BS: Afghan War mistake or wise

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:18 AM

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy.
All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."

---Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after World War II.


Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:24 AM

"The Taliban WERE NOT one of the mujahideen groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89)."

This is a revisionist account of history. Many of the Taliban were recruited from the Mujahadeen. They were present at many of the madrassas founded by Omar.

Checking up on a few facts would reveal this as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:29 AM

Snopes said that this quote was not said at the Nuremburg Trials but in a private conversation with a psychologist. He did say this, however.

Afghanistan anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:32 AM

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 10:33 AM

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 02:03 PM

Goering's quote is right on the mark. That is exactly how governments persuade their public to support a war.

The American public has been persuaded to support 2 present wars in that fashion.

As for the Taliban, it appears that they have drawn their ranks primarily from the Pashtuns who are also Sunni Muslims, but that does not make all Pashtuns Taliban. The Hazaras and other tribal groups (Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc) associated with the Northern Alliance have long been at odds with the Pashtuns, and the Hazaras are Shia Muslims. The Pashtuns have always been the majority in Afghanistan and have tended to rule the roost most of the time, to the detriment of the less numerous ethnic groups.

A foreign occupation force that is fighting a vigorous Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan will naturally ally itself with the various smaller tribal groups who have traditionally been at odds with the Pashtuns. That's standard imperial policy which has always been used by foreign armies which try to occupy a country. You use the disadvantaged local groups against the majority local group that has oppressed them. (The Germans, for instance, got a lot of help in WWII from Ukrainian troops who wanted independence from the Soviets, and if they'd been smart enough to treat the Ukrainian population kindly, they could have recruited many, many more of them to fight Stalin.)

The Pashtuns used to be called "Pathans" in the British Empire days (probably still are called "Pathans" by some people). They were known as very fearsome warriors. I think that in the long run these Pashtuns, whether they are Taliban or otherwise, will succeed in driving out the coalition forces just as the Soviets were driven out before them. Then it will be a fight between the Taliban and the other Pashtun groups to see who gets to run things in central Afghanistan.

There will probably be an interim period while a client government propped up by NATO continues to rule in Kabul for a year or two, just as Najibullah's client government did for the Soviets when they left.

There will be a pretense that victory has been secured by the departing Coalition and that the client government in Kabul can now handle the situation....just like the same pretense that was used in regards to South Vietnam when the USA pulled out and left its client South Vietnamese government in charge there.

Not too long after that the government in Kabul will fall to the Pashtuns, and the charade of supposed Coalition "victory" will end. Then whoever has taken over in Kabul will continue infighting amongst themselves for awhile, and will also continue fighting with the Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks and other people in the Northern Alliance. Will the Taliban win in this fight? Who knows? Somebody will eventually win, but it may not be the Taliban.

Years more suffering, in other words, for the people of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM

"As for the Taliban, it appears that they have drawn their ranks primarily from the Pashtuns who are also Sunni Muslims, but that does not make all Pashtuns Taliban."

Not so much primarily, more like solely. then you have tribalism within the 12 million Pashtun Afghans coming into play. Of that 12 million only 1 in 10 supports the Taleban.

"I think that in the long run these Pashtuns, whether they are Taliban or otherwise, will succeed in driving out the coalition forces just as the Soviets were driven out before them."

And the reason why the non-Taleban Pashtun Afghans would take up arms against the coalition and government forces would be what exactly?? The Soviets were driven out because they had the enitre country up in arms against them. The same cannot be said with regard to the situation the ANA; ISAF & US-OEF forces.

"There will probably be an interim period while a client government propped up by NATO continues to rule in Kabul for a year or two, just as Najibullah's client government did for the Soviets when they left."

"Client Government" accurately describes Najibullah's Government, but certainly does not fit the current government in Afghanistan, which resulted from an election.

Going back to Najibullah's government and the Afghan National Army, they continued to do quite well against the Mujahideen after the Soviets left until the Soviets stopped supporting them with fuel, weapons and ammunition. Just the same as the US did in Vietnam, you stopped supporting the South, while both the Russians and the Chinese reneged on all the promises made in paris and continued to support the North.

After having turned over the security situation to Afghan Security Forces can you explain why the international community is going to turn its back on Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM

Sure. I think that the international community will essentially abandon the Afghan government after they pull their own people out, the same way the South Vietnamese government was pretty much abandoned after America pulled its forces out of there. American and UK troops never went into Afghanistan to help Afghans (though, of course, their presence has helped some Afghans in various ways...as a side effect). America and the UK went in there to help themselves.

Once they no longer have a military presence there I think they will, like the Russians before them, reneg on their promises of support to the regime in Kabul and their support for the Afghan government will dwindle, and I think it will then fall.

