How do you feel about the future of US?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]OK I just don’t see inflation happening,
Really have you guy’s thought this through,

You need near full employment to have inflation I would think… [/quote]

This was widely believed prior to the experience of the late 1970’s through 1982. The worst period of post-war inflation in the United States occurred during a period with the highest post-war unemployment rate.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

… until just recently (I think we are currently at or near the highest unemployment rate of the early 1980’s)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

… until just recently (I think we are currently at or near the highest unemployment rate of the early 1980’s)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

… until just recently (I think we are currently at or near the highest unemployment rate of the early 1980’s)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

… until just recently (I think we are currently at or near the highest unemployment rate of the early 1980’s)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

… until just recently (I think we are currently at or near the highest unemployment rate of the early 1980’s)

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Very strong Unions with very entitled minded employees in the 70’s as well.

Does not exist anymore.
(well with the exception of the local gov’s)
It’s good to work for the City is all I can say.

That an we live in a much more global world now than we did in 1980.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Very strong Unions with very entitled minded employees in the 70’s as well.

Does not exist anymore.
(well with the exception of the local gov’s)
It’s good to work for the City is all I can say.

That an we live in a much more global world now than we did in 1980.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Very strong Unions with very entitled minded employees in the 70’s as well.

Does not exist anymore.
(well with the exception of the local gov’s)
It’s good to work for the City is all I can say.

That an we live in a much more global world now than we did in 1980.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Very strong Unions with very entitled minded employees in the 70’s as well.

Does not exist anymore.
(well with the exception of the local gov’s)
It’s good to work for the City is all I can say.

That an we live in a much more global world now than we did in 1980.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Very strong Unions with very entitled minded employees in the 70’s as well.

Does not exist anymore.
(well with the exception of the local gov’s)
It’s good to work for the City is all I can say.

That an we live in a much more global world now than we did in 1980.

[Arraya]

[quote=felix]I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.[/quote]

Saddam was a good friend to the US and an asset. We sold him many WMDs to keep Iran at bay after Reagan’s election and most of his butchery was done with US consent. He became the enemy because of his dollar and oil policy. Basically, he became defiant. It is publicly known that Saddam received an tacit Ok from a US to invade Kuwait.

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq,

Basically, they duped him into thinking it was ok to invade. He sure as hell did have a valid beef with kuwait if you look at the issues. My thinking is we probably worked kuwait to provoke him on the other side. Otherwise, they would have resolved the issue another way.

We thought destroying his military would make him more subservient but only worked in reverse. We tried reason and probably assassinate him during the 90s with no luck. The next move was military. This was decided by the late 90s that he would have to be taken out.

WMDs were never the real reason for the invasion, because lots of “enemy” countries have them. It was a side issue, the US intelligence community was split on and were definitely not sure of it, but uniformly agreed that he was not a threat to the US as far as violence, bombs or terrorism is concerned, only in an economic sense was he a threat. Which is a little complicated to explain to the public. Actually, Colin Powell in early 2000 described him as a mean junk yard dog with no teeth, living paranoid in underground bunkers. Which is a pretty damn good analogy.

Today, Iraq has become the center of the oil exploration world today. It’s widely known in oil circles that Iraq “could” be another Saudi Arabia and the only major oil producing region left in the world that could significantly and easily raise their production levels. This was not a surprise and is central to economic health of a growth based system.

[Arraya]

[quote=felix]I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.[/quote]

Saddam was a good friend to the US and an asset. We sold him many WMDs to keep Iran at bay after Reagan’s election and most of his butchery was done with US consent. He became the enemy because of his dollar and oil policy. Basically, he became defiant. It is publicly known that Saddam received an tacit Ok from a US to invade Kuwait.

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq,

Basically, they duped him into thinking it was ok to invade. He sure as hell did have a valid beef with kuwait if you look at the issues. My thinking is we probably worked kuwait to provoke him on the other side. Otherwise, they would have resolved the issue another way.

