On redlines and interventions:
RealClearWorld - America Can't End Syria's Civil War
Those who intervene will find themselves trapped between the reality of Syria and the assorted fantasies that occasionally drive U.S. and European foreign policy. No great harm will come in any strategic sense. The United States and Europe have huge populations and enormous wealth. They can, in that sense, afford such interventions. But the United States cannot afford continual defeats as a result of intervening in countries of marginal national interest, where it sets for itself irrational political goals for the war. In some sense, power has to do with perception, and not learning from mistakes undermines power.
Many things are beyond the military power of the United States. Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things. There will be those who say intervention is to stop the bloodshed, not to impose Western values. Others will say intervention that does not impose Western values is pointless. Both miss the point. You cannot stop a civil war by adding another faction to the war unless that faction brings overwhelming power to bear. The United States has a great deal of power, but not overwhelming power, and overwhelming power's use means overwhelming casualties. And you cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan.
The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria's bloodshed. If it tried, it would merely be held responsible for the bloodshed without achieving any strategic goal. There are places to go to war, but they should be few and of supreme importance. The bloodshed in Syria is not more important to the United States than it is to the Syrians.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
Social security is fine. Only in Republican fantasy land is it 'teetering'. Medicare is in more trouble.
On the other hand, social security is not enough. But I think if you've saved in a 401K all your life, I don't see how you could be destitute despite working to your late sixties, or even seventies, as the article says. Even with the stock market crash recently, let's say you started putting the maximum in your 401K from age 25 to 68....could you really be living in poverty at the end when both your social security kicks in? I find that hard to believe.
yeah go ahead Israel start dropping a bomb or two on Syria
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
I think if at some point if enough conspiracy theorists believe that US invaded Iraq so they can get the oil - we should just go ahead and get the oil. If we're going to be blamed for it anyway, might as well pay for the war and solve our debt problem in one stroke.
You can pay into a private retirement fund, but it's still going to be gambling chips to whoever you pay it to. And it's not like you can afford to sue them if they lose their - your - money.
Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 05-05-2013 at 07:19 AM.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
But just a few years later, currently the stock market is the highest it's ever been. Surely it'll go up and down but your retirement period is 10-30 years generally - you won't be withdrawing your money all at once. In addition, if its a defined plan that you pick from a list of choices, every single one of them would be extremely diversified. It's not like people would be shorting Japanese government bonds with their retirement savings.
is it possible to short sell bulls penis
At some point soon I think this site will have more mentions of me eating bull penis than there are of murali chucking.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)