If, as you say, only one in every 10 Pashtuns supports the Taliban (and that sounds quite plausible to me)...then that's good! It stacks the odds against the Taliban regaining control of Afghanistan. It makes it more likely that more moderate Pashtuns will form a new government there instead. I would rather see any other local faction in that area take over than see the Taliban running the place again.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 01:41 AM

"American and UK troops never went into Afghanistan to help Afghans (though, of course, their presence has helped some Afghans in various ways...as a side effect). America and the UK went in there to help themselves."


http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/our-mission/

http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1742

http://www.afghangovernment.com/AfghanAgreementBonn.htm

America and the UK (plus the other 41 countries involved) went into Afghanistan to help themselves to what exactly??

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 08:13 PM

Still marching to the Afghan war, hey, marching to the Afghan war.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 08:36 PM

Why the international community is going to pull its support from Afgan goverenemnt is easy to see: The Afgan government is corrupt to the core...

Next question...

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 10:03 PM

Little Hawk asked "Anyone read Greg Mortensen's book "Three Cups of Tea".[sic] Actally this book is required reading for every senior military officer in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:05 PM

Excellent! I'm glad to hear that. Greg Mortensen has much insight to offer them. He is quite opposed to the USA's seeking of a military solution in that region, because he feels that is not an effective way of finding a solution.

Teribus, you asked: "America and the UK (plus the other 41 countries involved) went into Afghanistan to help themselves to what exactly??"

Well, I think there are quite a number of factors involved in that, not just one. Such as...

- they wish to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean
- they wish to have a military presence to the south of Russia and to the east of Iran and to the west of China
- they wish to manage and control who profits from the huge opium trade that moves out of that region to the rest of the world
- They wish to control the entire area around there politically and in terms of crucial trade routes, and Afghanistan is simply one piece in that larger puzzle
- they did indeed wish to attack Al Queda bases in both Afghanistan and Pakistan (and they have done so pretty effectively)
- they wish to control the ongoing political process in both Afghanistan and Pakistan

This applies primarily to the USA and the UK, who act as imperial partners. As for the other 39 coalition members you allude to...it's not in the direct interests of most of them to participate in this folly, but it's politics. They have favors done for them, and they do favors in return. It's the old "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", and it's achieved through the power of money, not moral persuasion.

It's simply basic imperial strategy, period. Afghanistan is an important piece on the geopoliticals chessboard because it is a crossing point between China, Russia, India, and the Middle East. That makes every great power very interested in it. The Russians knew that, and that's why they went in there. That's why the Americans and the Brits are in there too. That's always why they go in there. Remember "the Great Game"?

It isn't because of what is physically there...other than the opium supply...it's because of what lies all around there.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:25 PM

Here's the latest article from Eric Margolis:

OBAMA DOES A LOUIS XVI
NEW YORK November 30, 2009

America would not have won independence from Great Britain without generous military and financial support from France and its monarch, Louis XVI.

But France spent itself into bankruptcy supporting the American colonists. France's financial ruin was a major cause of the ensuing French Revolution that cost the unfortunate Louis his head.

Wars are hugely expensive. Money plays as great a role in them as soldiers and weapons.

US Congressman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, has come up with a novel idea:   American should pay for the wars they are currently waging.

Obey's proposal, which is backed by other congressmen of both parties, sounds startling – until one realizes that both the Bush and Obama administrations have never properly financed their foreign wars by forcing Americans to pay for them through higher taxes.

Instead, Washington has deferred the $1 trillion to date costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars by simply adding them to the national debt, and paying interest on the balance owing. President Lyndon Johnson conducted similar financial sleight of hand with the Vietnam War, inflicting serious injury and instability on the US economy.

Few Americans feel the real financial costs of these wars. Future generations will get stuck with the bill.

But this kind of deceptive national accounting is becoming increasingly difficult in the face of President Barack Obama's $1.4 trillion deficit this year, and his imminent decision to send some 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

Each American soldier in Afghanistan costs at least $1 million per annum, according to the US Congress Research Service. Thirty thousand more US troops will thus cost $30 billion in additional war costs on top of the $200 billion annual cost of garrisoning Iraq and Afghanistan – now the second most expensive war in US history.

Much of this money will have to be borrowed from China and Japan.

Obey and his allies want to impose a graduated surtax on Americans of 1-5%, depending on their income level, to fund the actual costs of what are now Obama's wars. Otherwise, warns Obey, the huge cost of sending keeping up to 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan will `destroy the other things we are trying to do in our economy.' Chief among which is health care.

In a clear choice between guns or butter, Obey estimates ten years of war in Afghanistan will cost the same $900 million as providing a comprehensive health plan for all Americans.

