225 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

  1. An accurate response Michael. Well done.

    Two quibbles:

    effect should be affect

    tenant should be tenet

  2. @Miss_Magoo

    Why is the [scientist] faction so devoid of social skills

    LOL …. how about you first tell us why social types are so devoid of scientific skills?

  3. @Fran Barlow
    Thanks for pointing out my typos, I will try to do better :-). I meant to post that in the “Science the victim of dishonest attacks” thread, I’m a victim of multi-tasking.

  4. N

    @Michael

    Not to worry … tenant used this way is a common neologism, and is cognate with tenet since they both derive from holding something — hence the French verb tenir, to hold.

    effect is most often a noun (cf Doppler Effect) but can be a verb when it means “to bring about, implement, cause” eg effect changes.

  5. Fran Barlow :Not to all .. El Gordo is the nym of a regular disinformationist on this issue at Deltoid …
    Contrary to El Gordo, McIntyre is not a professor of anything. Contrary to popular beleif, he is not even, properly speaking, a mathematician. His short bio (from wiki) reads as follows:

    McIntyre attended the University of Toronto Schools, a university-preparatory school in Toronto, finishing first in the national high school mathematics competition of 1965.[1] He went on to study mathematics at the University of Toronto and graduated with a bachelor of science degree in 1969. McIntyre then obtained a Commonwealth Scholarship to read philosophy, politics and economics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, graduating in 1971.[1][2] Although he was offered a graduate scholarship, McIntyre decided not to pursue studies in mathematical economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
    McIntyre worked for 30 years in the mineral business,[1] the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[3] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[4] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[5]

    People should note that he was not a disinterested party when he took up the cudgels for the polluters.

    Indeed, deniers frequently try to tote his creditionals. I’ve seen him cited as an expert many times, when at best I think his highest qualifcations is a BSc. He spend most of his career in mining.

  6. many have written here about the causes of the great financial sham of 2008/2009,
    and most have regurgitated the mainstream media lies (like, it was the subprime mortgages),
    there is now a lot of noise in the blogs about lehman, ernst & young and linklaters fraud but lets face it, it is the system, not the companies,

    senator kaufman says “fraud and potential criminal conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis” to which i would like to add this little gem from richard murphy’s site,

    “The Cayman Islands were the largest foreign holder of private-label US mortgage-backed securities on the eve of the financial crisis … and
    The amount of undeclared money languishing in offshore financial centres has always been difficult to quantify: the very nature of it being undeclared makes it hard to trace. But work by economists at the International Monetary Fund has shed new light on the cash involved, confirming it runs into trillions of dollars.

    and remember this story

    Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations’ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

    chuck this one in for good measure

    new figures reveal that illicit financial flows outpace Official Development Assistance by a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. This is critical to understanding global poverty and developing effective poverty alleviation and economic development strategies
    http://www.gfip.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=149

    i would like to respectfully point out once again that discussions of Keynesian, Monetarist or Austrian economics are currently redundant, they are academic sideshows,
    this is a mafia system where money from drugs, human trafficking and guns is indistinguishable from legitimate money,
    the tax/secrecy havens are the giant laundry points and the giant banks in collusion with the accounting firms and powerful governments all take their cuts from the racket,
    the GFC was the greatest scam of all time,
    like a magic show or a traveling gypsy scam, they gathered the middle class of the world together and asked them to behold some irrelevant spectacle while they picked our pockets

  9. bit like plimer, frequently referred to as an academic but most of his personal and financial interests are tied to mining,
    though as someone pointed out to me recently, plimers interests seem to be in tension,
    he is a great supporter of nuclear power and uranium mining, which is now put forward as a clean power source to deal with man-made global warming, which he denies the existence of

  10. My personal financial interests are currently tied to mining but I’ve declared that here previously. In any case my views were public long before I had such interests (eg pre 2008).

    I note that JQ has publicly apologised to Andrew Bolt on the latters blog for certain inaccuracies. However I think JQ really needs to reflect on what he said about McIntyre and the way he said it.

