Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

  1. #71
    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
    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.
    If S.A. gets into a war, the oil money gets cut off and the royal family loses their power. They can not go to war.

    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.
    All of that is true but China knows they can no longer remain a backwards country and what they lose by invading Taiwan is far more than they gain. Invade they save face but take a huge hit with the rest, well, with much of the rest of the world.

    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.
    They aren't going to be able to go backwards.

    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.
    Perhaps we will but my position is across the board cuts.

    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.
    We do not have to "be there" to be there.

    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.
    Pirates? We have to be 15 trillion in debt because of pirates?

    BEIJING: China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011, keeping volumes steady at some 460,000 barrels per day (bpd), two sources told Reuters.

    Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

    see earlier piece on how it's interesting that you think their highest priority is more wealth for their individual citizens.
    They may not BUT the people of China have seen how much better it is and aren't going back.

    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.
    A launching point in the same way that Dallas was a launching point for presidential assassations. We have been fighting Afghanistan for 10 years while the head of Al Queda has been in Pakistan.

    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.
    We do not have to have boots all over the world to let it be known that we will protect our interests.

  2. #72
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    If S.A. gets into a war, the oil money gets cut off and the royal family loses their power. They can not go to war.
    i would recommend you read up on the Yemeni Civil War, and the Oil Embargo of the 70's. SA has already survive both these things. what she can't survive is Iranian hegemony.

    All of that is true but China knows they can no longer remain a backwards country and what they lose by invading Taiwan is far more than they gain.
    like what? the US Consumer is gone, Europe is far gone, and they will own or control significant chunks of the worlds' natural resources thanks to the US short-sighted "withdraw to save money" foreign policy. they will have the Heartland and the Inner ring.

    Invade they save face but take a huge hit with the rest, well, with much of the rest of the world.
    yes. just like they did in 1989 with Tiannamen. and you know what? when it comes down to A) provide a massive burst to national pride through some major coup overturning a historical injustice and humiliation or B) lose their power and probably be executed en masse by whatever new government arises... they will do it again.

    Again. China's #1 goal is not wealth. it is regional hegemony. If you think that they are unwilling to be unpopular with decrepit weaklings in order to save face, restore Chinese pride from the Century of Humiliation, restore the natural boundaries of Chinese power, and demonstrate their existence as an un-vetoable world power, I fear your understanding of Chinese culture is severely lacking.

    They aren't going to be able to go backwards.
    that is correct. where you are failing is that you do not see that they will see seizing Taiwan even at economic cost to be a great step forwards.

    Perhaps we will but my position is across the board cuts.
    then your position is deliberately obtuse. We need to cut firstly our land forces in Europe, secondly, the elderly portion of our nuclear strike force, thirdly perhaps some of our Air Force F-22's, at minimum hold secure our Naval forces, and beef up our Space, anti-missile, and Cyber capabilities. cutting our most important forces in tandem with our least important forces is asking to cut foolishly.

    We do not have to "be there" to be there.
    I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. are you suggesting that we will maintain a rapid deployment capability without foreign bases? that we will be able to secure the worlds' sea ways from threats with nonexistent ships?

    Pirates? We have to be 15 trillion in debt because of pirates?
    DOD Spending as a % of GDP is at historical post-war lows. we are 15 Trillion in debt thanks to social programs, a fiscal collapse, and ill-conceived "stimulus" spending.

    [BEIJING: China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011, keeping volumes steady at some 460,000 barrels per day (bpd), two sources told Reuters.
    that is correct. and Chinese demand is increasing exponentially. gosh. looks like Iran wouldn't suffer that much if she was suddenly no longer able to sell the West the oil she wasn't selling them anyway due to straits being shut down, huh?

    They may not BUT the people of China have seen how much better it is and aren't going back.
    1. the Chinese people are not in charge
    2. the Chinese people would love to see the Chinese government retake Taiwan
    3. Hence, once the Chinese economic situation has already faltered in the wake of a massive property bubble and a deleveraging US consumer, if the CCP does not want the Chinese people to become in charge, they will move to aggressively improve China's regional geopolitical standing.