Unfortunately, chances of a war surtax passing Congress are nil. While the Afghan and Iraq wars are increasingly unpopular among Americans, a tax increase at a time of over 10% unemployment will ignite the same kind of furious reaction that met President Obama's proposed national health plan, and endanger Democrats facing midterm elections.

As the Obama administration appears set to escalate the war in Afghanistan, the real costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are still being concealed from the public and Congress.   

A billion here; a billion there; suddenly, we are taking about real money.

The $200 billion annual cost for both wars is only a part of the growing expenses faced by Washington.

The annual bill for US intelligence, which employs over 200,000 people, has doubled to $75 billion, in large part to support foreign wars and operations against anti-US Muslim groups.   

Costs of occupying Afghanistan rose to $300 billion this year, and will increase sharply next year. Operations in Iraq will total $684 billion in 2009. President Barack Obama's plans to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011 may encounter serious delays and snags as resistance resumes and the underground Ba'ath Party become more active.

Washington spends $25 billion funding foreign armies, the bulk of which goes to the Mideast, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.   Aid to Islamabad will rise to $15 billion over the next five years, including secret `black' payments.   

The US supports 168,000 `contractors' in Iraq, many of them gunmen. The CIA runs 74,000 mercenaries in Afghanistan. The new fortified, 104-acre US Embassy in Baghdad will cost $700 million; the new embassy in Islamabad, $800 million. Islamic militants call them `crusader castles.'

Add to these costs the expense of maintaining fleets in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, and military bases in the Gulf and Diego Garcia to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; hugely expensive military airlift; $400 per gallon fuel delivered to US forces in Afghanistan; and, of course, financial inducements to many smaller nations to send handfuls of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Also an important part of the annual $93 billion in veterans benefits.

Thus the real cost of Afghanistan and Iraq are much higher than $200 billion annually. Yet President Obama, heedless of such costs, appears determined to expand the Afghan War. It seems clear that Obama has fallen increasingly under the influence of America's powerful military-industrial-financial complex and neoconservative war party. In short, the same calculus of forces that guided the Bush administration.

Even America's mighty economy cannot for long support waging wars across the Muslim world. Unaffordable wars have been the ruin of many an empire, and the American Raj seems headed in the same direction as Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama plunges ever deeper into the Afghan quagmire.


copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:21 AM

Teribus, you asked: "America and the UK (plus the other 41 countries involved) went into Afghanistan to help themselves to what exactly??"

Well, I think there are quite a number of factors involved in that, not just one. Such as...

- they wish to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean

A complete and utter Myth no oil pipeline has ever been discussed let alone proposed. The only pipeline that HAS been talked about was to deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to India. Unocal were interested as part of a consortium to build and operate the pipeline but pulled out of the deal, as did the Russians in 1998

- they wish to have a military presence to the south of Russia and to the east of Iran and to the west of China

Really?? Now why would they want that now. It was after all not needed for thirty years since the revolution that brought Khomeni to power in 1979, why is it needed now. Why does the US need a base to the south of Russia and to the west of China, or are you trying to tell us that the US intends attacking those countries. Courtesy of its fleet of strike carriers the US and the US Marine Corps the US does not require such bases. If they did they would not select a remote land-locked country in which to set them up.

- they wish to manage and control who profits from the huge opium trade that moves out of that region to the rest of the world

So that is why they direct so much effort at eradicating the crop is it? Opium production in Afghanistan peaked in 2007 and has been declining steadily since. Land under cultivation of opium poppies decreased in Afghanistan by 20% last year alone, 25% drop in production in Helmand alone this year. Massive wheat growing effort being promoted, supported and taken up by Afghan farmers against the wishes of the Taleban.

- They wish to control the entire area around there politically and in terms of crucial trade routes, and Afghanistan is simply one piece in that larger puzzle

Exactly how do they do that? What crucial trade routes?

- they did indeed wish to attack Al Queda bases in both Afghanistan and Pakistan (and they have done so pretty effectively)

That was only the first part of the mission, the second was the reconstruction effort.

- they wish to control the ongoing political process in both Afghanistan and Pakistan

Isn't this just a repeat of what you have written above or do they really want to "control the entire area around there politically and" then control Afghanistan and Pakistan politically twice as much.

By the bye, your new found pal Margolis wants to direct some research into how the Dutch took on and beat THE Superpower of the day to win their independence, whilst doing that he should look at how the British fought the superpowers of thei day to win their empire. Hint their wars and campaigns were fought on the "never-never".

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 03:15 AM

The Dutch and the English did indeed beat the Superpower of their day...Spain...and I've always admired them for so doing. It took a number of factors to achieve that, not least the defeat of the Spanish Armada, but I think the writing was on the wall. Spain had overextended itself and was growing decadent and corrupt by the late 1500's. They were due for a fall. The USA is in quite the same position now, as far as I'm concerned. It happens to all overambitious empires eventually.

