US News
Obama sees improving economy but central bank gloomy
May 21, 2009, 8:38 GMT
Washington - The embattled US financial system is making strides on the way to recovery from the worst recession in decades, US President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday.
The world's largest economy was showing 'some return to normalcy in certain aspects of the financial markets,' Obama said at the first full meeting with his new board of outside economic advisers.
'We're pleased that we've seen some progress.'
Hours later, though, recent comments by US Federal Reserve officials gave gloomy outlooks for the fourth quarter that were even worse than the central bank had projected in January.
In written minutes released late Wednesday from the April 28-29 meeting, members of the Federal Open Market Committee said they anticipated a fourth-quarter contraction in the US gross domestic product (GDP) of 1.3 to 2 per cent, a sharp change from the 0.5 to 1.3 per cent negative growth it had projected in January for the October-December period.
The committee expected unemployment to reach 9.2 to 9.6 per cent during the fourth quarter of 2009, compared to the Fed's initial projections of 8.5 to 8.8 per cent.
Current US unemployment is 8.9 per cent, the highest since 1983.
Obama warned Wednesday that unemployment may stay high 'for some time.' Fed officials also expected that a 9-per-cent unemployment rate would last through to the end of 2010 and could remain as high as 8.5 per cent through 2011.
The Fed committee, which includes 17 officials such as Fed governors and district branch presidents, makes economic projections four times a year. The weaker forecasts are in line with changes to projections by private economists over the last few months, the Bloomberg financial news service reported.
Economic growth projections for 2010 remained relatively stable. Fed officials projected growth of 2 to 3 per cent in 2010, only slightly down from from the 2.5 to 3.3 per cent they forecast in January.
Participants generally expected that strains in credit markets and in the banking system would ebb slowly, and hence the pace of recovery would continue to be damped in 2010,' the Fed said in the minutes.
Economic growth will pick up in 2011 as financial conditions improve, the Fed said.
Treasury Secretary Geithner earlier Wednesday told the Senate banking committee that there were 'important indications' that the financial system 'is starting to heal.'
Geithner reassured Congress that there has been a 'substantial amount of adjustment' under the drastic interventions in the financial sector using US government money.
'The most vulnerable parts of the non-bank financial system no longer pose the same risk,' he said. '(Banks) are funding themselves more conservatively.'
The risk premiums for inter-bank loans as well as municipal bonds have fallen, and the issuance of new securities 'has started to revive,' Geithner said.
He cautioned: 'The process of financial recovery and repair will take time.'
Geithner was optimistic that by July, a government programme to help banks get rid of their distressed assets would be up and running.
The programme will use about 75 billion to 100 billion dollars of government money, which remains from the 700-billion-dollar emergency relief adopted in October by the US Congress. With participation from the private sector, purchasing power could be boosted to 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars, Geithner said.
The distressed assets include in large part mortgages gone sour amid a real estate market that was overheated by risky securitization of home loans.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Under the new government of the american republic, the central bank will be gone..and a government bank will be the law...
...in the world of commerce and finance, confidence is generated by deeds, not words. If words were the only factor we'd be seeing far better results. We have another way of putting it in the private sector:
Money Talks, Bullsh-t walks.
Perhaps this could be the sequel to 'The Audacity of Hope'...boy, HE wasn't kidding, eh?
But thoughts lead to words, which lead to deeds(actions). That is the flow. If you staunch an idea, you staunch the flow. If the deed doesn't lead to the result you wanted, you rethink it, then alter your game plan. Try to be a Quarterback without using words to direct the team. The deed does not happen. Some word usages are more subtle than others. So, Yes.
By the way, SP, it is good to see a reasonable post. Some your stuff does not become a man of your education.
If Bush had thought for one minute, then there wouldn't be the military and economic mess that we're in today. Think before you act.
That America is doomed. I have no hope. American workers b*tch too much and produce too little. American manufacturers produce sh*tty products with inferior quality. American banks are in worse shape than before the bailout. I am leaving this worthless country. Bye!
It is not the workers that b*tch too much. It is the greed of the moneymen that is the root cause of things. If the workers were treated a human beings, rather than as a beancounter's 'human rsource' then things might get a little better. There need not be a classless class war between management and labor. People would like to care for their companies. Give them a chance to be proud of their products. Build loyalty, don't demand it. Now, if you want to be a chicken and run, then cluck off. We don't need people who are here to suck the juices and give nothing in return. A real man would stay and fight for what is right, not run like a scared little rabbit.
'If the workers were treated a human beings,' should have read 'as human beings.
When I was in the Army, there was an old saying: 'If the men aren't b*tching, then something is wrong.' It is a soldiers, and workers right to b*tch. It is healthy. It can also point out to an aware management that there are some issues that need to be addressed. When the men are silent, then you have a morale problem. Those are damned hard to fix. Efficiency and productivity suffer. Management then, usually, comes down harder on those that actually get the job done. Precisely the wrong approach. It leads to further demoralization and attendany production problems. Fire management, not the workers. Management should lead, not blame the worker for their failings. It should be a team effort, not a power trip. So, why don't you shut up, stop your whining and listen, for a change.
'attendany production problems.' should have read attendant. Please pardon my palsied fingers.
Absolutely, the previous poster is spot on the mark. A silent workforce is a demoralised one. Much of the problem these days results from the over-promotion of politicing 'company ciphers.' Pink cheeked precocious brats with heads crammed with dubious theories and little real knowledge of life. Men need leading by example: A talent that is developed through the amassment of experience and which requires a character prone to face, rather than duck difficult issues.
Consider the massive propping up of GM: Here is Ford, carrying their load, and now the US Government is infusing their chief competitor with billions.
We now have a leader who does not merely want to lend a helping hand, he wishes to perpetuate and institutionalize failure a.k.a. Amtrak - style. Further, he undermines the credit markets by leaving the bondholders high and dry. In countless retirement portfolios, these bonds are now almost worthless, and we now have bond rating services dropping ratings on numerous issues, because of the potential for government interference.
What kind of workforce does this engender? What kind of financial confidence does this promote?
America has the most creative, productive workforce in the world. Now, the pig that dresses like the farmer wishes to undo success.
Change you can believe in?... Keep the change!
The economy is better? Yeah right! America is doomed for failure and will never return to its normal self without reforms in their political, financial, economic, and social models. They are too stupid to realize that their system doesn't work in today's world, and that is actually good for the rest of the world because that signals the beginning of the end for this evil empire.
