Discussion in 'Politics' started by traitor786, Jan 29, 2013.

has their been a change in forun policy ?

  1. Yes, USA continues to be pro war

    1 vote(s)
  2. No, We are not looking for more war

    5 vote(s)
  1. Obama Showbama!

    He is worse then Bush cause he goes to war and hides it from typical voters. He shows a caring new style government while maintaining the same old agenda.

    Drone attacks have no casualties to the USA, there is nothing to report, Iranian news satellite has been destroyed by the USA,

    The truth is now hidden. There is no war, if it is not reported.

    Today, I heard that the government is hiring people in the technology field. On Bloomberg Dave Aitel compares this to a small Navy


    Same old agenda, it was simply tweaked where bushes was weak, (control of the press).

    Democratic wars start not out of greed, they start with instigation to test and form the foundation of what is to come.
  2. Bush started 2 invade,occupy and nation build wars,Obama didn't

    Bush increased defense spending 400 billion a year,Obama has kept defense spending around the same level he received it

    Obama took out Bin Laden and multiple al quada leaders,Bush said he wasn't concerned about bin laden

    9-11 happened on Bushs watch,there has been no terrorist attack near the magnitude of 9-11 on Obamas watch

    Theres no comparison between the two
  3. Max E.

    Max E.

    First let me start by saying that like Obama, Bush was an incompetent bufoon.

    1.)Iraw was all Bush, but even a democrat president would have gotten us into that shithole afghanistan. Obamas defense strategy has literally been a carbon copy of Bush's including exiting iraq on the exact date Bush originally chose.

    2.) First off 400 billion per year is an exageration, secondly, if it is as black and white as you think it is it should be a no brainer for obama to allow the sequestration to go through, we will see what happens, but i have my doubts obama will do the smart thing and allow it to go through. Obama sees defense spending (or any government spending for that matter) as a jobs bill.

    Do you actually believe that defense spending wouldnt have went through the roof if 9/11 happened on a democrats watch? Look at the hearings on bhengazi, Hillary is blaming defense cuts for libya so in the same vein it should be fair to blame 9/11 on clinton.

    3.) Obama took out bin laden and many alquaeda leaders, this is one of the few things i think obama has done right, and i give him full credit here, how much of that actually has to do with Obama, i dont know, what i do know for sure is that if the left had their way, none of these drone strikes would happen, and the waterboarding and torture that lead to osamas capture would have never been allowed.

    4.) 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, absolutely no denying that, the second biggest terrorist attack happened in libya on Obama's watch, so once again obama is only slightly better than the worst president in history.

    The foreign policy between Bush and Obama has almost been a carbon copy, yet one is a hero(D), the other one is an asshole(R), in your eye. Its quite comical. The only major difference i see is that Obama will not do anything to Iran, whether or not that is smart remains to be seen, but i actually like that decision.
  4. This is politics, trust is not a key thing. We cant look at why things are done. We can only look at results. A why can only be answered by untrustworthy people (Iraq -W.M.D ?)

    Similarities in the differences you found:

    1.Bombs fall on pakistan under OBAMA (reasons are unimportant)
    2A. If military spending was not increased, it is the same.
    2B. Increasing Defence spending and Getting more mileage out of non increasing budget are both increasing military power (this is done through drones)
    3 As mentioned OBAMA has created the equivalent to a technological army
    4. Obama could of lowered military spending, he did not, he has continually been talking about lowering but his actions seem to be on the other side.
    3.Defence spending is now going in to technology. Less is needed to achieve current goals ... stay tuned...
    4.Money is given to armies to fight from the USA
    5 As for not being concerned about terrorist, it is accepted the above mentioned armies are linked to terrorists
    6 Over throwing governments is in full force. Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
    7. China is pushed to devalue its currency Japan now devalues.