As for the UK, they're simply riding on the imperial coattails of Washington at present and sharing the spoils, having lost their own empire (the most successful one since Rome) by likewise overextending themselves and running out of money.

The Soviets also overextended themselves and lost their empire by the late 80's. Like I said, it happens to all these aggressive empires eventually. Washington's turn is well on the way.

I sympathize with none of them in their imperial aims, but I will say this: the British ran their empire with far more style and class than anyone else has in modern (post-Roman) times, and I can't help but admire them for how well they did it. I still live in an independent part of that empire, and I thoroughly enjoy reading about the great days of the British empire. See, Teribus, I happen to like the British. I always did like them. I don't like their present government policy in regards to America's wars, but that's just one thing...and it's temporary.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 08:37 AM

Yer right, LH... "Wars are terribly expensive"...

I find it very interesting that the current batch of Repubicorportists in Congress seem to be very happy with Obama spendin' an additional $30B of borrowed money to continue a needless war on one hand yet...

...are very concerned that health care for the people may cause deficits on the other hand???

But the corportists have never met a war they didn't like...

As for the pipeline in Afganistan??? Heck yeah... That's alot of what this war is about... Throw in the geopolitics and ther corportists would love to also have a nice big scarey military presence in Afganistan forever to protect that pipeline...

It's also very curious that these same people are the ones that are running these very negative ads about the next battle: the climate and energy... The ads are of old people saying that the bill, which hasn't even been written yet will, ahhhhhhh, "RAISE YOUR TAXES"... The ads are all over the TV... Yeah, let's not push for planet friendly renewable energuy... Ain't no $30B (Exxon) a year profits to be made that way... No, lets drtil, baby, drill and have endless wars to keep that oil a'flowin'....

Anyone who really things the Afganistn War and occupation is about 9/11 please raise your hand... I've got a bridge to sell you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:31 AM

Hey Bobert:

All it the intelligent folks like you can boycott the oil companies anytime you want and bring them to their knees.

That way they can't contribute to the Repubs, they won't get re elected and wars will end forever like it was before the greedy oil companies invented war.

Very simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:58 PM

Oil interests aren't the only wealthy interest that arranges wars, Sawzaw. In the complete absence of an oil industry the very same thing would be happening, and you know why? It is the international bankers, first and foremost, who profit from wars. They do it through lending money to governments to purchase arms and raise armies, and they are quite happy to lend to BOTH sides. They are also quite happy if the war lasts as long as it possibly can, and they do not suffer the consequences, because they can move their money to safe havens around the globe. The only kind of war that would really threaten them would be a nuclear war that devastated the entire planet.

This funding of wars by bankers (through lending to governments) has been going on for centuries. It was happening long before there was an oil industry. Governments have been in hock to banks for a long time. The oil industry itself is not the cause of the problem, it's a temporary symptom of the problem.

The cause of the problem is that fractional reserve lending allows banks to magically turn 1 dollar into 10 dollars when they make loans. The 10 dollars go back into the banking system, and are then turned into 100 dollars by more fractional reserve lending. The 100 dollars go back into the banking system, and are then turned into 1,000 dollars by fractional reserve lending. That process repeats itself, with a very slight reduction each time, until the money supply has been inflated about 280 times.

That's a money tree. And the banks have it. Who pays for it? Well, the governments go deeply into debt with debts they can never realistically pay off, and the public pays the interest on those debts through taxes and inflation.

And that brings you up to why we have these periodic financial crises...and the government has to bail out the banks...who were the people who created the bubble of phony money in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:59 PM

Right, LH...

Make that the oil/industrial/military complex... Purdy much sums up whast is behind all theses stupid wars...

BTW, Sawz... The game is rigged so that it is very difficult to avoid being taken advantage of by goevernment sponsored monopolies... One cannot just boycott them unless one is loaded with money and can afford a carbon neutral renewable energy system... I read recently that those systems are right at 100 grand!!! Only folks who can fork over that kinda dough are the corportists themselves...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM

Banks and bankers make all the profits eh?

Well that should suit everybody then because since last December the Governments own most of the shares in the banks after having bailed them out.

I saw a prediction on the profits our Government will make through share buy back schemes when the bail out money is paid back, they are vast.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 06:18 PM

No, T-Bird, it ain't just bankers who make- no, make that steal- the money... It's oil companies, defense contractors and the politicans...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM

It's a little bit tricky determing who owns who in that case...the banks owning the governments or vice versa. There are a number of books out there that go into it in considerable depth. My impression is that the banks, in fact, own and manage the governments...not in a legal sense, mind you...but in the sense that really matters, meaning who the legislators really work for.

They don't work for the general public.