Yes, reforms ARE needed. But, you don't do them overnight. That is too disruptive. You wind up with utter chaos. A situation that is worse than the status quo. Compare this to an old car. It's tired, worn out, but still somewhat serviceable. Do you take it to the crusher and then walk to work, the grocery store, the beer parlour, mom's place for Sunday dinner, for the next year, while you search for a new car? Your girlfriend will not be impressed. She will ditch you faster than a speeding drunk driver heading off the road around a blind curve on a mountain. That is some ditch. Not a soft landing at the end either. NO. You continue to patch it up while looking for a suitable replacement. Patience Glasshoppah. Things will change, for things must change.
...I suspect you are just confusing change with improvement. I however, am not.
'America is doomed for failure and will never return to its normal self without reforms'
Your choice of words is poor. Its normal self is dysfunctional. Reforms to return it to that state are not reforms. That is not change. This sounds like the GOP - keep things as they are, because we feel safe with them.
The unknown can be scarey. It can also be a refreshing challenge. Are you a pessimist or an optimist? Everything in life is in a constant state of flux, change. Only small minded people want things to stay the same in it's 'normal' state. That is abnormal. That is not natural. Be a river, go with the flow. Don't dam the damn thing.
As the line, in the movie Shrek, goes: 'Change is good, Donkey.'
LEADERSHIP! Spot on. When I went on army courses, that might lead to promotion, they were called leadership courses, not management courses. You lead men and manage equipment, materiel. Those precocious brats you speak of lead the equipment and manage the men. Talk about a severe case of rectal-cranial interface.
Well, my dear little pudknocker, how do you know it is or is not an improvement until you try it? Change is the basic element. Without it, you have what we have now, mon petite eleve. It is very easy to be a naysayer and whine about everything, whilst doing nothing.
You say: 'I however, am not.'
I say: 'I think, therefore I am.' By the way. it was Rene Descartes who first said that. Do you feel somewhat enlightened, now that your education has been advanced just a smidgeon?
Can you change? Can you go with change? Or do you feel too safe with the known? Change is the lifeline. Can you, will you, reach for it? Change is not easy, but the status quo is worse.
Who does the hard thing? He, who can.
Can you?
a rat that would rather go down with the sinking ship, protesting and mewling all the way. A lifeline? No, he'd use it as a rope and hang hinself.
'Now, the pig that dresses like the farmer wishes to undo success.'
Sp sees the pig, and immediately drops his pants and grabs his ankles. I'll give this to SP, he knows who his betters are.
Change is still not improvement Professor. If Obama's performance to date says anything THAT is it. Now, we are expected to swallow another round of wishful thinking. Even the central bank is not backing his sound bites as you can plainly read.
This is quite a cute religion you've developed. You have a savior, golden calf and virgin figure all in one. He even brings the ten commandments from the mountain for you. You little automatons, stuck in the desert for the next four years, would say anything to cover the glaring failures. Whats next, a Kool-Aid party???
If this is supposed to be change...you can keep the change. 9% unemployment(12 in my state), falling dollar, frozen credit markets, falling personal wealth, sagging tax receipts, bond markets reeling from the US government throwing GM bondholders to the wind.....Honestly, most of the time we cannot tell if Obama supporters are bragging or complaining.
The Audacity of Hope...the sequel could be called 'F--k yes, you were not kidding, eh Mr. President???'
Oh, and Monkey boy ( We all know, so don't try to hide) try to let the big people discuss the topics....quietly.
wouldn't know a big topic if it slapped him upside the head.
Sp4 fears big change, because he is a penny-ante player.
Change takes time, Idiot. Wait for it. While you are waiting to see the changes come into effect, you may continue to drive, stoned out of your worm-farm mind, straight off that cliff. Don't forget to change gears on the way down. Try and downshift in that freefall, SP. See what good that does you. Too bad you aren't wearing a parachute, SP. But then again, you are too stupid to find the 'D' ring let alone know what to do with it. Here's a clue: 'Yank the damn thing.' We know that you are good at yanking things. I'm surprised you haven't yanked the miniscule thing off. By the way, SP, a mind is like a parachute. It only works when open. The space where your mind should be is so open that NASA could launch a Shuttle through it and not hit a thing.
Go back to being a surrogate lover for your family dog. Change your pants. And for God's sake, take a bath. We can smell you all the way over here, in civilization.
SP4, the original Hurdy Gurdy man, that organ grinder, that Yank-er, just got what he had, ahem, coming, to him. Suck it up, SP. You've just buggered yourself, you silly clot.
I see someone dropped in a funny.
SP does his usual trick. When he knows that he doesn't have a leg to stand on, he resorts to the silly mode and does the monkey routine. In wonder when he will walk erect, like a man. When he knows that his arguments are full of holes what does he do? He starts jerking-off in public. Come on, SP. You have claimed many times on this site that you have two degrees. Show us what an intelligent, thoughtful, insightful person you are. Or have you just done that? Are those two degrees you possess, your body temperature above Absolute Zero? Or is that Absolute Zero your IQ?
In fairness to fudd, I think what he is trying to say, when all the goo and dribble is removed is that change is not invariably for the better. There is an old saw, current throughout the English speaking world which goes 'if it ain't broke don't fix it.' Innovation is vital but so is a measure of stability.
Of course the rest of his latest post is tosh. Is SP attempting to blame current economic ills on the present US administration? Not a very convincing bit of 'GOPaganda.'
If he wants to slate the Democrats contribution to this recession he would be better citing the 'Billary' Clinton government's policy of leaning on Freddie and Fannie to provide sub-prime mortgage products to the demonstrably uncreditworthy.
regarding 'that change is not invariably for the better'
How does one know, if one doesn't try? By way of example: I once owned a clapped-out VW Microbus. I was planning a long journey. 'Wiser' heads warned me not to go. They foretold of great woe and sorrow. All sorts of demons were raised. Perils postulated. I said: 'We don't know until we try.' They ruminated on those words. They had no comeback. I went. I had the greatest trip of my life.
The choice is optimism, with the full realisation that all may not go well, but that is what an adventure is all about, OR pessimism, where one stays stuck in the basement apartment of an outhouse, fearful of all the dragons that exist only in one's mind.
What we are getting here is the basic duality of things, Good and Evil. One man's soup is another man's poison. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. This is merely a value judgement. Enough of examples. Change is inevitable. You can go with the flow or get steam rollered by it. The choice is there.
I think Mr. Robert Zimmerman said it best: 'Good and bad, how do I define these terms. Quite clear, no doubt. Somehow.'
In an earlier post I said something to the effect that change is not done overnight. Chaos results. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. One uses the current system, patching the tyres as needed to keep the thing rolling. At the same time one does plan and implement change, over time to prevent greater hardship. It is called acclimatisation. No, change isn't always for the better, but again, that is value judgement. You don't know until you try. I think Mr. Zimmerman also said things best in his song/poem: The times, they are a-changing.
