Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

  1. #61
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Seems they did that not long ago and really, did it do any good?
    If your referring to the last congress with Nancy Pelosi at the helm the answer is no...they squandered their chance at greatness allowing Pelosi to be overbearing and sneaky...the american people for them most part loathed her...and obama care and the way it was passed was the finishing touch

  2. #62
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Seems they did that not long ago and really, did it do any good?
    No they split the power, between the houses, and are not happy with the results:

    Public opinion of Congress has hit a record low

    With the new requirement that every vote takes a super majority, a super majority of congressional membership will be required for progress.
    Last edited by Catawba; 12-06-11 at 06:05 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I see no reason for that as there is nothing there that we are going to do anything about.
    There is one reason Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are not all currently shooting at each other: forward deployed US military power
    There is one reason China has not invaded Taiwan: forward deployed US military power
    There is one reason why radical allied Wahhabi and NeoDeobandi elements have not successfully (yet) taken over the Pakistani government: forward deployed US military power
    There is one reason why world trade flows relatively unimpeded: forward deployed US military power

    we underpin and guarantee global security, most especially in the critical littoral regions. remove a beneficent hegemon player, and watch the world sink back into 19th-century mercantilist-bloc style Geopolitics. after a few wars that collapse the global economy and claim more lives than we frankly would like. Good luck reducing the deficit without a modern economy.

    I have no doubt that is true. Much like the thread where the economists being paid with education dollars believe that the best way out of our mess is with more education spending.
    i've given you the actual numbers. until you can demonstrate a plausible plan to achieve those savings without cutting those personnel and assets your "we can do it without reducing readiness" remains a fantasy.

  4. #64
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think the American people are going to have to break the impasse by voting in a clear majority of one party or another in both houses of Congress.
    agreed. what we have now is the result of three swing elections, and isn't plausibly going to be able to produce movement.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No they split the power, between the houses, and are not happy with the results:

    Public opinion of Congress has hit a record low

    With the new requirement that every vote takes a super majority, a super majority of congressional membership will be required for progress.
    I see your knowledge of history is quite short.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    There is one reason Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are not all currently shooting at each other: forward deployed US military power
    WRONG. Israel is behaving not because they are afraid we would attack them as we never would. It's because they are concerned that we would cut off their aid. Saudi Arabia behaves because they know a war would mean an end to the ruling party.

    There is one reason China has not invaded Taiwan: forward deployed US military power
    We are not about to attack China and China knows that.

    There is one reason why radical allied Wahhabi and NeoDeobandi elements have not successfully (yet) taken over the Pakistani government: forward deployed US military power
    They do not have the means to take over the government.

    There is one reason why world trade flows relatively unimpeded: forward deployed US military power
    It doesn't take much to send a few planes to address a blockade or something.

    we underpin and guarantee global security, most especially in the critical littoral regions. remove a beneficent hegemon player, and watch the world sink back into 19th-century mercantilist-bloc style Geopolitics. after a few wars that collapse the global economy and claim more lives than we frankly would like. Good luck reducing the deficit without a modern economy.
    I believe there are more than a few wars going on right now. Why are we in Afghanistan still?

    i've given you the actual numbers. until you can demonstrate a plausible plan to achieve those savings without cutting those personnel and assets your "we can do it without reducing readiness" remains a fantasy.
    I believe we should cut personnel.

  7. #67
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I see your knowledge of history is quite short.
    About what? The record number of filibusters required for bill passage by Congress, or the the record low opinion of Congress?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #68
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    WRONG. Israel is behaving not because they are afraid we would attack them as we never would. It's because they are concerned that we would cut off their aid. Saudi Arabia behaves because they know a war would mean an end to the ruling party.
    you are incorrect on both counts. 1. Saudi Arabia has no ruling party, it has an extended royal family and 2. it and Israel are both willing to take a less aggressive posture towards Iran because of the US security guarantee of the 5th Fleet, CENTCOM, and EUCOM assets in the region. Israel has a deeper strategic buffer because they are backstopped by US Forces. take away that backstop, and their only plausible defense becomes a good offense.

    We are not about to attack China and China knows that.
    actually no they don't - they are paranoid, nationalistic li'l bastards. but you deliberately did not answer the point, which is that the only reason China is not pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy in the Pacific (specifically, that they have not seized Taiwan) is because (again) of the US Presence in the region.

