Putin threatens NATO & EU ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Afghanistan is certainly the most legitimate of the western interventions and one I supported back in the day. However the Taliban still exist and they control huge areas of the country. The so called government has control over only small parts of the country.
With hindsight Britain should have specified a time limit on the length of its deployment for say something like 2 years maximum. The US is now trapped there, if they leave totally the Afghan government will likely collapse and the country will revert to how it was before.
We must remember that during the 1980s Washington supported the very people in Afghanistan who turned into Al Qaeda. Maybe if the Soviets had won in Afghanistan it might have ended up a stable country. Many Afghan women look on that era as a golden age!
We can look at Washington foreign policy for a moment:-
Supported various Afghan rebels during the 1980s who later became an enemy after attacking the US homeland, fought a long lasting war against the Vietnamese communists in Hanoi killing millions along with 58,000 of their own soldiers and spent a fortune, now friends with Hanoi. Friends with Iran thus armed them but then enemies with Iran, so supported and armed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, did everything to help him as he was an enemy of Iran, later go to war with Saddam Hussein twice and eventually remove him, aftermath ongoing! Libya, enemy of Gaddafi, bomb his country, later become friends with Gaddafi and celebrate the great foreign policy achievement, later remove Gaddafi thus breaking Libya apart creating a total disaster which is ongoing. Planning to go to war in Syria to remove Assad and hand the country to various rebels who's ultimate goals can only be guessed at (did not take place thanks to Russia and huge domestic public opposition, later go to war against one of said rebel groups so almost on the same side as Assad for now.
I will add though that there are many great things about the USA. The problem is purely the political class and its foreign policy.
With hindsight Britain should have specified a time limit on the length of its deployment for say something like 2 years maximum. The US is now trapped there, if they leave totally the Afghan government will likely collapse and the country will revert to how it was before.
We must remember that during the 1980s Washington supported the very people in Afghanistan who turned into Al Qaeda. Maybe if the Soviets had won in Afghanistan it might have ended up a stable country. Many Afghan women look on that era as a golden age!
We can look at Washington foreign policy for a moment:-
Supported various Afghan rebels during the 1980s who later became an enemy after attacking the US homeland, fought a long lasting war against the Vietnamese communists in Hanoi killing millions along with 58,000 of their own soldiers and spent a fortune, now friends with Hanoi. Friends with Iran thus armed them but then enemies with Iran, so supported and armed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, did everything to help him as he was an enemy of Iran, later go to war with Saddam Hussein twice and eventually remove him, aftermath ongoing! Libya, enemy of Gaddafi, bomb his country, later become friends with Gaddafi and celebrate the great foreign policy achievement, later remove Gaddafi thus breaking Libya apart creating a total disaster which is ongoing. Planning to go to war in Syria to remove Assad and hand the country to various rebels who's ultimate goals can only be guessed at (did not take place thanks to Russia and huge domestic public opposition, later go to war against one of said rebel groups so almost on the same side as Assad for now.
I will add though that there are many great things about the USA. The problem is purely the political class and its foreign policy.
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 28th Oct 2014 at 22:03.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One only has to look at the support the Iraqi army had and how they disintegrated in the face of the ISIS assault. We can pour more money into Afghanistan but in my opinion it will achieve nothing.
We only have to look at the US in Vietnam, look at how they built up the ARVN, on paper it was one of the finest military forces on Earth, one of the largest also, with some of the finest special forces on Earth! They had a reasonable air force also. We both know what happened to South Vietnam and the ARVN.
We only have to look at the US in Vietnam, look at how they built up the ARVN, on paper it was one of the finest military forces on Earth, one of the largest also, with some of the finest special forces on Earth! They had a reasonable air force also. We both know what happened to South Vietnam and the ARVN.
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 28th Oct 2014 at 22:46.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The anti us side has a history of supporting the countries that have a history of suppression of their citizens by genocide or torture. Though the US is that far away from being perfect it isn't funny, I would rather it any day than the alternative.
If being dominated by the US means freedom to make up my own mind, then I say dominate.
People throw around a few assertions about countries and successful outcomes, there is no rocket science in this. For the countries mentioned, solutions take decades, and in some cases centuries. In Iraqis case it was a huge success, we just didn't follow though on several fronts.
Afghanistan, will be the same problem, it needed to be a 100 year project. It is easy to break something, a lot harder to fix.
