- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Omnipotent providence has taught us the utter futility of war, we have known the bitterness of defeat and the ex-haultation of triumph and from both we have learned that there can be no turning back, we must go forward to preserve in peace what we have won in war. WAR! the most malignant scourge and greatest sin of mankind can no longer be controlled but only abolished we are in a new era, if we do not find a new and more equitable means of solving our disputes Armageddon will be at our door . . . we have had our last chance - General MacArthur.
__________________
That's one way of looking at it. He didn't like the idea that the enemy could simply cross the Yalu River to be safe, and took it upon himself to open talks with Chiang Kai-Chek about opening a second front against China - that's what got him fired. Global strategizing was not his strong point and he would have been a very dangerous president, but that shouldn't detract from his achievement as proconsul of Japan following WWII.GarzaUK said:Didn't MacArthur want to nuke China during the Korean War?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Duty, Honor, Country, I bid you farewell.-Douglas MacArthur
This is why this man has a say in my perspective on the war in Iraq while others do not, he served the Republic in a way that I could only hope to serve. God bless him and all that came before and after.
Your statements are further proof of the old adage that those who cannot learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. Both the successes and the failures of the past can provide valuable lessons for the future. Granted that Woodrow Wilson botched the follow-up to WWI by leaving the dismantling of the Austrian and Ottoman empires to the dilettantes of Europe, but a generation later MacArthur (in Japan) and George Marshall (in Europe) showed what could be accomplished by a period of close supervision after a military victory. Bush41 erred when he bowed to the dilettantes of the UN after the first Gulf War, and Clinton erred when he dabbled in the affairs of the Balkans, so Bush43 is taking a MacArthur/Marshall approach to Iraq. To date he is being proven right, much to the dismay of the Left.TwoPops4Sure said:There is not a single thing that McArthur or America has accomplished in any past conflict that is applicable to our inane and poorly conceived invasion of Iraq. The sheer hubris of some people is truly amazing. For the first time in our nation's history we launch a preemptive strike on a country that has done nothing to us, in a situation that cannot be tamed in a matter similar to any of the societies that fell under our jurisdiction in past wars. In fact, just look at Kosovo/Bosnia..that is a fallout from WW1/2. And all of the stuff in the Middle east can be directly attributed to blowback from our past meddling, or the inept administration of the area under the Ottamon Empire by the British and the French. Just ask Winston Churchill. When he formulated Iraq, he left the Sunni minority in control of the three distinct regions and believe it or not was unaware of the amount of oil in the country. Yes, the British screwed up the whole area, down to carving out Kuwait from land that had been part of Iraq..that would be land that Saddam went after when he invaded Kuwait. Of course Kuwait was formed to provide for British seaports. Never mind the fact that Iraq was left with only the single port of Basra for a country slightly larger in land area than California.
TwoPops
Diogenes said:Your statements are further proof of the old adage that those who cannot learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. Both the successes and the failures of the past can provide valuable lessons for the future. Granted that Woodrow Wilson botched the follow-up to WWI by leaving the dismantling of the Austrian and Ottoman empires to the dilettantes of Europe, but a generation later MacArthur (in Japan) and George Marshall (in Europe) showed what could be accomplished by a period of close supervision after a military victory. Bush41 erred when he bowed to the dilettantes of the UN after the first Gulf War, and Clinton erred when he dabbled in the affairs of the Balkans, so Bush43 is taking a MacArthur/Marshall approach to Iraq. To date he is being proven right, much to the dismay of the Left.
And you seem to be one of those who cannot learn from history.TwoPops4Sure said:Make no mistake about it. When I mentioned people with sheer hubris and arrogance, you are one of those I'm talking about.
Agreed, if by that you mean dabbling by the ineffective academic, Woodrow Wilson.Post WW1 the US had adminstrative responsibility for Armenia. You do remember how that genocide turned out..don't you? There is zero evidence that even if the US had been heavily involved, that the dispostion of the Middle East would have turned out any different.
Actually, it was much worse. It wasn't western greed, it was soft-headed, academic and patronizing altruism.It was all driven by western greed. Our history of manifest destiny clearly demonstrates we are not above economic self interest, the people of the country be damned.
Neither one of which had any experience with representative democracy.Japan and Germany were established homogenous societies.
That was the argument made by the colonial powers, that the poor benighted heathens were incapable civilized of self-government.In comparison Iraq is a cobbled together collection of tribes, ethnic groups, and religious factions who historically had no common bonds or institutions.
We could leave them alone, as we did after WWI, or we can get in and do the job right, as we did after WWII. Apparently you are suggesting the first course, in spite of your criticism of it.The problems with nation building using military occupation are exponentially more complex.
You must be referring to those who claim "If you naively believe that Iraq can survive as defined today with democracy at a gun barrel, then it is you who demonstrate no grasp of history or the reality of the dynamics of the region."It's even more pathetic that we have such an ignorant and poorly informed, and simple minded populace.
I don't accept the racism implicit in that remark.Saddam Husseins authoritarian style of government is what made that country work.
Diogenes said:... so Bush43 is taking a MacArthur/Marshall approach to Iraq. To date he is being proven right, much to the dismay of the Left.
been proven right about
Very true. Very true indeed.oldreliable67 said:Because of the nature of a lot of what Bush has done/is doing, the final verdict on whether he was right or wrong will not be known for years, possibly many years.
Sure, the polls suggest that right here, right now, that Bush is not doing so hot. And yep, the MSM continues to bash at every opportunity. And for sure, he has alienated even some conservatives with the Meirs nomination. But nonetheless, this President's legacy is still up for grabs. It is a very long run thing. Just my opinion - your mileage may vary.
oldreliable67 said:Iriemon,
One thing you have give Bush credit for: he is not afraid of the big issues.