Yes, good point. The short answer as to how we know whether a particular proposed change will be beneficial or not is 'discernment.' In your own case you were perhaps able to bring insight and experience to bear when considering the feasibility of the trip you mention. Then again, if you simply set off into the blue, OK. Taking ones own risks is fine, and spontaneity is the spice of life. I did not mean to imply that I invariably oppose or distrust change per se. Only that in the realms of politics and business ill-considered or poorly implemented innovations can be costly and disruptive.
Most of my tag seems to have disappeared when I made that last post. Hardly a change for the better as you will not have een able to identify its author positively.
I've changed it back now and remain, good Sirs,
your most humble obedient
Truebrit
I sincerely hope not. The crossing of Rapiers in friendly (s)wordplay is most enjoyable. If one doesn't hone one's blade, one gets awfully dull. In the case of a certain person, I was merely trying (in vain hope)to open the dark, dogmatic doors just a hair. An idea, like a plant, cannot grow where there is no fertile ground. En Garde? No, time for an ale. I'm buying.
True, change may not necessarily good. But change it is. One adapts, or one dies.
I think an example is the self-induced, sorry state of the GOP. Limbaugh and Cheney are merely the death throes.
Requiescat In Pace.
Of late, he appears to be doing one of two things. A) setting himself up for a run at the Presidency, or B)the voiceless GOP needs an attack dog, a spokesthing in order to appear somewhat breathing. In either case the only worse thing they could do is nominate Palin or Joe the plumber. Pull the plug and call in the priest. We have a corpse on our hands.
To open the dogmatically welded doors of some minds on this site would require high explosives. Yet blowing SP's brain up would not alter the content of his posts one jot. They come from his gut, not his consciousness. Still, he's been reading Orwell if the recurring pig and farmer line is any indication; and that can only have a civilising influence. Of course, as I've commented on another article on this page (the one where the tedious 'A Sovereign Republic' piece has been reposted for the umpteenth time) he may have merely watched the film, and possibly mistook that for the other 'Animal Farm' movie anyway, which illustrates some of the altogether more intrusive uses a pig can apparently be put to. Still, it's a start, and makes a welcome change from his usual source material.
ROFLMAO
..pity it has nothing to do with the article, but...you know me...go ahead and indulge yourselves. It is comforting to know the Animal Farm metaphor was not totally wasted on a band of Pygmies.
do uou even have a clue as to what the story was even about? Spark up another doobie and go back to your drug induced paranoia and rantings. Sweet dreams about that pig doing you, again. Knock, Knock, EssPee, it's the DEA.
How many posts on any thread are actually about the article? The welcome revelation here, SP, is that you have a soul and are actually brighter than some of your detractors. Not all, by any means: And I'm not referring to myself only, here. Yet you are clearly bright when you bother occasionally to put your brain into gear. I have long suspected so merely from the frustration implicit in some of the venomous replies you provoke: And, I must admit (the Gods protect me from the wrath of the ignorant) from your evident ownership of a sense of humour. This, I think, is what makes some of the adverse rejoinders you provoke so vitriolic.
Much of your stuff on these pages does not make it easy for others who are also patriotic and economically conservative (In the British sense, pragmatically, I am no unravelled religious bigot) to make their case. So, SP, try to engage your mind rather than your arse when you post.
Found another venue to haunt, just like Cheney. He'd go have a hot dog, but would be afraid of being seen as a cannibal.
I see this economic issue (you folks still on topic?) as a matter of timing. Obama sees relief coming faster than the Fed does - and the Fed's analysts may have better data to work with. That said, no one's predictions back in 2008, aside from perhaps Roubini, were worth much. No one really saw what was coming - heck, not even Madoff. Certainly not Lehman Brothers or AIG.
I think that 2009 is the year where we find the floor - but that cannot be proven until late in 2010; so just a guess - like everyone else's.
Unemployment will remain high - because GM, Ford and Chrysler's cuts are permanent, for the most part; along with some of their suppliers. We have lost a good part of a key industry - which is why Obama was looking for energy and infrastructure to pick up some of the slack - along with science, once stem cell research (ongoing in other countries) is also added back.
I can think of no President who has inherited such an utter mess. Clinton left Bush a surplus, and Bush left a gaping hole where the economy used to be. As the GOP's own infrastructure project, both Cheney and Gingrich are out to fill that hole with their self-made fertilizer.
The odor of SP4 fills the land .....
The (OT) bad news of the day is that Netanyuhu refuses to reduce settlement building in the West Bank, in terms of 'existing' settlements - and that roadblocks the peace process. Bibi has his own right wing to contend with, just as we do - but with a fractured government depending on alliances, the situation is far worse than in the U.S.
The more 'usual' news of the day is that the GOP will continue to create messes; and then blame them on the political opposition. Check the news for a transcript of Colin Powell's appearance today - brilliant, and dignified. That's TWO things that mark him as different than the dittoheads making GOP noise today.
... and it's on top of his head.
Other than the obvious fact that Nut-and-Yahoo has nothing to do with this story, you do miss a point. Israel has its own economic problems and building settlements on stolen land is a good economic stimulus package. In the unlikely event that these lands be returned to their rightful owners, those same construction companies will benefit by having to build new dwellings for the displaced trespassers. Build now, with an eye on the future. I wonder how much N-and-C interest owns in these companies. How large are the kickbacks, of he doesn't own a stake in them? Another side to this is, while pissing of their neighbors, Israel can maintain an overly large military which needs feeding. This has a trickle-down effect, boosting the econony. Further to this is the fact that Israel is one of the largest arms exporters in the world. This helps to maintain a positve cash flow, maintaining a favourable trade situation for them. Their occasional, but not uncommon incursions into sovereign countries and the slaughter of Gazans is a very good way to reduce stockpiles of old military inventory, making demand for new munitions, further aiding the economy. War is good business, invest your sons.
that may confuse some. N&C should have read N&Y as in Nut and Yahoo. There are a couple of others, but what the heck, it gives others a chance to be nit-picky. I'll leave them as is.
Israel has made out well in good part thanks to U.S. support; and some other nations wonder just what they have to do to get some of that support.
Netanyahu has disappointed Obama; but Obama would work diplomatically to get him to shift. It's impossible to get the 2-state solution if Israeli settlers are free to do whatever they want; and in the future the Palestinian population will turn the Jewish settlers into a minority.
On Fareed Zakaria's GPS (where Fareed said offhand that Israel won't likely change its settlement policies), another panelist notes that the Jewish world population is about 13 million; and Islam about 1.6 trillion.
The worldwide Jewish population is 13.3 million. Jewish population growth worldwide is close to zero percent. From 2000 to 2001 it rose 0.3%, compared to worldwide population growth of 1.4%.
The Muslim Population is increasing at 1.84% per Carnegie Endowment. The Muslim population in 2009 is 1.6576 trillion.