  11. well i would get the hell out if i were you terje, metals prices will be heading south shortly, as will company stock prices

  12. people that care deeply about haiti (remember haiti) will be pleased to know that plans to turn it into a nation of sweatshops are proceeding well,
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/15-2
    i am once again going to swim against the logic of free-markets and the laws of competitive advantage by saying that something should be done to stop this

  13. The UQ Young Liberals are looking classy today in their new shirts.

    A picture of Tony Abbot in his DTs, and the words, “Budgie Smugglers, Not People Smugglers”.

  14. smiths,
    I agree on Haiti. They should continue to have no work at all in the name of ideological puritanism and to ensure that others cannot buy cheap goods.
    They should continue to be permanent recipients of aid.
    .
    As for EYs – I cannot get to the article. Do you care to give a praisie? As I have said before and will say again – if the auditors have been dishonest or negligent then they should suffer for it like anyone else. Just do not expect them to do a job for which they are (typically) not being paid – that of an infallible fraud detector.

  15. false dichotomy andrew, slave labour or no labour,
    how about a genuine assistance program to restore local agriculture and other things that can be sustained and allow them to feed themselves and develop at an organic pace,
    and
    as i have said before, i think E&Y were doing the job they were being paid for, creatively and skillfully masking systemic fraud, anyway here’s some of it

    As politicians and regulators have noted, Big Four firms PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and E&Y, signed off successful audits of other banks at the centre of the crisis. They also made huge fees in the process.
    E&Y received $27.8m for auditing Lehman; Deloitte, £17m for auditing RBS; and KPMG, $9m for auditing HBOS, according to a UK parliamentary inquiry.
    PwC received £1.8m ($2.7m) for the last year of its audit of Northern Rock. There is no suggestion, however, that these firms failed to meet required professional standards in these cases.

    it should be noted that the FT is being incredibly generous towards the accounting firms in its reporting, most of the media is not

  16. @Andrew Reynolds

    The auditors do the job they are paid for which is to facilitate fraud. For company executives intent on fraud what else would they be paying them for? Being audited by auditors you choose and employ is lunacy. You might as well have the police and the judiciary employed by the mafia. When this has happened it hasn’t worked well either.

    As for Haiti, it was all down hill once they repudiated the property rights of slave owners. With no respect for property rights what do you expect? No doubt God has been cursing them for this sin ever since.

  19. smiths,
    If you have evidence that they were wrong, feel free to present it. The value of their assets in the balance sheet (which is given as being as at a particular date) and the value of income (for the year ended) seems right. If the values subsequently change then that is not the responsibility of the auditors.
    There is a good chance the FT is right – if not, then the firms should suffer to the extent that they have not fulfilled their professional duties.
    .
    Freelander,
    Again you show your ignorance. The auditors are appointed by the shareholders, not the managers. Check the corporate law on this point – also have a look at any AGM or EGM where there is a proposal to change the auditors. Auditors also have a duty not to accept an audit where the fee is likely to make a big difference to a firm – that is why the big firms are the only ones auditing big companies.
    That said, I agree that some auditors do forget this. If they do, and they end up facilitiating malfeasance, then they should suffer the appropriate penalty.
    Ignorance is no excuse, Freelander, for you or them.
    .
    On Haiti – I am not surprised you have come out in favour of slavery. I see little difference between a system where you act as a slave for a State and one where you act as a slave for a private owner. They are both wrong. You seem to like the idea of the first option.

  20. @Freelander

    Praisie Andrew, you are such an extraordinarily talented fellow. You do fit the bill, so its easy to believe all your claims. High finance, academic, logician… the perspicacity to recognise that I am perfectly serious about Haiti…

    Of course, the auditors are appointed by the shareholders, the same way the shareholders determine the board and through them the senior executives and so on. And the same way the shareholders ultimately determine senior executive remuneration. And the shareholders are all real people, not legal fictions that own the shares, not insurance companies or superannuation funds where those who supply the funds have no say whatsoever. Of course, you are entirely right. Extraordinary, you are never wrong. What an intellect.