    A launching point in the same way that Dallas was a launching point for presidential assassations.
    not at all. Al Qaeda literally married into the Taliban, and got active support for them.

    We have been fighting Afghanistan for 10 years while the head of Al Queda has been in Pakistan.
    yup. Afghanistan has become the base through which we are trying to help project stability into Pakistan. We withdraw from Afghanistan (as it looks like we might), and the Pakistani government is the big loser. which I would be all in favor of.... if they didn't have nukes.

    We do not have to have boots all over the world to let it be known that we will protect our interests.
    no, only in the volatile and critical regions. which is mostly where we are at. and those boots can often be on ship. but ships require friendly ports, and fleets require home ports and that requires foreign bases.

  3. #73
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Compromise is in the air...lets hope so.

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is quietly working both sides of the Capitol to build support for a plan to scale back automatic spending cuts and combine the proposal with a wide range of critical year-end tax and spending measures.

    Cantor has spoken to senators from both parties — including a Thanksgiving morning phone call to the Stamford, Conn., home of Sen. Joe Lieberman — as he gauges support for a potential package that would include up to $133 billion in spending cuts in exchange for delaying the first year of slashes to defense and nondefense programs slated to begin in 2013. That package could also include a reform and a yearlong extension of jobless benefits, a payroll tax break and the Medicare reimbursement rate for physicians.
    I had a feeling they would pull some **** like this. Hopefully this and any future attempts to weasel out of the cuts will fail miserably.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #74
    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
    i would recommend you read up on the Yemeni Civil War, and the Oil Embargo of the 70's. SA has already survive both these things. what she can't survive is Iranian hegemony.
    We aren't going to agree. Even IF all you say is true we can not afford to protect them all. If China wishes to invade Taiwan, there really isn't much we can do. As far as military cuts, I do not care specifically where they come from but cuts have to include the military.

  5. #75
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    We aren't going to agree. Even IF all you say is true we can not afford to protect them all. If China wishes to invade Taiwan, there really isn't much we can do. As far as military cuts, I do not care specifically where they come from but cuts have to include the military.
    That is correct, at current, if China wishes to invade Taiwan, we can either choose to watch a trading partner get invaded, or watch them start a fire-sale on US Treasuries and crash the dollar. However, as long as there is a possibility that we will decide to take the hit to the Treasury and intervene with carrier groups, they probably/possibly won't. And we absolutely can afford to maintain our current forward deployed nature, and I think even beef up a bit on the Navy side.

    Politically, cuts do have to include the military. I think switching members from a pension to a 401(k) style match, and offering us the opportunity of HSA's (as Indiana does) as opposed to standard Tricare would be excellent places to start, along with some drawdowns in Europe.

    But the cuts that we are talking about with sequestration - according to President Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense - ruin our ability to ensure security for global trade.

    Defense is one of the few legitimate reasons for our national government. If we are going to dramatically reduce expenditures on something, perhaps we should start with the items that aren't.
    Last edited by cpwill; 12-13-11 at 03:41 AM.

  6. #76
    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
    That is correct, at current, if China wishes to invade Taiwan, we can either choose to watch a trading partner get invaded, or watch them start a fire-sale on US Treasuries and crash the dollar. However, as long as there is a possibility that we will decide to take the hit to the Treasury and intervene with carrier groups, they probably/possibly won't. And we absolutely can afford to maintain our current forward deployed nature, and I think even beef up a bit on the Navy side.
    If we can agree on a message board that there is nothing we can do, China knows it as well which would lead to the question of why they really are not invading Taiwan.

    Defense is one of the few legitimate reasons for our national government. If we are going to dramatically reduce expenditures on something, perhaps we should start with the items that aren't.
    Across the board because that affects everyone.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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