Do you think there's any sense allowing banks to lend out 10 times what their depositors have put into them? That's what they do. And then they do it again...and again...and again. This creates new money from nowhere, and the government didn't print it or mint it. It simply appears on various balance sheets by virtue of loans having been made.

That's a pyramid scheme. Governments like it, because it allows them to access a huge amount of money without raising taxes. Banks like it, because they get rich through acquiring new "assets" (every time they make a loan, it registers as an asset on their balance sheet)...and through charging interest on the debts they have enabled others to get into.

The public thinks their taxes are not being raised when that happens. They are mistaken, because inflation IS a tax...but not one that is recognized as such by the general public. The interest payments on the national debt are also paid by people's taxes. 17% of all the taxes the American public pays to the federal government are now going to pay the interest on the national debt alone.

This is very beneficial to the banks. It's also beneficial to the government for the time being...because it can access funds without openly raising taxes.       It's a disaster for the ordinary public, however. Wait long enough, and it becomes a far bigger disaster for almost everyone. That's what happens eventually with a pyramid scheme.

It is this financial pyramid scheme which enables most wars to be financed and fought. "Fight now.....pay later."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 01:39 AM

Back to the big evil "Corporate Monsters" of your comic book stereotypes LH

Bankers for you, and for Bobert its:

- Oil Companies (93% of all the Oil Companies in the world are Nationally Owned);

- Defence Contractors (Forbes List of top 500 Companies first listing of a defence contractor Northop Grumman in the 153 top 500 Companies in the world that are based in America comes in at 79 out of 153, not very highly placed is it)

- Politicians.

With all the "gloom-n-doom" predictions about the wicked "Capitalist" system that were been touted on this forum 12 months ago, shouldn't we all now be in the middle of mass revolutions, wandering around in rags, gnawing at the grass?

All those huge corporations are not owned by evil capitalist masterminds who are hell bent on the destruction of mankind, they are owned by their shareholders directly, or indirectly e.g. through pension fund investments and insurance holdings.

On the subject of the last crisis in the financial sector that kicked off this world wide recession. If memory serves me correctly it was a political administration in the US that ordered a couple of mortgage brokers to lend to people irrespective of their ability to pay that set the wheels in motion.

Disaster for the people? Not on your life!! Talking of lives, is yours better than your Grandparents, Great Grandparents, I know that mine is. I also know that in a number of ways my children had an easier upbringing than I had, I know that there were more opportunities open to them than there were for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 02:43 AM

Say what? I'm not opposed to capitalism. I think a return to more genuine capitalism would be a very good idea. I believe that the best overall system is one that combines capitalism for marketing most common goods and services, and socialism for taking care of the government, the courts, the police, the armed forces, and various essential public services...mainly those that are not really feasible as profit-making enterprises, because that is not what they are there for.

The police, for example, are a classic case of a necessary social service that is there for everyone in a completely equal way and is not there merely for purchase by whoever has money to pay for police protection, while abandoning those who do not. The police come to your aid without being paid by you, because the whole society pays for them in a collective sense. That's where socialism comes in handy. The police force is a socialist institution, paid for by taxes. So is the fire department.

But if you're talking about producing the huge variety of common goods and services that we partake of when we go shopping, eat a meal, buy gas, etc....heck, I'm all for that being handled through capitalism. That is the best way to handle it.

Real capitalism, however, can only function properly if there is genuine competition and encouragement of local industries at every level. When giant multi-national monopolies form in the name of capitalism and fix prices and dominate markets to the virtual elimination of real competition and destroy small local business in favor of giant corporate entities like WalMart which sell stuff made in China...then you don't have real capitalism any longer like you once did. What you have then is modern corporatism...and to me it resembles some form of communism masquerading as capitalism, only it's done to profit a few corporate bosses rather than to promote some crazy political party (such as the Communist Party). The shareholders? Ha! They're just along for the ride and they hope it goes well, but guess what the bosses get paid! Oh, about 200 or more times what a worker does. That's not capitalism, it's more like feudalism.

I'm the one who believes in real capitalism, Teribus, and I'm all for it. It's a threatened species in today's world.

Now...what in the world makes you think that banks should be allowed to lend out 10 times as much money as their actual cash deposits from their depositors? I notice you didn't address that issue. Are you aware that it is a pyramid scheme and that it has been made legal for banks to do that?

Do you know what happens if all the depositors panic at the same time and decide to withdraw their money? It isn't there, that's what, because under the banking system we have they have created so much fictional money through lending money they didn't have in the first place that after about 1% of the depositors withdrew all their cash from the bank, there'd be none left. And then you'd have riots and people smashing open bank machines, as has happened in some places already.

Are you in favor of banks lending out far more money than their depositors have given them? If so, why?