  21. @Andrew Reynolds
    I am not surprised you have come out in favour of slavery.

    What an absolutely disgusting thing to say.

    I suppose you don’t know (or care) that Haiti is so extremely poor mainly because it has spent the last two hundred years paying billions of dollars of interest on the enormous debt that France imposed on it – by force – as repayment for their successful slave rebellion.

    I’m sure that you’d probably oppose the idea that France should be paying reparations for all the wealth it has sucked out of Haiti over the centuries, or that the US should be paying reparations for the time it re-established slavery (“corvee labor”) under Woodrow Wilson, or that it should be paying back all the interest it has claimed on money that it loaned to Haiti so that Haiti could pay back France. Even after the earthquake the G7 have refused to forgive Haiti’s debt, let alone pay them the billions in reparations that they are owed.

    Like some type of freak you think that governments providing aid so that people have housing, food, water and medicine somehow amounts to “slavery”, and that these wretched people deserve nothing more than to live like animals and rent themselves out for whatever barest margin of subsistence the free-market will provide to them. Again, I doubt that you know (or care) that Haiti’s agricultural system was decimated in the 1990s when Clinton militarily forced the country to open its markets to heavily subsidized US agriculture, with the intent to leave it with no employment but abject exploitation in the world’s cheapest sweatshops, just miles from the US coast. When somebody points out that Haiti’s sweatshops have the worst conditions in the world, you mockingly suggest they take the other option: death. This is the choice given to them by the international community, and you see nothing wrong with that. Being a Rightwinger of your calibre requires such an appalling level of cruelty and indifference to human suffering I don’t know how anyone can manage it.

  23. Come on PrQ … if the comment from EMH above doesn’t violate some comment policy or isn’t liekly to provoke massive back and forth I can’t imagine what would.

    It’s purely racial animus.

    Time to wield the axe?

  25. Sorry, I forgot the most important one, absolute must-see first thing everyday:

    informationclearinghouse

    It’s one of those things, so vital but easily taken for granted.

  26. @gerard

    As you recognise Gerard, it is much easier for some of the multi-talented experts on everything who post here from time to time to be totally ignorant of history and instead simply blame the victims. Naturally, those who live in countries like Haiti are well aware of their history and we in the west are lucky that for the most part most do not dwell on their history. If they did we would have a lot more to worry about than bin Laden.

  27. Let’s try this again… for a third time. Maybe I’ve gone over some word limit or something…
    @Smiths & Salient Green:
    Basing your facts on a hyper-partisan magazine prolly isn’t the best idea when you actually want solid facts. I see where you are trying to go with the America bashing, and the whole “warmongering” meme, here’s the thing though… a BETTER indicator of who to point your finger at in regards to who’s the enabler for all the conflicts out there would be to look at WHICH EXPORTED WEAPONS SYSTEMS ARE THE MOST WIDELY USED TO KILL PEOPLE IN RECENT MODERN CONFLICTS.
    Those weapons systems would be:
    -The AK series of Assault Rifles (specifically Chinese, Czech and Russian made)
    -The Russian/Soviet RPK and DShK Machine guns (To be honest, the old US made M60 is #3)
    -Russian/Soviet RPG-2 and RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and Chinese Type 56 and 69 RPG launchers (copies of Russian RPG-2, RPG-7)