Please forgive my ignorance on many things economic, but if Israel's prosperity makes others jealous, and this is due to American intervention, then it cannot truly be called Israeli prosperity that they are jealous of, can it? Is it not the extension of the American economy, an economic, but not political, surrogate, subset, as the tail does sometimes wag the dog? Is it not the US economy and its somewhat parsimonious largesse that they are jealous of? I say parsimonious, because it is usually tied with strings that no nation likes.
I do wonder what those statistics you cite have to do with your argument.
has disappointed Obama, then why not tie some of that largesse to the settlement issue. Pull back, or we will pull back. This might scare them enough to do it. But it cannot be a bluff. On the other hand Israel has been known to do whatever it wants, in spite of world opinion. Is the only way to reign them in through the wallet? By the way, the Carnegie Endowments are closely tied to the US State Department and their policies. They basically do what the Department says. This 1.84% population increase/Endowment is insignificant, except to show that funding is decreasing on a per capita basis. Were there any increases to Endowments to Israelis, through Carnegie, or any other source of funding? You appear to be good with numbers. Can you supply them? What were increses/decreases to other ethnicities? Let us do a real comparison, to gain a full perspective on this.
Back from the land of nod (not a Middle Eastern reference). I am somewhat familiar with demographic techniques but must confess that linking population increase to Carnegie Endowments is a new one!
Netanyahu is a very sophisticated player and it remains to be seen whether the Sainted Barack's diplomacy will have much discernable effect.
RE: I am somewhat familiar with demographic techniques but must confess that linking population increase to Carnegie Endowments is a new one!
============
The statistic quoted on the Jewish population comes from the Carnegie Endowment (not the money)
I tied together the topics with regard to U.S. assistance to Israel, and the resentment of non-recipients:
(2001-2 YTD numbers):
www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4
www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the U.S. has provided nearly 3 billion dollars in grants annually.
---------------
Now ... imagine how the poorer Muslim nations feel about that. The world's total Jewish population is 13 million; and Israel's total population in 2008 (all groups) was 7.4 million. Of those, 5,435,900 were Jewish, and 1,142,000 Muslim (Wikipedia).
The poverty in Muslim countries is a driving force in radicalization, since they have a high percentage of under-30's.
Iran had a population of over 70 million in the 2006 census, with nearly one quarter of its people being 15 years of age or younger (Wikipedia)
The past 8 years, in particular, have increased radicalization in poorer Muslim nations. The money thus far spent in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a fraction of the total cost, down the road. Some military success in Afghanistan may simply cause more Taliban to move to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons.
Our generosity to Israel is seen as implicit U.S. backing of Israel against THEIR perceived enemies, and Iran is on that list. If Netanyahu, urged on by Lieberman and his right-wing, takes military action against Iran, we stand to get sucked into it, one way or another.
All of this drains revenue from our domestic economy, and there's no end in sight. We also have to replenish our own consumed weapons, ammunition, aircraft, and vehicles.
The radicals' irrational hatred of Israel is an undending catayst, creating more and more problems to be dealt with.
“The statistic quoted on the Jewish population comes from the Carnegie Endowment (not the money)”
Ah, dim of me. Thank you. Of course you meant as per the Carnegie Endowment.
By foreign assistance am I correct in assuming you refer to what we term “overseas aid” directed at economic development, or is this a matter of subsidising a strategic regional ally? Or, and I can see how this could lead to Moslem resentment, is it a case of the direction of sums supposedly earmarked for the first purpose to achieve the second?
After all, our own and even more so, French aid allocations are quite heavily weighted towards former colonies in strategic locations for much the same reason. I would assume that the US still supplies aid to some Moslem states on this premise too. Who are the main recipients, on what basis and to what extent? Radicalisation will not, I fear, be reduced as a result of this or anything else the West can do short of abandoning vital interests.
The Taliban’s recent incursions into Pakistan do now appear to be being countered effectively though destabilisation of the country was an intrinsic risk of the Afghan operation. It is inevitable that enormous costs be incurred in the pursuit of global aims. It is the price of Empire, I’m afraid.
I wish that other western allies would do more yet the brunt of operational costs, in every sense, has fallen once more upon the USA, supported effectively solely by UK and Canadian contributions. Both the financial and combat costs would seem to support this, though what it’s effect on the US military budget and general economic implications as a whole are, your government is unlikely to reveal.
...hell, with a vibrant growing economy we could afford this war, never mind it's current gross mismanagement, and the twisted logic for even being there, ostensibly to capture a single person, and then proceed to give us ten reasons to release him, like Clinton did when he let Osama walk.
Libnazis spent eight years telling us why Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with terror, yet once they installed their boy king, they ignored the obvious fact that, outside of providing him a safe place, (something Saddam did also, by the way) the Taliban really had noting to do with Al Qaeda either. Now true, they may be bloodthirsty, xenophobic sons-a-bitches, but then again, so are the Saudis. Like Gitmo, the Dems need to paint the picture of being foreign savvy, and retreating from both wars would show them for what they are. Like Gitmo, they proceed to, once again, dress like the previous farmer in office, but are only the pigs, with no dictrine to back up their moves, other than to appeal and appease their left wing. On renditions, 'interrogations' warrantless taps, Obama has bought and paid for the Bush doctrine, because, like Palin correctly said, running for President should not be a journey of self discovery. Apparently, it is.
Were we able to now generate the tax revenue, employent, GDP growth, and personal wealth we did during the Bush administration, funding for this war would come from something other than the mindless printing of $3.4 trillion dollars in the first 90 days of this administration. The fact is, libnazis could care less about the economy, their goal is to institutionalize their beliefs as fast as possible, damn the workers, damn the war, etc., so enjoy.
Now for anyone who thinks Bush was, somehow, responsible for the economic mess we are currently in, just read the following:
This was preventable.Sep 21st, 2008 - 01:59:13
John McCain predicted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crises, pushed 2005 legislation to prevent trouble:
The 'FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005' would have headed this off but it was killed in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by Chris Dodd who recieved the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
President Bush sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie in 2003.
The Democratic response to Bush in 2003:
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
speaks for itself and to it's author. No intelligent response is needed, for it is not intelligible.
He seems to have had lunch with Cheney, regrettably.
www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_05_24_Intel_experts:_Di ck_Cheney_was_wrong_about_Bush_administration_moves/
Cheney said waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques produced information that “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” He also quoted Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair as saying the information gave U.S. officials a “deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization.”
In his statement April 21, however, Blair said “these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.” A 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that the information helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four secret Bush-era memos released last month. And FBI Director Robert Muller said in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.
================
Cheney said his administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” In fact, the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan, leaving Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, at large nearly eight years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since 2001, and extremists have launched a concerted attack on nuclear-armed Pakistan.
================
Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
In fact, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting release of materials that are subject of lawsuits.