    They do not have the means to take over the government.
    they don't have to, they just have to effectively collapse the governments' de facto ability to exert control over large swaths of the nation. which, measured competitively with organic assets alone, they do. it is the guarantee that the US will not let that happen that keeps them from doing so, specifically, the fact that we directly support the Paki military when they try. which (again) we are only in a position to do due to our forward leaning posture.

    It doesn't take much to send a few planes to address a blockade or something.
    world trade flows freely mostly because of the US Naval guarantee. and yes, it does take quite a lot. specifically, it generally takes task forces and carrier groups, which in turn require land bases. you don't work the pirate problem without a forward leaning posture in Djibouti. you don't pose a realistic deterrent to Iran without the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. You don't pose a deterrent to China without the 7th Fleet willing to come to Taiwan's aid, and we havent' even talked about India yet.

    I believe there are more than a few wars going on right now.
    no, there are a few low level conflicts going on right now, as there usually are. we're talking of the shuts-down-the-international-oil-trade variety.

    Why are we in Afghanistan still?
    because the last thing we need is another force for instability in that region. and bluntly, we broke it - you break it you buy it.

    I believe we should cut personnel.
    then you are reducing readiness, drawing down our forward leaning defense posture, and increasing global insecurity and you should at least be willing to admit that. the result will be sharply reduced global trade, as trade requires a basic minimum of security and enforcement of contracts to succeed.
    Last edited by cpwill; 12-07-11 at 08:24 AM.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you are incorrect on both counts. 1. Saudi Arabia has no ruling party, it has an extended royal family and 2. it and Israel are both willing to take a less aggressive posture towards Iran because of the US security guarantee of the 5th Fleet, CENTCOM, and EUCOM assets in the region. Israel has a deeper strategic buffer because they are backstopped by US Forces. take away that backstop, and their only plausible defense becomes a good offense.
    You claim I'm wrong but you don't dispute my contention that war would be very, very bad for the ruling party (family) in S.A. Israel is just itching to take on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. They are not afraid to defend themselves. If it wasn't for our money they would be taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure just like they did with Iraq.

    actually no they don't - they are paranoid, nationalistic li'l bastards. but you deliberately did not answer the point, which is that the only reason China is not pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy in the Pacific (specifically, that they have not seized Taiwan) is because (again) of the US Presence in the region.
    They have nothing to gain by taking on Taiwan. Yes, they wish they could just throw their weight around but now they have far too much at stake economically. Granted that may change as more and more allow China to own their debt but we would rather build more battleships than get our debt under control.

    they don't have to, they just have to effectively collapse the governments' de facto ability to exert control over large swaths of the nation. which, measured competitively with organic assets alone, they do. it is the guarantee that the US will not let that happen that keeps them from doing so, specifically, the fact that we directly support the Paki military when they try. which (again) we are only in a position to do due to our forward leaning posture.
    If they could, they would be.

    world trade flows freely mostly because of the US Naval guarantee. and yes, it does take quite a lot. specifically, it generally takes task forces and carrier groups, which in turn require land bases. you don't work the pirate problem without a forward leaning posture in Djibouti. you don't pose a realistic deterrent to Iran without the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. You don't pose a deterrent to China without the 7th Fleet willing to come to Taiwan's aid, and we havent' even talked about India yet.
    Nobody has anything to gain here. There is nobody itching to block the trade routes. Iran even threatens it all the time but they know that if they were to do that just like in S.A. they know it would lead to an internal revolt. It would be no different than if either party in the U.S. decided to take on Israel.

    no, there are a few low level conflicts going on right now, as there usually are. we're talking of the shuts-down-the-international-oil-trade variety.
    Nobody is willing to cut off their livelyhoods.

    because the last thing we need is another force for instability in that region. and bluntly, we broke it - you break it you buy it.
    The Taliban wasn't bothering anyone outside of Afghanistan. 10 years later and the area is every bit if not more unstable.

    then you are reducing readiness, drawing down our forward leaning defense posture, and increasing global insecurity and you should at least be willing to admit that. the result will be sharply reduced global trade, as trade requires a basic minimum of security and enforcement of contracts to succeed.
    Countries do not wish to remain fiscally valid because we have a strong army.