    You see… the weakness of your argument is that your little partisan article ONLY talks about ~legal~ and above board arms sales in terms of dollar amount, then assigns blame by who’s making the most money, legally. The inherent problem is that:
    1. US made weapons systems are usually of higher quality and greater technical advancement and therefore MORE EXPENSIVE than a cheap chinese knock-off of a 20 year old Russian weapon system.
    2. The Black Market arms business is estimated to be 5-10x greater than the sanctioned market.
    3. I know you REALLY want the US to be the bad guy here, but the vast majority of the $$$ made by the US arms makers was in the sale of big ticket items like radar and Anti-missile defense systems (Ex. the patriot) and various Aircraft. Most of the 33 *CONFLICTS* (not wars) currently being waged are being fought with ~SMALL ARMS~ and Rocket launchers. These types of systems account for LESS THAN 1% of total US arms sales… Sorry to burst your bubble.
    4. Of the conflicts mentioned in your first article, umm, how many are in the say top 10, 25, or even 50 top importers of US weapons? Answer, None.

    When was the last time some Warlord in the Congo, or Drug Czar in Nicaragua was tooling around in an F-22 Raptor?

    Doc

  28. I take back # 4, there ARE some countries listed in your first article that are in the top 25 importers of US arms. That said, Afghanistan and Iraq are getting big ticket items, as is India. Columbia is on the list because of our support of the “War on Drugs”. We are supporting the govt of Columbia against the Drug cartels… same with Mexico.
    I suppose we could stop, if that would make you happy.

    Doc

  29. @Doc_Navy

    If the US controlled its drug problem, the problem would not be overflowing into Columbia and now Mexico. The Columbian government and Mexican government would have fewer problems if they simply ignored their drug entrepreneurs filling that much needed gap in the market, but the US would not let these governments do that. The US needs to tackle the drug problem at the source and start cracking down on their drug users. No demand, no problem. Also, it wouldn’t hurt if the US managed to control its borders better and stopped the drugs coming in; might even come in handy on the so-called ‘war on terror’.
    As far as being arms merchants – yes, please stop. Of course, the US is the bad guy. Why do you imagine so many in other countries hate the US? Personally, I don’t. But the one-eyed patriotism of many americans is as mindless as that of any 1950s communist apparatchik and blinds many americans to their country’s faults.
    Americans need a reality check. The US needs to start worrying about its outrageous military expenditure. Military expenditure and a loss of willingness to murder large numbers of people are what finally brought the Soviet empire down. Military expenditure stands an excellent chance of doing the same to the US. Like Great Britain before it, the US’s day at the top is over. The time to start making the adjustment is now. This certainly isn’t the time for the US to start making new enemies.

  30. @Freelander

    Honestly, you have points that I couldn’t agree more with. I wish that the US WOULD control its borders better, but you’ll have to take that up with your left-wing counterparts here in the States. They are the ones who are after open borders, social security, free healthcare, unemployment benefits, and VOTING rights for illegal aliens.

    I also agree with stepping up our efforts to control drugs in the US but a major portion of that would be strengthening our borders, and again, the left-wingers are against that. They are also FOR the legalization of cartain “Gateway” drugs, which is really just the first step to ultimately making the entire US a poor copy of Amsterdam.

    I think that the legal consiquences of selling, using, and BUYING illegal drug should be made more stringent. Once again, your counterparts here in the US disagree with me. They favor the “Big Brother” approach of more spending on government sponsored “rehabilitation” programs. (which have worked out SO well in our penal system. /sarc off)

    Finally, where you and I diverge is that having a strong military ISN’T tantamount to being a “warmonger.” Neither is being top exporter of legal arms. By your logic, the United States is also the biggest supporter of illegal drug use because the two largest and most profitable pharmecutical companies in the world happen to reside here (Johnson&Johnson, Pfizer). This is a false premise. The US has a large drug market begause we have a large population with more EXPENDIBLE CASH. This is the case with most developed countries including AUS.

    Every country has its social problems. It’s easy to hate the “guy at the top”, and the US is still the “top dog” on the Global scene. Probably not for too much longer, though. I have a feeling that China is gonna be making a comeback.

    My question is, when China (or whomever) finally supercedes the United States as a super power do you think THEY are going to be as generous with their $$$ and aid, and military (face it, the UN would be NOTHING without the United States. Heck, WE started it.) as the US has been?