================
(more examples in the link - unlike SP4, I am actually capable of editing, and referring readers to a source. SP4 sources wholesale from pigstys like Newsmax and Fox)
RE the inane: 'Were we able to now generate the tax revenue, employent, GDP growth, and personal wealth we did during the Bush administration, funding for this war would come from something other than the mindless printing of $3.4 trillion dollars in the first 90 days of this administration.'
www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811
'The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.'
(The only thing worse 'conceived' was SP4's birth)
RE: 'By foreign assistance am I correct in assuming you refer to what we term “overseas aid” directed at economic development, or is this a matter of subsidising a strategic regional ally? Or, and I can see how this could lead to Moslem resentment, is it a case of the direction of sums supposedly earmarked for the first purpose to achieve the second?'
=========
Firstly, I'd advise that you research Google based on 'military aid to Israel'. Secondly, I've no idea how the U.S. breaks out military vs. 'other' aid.
The perception, however, is that we're one-sided in the Mideast - supporting Israel at the expense of everyone else; unless they produce oil. We were facing the Taliban in Afghanista; which while a country for placement of pipelines, does not produce oil. That war was not paying dividends in photo-ops post-Tora-Bora, and Cheney's megalomaniac tendencies had been stoked. The Iraq War was probably an agenda item since Bush took office; and 9/11 became the excuse for it. This resulted, per Haass' writings and others, the basis for waterboarding and other torture of people already cooperating against the Taliban, to prove some linkage between 9/11 and Saddam - Cheney continues to attempt to force that linkage today to excuse hs own failures.
Meanwhile, the presence of our troops serves as fodder for the recruiters of insurgents and terrorists; along with the poverty in the region amongst the non-oil-producers, as well as countries like Somalia where the people have turned to piracy for a living, and have no government to speak of.
Speaking of Somalia:
www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-25-voa14.cfm
'In Somalia, the Islamist al-Shabab militia has claimed responsibility for a suicide attack that killed six guards at a government base in the capital Mogadishu. The group says the attacker was a Somali, denying earlier reports that the attack was carried out by a foreign fighter.
On Sunday, a vehicle exploded outside a government base near the port in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. Six guards were killed in the attack, as well as at least one civilian.'
www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gLHhUZEJe35cbas5hkDaCp2bgo1 g
'MOGADISHU (AFP) — Somalia's President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed condemned on Monday what he termed as an invasion by foreign fighters as rebels battle to oust him in weeks of clashes that have killed more than 200 people.
The latest round of violence erupted on May 7 when hardline Islamist insurgents launched an offensive against government troops, wounding hundreds and forcing tens of thousands of others to flee.
'Somalia is being invaded by foreign fighters, whose main purpose is to turn the country into an Afghanistan or an Iraq,' Sharif said at a rare news conference in his office. 'We call on the international community and the Somali people to help us in fighting against them,' he added.'
(Memories of Mogadishu essentially prevent U.S. actions)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu
'With the collapse of the central government in 1991, Mogadishu has been the stage for 19 years of fighting between rival militias. Years of civil unrest and uncontrolled insurgencies against Ethiopian occupation have transformed Mogadishu into one of the most dangerous and lawless cities in the world. Estimates of the city's current population vary greatly, with figures ranging from 1.5 million to 3 million, as many of its former inhabitants have fled.
A contingent of United States Marines landed near Mogadishu on December 9, 1992 to spearhead the United Nations peacekeeping forces during Operation Restore Hope, in which Pakistan, Italy and Malaysia also participated.
In the wake of Operation Restore Hope, further US helicopter-borne incursions persisted, until, on October 4, 1993, at 6:30 AM., American forces were finally evacuated to the UN's Pakistani base by an armored convoy along the so-called 'Mogadishu Mile.' In that exercise alone, 18 U.S. soldiers died and 73 were injured, while two US Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and three further MH-60s put out of action. After the battle, one or more US casualties of the conflict were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by crowds of local civilians and SNA forces. The Malaysian forces lost one soldier and had seven injured, while the Pakistanis suffered two injured. Casualties on the Somali side were heavy, with estimates on fatalities ranging from 500 to over 2,000 people. The Somali casualties were a mixture of militiamen and local civilians. Somali civilians suffered heavy casualties due to the dense urban character of that portion of Mogadishu. Two days later, a mortar round fell on the U.S. compound, killing one U.S. soldier, and injuring another twelve.'
Answer to “To Truebrit”
Back from the pub, and looking for some light relief.
As to the interrogation techniques employed on detainees there appears to be some ambiguity over how effective they have proved, despite their moral shortcomings. The matter of our own government’s complicity in this and in extraordinary renditions has been of much contrived concern on this side of the pond. The following excerpt from the parliamentary debate in the upper house raises some questions to say the least.
(Hansard, Lords debates, 23rd April 2009)
Lord Sheikh (Conservative) “The Obama Administration have been very honest and have told the world about the interrogation techniques. Will the Minister be equally honest and tell your Lordships' House whether we were aware that these techniques were being used and whether we used the information obtained by them in the United Kingdom?”
Lord Davies of Oldham (Deputy Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour) “My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, these techniques are not used by any British personnel during interrogation. The information obtained by the United States is taken in good faith. The noble Lord will appreciate that it is not possible for us alone to conduct the necessary defensive strategy against terrorism. We need co-operation with other states, and that co-operation is based on the information which they supply. We would not knowingly use any information that involved techniques of interrogation which we were not prepared to use.”
A weasel answer if ever there was one, and the last sentence is plainly nonsense. Taking advantage of information gained by our allies and then feigning moral indignation about how it was obtained is typical of our present administration. Yet it illustrates, I suppose, that few things in this world are as clear cut as they may seem to many, who like SP4, are a tad set in their unquestioning allegiances. I wonder how Obama’s somewhat high-minded initial stance will bear exposure to the demands of practical realpolitik as matters evolve? The twee idealisms of relative youth so often seem to succumb to less exalted but more utilitarian counsels as their advocates become increasingly preoccupied with keeping their own arses firmly in whatever driving seat they value.
I shall take your advice and Google US foreign aid allocations. Offhand, I recall total aid amounts to about 0.4% of US GDP (which various liberal pro-aid organisations constantly denigrate) so I suppose an Israeliward allocation of $3bn is hardly excessive out of a total that still probably exceeds $57bn. In any case, as Israel is the only regional ally who can ultimately be relied upon, primarily out of self-interest, the poor oil-less Arabs unrequited love for the dollar will have to remain un-assuaged so long as their richer confreres remain tractable to a degree. The Saudis and Gulf States are historically too wary of Iran to break ranks. Israel contains her immediate neighbours. The recruiters of insurgents and terrorists would not lack custom even if there were not a single western soldier in the region.