We thought destroying his military would make him more subservient but only worked in reverse. We tried reason and probably assassinate him during the 90s with no luck. The next move was military. This was decided by the late 90s that he would have to be taken out.

WMDs were never the real reason for the invasion, because lots of “enemy” countries have them. It was a side issue, the US intelligence community was split on and were definitely not sure of it, but uniformly agreed that he was not a threat to the US as far as violence, bombs or terrorism is concerned, only in an economic sense was he a threat. Which is a little complicated to explain to the public. Actually, Colin Powell in early 2000 described him as a mean junk yard dog with no teeth, living paranoid in underground bunkers. Which is a pretty damn good analogy.

Today, Iraq has become the center of the oil exploration world today. It’s widely known in oil circles that Iraq “could” be another Saudi Arabia and the only major oil producing region left in the world that could significantly and easily raise their production levels. This was not a surprise and is central to economic health of a growth based system.

[Arraya]

[quote=felix]I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.[/quote]

Saddam was a good friend to the US and an asset. We sold him many WMDs to keep Iran at bay after Reagan’s election and most of his butchery was done with US consent. He became the enemy because of his dollar and oil policy. Basically, he became defiant. It is publicly known that Saddam received an tacit Ok from a US to invade Kuwait.

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq,

Basically, they duped him into thinking it was ok to invade. He sure as hell did have a valid beef with kuwait if you look at the issues. My thinking is we probably worked kuwait to provoke him on the other side. Otherwise, they would have resolved the issue another way.

We thought destroying his military would make him more subservient but only worked in reverse. We tried reason and probably assassinate him during the 90s with no luck. The next move was military. This was decided by the late 90s that he would have to be taken out.

WMDs were never the real reason for the invasion, because lots of “enemy” countries have them. It was a side issue, the US intelligence community was split on and were definitely not sure of it, but uniformly agreed that he was not a threat to the US as far as violence, bombs or terrorism is concerned, only in an economic sense was he a threat. Which is a little complicated to explain to the public. Actually, Colin Powell in early 2000 described him as a mean junk yard dog with no teeth, living paranoid in underground bunkers. Which is a pretty damn good analogy.

Today, Iraq has become the center of the oil exploration world today. It’s widely known in oil circles that Iraq “could” be another Saudi Arabia and the only major oil producing region left in the world that could significantly and easily raise their production levels. This was not a surprise and is central to economic health of a growth based system.

[Arraya]

[quote=felix]I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.[/quote]

Saddam was a good friend to the US and an asset. We sold him many WMDs to keep Iran at bay after Reagan’s election and most of his butchery was done with US consent. He became the enemy because of his dollar and oil policy. Basically, he became defiant. It is publicly known that Saddam received an tacit Ok from a US to invade Kuwait.

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq,

Basically, they duped him into thinking it was ok to invade. He sure as hell did have a valid beef with kuwait if you look at the issues. My thinking is we probably worked kuwait to provoke him on the other side. Otherwise, they would have resolved the issue another way.

We thought destroying his military would make him more subservient but only worked in reverse. We tried reason and probably assassinate him during the 90s with no luck. The next move was military. This was decided by the late 90s that he would have to be taken out.

WMDs were never the real reason for the invasion, because lots of “enemy” countries have them. It was a side issue, the US intelligence community was split on and were definitely not sure of it, but uniformly agreed that he was not a threat to the US as far as violence, bombs or terrorism is concerned, only in an economic sense was he a threat. Which is a little complicated to explain to the public. Actually, Colin Powell in early 2000 described him as a mean junk yard dog with no teeth, living paranoid in underground bunkers. Which is a pretty damn good analogy.

Today, Iraq has become the center of the oil exploration world today. It’s widely known in oil circles that Iraq “could” be another Saudi Arabia and the only major oil producing region left in the world that could significantly and easily raise their production levels. This was not a surprise and is central to economic health of a growth based system.

[Author]

Posts