    Lets look at Iran Vs Iraq
    Iraq has oil
    Iraq, said to have Weapons of mass destruction
    Iraq, wanted to to trade oil for non US dollars (euro)
    Iraq threatened to stop nuclear development
    Threatens the # 1 export of the USA (the dollar)
    Is a muslim country
    Starts with the letters IRA and followed by a single letter

    Iran has oil
    Iran, said to have nuclear weapons (but no one confirms it)
    Iran sold oil for gold
    Iran threatened to stop (unconfirmed)nuclear development
    Threatens the # 1 export of the USA (the dollar)
    Is a muslim country
    Starts with the letters IRA and followed by a single letter

    Where is the difference ? is it the last letter of the country ?
    All that is missing is the end.

    The only difference is the style in which things are carried out. People wanted change, the opposite was shown, but the same was done in the opposite way .

    Fresh off the press key word latest
    "Ghana latest to join Gold for Oil trade with Iran"
    America supported the SHA in Iran originally

    Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
  5. The love for gold continues in 2013
    Central banks continue to buy gold

    Germany had previously stated that their gold is staying in the USA as it is more liquid/safe there. Their new stance of repatriating gold from US is aggressive as it states a change. Meanwhile Americas actual holding is unknown. Generally unknown things are bad.

    Gold prices are currently stable. But if a currency was based on gold and was able to dis-attach from it. What does that say for Leveraged Gold vendors?

    Price stays stable, but supply of "apparent" gold holdings has gone up exponentially through devaluation of IOU's by vendors (1 to 100 leverage)

    Gold is in demand by all countries and now Germany stands up and says that apparent gold holdings and real gold holdings are not the same.

    If this trend to differentiate between the two continue it can create a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Reality check:

    1. Price changes (consolidation should end early this year)

    2 The idea of countries not trusting takes hold and more countries join

    3 (USA refusing to pay up in hard commodities and trying to give the digital IOU version will speed up the reality).

    4 People begin to follow and dump leveraged gold for unleveraged gold.

    5 Price is changing one way or another meaning vendor risk increases

    6 A couple vendors fail as their collateral is questioned.

    7 MF Global shows as a tip of the iceberg.

    8 The 100X leverage cant even pay out 1% all the fake demand is exposed.

    9 Many hate investing, many hate gold. Some see the hate is in the IOU's and if countries don't trust one another and are hoarding so should they.

    10 Real retail demand grows. and 5000$ gold is hit

    This can happen fast. but Governments "can kicking" tends to drag problems out for decades.

    A couple of questions arise.

    In 2012 the USA repeatedly stated to China that it was being unfare by NOT printing money. In 2013 Japan finds it self too close for comfort with China and begins a printing frenzy while possibly looking to America for help in dealing with its neighbours


    Why would a America want other countries to depreciate their currency. any depreciation of their currency will be corrected in the markets as it is not a currency with fabricated demand as Americas is. What does this say about Americas gold reserves?


    How much physical gold vs unbacked IOU leveraged gold is there today?


    Why has America restricted gold vendors so much ?

    Lets keep in mind that clearly the USA protects the artificial demand for its dollar

    "Some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about currency, specifically Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth."

    (Reuters) - NATO is to formally decide on Wednesday whether to end its mission over Libya now that Muammar Gaddafi is dead and buried and the country's new leaders have declared the nation "liberated"
    Saddam Hussein had planned to stop selling Iraqi oil in dollars and switch to the Euro

    And hot off the press #3
    Ghana latest to join Gold for Oil trade with Iran

  6. 1.Maybe Bush would have withdrawn troops at the same time ,maybe not.If McCain or Romney were elected they would not have withdrawn and I doubt Bush would have either


    Romney attacks Obama over US troop withdrawal from Iraq

    US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has criticized President Barack Obama over the withdrawal of the last US troops from Iraq.

    He called the withdrawal "precipitous" and said the president should have left some US forces behind.