Somalia? Yes they’re 99% Moslem and strategically placed at the horn of Africa, but apart from the pirate nuisance are too busy killing each other to be a major concern now. We can cordon them off and let them stew at present. Take a tip, young Skywalker, as Yoda would say. Never stir up Hornets nests unless you have to. If they’re in your enemies or nervous allies back yards let them go and have a prod.
Always remember, the art is to improvise constantly and be able to meet wholly new situations as they arise with unholy new remedies. Government’s primary duty is the protection of its own people and vital national interests. A measured, mature and realistic appraisal of the possible, rather than over concentration and overemphasis on distinct factors as though each were an isolated and critical difficulty is what is required. Bush was hopelessly inadequate. The jury’s still out on Barack but I have hopes, if he can find a way to divest himself of the cynically assumed halo.
By now, having read this back, I believe that you may consider me to be a moral vacuum. My answer? “Work hard enough and one day you may become one yourself.” I certainly hope so if others rely upon your skills for their wellbeing.
I advise you to start right now and Google “Niccolo Machiavelli.” I would be delighted to discuss your OWN conclusions!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli
'The Prince does not dismiss morality, instead, it politically defines “Morality” — as in the criteria for acceptable cruel action — it must be decisive: swift, effective, and short-lived. Machiavelli is aware of the irony of good results coming from evil actions; notwithstanding some mitigating themes, the Catholic Church proscribed The Prince, registering it to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, moreover, the Humanists also viewed the book negatively, among them, Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism — thus, The Prince is a manual to acquiring and keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, a Classical ideal society is not the aim of the Prince’s will to power. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasises necessary, methodical exercise of brute force punishment-and-reward (patronage, clientelism, et cetera) to preserve the status quo.'
----------
Obama has left the door open to use of extraordinary techniques in truly exigent circumstances. No President would do otherwise.
Obama, through his very discrete speaking style (after Bush, anything would qualify as 'style') leads some to think that he speaks in absolutes - he does not. He's very pragmatic, whereas Cheney is megalomaniac and dogmatic; presenting his case to protect his own legacy. His sense of humor demonstrates both humanity and intelligence - such as recognizing that some refer to him as 'Spock'.
The question is not whether Cheney is a patriot, but rather what he'd do in the name of patriotism - even if it violates our core concepts of decency that gained us respect in the world, before Bush made us appear like idiots for electing him. It appears that there's nothing that Cheney would NOT do. Why waterboard 183 times if it's effective? Perhaps, because he was not getting the answers that he WANTED to justify the Iraq/al Qaeda ties?
In his last performance, he mentioned 9/11 over 20 times - and then explained that we have to look to the future. Jabba the Veep.
Parliament seems to have its own problems right now, per my weekly PMQ viewing - and Cameron continues to play 'gotcha' instead of proposing solutions (which would involve crippling programs like education). Just as the public was with Bush, they could vote for the messenger without understanding the message. Any more moats needing cleaning?
When the country sees Cheney, they see WHY they voted for 'change' - Cheney is the past that everyone tried to avoid repeating.
Powell's polling is higher that that of Cheney and Limbaugh combined, which speaks to the intelligence of the OTHER 80 percent of the U.S.
Obama's plate is full; yet he soldiers on. No one needs to waste time explaining the issues to him, as Cheney did with Bush - in the process brainwashing him to become SP4's role model. Obama listens; and then decides. He does not give a DAMN what Cheney has to say, and does not watch cable news - he relaxes with sports on TV.
Cheney and Limbaugh are tossing red meat to their own, and in the process diminishing the faded lustre of what once was a party, with people like the late Jack Kemp speaking for it. That's what Powell is now arguing, and what Spector had in mind when he exited.
(G)rasping
(O)ut of power
(P)issed off about it
is being greatly misunderstood.
I'm sorry that I haven't gotten back to you earlier about the Carnegie Endowments topic. I had lectures to prepare and deliver. Regarding your interesting connection between the Endowments and population. I see it now. It would be nice if you shared the paradigms that you use, from the outset. It would prevent much confusion and misunderstanding. I see that you see patterns that no one else sees. From your further postings, I can plainly see that you see many connections between apparently disparate topics. A man of Mensa once said to me, when I was a young man: 'What separates the truly intelligent from the dull normals is we can see patterns where the others see nothing but noise.' Are you a Mensa member? Have you tried for membership in said august organisation? I highly recommend that you do. Your abilities will be welcomed, and will be respected, not derided by those who are not your equals. What are you doing, wasting your time on this site? You are worthy of better. Yes, I know, it is sometimes hard when one is apart, different, and as a result one seeks stimulation wherever one can. You can do better. I may even be able to pull some favours and get you sponsored into some interesting inner circles. You would be a worthy candidate. Are you also good with cryptography and anagrams? Through them I can send you my Email address, without the riff-raff cluing in, so that we may correspond privately. Don't worry, if they are not your forte, for not everybody is good with them. We can find other methods.
I write manufacturing databases, so thinking in an integrated and holistic manner comes naturally - this work requires taking sometimes dozens of elements into consideration when a change is made.
This is what Obama is going through now - one change, such as the North Korean tests, could presumably impact his attitude towards Iran in terms of our diplomatic stand on nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad happens to be technically correct in that Iran (or basically any country) has a right to nuclear 'energy' - that came about because of Pres. Eisenhower (Atoms for Peace).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace
The Neocons are so blind-sided by their own belief system that they cannot fathom a President capable of changing his mind when the situation changes - and rapid change is the order of the day. McCain would have had us in a new war by now, someplace. I will bet that senior military, frustrated by the failure of strategy in Iraq and the bog-down in Afghanistan, voted largely for Obama - just as Powell said that he did publicly.
I'm not into anagrams and such - I deal in more real-world concepts, due to my work. If you know of a Web forum that requires membership qualification, I could join you on that - and progress from there. Others without qualifications would just not get in; and by now few are still reading the thread anyway. We lost SP4 when we moved to 3-syllable words.
Good to hear back from you.
Manufacturing data bases. Oh, very good, A concrete thinker with his feet on the ground, while a lateralist at the the same time. A person with the wider view. An expansive thinker. I thought so.
Ideological wars are won by piles of money, but that religious conflicts are unwinnable, by any means. Is the modern stuff no more than the Knights Templar xxxvi? It may have started over oil, economics and international intrigue, but now is is unrecognizable as such. And as unwinnable, no matter how much money is shot down the barrel and out the muzzle. When Religion is the Ideology, you are well and truly screwed. You cannot kill an idea, or a god.
