Syria, Iraq, Crimea, Ukraine, Isreal, North Africa, Gaza. Seriously? Meanwhile our leaders sit around diddling themselves.
Personally, I think more political positioning, inter-party fighting, and 'diplomatic negotiation' will solve all this. Essentially, the more words and empty threats we issue, the more seriously the rest of the world will take us.
Seriously, this country has become so soft is disgusting.
| +86 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 22 | 1d | |
| +65 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 4d | |
| +53 | How to sound more eloquent? | 25 | 17m | |
| +40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 17h | |
| +34 | Interviews Are So Fake | 20 | 3h | |
| +30 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 18 | 6h | |
| +29 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 13 | 7h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 13 | 2d | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 4d | |
| +24 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 4d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Who is on the other side of the position? I'm sure 'Washington' has somethings to gain from all this conflict.
The US economy runs on war and conflict. Besides we had the biggest economical boom in the history of the planet post WW2. If we just let these idiots destroy themselves we can sell them all sorts of useless crap that we make or buy from China.
the gdp impact of these conflicts is minimal. JPMorgan published a paper about this. as long as Russia doesn't whip its dick out and oil still flows through the middle east, we'll be fine.
Big if statement. It seems like all 3 scenarios are happening.
I think Washington has been involved in all of these conflicts actually. Do you mean they have not dedicated any offensive force to the situations? John Kerry has basically been overseas every week for the past 2 months or so. They have imposed sanctions on Russia, offered support to the Ukrainian army, tried to mediate a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and imposed hard lines (albeit failed) against Syria. I would Washington is too involved overseas and not paying attention to the many issues here that have yet to be solved immigration, tax reform, education and poverty.
Okay, you should just not talk anymore before you embarrass yourself further. Kerry is jetting around the world constantly sticking his foot in his mouth because he wants to appear to be doing something that he can claim when he announces his run for the Democratic nomination for 2016. We don't want a cease fire. Sure we may help negotiate one but in reality it is in our best interest for these conflicts to drag on. Where would the DHS/CIA/NSA/DIA/DOD etc. be if they didn't have any "terrorist breeding grounds" areas around the world? What would happen to their budget if we all wised up and realized that terrorism is only effective when we make a big deal about it. The government needs these conflict zones to justify their existence to an increasingly larger and larger portion of the public that thinks the government is pretty much a completely incompetent organization. One needs to look no further than the missing emails from an ever increasing number of agencies that are being investigated for fraud or other wrongdoings. How can anyone have any confidence in an agency or company that can't do something as simple as keep archived copies of emails.
@"thebrofessor" The US economy is hugely impacted by these conflicts. There might be minimal negative impact on the energy industry but if you consider that we supply arms to at minimum of one side if not both sides in the majority of these conflicts you will see that yes the US economy thrives when there are active conflict zones in other parts of the world.
point taken, I meant gdp impact to the downside. I don't think anyone cares if gdp goes up. I'm intentionally turning a blind eye to all of the stuff our gummint supposedly does, I just don't care enough. it hasn't affected my life or my business, and so if I'm being blunt, I don't care what they do.
I never mentioned what Kerry's motive or effectiveness was, I was merely stating that the State department and White House are involved in all the above listed conflicts whether it be in dialogue or in providing aid.
@OP... It is not washington's moral "duty" to rule the world.. Do you know how ignorant you sound? The world did not elect anyone in the US govt. Nor is Washinton "meant" to decide or tell others what to do. That would be like the predatory europeans of the day when they acted like they they owned the freaking planet. Coming back to the modern day and what washington can do... How about stopping the flow of american weapons / intelligence agencies / army to the rest of the world? How about that for a start?? I would be impressed if that happens
SB couldn't agree more.
Non interventionist foreign policy for the win.
Sorta agree with MBA - US 'shouldnt' really do anything. Funny thing is it knows and has been half-assing, the first few rounds of Russian sanctions did nothing (zerohedge made a funny correlation point that russian stocks benefited from them).
The fact is, the world's globalised, weak economy can't afford 'sanctions' as it hurts everyone. Wars however do tend to start economic growth due to the fact weapons need to be made and things rebuilt, but with all the big boys having nukes, you're not going to have that anymore.
Liberals are destroying this great country.
Republicans are the only ones who has balls to do something.
Between Heister's libertarian rant, and mbavsmfins pointless post that added absolutely no value (seriously u sound like one of the idiots that posts on yahoo comment boards) it's easy to see why politics is garbage. I do appreciate mbajunkie and eigenvictor's sensibility.