Peoples particular love of 2nd world countries like Russia that are bordering on being failed states is humourous.
If being dominated by the US means freedom to make up my own mind, then I say dominate.
People throw around a few assertions about countries and successful outcomes, there is no rocket science in this. For the countries mentioned, solutions take decades, and in some cases centuries. In Iraqis case it was a huge success, we just didn't follow though on several fronts.
Afghanistan, will be the same problem, it needed to be a 100 year project. It is easy to break something, a lot harder to fix.
Peoples particular love of 2nd world countries like Russia that are bordering on being failed states is humourous.
I give you Victoria Nuland from State Dept who caught deciding who should or who should not be in power in Ukraine and boasting of how much she had spent of US taxpayers $$$ in the country.
I get it, you've an ax to grind with the US, just try not to make it so obvious. And do try to find better than some low level staffers comments to condemn US policy. At least RR actually tries on his posts.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo,
You compared the entire annexation of two years worth of pension contributions to a relatively young system of Advanced Corporation Tax relief which was only introduced to kick start spending anyway, a 1970s recession form of quantitative easing. The relief was already in decline, the Tories introduced it and they had already started to cut it back. It was not the 'theft' so often attributed to it (imho).
It sought to return to a partial imputation system of taxation to encourage companies to reinvest in jobs and development instead of paying out in dividends (to higher wage earners and foreign shareholders who had come to benefit more) and to fund - generally - long overdue social reform and fairer taxation for lower earners. In hindsight, it generally achieved Ed Balls' objectives. I wonder if Putin's motivation was as equally considered.
You compared the entire annexation of two years worth of pension contributions to a relatively young system of Advanced Corporation Tax relief which was only introduced to kick start spending anyway, a 1970s recession form of quantitative easing. The relief was already in decline, the Tories introduced it and they had already started to cut it back. It was not the 'theft' so often attributed to it (imho).
It sought to return to a partial imputation system of taxation to encourage companies to reinvest in jobs and development instead of paying out in dividends (to higher wage earners and foreign shareholders who had come to benefit more) and to fund - generally - long overdue social reform and fairer taxation for lower earners. In hindsight, it generally achieved Ed Balls' objectives. I wonder if Putin's motivation was as equally considered.
That's it? For all your ranting and raving, all you can come up with is some minion in the state dept voicing an opinion? Holy crap, US underling voices an opinion, all US policy is now sh!tty, and I'm going to flog the dead horse more about US policy regarding Ukraine than I am about Putin actually invading it. Btw, can you provide a link to her comments?
I get it, you've an ax to grind with the US, just try not to make it so obvious. And do try to find better than some low level staffers comments to condemn US policy. At least RR actually tries on his posts.
I get it, you've an ax to grind with the US, just try not to make it so obvious. And do try to find better than some low level staffers comments to condemn US policy. At least RR actually tries on his posts.
Principal Foreign Policy adviser to Dick Cheney
Assistant Sec for European affairs
That is NOT a minion and not voicing an opinion either.
Funnily enough is that conversation leaked she was pushing hard for one person who became Ukranian Prime Minister
You compared the entire annexation of two years worth of pension contributions to a relatively young system of Advanced Corporation Tax relief which was only introduced to kick start spending anyway, a 1970s recession form of quantitative easing. The relief was already in decline, the Tories introduced it and they had already started to cut it back. It was not the 'theft' so often attributed to it (imho).
It sought to return to a partial imputation system of taxation to encourage companies to reinvest in jobs and development instead of paying out in dividends (to higher wage earners and foreign shareholders who had come to benefit more) and to fund - generally - long overdue social reform and fairer taxation for lower earners. In hindsight, it generally achieved Ed Balls' objectives. I wonder if Putin's motivation was as equally considered.
It sought to return to a partial imputation system of taxation to encourage companies to reinvest in jobs and development instead of paying out in dividends (to higher wage earners and foreign shareholders who had come to benefit more) and to fund - generally - long overdue social reform and fairer taxation for lower earners. In hindsight, it generally achieved Ed Balls' objectives. I wonder if Putin's motivation was as equally considered.
Brown?s 1997 pension raid has cost OAPs £120bn - UK / News & Views / The Sunday Post
"
Figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility released last week show the tax changes have saved the Treasury £117.9bn between 1997 and 2014.
Over the same period the number of private-sector workers with a defined benefit pension collapsed from 5m to 1.7m.