The big problem I see is with the current economic situation. What short and long term damage is being done to the 3 western economies most involved, ie: the US, Great Britain, and Canada, vis a vis the war on terror. While nothing compared to the US, Canada just reported a record 50 billion dollar deficit. Their finance minister is doing a dance and avoiding giving real numbers, but he said 'minimum.' This is scary because they, til now, had the strongest economy in the triumvirate. The best banking system in the world, and were best poised to ride out the current depression. While this is a dying thread I hope that Truebrit is listening in. He does seem to be a bit of a Guru on these matters and I would like to see his input.
Kim Kong in North Korea is a nothing. Take the global look at history. Where would he fit in? There have been many like him before and will be more to come. Nothing more than a minor distraction, that one flicks off one's finger, like a booger. He is a child throwing a temper tantrum in order to get attention. Spank him, stick him in his crib, turn out the lights and ignore him.
I shall consider options as to how we may best proceed and, should you display continued interest, post again later.
There's been a buildup of tensions, and nothing to offset them. The civilized world has nothing to offer the North Korean leadership. Neither Russia nor China is effective any longer - China is most concerned with dealing with North Korean refugees.
this current attitude was DIRECTLY fed by Bush's 'Axis' speech - likely the most dangerous thing ever done by a U.S. President. It was the ultimate photo-op - appear strong; but cause long-term damage to diplomacy. Adults don't give 'Axis' speeches - SP4 does, but this is what retarded gerbils would do, given the power of speech.
features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/05/27/can-moscow-stop-north-kore as-nuclear-march/
Can Moscow stop North Korea’s nuclear march?
But in Moscow, where North Korea’s oddball Stalinist dynasty was born and and nurtured for decades, officials appear perplexed and even scared over the Pyongyang regime’s increasingly wayward behavior.
After years of assailing the George W. Bush administration for failing to appreciate Russia’s special, Soviet-era relationship with “rogue” states like North Korea, the collective response of Moscow’s diplomatic community right now looks like a shrug of helplessness.
“If you’d asked me even three years ago, I would say Russia has some leverage with Pyongyang. But not today,” says Yevgeny Bazhanov, vice rector of the official Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, which trains Russian diplomats.
“If Russia, or even China, could do anything about this, these tests wouldn’t have taken place this week,” he says. “Actually, it looks like nobody has any influence over them anymore. This man, (North Korean leader Kim Jong Il) will do whatever he wants.”
-------------
(Only severe sanctions will work, and the lunatic running North Korea is apparently having flashbacks to the Korean war)
'The USSR established the Pyongyang regime, headed by the current leader’s father Kim Il Sung, after World War II. With Soviet and Red Chinese help, North Korea fought the forces of the United Nations to a bloody stalemate in the Korean War of the early 1950’s, and has since survived as what is probably the world’s most reclusive, militarized and authoritarian state.'
--------------
The threat to our ships is the problem, as they'd try to deter shipments of suspected WMD's.
There are only a few outcomes:
********
a). All nations take a deliberate public and private stand against North Korea, and refuse to trade with them. Pakistan is a problem here (along with everywhere else, at this point). Everyone is at risk, so national differences should be set aside. Almost like lancing a boil to prevent further problems.
www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54P6N620090526
'Whether the United States can translate international condemnation of North Korea's second nuclear test in 2-1/2 years into concrete action will affect U.S. allies in Asia, nuclear powers like Pakistan and India and countries with suspected nuclear ambitions, such as Iran.
'North Korea's thrown something in our face that we have to deal with now and it could have tremendous ramifications for the ability to stop proliferation in the future,' said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nuclear disarmament think tank.
The former arms inspector said international failure to respond resolutely could embolden Iran in its suspected quest for a nuclear bomb, but also could see nuclear-armed Pakistan mimic the North in a test that might provoke India in turn.'
********
b). North Korea actually becomes belligent, and takes physical action against the forces of the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. would react to an attack on any other allied nation; since we're the primary military power - and would have to demonstrate that. This might involve cruise missiles and surgical strikes. North Korea does not gave a damn about its people, and is likely using them to shield major targets.
SP4 would discover first-hand the perils that would come when a President actually ACTS; while carrying the burden of other simultaneous conflicts. This is why the Iraq war was STUPID!
********
c). We go pro-active, and do some damage as per (b) - and hope that they back down. The death toll would be huge. The U.S. mainland is at absolutely minimal risk from retaliations.
www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/nkorea_czech-07312008144648.html
'According to the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, 67 North Koreans have settled in the United States under terms of the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004—including six admitted in July 2008. A small number of North Koreans have fled through China to third countries including Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam, usually hoping to reach South Korea. South Korea accepts all North Korean asylum-seekers as citizens, and Seoul has admitted more than 10,000 North Koreans in the last decade.'
N. Korea land area: 46,541 sq mi
World land area: 57510000 sq mi
N. Korea population: 23,479,088
World population: 6,782,536,522
N. Korea's GDP is about par with Chad.
N. Korea a threat?
N. Korea is insignificant.
The media cannot exist without a crisis. It's good for ratings and advertising dollars. This week it is a minor fart in some forgettable backwater. A tempest in an Oriental tea cup. Last week it was Swine Flu. Do you remember what it was the week before? Was it the economy and unemployment or was it... gee, I don't remember. Care to hazard a guess as to what it will be next week? Hysteria is the only common denominator. How very boring, to watch the little people scurry around. The CTBTO's seismic evidence indicates 'a low single digit kiloton explosion.' This indicates a trigger test, not a full bomb test. Russia immediately said 20 Kilotons, that's larger than Hiroshima's 15 Kt blast. Do you know how much damage 1,000 tons of TNT does? The explosion at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was equivalent to about 400 tons of TNT. That is very similar to the shocks and explosive force sustained by the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Even the delivery systems are five years away from being developed enough to be usable. A lot can happen in five years. Or, nothing at all can happen in fives years as well. Rather than maintaining perspective, we now have people running very frightened, crying 'The North Koreans are coming. The North Koreans are coming.' Please do not get caught up in the hysteria. There will be only one outcome. It will be forgotten soon enough. There is no casus belli here.
You can consider the current round of nuclear and missile tests in terms of advertising, as well as their belligerence in general.
Bear in mind that the blockage that North Korea is complaining about would potentially restrict deliveries of their weapons. Bear in mind the heavily populated neighborhood that they reside in, and the risk that India might seek more nuclear capability in reaction. Pakistan is already increasing their nuclear stockpile.
Many people don't catch the warning signs of cancer early, when it's more readily treatable. Part ignorance, and part denial.
Like some posters hereabouts.
online.wsj.com/article/SB124347081988160711.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
WASHINGTON -- Signs of growth in North Korea's nuclear program and the country's increasing isolation are renewing fears about Pyongyang's ability and need to smuggle weapons of mass destruction around the world, said U.S. and United Nations officials.