I mean, hey, if you were a banker, I can see why you'd favor it! You could get very rich very fast doing that. But if you're not a banker???? Then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:25 AM

Bogus statistics, T-Bird...

93% of oil companies ownded by governments... Perhaps you'd like to tell the good folks what percentage of the US market is controlled by Exxon/Mobil??? See, stats can be very misleading....

Then while you are looking that up, how about the percentage of the US military budget that goes to contractors, por favor...

As for bamks??? Don't even get me started... I'm fighting with them now to get the capital to continue a major project in my town... The old band who promised to go the distance with it has decioded it does not want to loan any more money... Same for all the other banks... And I have perfect credit and assests to cover the loan... This is what has small business ownersw realy steamed these days... Wall ST, who gives lots of $$$ to politicans is doing just great and Main Street is in the tubes...

Grrrrrrrr....

B

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 11:14 AM

"93% of oil companies ownded by governments... Perhaps you'd like to tell the good folks what percentage of the US market is controlled by Exxon/Mobil???"

As the US does not have a National Oil Company Bobert I couldn't give a rats about what Exxon Mobil's percentage of the US Market is. But I've just had a look at who owns Exxon Mobil Shares and what do I find? Big evil oil baron types?? Naw just loads of Banks, Insurance Companies, Trusts and Pension funds.

All depends on how you view money Bobert, some use it as a tool like a carpenter uses a saw or a chisel, and they make it work. In making it work they increase the amount of money they have, they more you have the more it can earn. If on the other hand you view it as being the essential thing to provide shelter, food and entertainment all you do is spend it.

Banks should be allowed to decide who they lend to, they can then ensure that they do not get caught the way they did last time. I sympathise with your plight my son and his business partner are finding themselves in the same boat or at least something pretty similar, good luck with your project hope it comes off for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM

First of all, T-zer, the share of the US market that Exxon controls is really what we are talking about here... If you have a corporation of that size making more money than the GNP's of many countries and that corporation has unfettered access to power then it is no wonder that the US governemnt is involved in 2 massive wars over oil...

Secondly, as a working man who understands the concept of "making" money I resent the term "making" when it comes to crooks who game the system and control the rules... That isn't making money... That is stealing money...

And if banks expect my tax dollars to bail them out when they screw up then, yes, these same banks have a moral obligation to serve Main Street as well as their own self interests... I'd much rather see the banking system nationalized and ther playing field leveled between Main Street and Wall Street... It is way out of wack and the kind of situation you'd be more apt to find in a Third World dictatorship than in the US of A...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 01:52 PM

It's an old story by now that banks prefer to make huge loans to Third World countries, governments, and huge corporations than small loans to local business people. Why? Well, because it's more profitable for them to make huge loans to huge entities, that's why. And when they make a loan to the government, it entails no risk, whereas when they make a loan to some small businessman, he may default on that loan if things don't work out.

One 12 billion dollar loan to some government takes a lot less paperwork and time to arrange than 100,000 small business loans to local business people.

So that is why the banks do not prove nearly so amenable to helping the small businessman.

Another thing. If it's a small debtor who defaults, the government will not step in and bail out the debt. But if it's a giant corporation which is in danger of defaulting...well, the government often will step in and bail out the debt in order to "protect the public".

And we've seen quite a bit of that in recent times.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 04:15 PM

I actually could have gone either way, and I applaud Obama's deliberative approach to the Afghan situation. I think with his unique background and the apparent good relationship he has with the generals, he is in a better position to fight this war as it needs to be fought and to win, it winning is at all possible.

The Republican politicians seem to me to be out for Obama's political ruination and to be slanting as far as possible without seeming to be outrightly anti-patriotic. But after all, they are politicians and the Democrats played that game with the last guy.

Personally, if I'm fighting this war, I want one thing: TO WIN. That means ending the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ruining them in the eyes of their would-be supporters. It is a socio-political war more than it is a fighting war. It is a matter of winning hearts and minds, whatever else it is.

The reward is far greater for the Islamic world than it is for us: They get to enter the Twenty-first century, their women get to drive and vote and say 'no' every so often.

Meanwhile, I thoroughly endorse a war that we Americans PAY FOR. To that end, I say on a daily basis that we should put a $1.00/ per gallon war tax on all fuels that flow, particularly at the pump. We should use that to pay for our overseas adventures, and if we have anything left over, we should be buying back our debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 04:55 PM

I think it is illusory to imagine that the USA is fighting just the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Aghanistan. There's very little left of Al Qaeda at this point, and there wasn't a lot there in the first place. As for the Taliban, they comprise part of the forces fighting the Aghan occupation all right, but what that war really is is a war between the Pashtuns and the foreign occupying forces. Most Pashtuns are not Taliban. They are not fighting to restore the Taliban, they are fighting to get foreign occupiers out of Afghanistan and restore their own control of the country. They comprise the great majority of the Afghan population.

