama's pushing for a UN resolution to take military action instead of settling for a no-fly zone.
I'm sure the years of Bush searching him down has nothing to do with Osama's death though right? All Obama? And how about that Navy Seal from the raid who has basically been covered up his book given no coverage because it shows that the Obama Administration lied.
He want no part of the Economy that was all Bush's fault but the good stuff killing Osama that's all him he was in there knife in hand hunting him like a dog for 3 years.
Towards the end of Bush's presidency, he openly admitted that hunting down Bin Laden wasn't a priority, going as far as shutting down the unit tasked with finding Bin Laden. During the Bush administration, it was assumed that Bin Laden was in the mountains bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.
While many conservatives are triumphantly replaying Bush’s September 2001 declaration that he would find Bin Laden, just months later, by Bush’s own account, he was unconcerned about the terrorist mastermind. Asked about the hunt for Bin Laden at a March, 2002 press conference, Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I am deeply concerned about Iraq.” “I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you,” Bush added.
By 2006, the trail for Bin Laden had gone “stone cold” and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said Bush told him that hunting Bin Laden was “not a top priority use of American resources.” (Indeed, there was a flailing war in Iraq to fight.) That year, it was revealed that the administration had shuttered the CIA’s Bin Laden unit in late 2005. As the New York Times reported at the time, the move reflected a shift in resources to Iraq:
In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military’s counterterrorism units, like the Army’s Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.
Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
On September 22 2012 03:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
If that's the kind of governance you want, I found a bull in a china shop that you might be interested in voting for.
On September 22 2012 03:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
"getting shit done" when that shit is entirely detrimental, doesnt exactly serve as grounds for an argument about Bush's great foreign policy. Simply doing something, shouldnt garner praise. You guys would have been better off if Bush did nothing. Instead he created a clusterfuck. One that cost you money, respect, and most importantly lives.
Obama: Trillions in debt Moved a center right nation to the left via socialistic practices (wealth redistribution) Forced an unpopular HC bill that also cost a fortune Lied about taxing the middle class. Lied about Gutanimo Bay. Killed Bin Laden? (No he didn't, neither did Bush. The military killed him thanks to a doctor who ratted him out to us, who now sadly is in prison for conspiracy).
I may not like Romney, in fact I almost hate him. But I do 100% HATE Obama. It's bad enough America is in decline- why is he accelerating our fall?
On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
Just because the Obama Administration isn't advertising their covert operations and surveillance in Iran doesn't mean they aren't happening.
On September 22 2012 03:38 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
It would make sense for a country like Georgia or Moldova but I really don't think that the Soviets are going to invade Poland or the Czech Republic any time soon.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
On September 22 2012 05:55 SayGen wrote: What has Obama done
Obama: Trillions in debt Moved a center right nation to the left via socialistic practices (wealth redistribution) Forced an unpopular HC bill that also cost a fortune Lied about taxing the middle class. Lied about Gutanimo Bay. Killed Bin Laden? (No he didn't, neither did Bush. The military killed him thanks to a doctor who ratted him out to us, who now sadly is in prison for conspiracy).
I may not like Romney, in fact I almost hate him. But I do 100% HATE Obama. It's bad enough America is in decline- why is he accelerating our fall?
If you think your nation is "to the left", you are beyond hope. The Dems are farther right than our "right" party. As is the case in most other countries. You are far from socialist.
On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
Just because the Obama Administration isn't advertising their covert operations and surveillance in Iran doesn't mean they aren't happening.
It's kind of hard to win at poker if you don't keep your cards close to your chest.
I'm pro covert ops- really I am. There are somethings I don't need to know- and to protect my fellow soldiers I'm glad not to know. Sadly the rest of the world sees America as weak, and pathetic. I went back to the OP and noticed the poll.
PRO Obama all the way. The only vote I put in for Obama is "who is going to win." I think he is going to win cause the idea of 'free money' is a good way to get elected. Everyone wants 'free' money. Ya your just taking it away from our teachers, research centers, military, police, firefighters. But hey it's free money! I odn't care where it comes form or if it hurts me and my kids in the long run- I want money now!
Obama can't lose that way. He has put more people on foodstamps (one of manyt American welfare components) than any other president Including the great depression.
Obama: Hey vote for me and you'll get your food stamps. Romney: I'll fix the economy and get to the source of the problem
whos pitch will get more votes.
Now circling back to Iran.... When you got a president who isn't willing to make the tough call (stop spending money we don't have) When you got a president who is more intrested in going on sit-coms.
Do you care what he has to say anymore? Or has he become a joke.
He is ruined the image of the presidency.
Iran doens't respect us. They dont fear us. They burn our flags openly, curse our names. Threaten us-- after they lynch 3 jews.
We need a president who will say on the Public stage (Not Just covert) and say Enough is enough. Hault that shit or we will hault you.