    Doc

  31. gerard,
    Chill out. Perhaps I should have put that in sarcasm tags to make it a bit more obvious. I am aware of the history of Haiti and the sad actions of both its and other governments towards the people of that country.
    I just see smiths’ original comment (that of opposing what he calls sweatshops) as another attempt to impose the will of others onto the people who should be allowed to make their own minds up to work in the fields, on their own enterprise or for someone else by themselves. If they choose to work in a company that offers them regular wages and at least some hope then, to me at least, that should be up to them.
    .
    Freelander,
    The other option would be drug legalisation. If it is not a crime then, as the US found with alcohol, the criminals lose income.

  32. @Andrew Reynolds

    Yes. Praisie. Legalising drugs is a wonderful idea. Certainly worked for the Chinese in the 19th Century. Why not legalise murder and all the other crimes as well? If you did that there would be a dramatic fall in crime statistics.
    Prohibiting alcohol was a silly idea for obvious reasons, but they went about it the wrong way. It is those consuming alcohol they should have targeted, and if that task was too great they ought to have thought it through a bit more, and have come to the sensible conclusion that it was not doable. Concentrating on supply and ignoring demand just increases the profit rate, and ends up giving criminals the money to finance corruption.

  33. Freelander,
    Let’s see – China in the 19th century managed to take the first steps on a path to eliminating the the tyranny that ruled over them and also the first steps out of their self-imposed exile from the rest of the world. Despite one of the most horrific civil wars in history (the Taiping Rebellion) they also managed to make some headway on economic progress. If some exercised their ability to choose in a way that you disapprove of, so what?
    .
    Murder and other crimes, as I hope you appreciate, involves direct harm to others as a necessary part of the criminal actions. To put someone peacefully smoking a joint into the same category is just silly. I suppose you would have also opposed the legalisation of homosexuality 30 years ago on the same basis?

  34. @Doc_Navy

    By illegal aliens you wouldn’t happen to mean Mexicans would you? The Mexicans are simply reclaiming their land, as you ought to know. Can’t blame them for that can you? How come you refer to ‘counterparts’ who I obviously don’t agree with? You are quite deluded to imagine that the US is thought to be the ‘guy at the top’. The country is a rogue state and many are wondering whether or not it will disintegrate before or after 2050. The bets are on for how soon before the US dollar collapses. The poor Canadians have a long border with the US. They will then have to stand along it with cattle prods to keep you out. Of course, you will try to pass yourselves off as Canadians, but they will ask you to say “about” and that will be that. There has been a long delusion held by americans that they are net donors to the rest of the world. This is of course nonsense. The rest of the world has been subsidising the US for a long while. Most recently your greatest benefactor has been China. You are also wrong about who started the UN. It was convenient that the US was finally dragged into WWII, after Japan attacked and Germany declared war on it. And I must say that the Marshall plan was particularly enlightened.

  35. @freelander

    Ohh, ouch and now the barbs come out… okie dokie.

    If you are somehow of a conservative mindset (which I doubt) and I have associated you with the wrong political group, Sorry.

    -Mexicans “reclaiming” their land?? Come on. I believe that the Aboriginals in AUS would have a MUCH stronger case for booting the “white folk” off the southern continent than the Mexican’s do for “reclaiming their land”. You don’t see too many “Stolen Generation” Mexicans running around, do ya?

    -The US isn’t the “guy at the top”. Ok… so, umm which metric would you like to use for determining which country is “on top”? Let’s start there.

    -The US is a “Rogue Nation”. Interesting concept, and I suppose someone with an anti-US, anti-military, etc… midset COULD make the case that the US is quite capable of going off and doing whatever it feels like to whomever it feels like despite the objections of the rest of the World… but of course that would reinforce the concept of the US as “Top Dog”. Which is it?
    last time a “rogue” nation gave the finger to the rest of the world, the US squished them like a bug. (A la Iraq) Strangely, even though there has been a lot of outcry about the US involvement in the Iraq war… I don’t remember seeing ANYONE making the argument that Hussein DIDN’T, in fact, need to be removed from power. I also don’t remember anyone SUPPORTING Iraq during Desert Storm. What I do rememeber was a buch of self interested countries (France, Germany, China, Russia) making noisees about “unilateral decisions”, then slinking away as their illegal, backdoor deals with the Hussein govt were revealed.