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f6ul9iMgmOw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    2.Defense spending in 2001 (Clintons last budget ) was 366 billion


    Defense spending in 2009 (Bushes last budget ) was 794 billion


    The differences between Obama and Bush,McCain and Romney regarding Bin Laden was quite huge

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dkt0LO3CE3I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRY_BOYeySc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U1aZGa3wVZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w9qLa6nin2I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    4.Libya was 4 American deaths, 9-11 was nearly 4,000 American deaths

    I think the differences in foreign policy between Obama ,Bush,McCain and Romney are huge
  7. Max E.

    Max E.

    We didnt have a choice man, you can deny it all you want, but the iraqis kicked us out on a date that was set by bush, years before, and Obama wanted to keep troops in iraq to help them, but iraq said no, you are a fool if you choose to continue to put your head in the sand and deny this.

    Clintons own budgets would have led to average 200 billion dollar deficits until 2005, so he wasnt much better than bush.

    Budget request and initial negotiations

    In response to Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, President Bill Clinton's initial budget request for FY1996 contained reductions in spending but sought to avoid large cuts to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

    Republicans led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich insisted that a plan to eliminate the budget deficit by 2002 be enacted as part of any budget deal. Disagreements on this plan contributed to the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996.
    The requested budget was submitted by President Clinton on February 6, 1995, just five weeks after the beginning of the 104th United States Congress, which was dominated by Republicans to had been victorious in the November 1994 midterm election. Clinton's requested budget provided a middle-class tax cut, including new deductions for children and college expenses, which was offset by a twice-as-large reduction in spending elsewhere in the budget, echoing Speaker Gingrich's goal to eliminate programs that had outlived their usefulness. However, Republicans had demanded a budget that would lead to a balanced budget in 2002, but Clinton's budget projected annual deficits of around $190 billion up to 2005.


  8. Romney promised more defense spending


    Fiscal Conservativism? Romney Would Raise Defense Spending $2.1 Trillion Over 10 Years

    Mitt Romney likes to talk about fiscal responsibility, but there’s one area of Federal spending that he would increase by a rather astronomical amount:

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Mitt Romney is campaigning on a platform that emphasizes less spending, smaller deficits and renewed fiscal responsibility.

    But in one budget area, Romney is running the opposite direction. The former Massachusetts governor wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds. By one estimate, additional spending would exceed $2 trillion over the next decade.

    Romney’s plan calls for linking the Pentagon’s base budget to Gross Domestic Product, and allowing the military to spend at least $4 dollars out of every $100 the American economy produces.

    With the Pentagon’s base budget — which does not include war costs — forecast to hit 3.5% of GDP in 2013, a jump to 4% would mean an increase of around $100 billion dollars in defense spending in 2013.

    The additional spending really piles up in future years.

    Compared to the Pentagon’s current budget, Romney’s plan would lead to $2.1 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by Travis Sharp, a budget expert at the Center for a New American Security.

    And that number assumes a gradual increase to 4% of GDP. The additional spending would hit $2.3 trillion over a decade if the Pentagon’s budget were to immediately jump to 4% of GDP.

    Sharp said the United States could certainly ramp up spending to meet Romney’s target. But the bigger question, he said, is whether the investment would be worth the cost.

    “Romney’s plan might reduce military risk in some areas,” Sharp said. “But you can never eliminate all the risk — no matter how much you spend.”

    Indeed as we have noted here at OTB several times in recent years, the United States dwarfs the military spending of every other country in the world, including any of those that could be called actual or potential threats to our national interests, by wide, wide amounts. Consider, for example, this chart from Wikipedia showing 2011 military spending by the top 20 countries in the world:

    As this chart shows, the United States’s military spending (which includes both the Pentagon base spending that Romney would increase and war-related spending) accounts for 44.43% of all the military spending in the world. If you add in the military budgets of the NATO and non-NATO allies in the Top 20, it amounts to more than 70% of the worldwide military spending, dwarfing the spending of nations like China, Russia, and Iran to a considerable degree. Based on sheer numbers alone, the idea that the United States isn’t spending enough on defense, a refrain one hears frequently from the hawkish wing of the GOP, is quite simply absurd. Even if Russia an China tripled their combined military spending, they still wouldn’t equal what we spend on our one, and they’d be nowhere near what the U.S. and its allies spend. As for Iran, their military budget in 2011 was roughly $7,000,000,000 in 2008 and most likely hasn’t increased very much since then, that amounts to .01% of what the United States spent in 2011 and roughly half of what Israel spent in 2008. As James Joyner noted when he looked at this issue earlier this year, the United States and its alies absolutely dwarf any potential foe when it comes to military spending, at the very least I’d suggest that this means that the constant Republican argument that we must increase defense spending in the face of a dangerous world is essentially bunk.

    The most notable thing about Mitt Romney’s plan to increase defense spending, though, is that it makes the rest of his fiscal programs largely untenable. There’s simply no way, politically or mathematically, that the Federal Budget can be brought under control without including defense spending in the mix. The end of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was supposed to actually help in that regard since it would take as much as $1 trillion off the table, and indeed both Republican and Obama Administration budget plans assume that this savings will occur. Romney’s proposal would completely wipe that out, thus bringing his entire commitment to fiscal conservatism into question:

    Romney’s plan to spend more at the Pentagon adds yet another layer of complexity to a set of proposals that would remake the fiscal landscape.

    Romney has proposed a slew of tax cuts, and plans to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. But in both cases, the Romney campaign hasn’t fully explained how those provisions will be paid for.

    The lack of detail means that Romney’s claim of moving toward a balanced budget requires a great deal of trust.

    “Romney has listed a few specific cuts he would make in discretionary spending, but they are a fraction of the extra defense spending he proposes,” said Jeffrey Vanke, a senior policy analyst at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    Other budget experts expressed similar concerns about Romney’s proposal, including Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said the plan for additional spending does not “reflect fiscal reality.”

    To get an idea of just how much of a radical increase in defense spending, here’s a chart showing the difference between Romney’s proposal and current baseline assumptions on defense spending:

    That’s a heck of an increase in spending, and one wonders where Romney thinks he’s going to get the money for it. Taxes increases are already off the table apparently, so that means either massive decreases in non-defense discretionary spending and entitlements or larger budget deficits. The problem with that, of course, is that there isn’t a whole lot of room for significant cuts in non-defense discretionary spending; even eliminating entire Cabinet departments wouldn’t result in the kind of savings that would be needed to make up for Romney’s massive military buildup. As for entitlements, the political will for the kind of cuts that would be needed simply isn’t there on either side of the aisle. That means, then, that Romney would end up having to repudiate his supposed claim to fiscal responsibility and continue running up massive deficits far into the future, or he’d have to abandon his military buildup. Which do you think would happen?

    On a final note, I have to say that there doesn’t seem to be any logic in tying future defense spending to a percentage of GDP. For one thing, 4% is an entirely arbitrary number that has nothing to do with actual defense needs or economic logic. The fact that we’re spending a certain percentage of our GDP on defense doesn’t mean that it’s being spent wisely, or that we’re spending what we need to. It’s possible that, in some situations, 4% of GDP in a given year might be too little, while in most years it’s likely to be far, far too much. Moreover, GDP itself is a figure that moves for reasons entirely unrelated to the nation’s security needs, so it makes absolutely no sense to tie defense spending to it. And what happens in a recession when GDP falls, does that mean we’d have to cut defense spending? Does anyone actually believe that would happen?

    Defense spending is no a sacred cow. There’s no reason it should not be on the table when we talk about getting the nation’s fiscal house in order, and there’s certainly no rational reason it needs to be increased by $2 trillion dollars over the next decade. As is usually the case with Republicans, Mitt Romney commitment to fiscal conservatism turns out to be a chimera once you actually look at the details

  9. Come on Max,you know if The President of The United States wants troops in Iraq there would be troops in Iraq.Iraq doesn't have the military to keep US troops out.
    #10     Jan 29, 2013