  10. #70
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You claim I'm wrong but you don't dispute my contention that war would be very, very bad for the ruling party (family) in S.A. Israel is just itching to take on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. They are not afraid to defend themselves. If it wasn't for our money they would be taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure just like they did with Iraq.
    Saudi Arabia wouldn't consider that it had a choice in the matter. Previously, they've been able to depend upon a US shield, and so they haven't had to engage Iran for leadership of the ME. The Saudi's have made it abundantly clear that in the event of Iran developing a nuclear program, they will start to do so as well, kicking off a nuclear arms race in the region between shia and sunni. Withdrawal of US Forces would create a massive power vacuum in the region, and both would race to fill it. Ditto once we stopped supporting the military government in Pakistan.



    They have nothing to gain by taking on Taiwan.
    you need to stop right there. because the thing that the CCP has to gain by taking Taiwan is survival.

    this is the problem with libertarians - they tend to assume that around the world everyone shares their value set; that people will not willingly give up nationalism, pride, realpolitik, power and so forth for money. The Chinese government (and, more importantly, her people) consider the continued existence of an independent Taiwan to be a consant humiliation forced upon them by the Imperialist West. It is a sore, a wound that does not staunch, a fester in the mind. They look at Taiwan similarly to how Arabs look at Israel. What we would consider to be a rational balancing of interests does not come into play.

    The #1 goal for China is not wealth. Wealth is just a means to an end. The primary Goal for the PRC is regional hegemony. The primary goal of the CCP, however, is to maintain domestic power. Its' ruling legitimacy is founded upon two things: economic growth, and nationalism. economic growth is sitting on a bubble, which constrained US consumer spending will probably pop. In response, the CCP will have no option but to clamp down domestically and seek to clamp down abroad. They will need to rely near solely on Nationalism, and taking Taiwan would be the greatest possible victory for Chinese Nationalism that they could enact.

    Yes, they wish they could just throw their weight around but now they have far too much at stake economically. Granted that may change as more and more allow China to own their debt but we would rather build more battleships than get our debt under control.
    if we could ever balance our budgets, that debt becomes a weapon for us. as long as we do not, however, that sword is pointed at our throats, and the Chinese can nick us or shove it in at any time they wish.

    and it turns out we would not rather build battleships. instead we are going to protect social spending and give up on building battleships (that is, after all, the point of this thread). Unfortunately, no one in our higher levels of government seems able to understand or willing to articulate that since global trade depends on a modicum of global security, and since that global security is provided for by the US military, trying to "reduce the deficit" by dramatically slashing military spending is the equivalent of eating seed corn.

    If they could, they would be.
    and they can't. because we are there.

    you can't score geopolitics statically any more accurately than you can score fiscal policy statically. when the US draws down, the rules and weights on the board changes, and everyone else shifts to maximize upon that.

    Nobody has anything to gain here. There is nobody itching to block the trade routes.
    indeed. there are no somali pirates, wahhabi terrorists, or twelfth imam extremists in the region. everyone loves America and the invasion of Western Culture into their lands via the oil trade. No one would ever see trade with the West to be a degradation and a cancer within the Ummah and Islam.

    Also, it's worth noting that China does not buy oil, has not been buying oil in exponentially increasing amounts, does not have a million Chinese extracting oil in East Africa, and does not believe in a mercantilist economic system in which raw resources are shunted from client states to China.

    It's also worth noting that throughout human history and across the world, whenever nations have gone to war with each other (as is exceedingly likely to occur following US drawdown), there has never ever ever been a disruption of trade as a result of that war. nope never ever.





    wait.......



    aw man......


    Nobody is willing to cut off their livelyhoods.
    see earlier piece on how it's interesting that you think their highest priority is more wealth for their individual citizens.

    The Taliban wasn't bothering anyone outside of Afghanistan. 10 years later and the area is every bit if not more unstable.
    not true - the Taliban served as a launching point for AQ. and 10 years later the region has the possibility to become more stable. if we are allowed to finish the job. otherwise, yes, half-efforts are often worse than no efforts at all.

    Countries do not wish to remain fiscally valid because we have a strong army.
    that doesn't make sense. right now the rest of the world engages in relatively free global trade because the US underwrites it. we do this because A) we believe in it and B) our economy is dependent upon it, and we make alot of money off of it.

    remove the underwriting, and free global trade collapses. the world has not entered into Kant's paradise, it remains a self-centered ugly place full of brutal autocracies who would much rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.




    Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.

    that's the Middle East after US withdrawal.
    Last edited by cpwill; 12-09-11 at 10:35 PM.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •