SatorianSatorian all I have to do is look at the global stock markets and they say the future is not so rosey. Plus it was your own EU leadership that rejected an Eastern Europeon bailout. Government in Iceland resigns, protests in France some riots in the Baltic states. More and more debt piling up and the powers that be say we need to get credit flowing again? So everybody’s in debt and the solution is…..more debt? Who pays the bill?
So you are criticizing European governments for racking up debt (a strategy they currently aren’t exactly alone with), and then you criticize them for not racking up more debt to bail out other nations as well? Pick one. Would make more sense.
And how does your answer relate to you being plain wrong about things? There hasn’t been a single blip that the EU was somehow threatened by the current crisis or, as you claimed, doubted to survive. There are tensions, but there are always tensions and the current situation does not look likely to change anything about the EU’s continued existence. And the EU contracts have no exit clauses. You did not answer how you think the EU is going to fail or end soon. What’s your expectation of the coming events there? How is the EU going to lose its members? Be specific.
And then there’s still the issue that your literary citations exposed you as a fraud. Accusing of politicians of doing anything to stay in power and then wishing they’d have read Machiavelli, who describes how a monarch should do everything possible to stay in power and disregard consensus morality?
And referring to Sun-Tzu, which contains little of contemporary relevancy, is another hallmark of the namedropping poser.
As for the rest of my post I’m not going to waste my time in giving you an edgeamucatisn because you won’t except it since you after all you know everything.:rolleyes:
I have to admit I’m not getting the clever wordplay here. What’s “edgemucatisn”? And looking at the phrase “because you won’t except it since”, shouldn’t you replace the word “except” with a verb here? Like, say, “accept” for example? But then again, I’m not surprised there’s a certain lack of attention to details.
Somehow I’m getting the feeling that by not receiving your stellar guidance and teaching attention I’m not missing out on much.
SatorianSatorian all I have to do is look at the global stock markets and they say the future is not so rosey. Plus it was your own EU leadership that rejected an Eastern Europeon bailout. Government in Iceland resigns, protests in France some riots in the Baltic states. More and more debt piling up and the powers that be say we need to get credit flowing again? So everybody’s in debt and the solution is…..more debt? Who pays the bill?
So you are criticizing European governments for racking up debt (a strategy they currently aren’t exactly alone with), and then you criticize them for not racking up more debt to bail out other nations as well? Pick one. Would make more sense.
And how does your answer relate to you being plain wrong about things? There hasn’t been a single blip that the EU was somehow threatened by the current crisis or, as you claimed, doubted to survive. There are tensions, but there are always tensions and the current situation does not look likely to change anything about the EU’s continued existence. And the EU contracts have no exit clauses. You did not answer how you think the EU is going to fail or end soon. What’s your expectation of the coming events there? How is the EU going to lose its members? Be specific.
And then there’s still the issue that your literary citations exposed you as a fraud. Accusing of politicians of doing anything to stay in power and then wishing they’d have read Machiavelli, who describes how a monarch should do everything possible to stay in power and disregard consensus morality?
And referring to Sun-Tzu, which contains little of contemporary relevancy, is another hallmark of the namedropping poser.
As for the rest of my post I’m not going to waste my time in giving you an edgeamucatisn because you won’t except it since you after all you know everything.:rolleyes:
I have to admit I’m not getting the clever wordplay here. What’s “edgemucatisn”? And looking at the phrase “because you won’t except it since”, shouldn’t you replace the word “except” with a verb here? Like, say, “accept” for example? But then again, I’m not surprised there’s a certain lack of attention to details.
Somehow I’m getting the feeling that by not receiving your stellar guidance and teaching attention I’m not missing out on much.
SatorianThe only problem with Europe only buying Europe is that it could spark a trade war that would jump start the world into a depression…just like what happened in the 1930’s.
What exactly happened there in your opinion?
The EU and the Euro have been taking a major beating since the you know what hit the fan and there are doubts that both will survive.
Doubts by whom? I sit pretty much smack dab in the middle of Europe and I haven’t heard anything about that.
Also: The EU contracts actually have no exit clauses for members. Where does that leave your doubted survival of it?
Read The Prince and Sun Tzu and see how a couple of REAL experts handled politics and war, not these assclowns that are in charge now that would sell all of us out if it kept them in power.
Whenever I read these kinds of statements I consider it highly likely that the persons uttering them haven’t read those books themselves actually. Because it doesn’t fit with what those books are about. Just like references to Hagakure.
Some parts of your post are uninformed enough to make it pretty funny. Thinking the EU is currently endangered as an organization is nearly as funny as thinking that “these assclowns that are in charge now that would sell all of us out if it kept them in power” should read Il Principe, which is a book about how a monarch should execute swift cruel action to maintain power. Or reading Sun-Tzu, which basically consists of the Goalkeeper’s Penalty Dilemma and a whole lot of “it’s better to shoot your bow from higher up the hill than lower down on it”.
Splendid advice on all accounts.
SatorianThe only problem with Europe only buying Europe is that it could spark a trade war that would jump start the world into a depression…just like what happened in the 1930’s.
What exactly happened there in your opinion?
The EU and the Euro have been taking a major beating since the you know what hit the fan and there are doubts that both will survive.
Doubts by whom? I sit pretty much smack dab in the middle of Europe and I haven’t heard anything about that.
Also: The EU contracts actually have no exit clauses for members. Where does that leave your doubted survival of it?
Read The Prince and Sun Tzu and see how a couple of REAL experts handled politics and war, not these assclowns that are in charge now that would sell all of us out if it kept them in power.
Whenever I read these kinds of statements I consider it highly likely that the persons uttering them haven’t read those books themselves actually. Because it doesn’t fit with what those books are about. Just like references to Hagakure.
Some parts of your post are uninformed enough to make it pretty funny. Thinking the EU is currently endangered as an organization is nearly as funny as thinking that “these assclowns that are in charge now that would sell all of us out if it kept them in power” should read Il Principe, which is a book about how a monarch should execute swift cruel action to maintain power. Or reading Sun-Tzu, which basically consists of the Goalkeeper’s Penalty Dilemma and a whole lot of “it’s better to shoot your bow from higher up the hill than lower down on it”.
Splendid advice on all accounts.
SatorianHe may be right in describing the situation (Iraq war was dumb, US must not regard itself as the word policeman, etc.), but those are truisms. However, the main solution proposed: is childish. It might work in WWI, when US shifted its economy to war production in around 6 month. Nowadays, it would take years. By then any war would be over. Also spending only the R&D part won’t bring many savings. Look at the F 22 program: more than 1/2 of the costs are R&D ! Not to mention that it took years to fine-tune it to became an operational fighter.
I think these concerns would have to be part of an intelligent solution designed according to his proposal. How feasible it exactly is, I don’t know. But I am under the impression that a reasonable and thorough evaluation of its feasibility and circumstances of a possible implementation would be complex enough to not be done within mere seconds.
At least personally I can’t claim being able to assess a situation as complex as this as quickly and definitely as some other people trust themselves to be able to. 🙂
SatorianHe may be right in describing the situation (Iraq war was dumb, US must not regard itself as the word policeman, etc.), but those are truisms. However, the main solution proposed: is childish. It might work in WWI, when US shifted its economy to war production in around 6 month. Nowadays, it would take years. By then any war would be over. Also spending only the R&D part won’t bring many savings. Look at the F 22 program: more than 1/2 of the costs are R&D ! Not to mention that it took years to fine-tune it to became an operational fighter.
I think these concerns would have to be part of an intelligent solution designed according to his proposal. How feasible it exactly is, I don’t know. But I am under the impression that a reasonable and thorough evaluation of its feasibility and circumstances of a possible implementation would be complex enough to not be done within mere seconds.
At least personally I can’t claim being able to assess a situation as complex as this as quickly and definitely as some other people trust themselves to be able to. 🙂
SatorianProbably wasn’t even that hard. The premise of the whole article is flawed. $hit costs more today because of greater complexity so there should be no surprise. Couple that with an assinine procurement system and politicians constant meddling and stuff gets expensive. Now if we were still cranking out hundreds of fighters every year, dozens of ships, and loads of nukes the author might have a point. As it is they just come off as being utterly clueless.
What was the premise in your opinion?
To me it seemed like the article was mainly about three things:
a) calling for a strategic reevaluation of a position as world police
b) proposing to force the defense departments into prioritizing their procurements more strongly instead of entertaining a defense spending culture where budgets keep increasing due to motivations cultivated by domestic politics (political positioning where being unconditionally pro-defense-spending-increase is equated with being patriotic, and state/district industry pork)
c) asking for a sober and realistic reassessment of the actual current and short-term (hinging on deployment readiness and buildup latency) threat situation
What was the premise in your opinion and how was it flawed?
SatorianProbably wasn’t even that hard. The premise of the whole article is flawed. $hit costs more today because of greater complexity so there should be no surprise. Couple that with an assinine procurement system and politicians constant meddling and stuff gets expensive. Now if we were still cranking out hundreds of fighters every year, dozens of ships, and loads of nukes the author might have a point. As it is they just come off as being utterly clueless.
What was the premise in your opinion?
To me it seemed like the article was mainly about three things:
a) calling for a strategic reevaluation of a position as world police
b) proposing to force the defense departments into prioritizing their procurements more strongly instead of entertaining a defense spending culture where budgets keep increasing due to motivations cultivated by domestic politics (political positioning where being unconditionally pro-defense-spending-increase is equated with being patriotic, and state/district industry pork)
c) asking for a sober and realistic reassessment of the actual current and short-term (hinging on deployment readiness and buildup latency) threat situation
What was the premise in your opinion and how was it flawed?
SatorianSo, many holes in the article its not even funny………….;)
That’s fantastic. The systematic way you’ve taken his article of 4,600 words apart with your countless, flawlessly presented arguments in a single sneer is overwhelmingly astounding.
SatorianSo, many holes in the article its not even funny………….;)
That’s fantastic. The systematic way you’ve taken his article of 4,600 words apart with your countless, flawlessly presented arguments in a single sneer is overwhelmingly astounding.
SatorianI just came by this article made by the Director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.
It touches most issues that have been mentioned here and i think it will interest most and upset none.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86605-p0/richard-k-betts/a-disciplined-defense.html
Interesting reading from you all btw
Very, very interesting reading. Thank you very much for the link! 🙂
SatorianI just came by this article made by the Director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.
It touches most issues that have been mentioned here and i think it will interest most and upset none.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86605-p0/richard-k-betts/a-disciplined-defense.html
Interesting reading from you all btw
Very, very interesting reading. Thank you very much for the link! 🙂
SatorianHardly……………paper means little it times of war. :rolleyes:
Yeah, history has never shown participants of wars to buckle under economic strain…
Do you actually make any effort at all?
SatorianHardly……………paper means little it times of war. :rolleyes:
Yeah, history has never shown participants of wars to buckle under economic strain…
Do you actually make any effort at all?
SatorianWar is never logical…………and the next war is never like the last one!
Yes, any issue is easily resolved with ankle-deep fortune cookie platitudes.
Sign In