When they succeed, as I am pretty sure they eventually will, they will then start fighting amongst themselves and with the other tribal groups (Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen), just like they did after the Russians left. Will the Taliban win out in that fight among the different factions? Possibly. But this present war is not a war with the "good" USA on one side and the "evil" Taliban/Al Qaeda on the other. It's a war of national liberation against a foreign occupying army. So is the war in Iraq. If you wait long enough, the local people usually win such wars and the foreigners leave...(although the Tibetans have not yet been able to end the Chinese occupation, so it all depends on the relative strength, proximity, and determination of the opponents. The Chinese could exterminate the Tibetans if they chose to, and I don't doubt they are ruthless enough to do it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 06:27 PM

Good idea, Roboz, but I'd only impose it on higher end vehicles... The poor shleph who is drivin' a 22 year old Pontiac Sunbird to work oughtta be exempt... He ain't responsible for these wars... But anything newer that 5 years old, with the exception of energy efficient vehicles, oughtta have to pony up...

(But, Boberdz... How ya gonna impose those regs???)

Simple... Ya know those restricter gas inlets that prevented folks from pumping lead into unleaded cars... Something along those lines... Work like a charm...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 07:20 PM

Banks should be allowed to decide who they lend to, they can then ensure that they do not get caught the way they did last time.

Just as a matter of information you understand. Now you believe banks should be allowed to decide who they lend to.

Who decided to whom they should be allowed to lend before? Because for sure they got caught? I don't remember seeing any government saying "You should lend to people who can't afford to pay you back".

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 07:59 PM

In these parts the local banks will lend to anyone in good times... Right now??? If yer a member of the Chamber of Commerace, the Rotary Club and Republican Party these banks will lend to you... No one else need apply...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:00 PM

Well, of course banks should be allowed to decide who they lend to! And they are so allowed. ;-) But they should not be bailed out by the government at the expense of the general public and the nation when their own greed lands them in hot water and their pyramid scheme collapses.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM

There is no winning in Afghanistan. The people there do not want occupying troops.
This terrible war will drag on and on. The evidence is in. These wars have been longer
than the two World wars put together.

Bush wanted Osama bin Laden alive so he could stir up opposition to an enemy.
That's why he didn't capture him when he could have.

Vietghanistan will be another exercise in futility.

Obama has made the wrong decision. He will alienate those who supported him.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:28 AM

Frank, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. You didn't support him then, so don't act like he is letting you down now. Most of us who voted for him were from the broad middle ground of American politics, not from the extreme left who think he's betraying their trust, nor from the extreme right who are bound to hate him no matter what he does. He is being true to his beliefs and standards, and I have great respect for him for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:04 AM

I supported and worked for Obama, as well, but never was all that gung-ho about his stand on Afganistan... At the time all alot of us were looking forward to was a break from the Republican Party rule that emphasized corporations over the working class and endless wars for oil...

That does not mean that we can't now be against Obama's stand on Afganistan...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 09:16 AM

Karzai just said that our Allied Forces will be needed there for another 10 to 15 years..... (is that all ?)

Kucinich to present a bill calling for a timeline for withdrawal..

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 09:48 AM

Pete does deserve the prize


Today in Oslo the Eiropeans made it perfectly clear why Obama got the prize by applauding only once during Obama's speech, outside of the begininng and end. They applauded the line that America lost the moral high ground by using torure etc.

Yes as I have said from day one, Barak got the prize because he was not a Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 10:21 AM

Lonesome El,

Obama mislead the public in his campaign speeches. He promised to get us out of
Iraq. He is carrying on the Bush policies there.

He promised change in health care, he promised not to let the banks run the country,
he promised to do something about climate crisis but he has proven to be an obstacle.

The "middle-of-the-road" in politics is a complete myth. The so-called "centrists"
have turned "right-wing".

Most of those who supported him are now seeing their betrayal.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:14 PM

"If yer a member of the Chamber of Commerace, the Rotary Club and Republican Party these banks will lend to you... No one else need apply..."

Why hasn't Obama fixed it like he promised?