Libertarian rant? No, more like painting a picture of reality. The word rant is a bullshit way to try and debase what someone said with out having to actually debate it. I find it laughable that anyone can try and stand on their high horse by claiming a superior moral or intellectual position by simply waiving the entire debate aside. That is the biggest load of shit ever attempted.
Sure, there are some GDP benefits to other country's conflicts because we are first and foremost capitalists.. However, I think the only two we should be directly involved in on a diplomatic/military are the Ukraine and ISIS issues.
Ukraine is important because this sets a precedent for how the world handles countries violating other country's territories, and most importantly managing Russia's aggressiveness. For ISIS, not so much that we're responsible for Iraq's well-being, which we are, but to keep this terrorist group from evolving into a much more sophisticated one a la Al Queda (sp?).
I think a bigger issue is how the news fails to inform us on anything real. We help in toppling Libya without knowing the real people behind the push. We also hear nothing about it. The USA stands for Egyptian democracy, but we are silent as it becomes a military dictatorship. We hear that Syria is committing war crimes, but are they just fighting off Islamic rebels.
Let these shit holes Duke it out as we get no benefit from intervention. How long did we listen to pissing and moaning about Saddam and his horrible treatment of his people? Second oust him we are called an occupying force.
We get plenty of benefit. A country in chaos and in the process of being destroyed we can slip in and steal all of the oil at the same time we can sell weapons. Win-Win for America, lose-lose for the other country.
Ahh, I will sort of agree. We could have gotten more oil out of Iraq if we just ended sanctions and buddies up with Saddam. Place still isn't at prewar output. Maybe the long game is for the kurds to run their own shit and sell to the US.
I agree we benefit many times, but we also have a lot of quagmires. Vietnam and Afghanistan /Iraq are two of them.
The weakest thing about being the American Empire is that we don't actually get the benefits that previous empires did when they conquered lands. Look at all of them going back through history-British, Mongolian, the different Islamic ones, Rome, etc-they all took over lands and squeezed them of resources. Leaving aside the morality of imperialism, they at least got something out of it. We drop $2 trillion into a desert in the middle east, get shit on the world over (I actually think it was a stupid war but that's another discussion), can't actually operate militarily how we should have because we're some nice empire who gives a shit what others think (real empires, all of the above mentioned just slaughtered those who rose against them, and I'm not saying that's necessarily morally good) and then once there are resources to be had, they bid it out and China gets the most Iraq oil bids. Our fucking enemy. You know what the Brits did when they conquered India? They took their shit. We didn't sneak in and get anything, we just spent money so our newest and biggest rival could win the oil rights.
I suppose one can say that the US military-industrial complex makes out on wars but in general the US just screws itself and we get no benefit and people just think we're dicks.
And from what I hear the said shit has not been returned till date. Case-in-point: Kohinoor: a 186 carat diamond - one of the biggest in the world that belonged to indian royalty remains to this date a part of the british crown jewels..
The world's been falling apart and in conflict for more than 5000 years. We humans just think the time in which we're currently living is unique or apocalyptic. I'm sure some ancient Sumerian king was opposed by one of his generals because one of them thought they should invade Ur but the temple priest was telling them that the sun god was going to smite them if they did. When I was growing up it was still in the thick of the Cold War and there was the real fear that nukes would be falling on our heads, there were proxy wars and skirmishes all over the world and you couldn't actually get into eastern Europe without a lot of work (really just try to imagine that today-it took an act of God to go to Berlin). We got through it. Although the world is obviously more global today, you can look back in history when the world was much more geographically confined to within a few hundred miles of where you lived and say that the world was ending, for example, during the English Civil War, during the Islamic invasions into Gaul in the 8th c. and all the way back to when some dude in Ur was chucking a spear and saying a prayer to the sun god.
You know when the world was truly falling apart? In the 30's when Hitler and militarism in Japan were rising, and although it was a ghastly and horrific war, the world still came through.
I'm not saying there's no chance for another large scale war and we humans have cleverly figured out a way to annihilate ourselves very quickly but the conflicts in the world currently are no different than how things have operated for millenia.
Great point. SB'ed!
Speaking of the 1930's, I sometimes wonder how different the world would be if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII. One could make the argument that WWII was the most important war in human history because it ended the 500-year European hegemony and ushered in the rise of the U.S. as the world's dominant superpower.
WWII was just WW1 part 2. I dont doubt that hundreds of years from now historians will lable the 20th Century (specifically 1914-1991) as just The World War.
Where did I make fun of either for being too conservative? Heister doesn't even seem like a conservative. I made fun of mbavsmfin not b/c of his viewpoint on liberals, but because he added literally no value to the conversation, and no facts to support his statement. I'm actually a libertarian but Heister's posts are bordering on conspiracy theory, he also contradicts himself by saying that the govt is so inept they cannot archive emails but the govt can mastermind war for profit..