Best part of the Iran situation- we won't have to put a single boot on the ground. All we need to do is give Israel our bunker busting bombs, links to our satalites for logistics, lend our KC135 capabilities (Refueling jets) and let them do it.
Cost us little to nothing.
But if it is sooo easy.... why isn't Obama doing it. Why won't Obama come out in the open and say enough is enough...
On September 22 2012 05:51 SayGen wrote: Hard to take anyone seriously who says Iran isn't producing Nuclear weapons.
Iran is in prime area for Solar-- and yet they are making/operating centrifuges (key part of nuclear power/weapon development)
If they weren't making nukes, why did they ignore our attempt to handle the fuels rods for them FOR FREE. They get to gives USA a radiation hazard, keep their country free of radiation, and get nuclear power...
Fishy fishy fishy.
and I'm sure all those Anti Israel statements are a joke too. I mean hell, I wonder how many BILLIONs would cheer to see another Jewish massacre.
Anti Semitism, radical jihad is all too much. I hate Romney, really I do- but at least he has a pair and will ensure Iran fails to achieve its Nuclear ambitions
But we're not looking for what you know, we're looking for what you can prove. With all the criticism of Bush, you'd think we would know better than to fall back "it looks like they're trying to hide something so it must be something bad".
Here's a great article outlining what we (don't) know about Iran's program.
Bottom line: Before 2007, we know Iran definitely had a nuclear weapons program, which they suspended in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. They built up a parallel civilian program. After 2007, the big question is whether Iran ever re-started the weapons program. Note that even a civilian program gets them closer to being able to construct an atomic bomb, but we can't definitively prove that's what they're trying to do.
So is Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon? Short answer: we don't know, probably. Is that answer good enough to justify airstrikes or another expensive invasion in the Middle East? Short answer: we don't know, probably not. Which is why Obama isn't talking about Iran.
In the immediate future, there's not much risk. However, if Russia ever did turn aggressive again (and I would bet money that they will once they sort out some of their domestic problems), it wouldn't take much for Russia to run over the nations bordering it allowing for Russia to move into Poland or the Czech Republic.
The rocket shield isnt there to protect nations. Do you really think its going to stop Russia from driving 1000 tanks down the road? Your smarter then this. That "shield' is nothing more then a show of American force against a nation they happend to not like 50 years ago.
The missile shield isn't going to stop Russia from driving tanks into Poland. It won't even stop Russia from nuking Poland.
What will stop Russia is the US defense treaty that comes with the missile shield.
<-not fully informed on this situation but...
Couldn't that Defense Treaty stand alone, without the missile shield?
Sure, but the US should leverage that treaty and its promise to protect these countries to secure favors such as a location to put an ABM base.
Leveraging the NATO treaty to bully countries into doing what you want. That's going to work out oh so well.
You'd imagine the Bush years would have taught you all something about foreign policy.
There was no bullying involved in the missile shield treaties. Hell, I don't recall seeing any expressions of relief from the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic about Obama pulling the plug on the project. To the contrary, they have hammered Obama for pulling the rug out from under them.
As for Bush, say whatever you want, but Bush effectively mobilized international support for American interests and got shit done. Like I have turned blue in the face saying, Obama has been a miserable failure in this regard.
George W. Bush presided over the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, despite the warnings of the CIA and the Clinton Administration against the imminent threat of Al-Qaeda. He then launched a war in Iraq, under false pretenses with spurious intelligence, will minimal international support. After fake-landing on an air craft carrier and declaring premature victory, that war lasted ten years, cost the the US trillions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers lives, and left Iraq in essentially a civil war. Despite destabilizing the region and legalizing torture, he failed to actually kill or capture the leaders of the terrorist group directly responsible for the original attacks.
[xDaunt stands and applauds.] "Yes! Yes! That's what I'm talking about!"
You do realize that you're basically proving my point that Bush got shit done on the international stage, right? You may not agree with all that he did (I don't), but he was able to get a lot of countries to do what he wanted. Hell, he basically made the UK (Blair) his bitch for several years (remember all those comments about Blair being Bush's poodle? I don't think that the relationship was disrespectful like some would have us believe, but the point is salient nonetheless). What has Obama done that is even remotely comparable? Nothing. As pointed out by coverpunch, no one can objectively look at the US standing in the world today and say that it is in a better and more influential place than it was in 2008.
Bush did some serious damage to the UK US relationship which will last a generation. The Iraq war and Blair's betrayal of the British people will not be forgotten quickly. Ask yourself if it was really worth the expenditure of political capital and goodwill?
Everyone's missing the point of my comments. I'm not commenting on whether Bush's policies were good or bad. I'm using Bush as an illustration of what proper foreign policy looks like in terms of bending other nations to your will.
EPT