North Korea's arms trade has focused on Iran and Syria, countries Washington views as state sponsors of terrorism, as well as Libya. Officials say North Korean arms have also been sold to nations allied with the U.S., such as Egypt and Pakistan, and to the military regime in Myanmar.
The concerns about North Korean weapons proliferation were heightened this week with Pyongyang's underground test of a nuclear weapon and several short-range missile launches. Sales of short- and medium-range missile systems remain among North Korea's largest export earners, part of an arms trade that generates $1.5 billion annually for Pyongyang, say North Korea analysts.
With the international community looking to punish the regime for the nuclear test, U.S. and U.N. officials say Pyongyang could try to increase exports of its nuclear and missile technologies as it gradually loses its ability to obtain hard currency from foreign aid and exports to markets such as Japan and South Korea.
www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm
North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States. The US war planners recognize this fact. For example, on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that 'North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war.'
North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an 'impoverished' nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse. An impoverished, starving nation cannot face down a military superpower. Today few nations have military assets strong enough to challenge the US military. Russia, though weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, has enough assets to face up to the US. China, somewhat weaker than Russia, too, has strong military that can challenge the US. However, both Russia and China lack the political will to face down the US.
In contrast, North Korea has not only the military power but also the political will to wage total war against the United States. North Korea has made it clear that it will strike all US targets with all means, if the US mounted military attacks on North Korea. That North Korea's threat is no bluff can be seen from the aggressive actions taken by North Korea since the Korean War armistice, including North Korea's attempt to capture an American spy plane in 2003.
(More 2006 discussion)
frontlineamerica.blogspot.com/2006/11/north-korea-military-capabilities .html
www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-27-voa10.cfm
(As noted in this story, the expectation is that the more modern South Korean Army should be a deterrent - but perhaps this is something we'd rather not have to prove. Weapons sales to other terrorists are the real threat; as well as some potential involvement of U.S. troops already stationed in the area - the public does not want us in another conflict.)
******
Kim Tae-woo is the vice president of the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis in the South Korean capital, Seoul. 'This is very normal kind of language [for North Korea],' Kim said. ' We already get used to that kind of practice.'
However, he says North Korea does appear to be trying to provoke some sort of reaction from South Korea and other countries with its nuclear test.
The bitter divide between communist North Korea and democratic South Korea has left a legacy of military force on the peninsula. Kim says North Korea has long maintained one of the largest armies in the world - with more than one million active-duty troops. 'So, when we consider the total size of North Korean population, slightly over 20 million, North Korea has over seven million regular troops and reserve forces,' Kim said. 'This is the reason why they call North Korea a barracks country.'
-----------
Seoul has capabilities too. On the southern side of the Demilitarized Zone dividing the peninsula, South Korea has 670,000 active duty troops, with about 2.5 million reservists, out of a population of about 48 million people. In addition, the United States keeps 28,000 troops in South Korea. An American-led United Nations force fought alongside South Korea after the North invaded in 1950. Although active fighting halted in 1953, Seoul and Pyongyang have never signed a peace treaty, leaving them technically at war.
Although the numbers may seem to favor North Korea, analysts are quick to note that its impoverished economy means the military lacks modern equipment. On the other hand, South Korea, one of the largest economies in the world, has a well-equipped force, able to use the latest high-technology weaponry.
Oh, my! Oh, my ears and whiskers! I have been silently following this dead thread for a day or two, now resisting the temptations posed by both parties invitations to repost.
It seems as if 'The Force' is not as strong with you as I had hoped, young Skywalker. I smelled something the moment the first 'MENSA' post appeared. Only someone so in love with themselves as to be practially guilty of incest could have taken this uncritically at face value: What a denouement! No translations given either, though I believe I can construe most of it. The last one is about 'keeping sermons short' I think? Should you, as your adversary evidently does not, lack a classical education my advice is to 'Google' it. Whilst, you're at it, look up
'pars sanitatis velle sanari fuit' too. Like Pandora, you may yet have
hope!
To the other contributor,
ROFLMAO
I return to post, once more.
A sanctimonious little twit had the post previous to Truebrit's post removed for cause of two little slightly ripe words.
These words were not overly egregious as they are used every day, many times per day, by persons of his ill-educated ilk.
For the simple fact that this person complained and had his public shaming removed means the he came, he saw, he read. He was and is conquered, for the words are forever emblazoned on and in his subconcious.
There are only two ways that they may be removed - by lobotomy or bullet.
Oh, the temerity of the hairball to think that he can think. Such a petty, little, ambulatory ego. He cut and I repasted. It is now reposted for posterity. Should he attempt to have it removed again, the whole sad sorry tale of his little adventure shall be posted all over this site. Have a nice day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate
'lex parsimoniae'
This is translated as the'law of parsimony', 'law of economy', or 'law of succinctness'
Or Quite simply, Occam's Razor.
As a FINE fellow and MENSA candidate, I would most heartily suggest that you take the aforementioned Occam's Razor and apply
it to your wrists. It is your sole option.
FINE: Frigged-up, insecure, neurotic, emotional
MENSA: Mentally etiolated, narcissistic, anal orifice.
You aren't smart enough to see that you are the joke! You are the set, slap and bloody punchline all rolled into one, you
cut-and-paste clown!
Had you even the vestiges of a decent education you would have read your Horace and know the rule of the genuinely
discerning;
'percunctatorem fugito nam garrulus idem est.'
So, my little punctured tick, whilst you're trying, you intellectual eunuch, to 'sew them back on,' ponder this advice which
may serve you well if you are brass necked enough to continue to infest these pages: In future;
QUIDQUID PRAECIPIES, ESTO BREVIS
When did this succumb to being a Latin class?
The problem is North Korea, not usage of a language used essentially by lawyers and doctors.
I see the situation as quite serious - perhaps some choose to play ostrich and speak of shoes, and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings. But I live in THIS world ...
www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54T0FG20090530
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned on Saturday that the United States would not accept a nuclear North Korea and the growing threat could trigger an arms race in Asia.
In a speech to an Asian defense conference in Singapore, Gates also warned Pyongyang against transferring nuclear technology abroad.
'We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us,' Gates told a meeting on defense ministers in Singapore.
'We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state.'
(and the effective actions that we are ready to take are ?????)
Awaiting instructions, Bruce!
Lay on, MacDuff.
page: 1
repostMay 21st, 2009 - 16:11:27
Yup,the doom and gloom guys must darken the skies and negate any ray of sunshine for the hard working average citizen. While the facts might be real, if you don't give hope, then you get dispair, which leads to a further downturn in the economy, because everybody tries to save, and not buy the toys, in order to ride out the storm. This leads to further shut downs of business, tightening the arcing descent into a death spiral. The end result? A smoking hole in the ground, as any pilot knows. Any smart aviator knows that you stay away from the back side of the power curve.
Report this comment