I think most people would agree that the government is inept except for the DoD. Is it bloated? Probably. Is it sophisticated? The most sophisticated in the world and even more so relative to the other government entities.
Masterminding a war for profit? Seriously? All war is for profit. It doesn't take a mastermind to make money on war. War is a bonanza for people connected to the government to make money.
This conversation is reminding me of George Oswell's classic, 1984.
We are the most feminized colonial power. We could have annexed Iraq and stolen all the oil. Yet we buy it from that at market prices. The Romans or old school British would be shocked at what goes for imperialism nowadays.
Unfortunately we're some weird amalgamation of empire, the world's policeman, bank (which is amusing because we don't have money), doctor and mom & dad. If we do or don't do something militarily when a conflict arises, we're screwed. For example, if a larger conflict arises around Ukraine, we'll be expected to intervene even though, outside of NATO agreements, it doesn't directly affect us. We don't buy gas from Russia. Europe would be awfully cold, but we'd be fracking our asses off over here and be fine. But if we did go into a conflict the imperialist argument would be made and we'd be expected to make life better there, spend money then leave and let them hate us. And we'd probably find a diamond mine, put all of the capex into getting it to produce then let them sell it to the Chinese (that was a joke).
I remember when there was the earthquake in Haiti seeing some people say that we were going in with aid to take over Haiti (some nutballs said we caused the earthquake but they're probably in their mom's basement wearing tin foil hats) and the naval ships were a sign of invasion. I'd like to think we were being altruistic in helping Haiti because you know what happens when you take over Haiti? You get fucking Haiti.
Yah, let's shit on Bush. Dude gets elected and has one of the worst attacks on US soil happen. Ghandi would have invaded at least Afghanistan if he was president.
Bush did a lot to help aids in Africa. He tried passing health care reform. No child left behind blows, but the goal was to ensure kids have a good education everywhere.
And yeah, Congress didn't vote to invade Iraq either. I'd lay more blame on other members in his entourage than just Bush.
Check out Fiasco, a great book on the Iraq war. Bush had little to no interest in Iraq. Wolfowitz led the incessant drum best to invade. Chaney got on that train also. A lot of the CIA info was shit also. IMO, when you have two senior people and the CIA pushing something, post 911, it's pretty easy to see how most people would invade. Also remember how we were always launching missiles into Iraq and saddam was repeatedly violating that no fly zo e.
Iraq is Bush's war and mistake, but there is more to it than just a dumb Texas. Furthermore, bush was right with his Afghanistan strategy. Bomb it, hold major cities, move on. Obama has been disastrously wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact more casualties under his 8 years than under Bush.
And let's just step back and talk about the man. Bush is crucified on the reg, but sits back respectfully, like a man. Dude is still doing charity work in Africa, still doing shit with the veterans. Obama is still blaming bush, fucking up the VA, etc. I mean Obama is a flat out amature and I can't believe liberals even support him in anything but name only.
And to think, Obama spent all of his political capital on Obama care, in the face of a horrible economy, and all we got was high taxes (mandate) and a kick back to big business (insurance Co and pharmaceutical).
I agree entirely with TNA here. Liberals have engaged in revisionist history in which democrats in congress all opposed the Iraq War and intelligence showed that there was no WMD, but that stubborn Texan took us into war anyways. People too conveniently forget that almost every major intelligence agency in the western world thought Iraq had WMDs and that most democrats voted for the Iraq resolution. Yes, democrats will say (as hillary clinton often does) that they actually did not vote for a formal declaration of war but merely a resolution giving Bush power to use military force. This is just ridiculous backtracking since everybody knew that Bush was ready to send troops into Iraq once congress voted for the resolution.
Although Bush fucked up the initial execution of the war, his 2007 surge actually worked and virtually rooted out Al Qaeda from Iraq. Obama fucked this up royally by prematurely withdrawing before the Iraqis were entirely ready to defend the country, not fully supporting the local anti-al qaeda forces, and letting Maliki run wild. A lot of sunnis who were pro-american joined ISIS because of Maliki's persecution.
But look this is what we get for electing a community organizer with no serious domestic or foreign policy record to the most powerful job in the world.
The usa is doing fine
Obama is a horrible Democrat also. Totally fucked the party and Hillary.
Hillary should have won the nomination and she would have easily beat McCain. Obama would have been given a cabinet level position and matured under Hillary. He was an extremely junior congressman when elected and the additional time would have benefited him. Hillary is a pragmatist (see Bill Clinton's move to the center) and Hillary would have focused on the economy or at least a more gradual healthcare bill. Hillary would have beaten Romney and you'd have the 1st woman President followed by the 1st Black President. 16 years of Democrat rule.
