AnimeSuki.com Forum

AnimeSuki Forum (http://forums.animesuki.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://forums.animesuki.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Kucinich: NDAA Authorizes War Against Iran (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=112350)

Arturia Polaris 2012-05-18 19:11

Kucinich: NDAA Authorizes War Against Iran
 
Discuss

News Article

Personally I'm horrified at this prospect of war all over the place.

Arturia, Ex Niker

Kyuu 2012-05-18 19:21

Here's another article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-de...b_1524474.html

Yes. The War Mongering in this United States. Very disturbing.

Unlike Iraq and Afganistan. Iran isn't a push-over. And while the two previous wars (with Afganistan still on-going)... while those two previous wars lasted nearing a decade... a fight with Iran alone may take longer.

AND

It'll freakin' cost the US a hell-of-a-lot of money. By which, the US cannot afford another war.

Quite frankly. I don't know what these idiots in Congress are thinking. :mad::frustrated:

Arturia Polaris 2012-05-18 19:31

I'm thinking, and hopefully I'm wrong...

Remember the great depression? The whole world economy was stagnated, particularly the one in the states...

WW2 really allowed the economy to change gears and proceed to get out of the great depression in the '30s... I just hope for the sake of humanity that it's not somehow being manipulated into a war.

Arturia

mangamuscle 2012-05-18 20:08

The only reason WWII made the USA changed from industrilized nation to world superpower was because the other "winning" countries of said war paid thru their noses for the help the USA provided in defeating the axis. From that point onwards all wars have drained money from the usa (and placed in in the hands of weapon making corporations).

Now, remember the USSR? Reagen defeated them without shooting a single bullet, the war in afganistan drained them economically to the point of collapse, many republics broke free from imperialistic soviet rule. Guess what is happening now? First afganistan, then iraq and now iran, the USA is bleeding money at an alarming rate and it will have the very same consequences, you will soon start hearing governors from rich states talking about breaking away if washington does not stop expending money in ridiculous wars and there will be a moment when the army will be so depleted that they will actually do so without fear of another civil war.

Kyuu 2012-05-18 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4166362)
Now, remember the USSR? Reagen defeated them without shooting a single bullet, the war in afganistan drained them economically to the point of collapse, many republics broke free from imperialistic soviet rule. Guess what is happening now?

Reagan didn't do squat about the Soviets, other than outspend them. The spending actually did put pressure on the Soviet economy to keep up with the US; but the Soviet Union was rotting on the inside anyways, and the Soviet system was not sustainable not much longer after Reagan anyways.

flying ^ 2012-05-18 20:42

looks like biblical prophesies fulfilled...

stay up-to-date

http://www.abbaswatchman.com/

mangamuscle 2012-05-18 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuu (Post 4166381)
the Soviet Union was rotting on the inside anyways, and the Soviet system was not sustainable not much longer after Reagan anyways.

The USA is rotting on the inside anyway, and the corporativistic system will not be sustained forever, Putin will still be in office when it breaks down.

Kyuu 2012-05-18 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4166394)
The USA is rotting on the inside anyway, and the corporativistic system will not be sustained forever, Putin will still be in office when it breaks down.

Right now? Oh yea. America is very much going down the tubes, as rampant corporatism becomes more unchecked by the day.

Kamui4356 2012-05-19 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4166394)
The USA is rotting on the inside anyway, and the corporativistic system will not be sustained forever, Putin will still be in office when it breaks down.

Come back when the US is borrowing money from its enemies to buy food, because its agricultural policy has lead to an inability to feed the population. That's what doomed the USSR. As long as the system can put food on the table, the system will continue unless a better one comes along. When the system cannot put food ont he table, then the system will collapse.

mangamuscle 2012-05-19 08:10

^ I hope you don't consider China an ally and remember the federal goverment is eating money at an acelerated rate, you can mark my words, that debt ceiling will continue to be increased, the sky is the limit!

Kamui4356 2012-05-19 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4166966)
^ I hope you don't consider China an ally and remember the federal goverment is eating money at an acelerated rate, you can mark my words, that debt ceiling will continue to be increased, the sky is the limit!

There's a secret about the US debt people don't want you to know. It's a complete non-issue. How can that be you ask? It's over 100% of GDP! Surely this is a cause for concern, right? Well, it isn't. Look up the interest rates on treasury bonds then look up inflation. You'll notice something interesting. The rate of return on those bonds is less than inflation. What this little bit of trivia means is, people are paying the US government to borrow money. The amount the US pays back once adjusted for inflation is less than the amount borrowed. This is why the credit rating dropping was such a big deal last year, if the interest rate went up, new debt would be a problem. As of right now, the US government is literally turning a profit on borrowed money. Yes, this is broken. Yes, investors realize it. However, the stability of US treasury bonds is considered worth the loss they take as they will not risk taking a bigger loss with a less stable bond. ;)

Edit: Regardless, this is all completely off topic. I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled fear mongering.

mangamuscle 2012-05-19 09:08

^ You seem to think all of the federal goverment debt is internal, when the ugly truth is that you also owe banks from other countries and the federal reserve does not set their interest rates.