> He brought up SS and proposed a solution. Lord knows that is an issue fraught with significance ('heavy' was the appropriate description when I was younger) and with political risk. No resolution yet, but he at least brought it to the forefront.
> War on terror and Iraq: Bush again was brave enough (ok, admittedly some will say stupid enough, but thats largely a matter of perspective, or beauty in the eye of the beholder) to move terror from a 'police' matter (as it was under the previous administration) to a war footing.
Because of the nature of a lot of what Bush has done/is doing, the final verdict on whether he was right or wrong will not be known for years, possibly many years.
Sure, the polls suggest that right here, right now, that Bush is not doing so hot. And yep, the MSM continues to bash at every opportunity. And for sure, he has alienated even some conservatives with the Meirs nomination. But nonetheless, this President's legacy is still up for grabs. It is a very long run thing. Just my opinion - your mileage may vary.
I see this as a VERY legitimate issue...
cnredd said:That is spot on...
The Social Security thing really baffles me...
Two points...Iriemon said:It's easy. In 1983 Congress raised the social security taxes so they could build up in a trust fund to help pay for the boomers when they retire. However, since about that time (with the only exception being 2000) the govt has run defits, spending more than taxes brought in. This problem was especially pronounced when the Govt cut taxes, like in the 80s and 00s, when it had huge deficits.
So .... there is this huge pile of extra money (SS excess taxes were about $175 billion last year) and the Govt is spending money a lot faster than taxes brought in ... shoot, why not just take the SS money and use that! And that is exactly what they have been doing for 2 decades ... in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion dollars. And we are still running deficits, and the politicians are still stealing the money from *our* SS trust fund paid for by extra SS taxes *we* pay.
So now, our leader tells us there is a SS "crisis" -- because there are no real assets in the fund. Duh.
Thanks Ron, George and George for giving us this crisis.
I, nor has anyone else, said there IS a crisis...Many have mentioned that there WILL BE a crisis..."When" is a topic for debate...The two dates I've heard are 2017 and 2042
cnredd said:Two points...
1) Bush43 wants to put some of the SS $ into the private sector, which would prevent Congress from running up said deficits...It tough to draw from their federal account when its not there...
2) I, nor has anyone else, said there IS a crisis...Many have mentioned that there WILL BE a crisis..."When" is a topic for debate...The two dates I've heard are 2017 and 2042...
When SS started there were 16 workers giving in to the fund for every 1 retired person taking out...Now it is less than 4...and the "baby boomers" will soon make that ratio even less...
If SS had every single dollar replaced RIGHT NOW and never touched again for other purposes, the crisis would still be forthcoming...what you report is just an acceleration of an issue that would still be looming...
oldreliable67 said:While the above is an accurate statement, I hesitate to criticize anyone who see's the 'coming' crisis in terms of what action is needed today to alleviate that coming crisis. We have all seen how partisan politics quickly rears its ugly head to obfuscate and delay any solutions. Plans/solutions/contingencies need to be developed sooner rather than later.
Reagan, to this point, probably did the best job of attempting to do something, due to his creation of a bi-partisan commission that (for the most part) stuck to its knitting.
2017 is usually mentioned as the date when SS will no longer be piling up the surplus for Congress to spend on bridges to nowhere and sculpture gardens in Washington state; the "surplus" goes away and Congress will have to start producing the money they've stolen from us (and guess how they will propose to do THAT). If they do manage to produce the stolen money, the entire trust fund, 2042 is the estimated date it will run out.cnredd said:2) I, nor has anyone else, said there IS a crisis...Many have mentioned that there WILL BE a crisis..."When" is a topic for debate...The two dates I've heard are 2017 and 2042...
The SS trust fund used to be separate from the general budget and wasn't available for spending on pork (although it was invested in treasury notes and bonds, so it financed much of the national deficit). In the mid-eighties it was incorporated into the general budget, and Congress was free to spend it while crowing about "deficit reduction."Iriemon said:In retrospect, it is kind of amazing that Reagan and the Dems in 83 had the foresight to be aware of this problem decades in advance and try to address it and prepare for it by creating a SS trust fund. I wonder if any of them anticipated that it would end up as a meaningless act with the Govt stealing it all for its deficits.
The ones who could look ahead knew what was coming, but most of them don't look past the next election cycle. As it is now set up, SS is a giant Ponzi scheme and the only way to break it is the solution Bush suggested of privately held accounts - and it will become more painful as we put off addressing the problem.My deep dark cynical side sometimes wonders if there is more too it, if the politicians knew exactly what was going to happen. SS is a regressive tax on the working poor and middle class. The guy making $15k pays an effective 12.4% SS tax on the very first and very last dollar he makes (tho he probably does get an EIC refund). Those making over $90k do not pay another dime of SS tax. Guys making a million do not effectively pay SS as a percentage of their income.
Diogenes said:The SS trust fund used to be separate from the general budget and wasn't available for spending on pork (although it was invested in treasury notes and bonds, so it financed much of the national deficit). In the mid-eighties it was incorporated into the general budget, and Congress was free to spend it while crowing about "deficit reduction."
The ones who could look ahead knew what was coming, but most of them don't look past the next election cycle. As it is now set up, SS is a giant Ponzi scheme and the only way to break it is the solution Bush suggested of privately held accounts - and it will become more painful as we put off addressing the problem.
Agreed in principle, except that I don't like the idea of the government investing in anything other than treaury notes. IMO it would be a disaster for the government to invest directly in the stock market.Iriemon said:I think the answer is in your first paragraph. Undo the law that says Congress can treat is as their own trough, and require SS funds to be segregated and invested in assets other than those of the US Govt.
We already have private accounts. They are called 401k, IRAs, etc. We don't need yet another law complicating the tax code for more private accounts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?