    -The US disintegrating by 2050? Bet’s are on for the collapse of the Dollar? Brother, you suck at baiting people. Pretty much everything after this is just you making wild speculations in an effort to get some kind of rise out of me. Fail.

    -History lesson (Taken from Wikipedia. Yeah, yeah, I know what you are going to say about wiki, but if you disagree with wiki’s facts in this please post where they are wrong):

    “Following in the wake of the failed League of Nations (1919–1946), which the United States never joined, the United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term ‘United Nations’ as a term to describe the Allied countries. The term was first officially used on 1 January 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort.[3] On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46 signatories. The first meetings of the General Assembly, with 51 nations represented, and the Security Council, took place in Westminster Central Hall in London in January 1946.[4]”

    -Finally, Yes it WAS convienient that the US was dragged into WWII, for without us Europe would have fallen, and Australia’s national language would prolly be Japanese.

    You’re Welcome.

    Doc

  36. Correction..
    not “Desert Storm” (although nobody backed Hussein then either), I meant “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

    Doc

  37. Very patriotic and full of Palin-like delusion. Iraq just one more US success story in international diplomacy and goodwill. I hope the Canadians have a good enough supply of cattle prods; they’ll need ’em. You know, the Chinese are getting sick of keeping your dollar afloat. The Iraqis sure are free today. Though a tad ungrateful. Mission accomplished. Thanks for winning WWII all on your own.

  38. I still think the Marshall plan was particularly enlightened. Too bad there wasn’t similarly enlightened thinking when the Soviet empire collapsed.

  39. @Freelander

    Hmm, I am detecting a bit of sarcasm… 🙂 Again, you fail at baiting. Palin.. Ok. Whatever.

    You set up a Strawman Argument then fail to knock it down… other than with sarcasm.

    You know, for someone bashing Palin and Conservatives… you sound an AWFUL LOT like Glenn Beck.

    The current administration is devaluing the US Dollar leading to a possible collapse… Check
    There will be mass anarchy and people will flee the US when it all goes to Hell… Check
    The Chinese are buying up American debt… check

    You should be a guest commentator on his show.

    As for whether or not Iraq is a success story… well we’ll just have to wait and see. If it is, I suppose you’ll give credit to the Obama administration. pfft. There is no denying that the people of Iraq are “more free”, and have better infrastructure than before 2003, so I suppose the case can be made the Iraq is somewhat of a success now.

    Ungrateful Iraqis, Hmm I have never said that, and I don’t know anyone who has. Could you point me in the direction of a major media spokesperson that HAS said that? Limbaugh, Beck, Stossel, etc… Personally, having been deployed to Iraq twice (as well as Afghanistan) I think that the people of Iraq are ready to be doing things mostly on their own, and that is why they might seem a little “ungrateful.” Theye were certainly “grateful” when we removed Hussein from power. I remember the celebrations, don’t you? Why is it that YOU think they are ungrateful?

    Finally, again I never said that the US won WWII “All on our own”. YOU did.
    The facts are, that prior to the entry of the US into WWII, the Axis powers had pretty much overrun all of Europe, save for some underground resistance. Great Brittain was on the brink of falling. Stalin had entered into secret talks to ally with Hitler (which later ended up with the The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, lasting three years and ending when Hitler broke the pact and invaded the Soviet union) The Japanese had pretty much run rampant in the South Pacific and was getting read to attack Australia (which they did, shortly after the US entered in to WWII)

    So Mastermind, let’s say that the United States HADN’T “gotten dragged into WWII”… based on the state of the war berfore US involvement… What do you think the outcome would have been?