Kamui4356 2012-05-19 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4167016)
^ You seem to think all of the federal goverment debt is internal, when the ugly truth is that you also owe banks from other countries and the federal reserve does not set their interest rates.

The federal reserve doesn't have to set other banks interest rates. They set the rates on the treasury bonds those banks buy. One of the big misconceptions is government debt is like a loan. It isn't usually. The government sells treasury bonds at auction, which are basically promissory notes at a set interest rate. The banks, individuals, corporations, governments, or what have you buying them do not set the interest rate. ;)

mangamuscle 2012-05-19 09:27

^ So you think you can still finance another profitless war and not have a financial crisis like the USSR had?

Kamui4356 2012-05-19 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangamuscle (Post 4167031)
^ So you think you can still finance another profitless war and not have a financial crisis like the USSR had?

Well considering that wasn't the major problem the Soviet Union had, yes, it can easily be done. The Soviet economy had been faltering for decades before it collapsed and were having a problem feeding their people. They also weren't in a position where they were making money on money they borrowed like the US is today. Afghanistan did not break the Soviets. It certainly didn't help, but at most it was a contributing factor. Even if you remove it though, it just means that maybe the Soviet Union lasts a few more years. Once the Warsaw Pact nations start abandoning communism, the Soviets are on borrowed time.

That doesn't mean a war against Iran is a good idea, however. There's still the cost in lives and in reputation. Further, Iran can shut down the strait of Hormuz long enough to have a major impact on the world's oil supply, and that will hurt the US economy. However, if we just focus on US debt, war spending it won't break the US, especially if the republicans get a clue and vote for a war tax.

risingstar3110 2012-05-19 10:00

Well i remembered that episode of Bill Maher about how US is a 2-wars country...

Iran eh? Well slightly late, but still only just missed the end of Iraq and Lybia a bit

Arturia Polaris 2012-05-19 10:01

Let's remember that the States is one of the most powerful industrial workhorses of the world. If THEY can't pay off their debts, no one can, and THAT isn't nice for the rest of the world.

In the most extreme scenarios, the debt will simply have to be re-negotiated, and that is if the situation gets out of hand and they lose the war somehow. Let's remember that bonds kind of represent the "trust" the buyers have on the ability of the States to pay off their debts, and honestly, they DO manage big numbers.

Arturia

flying ^ 2012-05-19 14:03

Breaking:
 
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The U.S. House of Representatives explicitly stated that tough measures it recommended for Iran in a major defense bill did not authorize war.

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran," said an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that directs defense spending, passed in the House on Friday.

The act includes substantive references to Iran, among them a "declaration of policy" that the United States shall "take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon."

It also authorizes combat assessments of Iran's forces and sufficient forces in the Persian Gulf to face Iran.

A number of dovish groups, including several within the pro-Israel community, have been lobbying lawmakers to include explicit denials in various legislation that such proposals authorize war.

The amendment counting out a war authorization was initiated by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Walter Jones. (R-N.C.).

Americans for Peace Now and J Street praised the amendment's inclusion.

"Having urged Congress since the inception of these Iran-related motions to clarify that they are not aimed at authorizing the use of force against Iran, we welcome the adoption of this amendment, as well as other important verbal statements," Ori Nir, APN's spokesman, told JTA.

Dylan Williams, J Street’s director of government affairs, said the amendment "slams the brakes on those in Congress who would drive the United States toward a third war in the Middle East."

NightbatŪ 2012-05-19 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuu (Post 4166322)
Quite frankly. I don't know what these idiots in Congress are thinking. :mad::frustrated:

2 things come to mind
Keeping people "occupied" (heh the irony) with other thing than real problems
Supporting armsmerchants and defenscontractors so they will support election candidates and see a raise in stocks

Suomi 2012-05-19 15:30

I'm opposed to the idea of war with Iran, especially if they indeed DON'T have nuclear weapon or weapons program. Plus, if we go to war with them...won't they just be more likely to build one?
Hey, guys. Cold War is over. "Containment" died with the fall of the Soviet Union.
Let's worry when they actually start something.
However, I must say that website, and the comments on that article, wins for the most opinionated I've ever read.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:46.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.