Instead Obama can't wait, fucks Hillary. Gives her the State Dept which layers on Bengazi to her resume. You have the Arab spring which has been a disaster. Then Hillary gets old and you have all kinds of health rumors. If you look at an age distribution of Presidents you Hillary being at the absolute outside edge for age elected. Bob Dole and McCain were both old and it was held against him.
Plus, Obama easily won the 1st time based on Republican fatigue and large turn out among the youth and minority voters. He lost a lot of the white voters he had in the 1st term because of his shit policy and now has approval ratings below Bush. Hillary is not going to be running an easy race after the shit show Obama has had for 8 years. She'll get a lot of women voters and typical democrat voters, but I can't see African Americans turning out for Hillary like they did with Obama. Especially since this "recovery" has largely passed over them. IMO, If Romney ran again and pick Rubio I think he would win, hands down.
Romney ran a great campaign, but got fucked from Sandy, Ryan and the wealth comment. He was spot on with so many of the things he said and still did very well against a populist, sitting President. Rubio would pull Florida (Ryan couldn't even pull Wisconsin with Walker as governor, WTF) and Romney would pull moderate Dem's and Republicans. I don't see Hillary beating him if he ran. Anyone else, She probably would win unless someone comes on the scene also.
Obama will go down as being in the bottom 1/3 of Presidents. Bush will probably be there also, but he had help getting there. Obama did it himself.
Oh and one more thing about Bush and the economy. People sucked Bush's cock when it was good because home ownership (american bullshit dream) was at all time highs and minority home ownership (always lags and is lagging now) actually increased. I'd like to see any President push to raise rates and slow that shit down. Furthermore, that blame lays right on Greenspan who did jack shit to cool this bubble down.
Also, look at what Bush went through. 9/11 right away and then the global melt down as his term was leaving. Take a look at how Hoover and Roosevelt handled (didn't handle) the great depression during their transition period. Bush was lame duck and still Presided over untried and astounding government intervention to keep this country from going into the dark ages. He at least stablized things for Obama. Of course he was blamed at every instance and scape goated. No good deed goes unpunished.
Its in part because Obama tried soo hard to be the unBush that since his term, the jihadists and Islamists have grown stronger in his term. This is reflected in how the Brotherhood came to power briefly in Egypt, how he's stymied the Jewish State's attempt to be secure, ISIS coming about because Obama had to pull ALL the troops outta Iraq instead of doing what needed to be done, that is leave a small but sizable contingent there for a while, and the Islamization of Europe going unimpeded. While most Muslims are peaceful, the fact is that Radical Islamism IS a serious problem as was Nazism (a pan-European problem, as Hitler had collaborators all over) and Soviet Communism. Remember the Cairo speech in 2009? HAHAHAHA That worked well. Hows Iran coming, with the "talk to your enemies" stuff. Yes, leaders of the past did, but the USSR was a rational entity with a clear hierachy. The Jihadist Republic of Iran is NOT rational, they seek the return of the 12th imam, proactively and violently, and the Revolutionary Clowns are a state within a state.
There isn't really a "good" and "bad" state, though. It's all perspective.
If US pulled out as the world's policeman and Russia took over, are they necessarily "evil"? How? For us in the West, maybe, but there's no inherent evil-ness about it, just depends what "side" you're on.
Sit saepe est nulla eligendi delectus. Occaecati accusantium vel consequuntur eos et quae quis eos. Corporis et quos ea sit sequi id quia.
Et aspernatur voluptas voluptatem ab blanditiis asperiores vitae sit. Numquam qui necessitatibus et dolores libero illum neque. Ab in officia laboriosam illo tempora dicta. Unde deserunt deserunt exercitationem illo voluptatem natus voluptas. Error mollitia sed ut hic accusamus deserunt et inventore. Consequatur magnam sint ullam ipsum omnis neque.
Dicta et magni est aperiam quae sit eos est. Minima occaecati ut suscipit dolore corrupti dolore sint. Et animi quae eligendi fugiat omnis ea. Dicta ipsam odio sed. Omnis est nostrum consectetur consequatur. Eum sed et sit voluptatem rerum commodi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Id error fugiat nisi. Est qui beatae doloribus accusantium et vel tempore.
Amet sunt voluptas amet nesciunt omnis. Illum velit fugiat distinctio est qui. Sequi est et autem saepe voluptas nulla.
Voluptatem qui magnam excepturi amet optio unde. Ex animi est nisi fugiat facere voluptate. Assumenda distinctio ut et eos rerum qui.