Guantanamo closed? Out of Iraq? When was that?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

As to the center being right-wing, that is absolutely a matter of perspective. Obama was never a product of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, despite the fact that numerous liberals put their faith in him.
RE his promise to get us out of Iraq, he won't come through on a promise made in a speech in which he promised all the troops home by end of 2009. Once in office, and after reviewing tactics and strategy with Petraeus and those involved with the Surge, Obama altered his approach in a pragmatic way. While there has been and will be a continued troop draw down, he has taken the advice of his generals and advisers to facilitate an approach that everyone hopes will leave Iraq a more stable and functioning state. This represents a reasoned alteration in his approach, not his philosophy.
Change in health care? Any assistance you can render him in this regard would be of great benefit. Maybe you can hold a neighborhood meeting to back his plan.
RE the collapse of the banking system, there were essentially three options for Obama: A) Allow the banks to fail in massive numbers with the accompanying freeze of the flow of capital which would have precipitated a world-wide depression B)Nationalize the banks, which would have meant that the government would be dictating financial rules to business in the US, a situation that is unacceptable to the majority of the population or C)the Bailout, which put a stop to the financial panic, induced cash flow and stability, while still providing some government intercession, and which most recent information indicates has worked. None of these options would by their nature be popular. Obama did what he felt was best in light of the severity of the emergency.
As to the climate crisis, this from CNBC President Barack Obama helped break the ice in the troubled negotiations last month, saying he would deliver a pledge at Copenhagen to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by around 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. It will be the first time the U.S. has committed to a reduction target.

Now where's your evidence that MacChrystal stated he wants to Christianize Afghanistan, as you said farther up this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

I was very opposed to Obama's position on Afghanistan (and Pakistan) before he was elected. I much preferred him, however, to McCain, and that was the choice the voters were offered...so if I was American, I'd have voted for Obama.

The candidates whose foreign policy positions I did agree with were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

I suspected that Obama would continue the "war as usual" policy once elected, and my suspicions have been confirmed.

I've always found him to be a very good speaker. People were inspired by Obama because he is such an eloquent man and because he seemed to offer the possibility of change, and they hoped he would change things in the direction they wanted...meaning AWAY from the legacy of the Bush administration.

What politician gets elected promising "more of the same"? ;-) Only incumbents do, and only in prosperous and/or confident times. If you're going to see a change of the party in power, you're going to have a politician get elected who promised "change"...because that's what people always want if they're in a mood to throw out the governing party.

Obama talked the line that would get him elected, and he did it brilliantly. Now we're dealing with reality, and that's a different matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: pdq
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 02:05 PM

"RE the collapse of the banking system, there were essentially three options for Obama: A) Allow the banks to fail..."

"Obama did what he felt was best in light of the severity of the emergency." ~ LEJ

Amazing how Obama could have such an impact on this situation, since the TARP "bailout" was passed by the House on 29 SEP 2008 and signed by George W. Bush.

BTW, Bank of America just paid the US taxpayers back the $32 billion they borrowed so the TARP plan is looking better than it once did.

Obama's answer to this good news? Spend the money B of A returned in an unauthorized manor, as if it were part of his failed "stimulus package". Great, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM

The banking system collapsed because it's built on a pyramid scheme. Instead of biting the bullet, confronting the real problem, and doing something about it with strict banking regulations so it can't happen again, they pumped a massive amount of government debt into reinflating the great phony cash balloon. That will lead to further problems farther on down the road.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM

I agree that the banking industry is in desperate need of overhaul and should be subject to stringent regulation in future.
Of course, the stock view of the Limbaugh/Palin faction is as follows: The Banks were under government pressure to finance houses for the poor and indigent. Therefore, it wasn't the fault of the bank industry that these mortgages defaulted, it was the fault of liberal forces in the government and of the undeserving poor who got the loans. Therefore, the entire banking crisis can be laid at the door of TOO MUCH government interference.
I suppose the huge salaries and bonuses along with the embezzlement and fraud in the derivatives market was also the fault of the undeserving poor and do-gooder liberals as well. Again, the dyed-in-wool conservatives with their avowed admiration for personal responsibility are usually the last to own up to any.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:35 PM

Yeah. It's pretty ludicrous all right.

The public in North America has always (well, since the 60s anyway) been encouraged to buy on credit and spend money they don't yet have. That's because they will end up paying interest charges to the lenders that way. The entire financial system is built on creating massive debt, both in terms of the ordinary public and in terms of the government and big business. It's disingenuous to blame the ordinary public for it when they are constantly encouraged and given tempting incentives to do it by those in control of lending the money. The result is inevitable...a bubble of spending and inflation is created, it gets too big, and then it bursts. When it does, the little guys lose out, but the big guys simply get a bailout and they buy up all the stuff that the little guys had to dump at a bargain price. Then the whole cycle starts up again....boom and bust...boom and bust...boom and bust. Thus are great fortunes made and many people impoverished.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:22 PM

Well, Saws, not to be splittin' hairs here but Obama never promised that the banks would loan money to Main Street.... It's just turned out that way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Afghan War mistake or wise
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 11:25 PM

Barrack Husein Obama Nov 3 2008 Jacksonville Fla:

"Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.

Tomorrow, you can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.

Tomorrow, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope.

Tomorrow, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need."

Amen