    Doc

  40. @ Freelander

    Oh! Almost forgot. I need to correct you. The Soviet Union fell because of an artificially inflated economy (IE state set prices), and their trying to pit themselves against the US economy.

    Yes, military spending was a major factor in the fall of the Soviet. I notice that you convieniently forget to credit President Reagan for the strategy. He managed to get the USSR to spend itself into oblivion.

    Unfortunately, the current administration didn’t learn from Russia’s mistake or Reagan’s genius, and are rapidly following a similar path. Good thing it’ll only be 4 years long.

    Doc

  41. We would all (including you) be speaking German, but our trains would run on time.

  42. @Doc_Navy

    No. The Soviet Union despite all the flaws in its economy could have continued chugging along if they had not suffered the costs of their military and weapons, and, most importantly, if they had not lost the will to kill large numbers of people. The final factor is very important as China demonstrated. Yes, Reagan was a genius, and a brilliant actor too. An intellect undiminished even in his twilight years. Why didn’t they give him a Nobel?

  43. @Freelander

    Not Sure where you are getting the whole “lost the will to kill large numbers of people”. Considering that you have mentioned this twice, with the exact same wording I conclude that this is a pre-memorized script you are feeding me (along with the Marshal Plan bait… that also failed.) and you already have talking points laid out. Most likely direction… the number if Iraqi casualties since the start of the Iraq conflict. Whereupon you will quote some activist study that details the millions that the US has killed in the Iraq (and/or Afghanistan) conflict(s).

    I have had this discussion many times.

    The fact is that no one really knows how many innocent civillians have died during the Iraq conflict. Estimates vary wildly. The ones that you would most likely quote include civillian deaths from insugent activities (like suicide bomb detonations), deaths from disease (apparantly the US is responsible for how the Iraqi population choose to dispense with their sewage), deaths from “social stress” (IE: Iraqi on Iraqi due to the stress of our mere presence), and pretty much anything else that a person could die from. It’s ALL America’s fault.

    Flaws in this argument:
    Besides the obvious, (how can the US be responsible for insurgent activities?), the Hussein govt. routinely engaged in mass torture, rape, and murder of the Iraqi population, not to mention the genocidal acts against the Kurds and Iran. (to wit: the use of Chemical/Biological WMD) Remember when Bush 1 pormised the poeple of Iraq that the US would support a people’s rebellion against the Baathists, then… when the Shia of the south rebelled, Clinton reneged on the promise and Saddam slaughtered them?

    Coalition forces continue to find mass pit graves out in the desert to this day.

    As for Reagan’s Nobel… who knows? Apparently you qualify for making a fictitous movie about a non-existant problem, and for… well, doing NOTHING in the case of Obama.

    Ever since the Nobel was given to Anwar Sadat it’s pretty much become a joke. It’s just an opportunity for Left-wingers to congratulate themselves for being left-wingers (IMHO)

    Doc

  44. “The fact is that no one really knows how many innocent civillians have died during the Iraq conflict”

    Bleagh. Is there *anything* you people won’t deny?

  45. @Freelander

    “We would all (including you) be speaking German, but our trains would run on time.”

    Well, there you go then. America didn’t win it “All by ourselves”, but without us, it wouldn’t have been won by ANY OF YOU even when combined together. What was that about not being “top dog”? Nevermind.

    On behalf of the people of the United States, “Your’e Welcome, Freelander.” 🙂

    Doc

  46. @ Neil,

    Uh oh… the infamous “you people.”

    You know, in the States… thet might be considered “racist”. Might wanna think about that before you continue with your social generalizations.

    Doc

  47. excuse me… “that”. Sorry, fingers moved fater than my brain, which really isn’t that hard. ;P

    Doc

  50. @Neil

    Really? How so, or is this jst unsubstatiated Ad hom because you don’t agree with what I have posted?

    Doc

Leave a comment