Thousands of companies have closed lucrative final-salary schemes — which pay a retirement income based on an employee’s length of service and pay — after they could no longer afford them in the wake of losing this big source of income."
Brown killed pretty much defined benefit schemes with his ham fisted approach despite advice on its consequences
RR, you use "actually," "basically," and "essentially," in a wasteful way, much as the term "literally" has become wasted filler in a lot of conversation among the younger generation.
I have used underscores ( _ ) to indicate where that wasted term was removed. Your edited post makes as much sense as it did, but it takes less effort to never introduce the throwaways.
I also removed the "nothing but" waste, since it weakens your statement about western policy.
This tip on usage and style is brought to you by Mr Long, my 8th grade English teacher.
Is that due to lack of capability, or lack of desire?
I have used underscores ( _ ) to indicate where that wasted term was removed. Your edited post makes as much sense as it did, but it takes less effort to never introduce the throwaways.
I also removed the "nothing but" waste, since it weakens your statement about western policy.
This tip on usage and style is brought to you by Mr Long, my 8th grade English teacher.
Typhoon93, after the disasters of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and very nearly Syria (still time yet) it became apparent to me (someone who you could describe as your typical pro western average citizen) that western foreign policy is _a_ total disaster.
_The_ world needs someone who can push back enough to ensure western leaders don't always get their own way, someone who can stand against them. Right now the most effective individual at doing that is President Putin. Nations like China and India as well as various South American nations can also take up this role.
The west was supposed to be engaged in a war on terror but _its_ actions have greatly helped terrorists and _removed_ various secular dictators who were enemies of the terrorists.
In many situations Washington, various Middle Eastern allies and European governments are _supporting_ the terrorists ie Libya and Syria. The western attack on Libya, removal of Gaddafi and resulting disintegration of Libya as a nation state was the thing that made me realise western governments were _the_ bad guys.
Up until then I was naïve enough to think that Iraq was a kind of honest mistake that no one would repeat! But then after Libya they wanted to remove Assad and follow the same game plan in Syria.
Compared to western leaders Putin is a genius.
You mentioned the Nazis, well who is engaged in the most warfare around the world, the clue is it isn't Russia!
_The_ world needs someone who can push back enough to ensure western leaders don't always get their own way, someone who can stand against them. Right now the most effective individual at doing that is President Putin. Nations like China and India as well as various South American nations can also take up this role.
The west was supposed to be engaged in a war on terror but _its_ actions have greatly helped terrorists and _removed_ various secular dictators who were enemies of the terrorists.
In many situations Washington, various Middle Eastern allies and European governments are _supporting_ the terrorists ie Libya and Syria. The western attack on Libya, removal of Gaddafi and resulting disintegration of Libya as a nation state was the thing that made me realise western governments were _the_ bad guys.
Up until then I was naïve enough to think that Iraq was a kind of honest mistake that no one would repeat! But then after Libya they wanted to remove Assad and follow the same game plan in Syria.
Compared to western leaders Putin is a genius.
You mentioned the Nazis, well who is engaged in the most warfare around the world, the clue is it isn't Russia!
I am aware of that, mel.
I am trying to be helpful.
If one is exposed to bad English, particularly conversational American English, one might develop bad habits without being aware of it.
RR makes a couple of points worth considering. If the message can be better packaged, those points might get a better, more thoughtful response.
Regards
LW_50
I am trying to be helpful.
If one is exposed to bad English, particularly conversational American English, one might develop bad habits without being aware of it.
RR makes a couple of points worth considering. If the message can be better packaged, those points might get a better, more thoughtful response.
Regards
LW_50
Actually the companies killed those schemes - they HATED the idea of having to kick cash into the schemes to keep them going when the cash could be used for bonuses instead
Just how much has BA contributed to Pensions since 1997 ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo,
In the days before links were available, companies weren't putting lots into pensions.
At the the risk of you loosing off another Gordon Brown broadside, it was actually Nigel Lawson who cast the first stone. It was he who decided to allow employers to take contribution breaks from contributing to final salary pension schemes and to also tax scheme surpluses above a funding level of 105%. Unions and memberships didn't mind. Ironically (and this was before my time) the pension holidays were presented as a way to stop companies from growing vast pension funds (and subsequently allowing them to pay employees whatever pensions the unions demanded).
So the unions played along with anything that seemed to allow members to get benefits earlier by making the earlier drawdown of benefits from employers far easier to acquiesce to. And members too, demanded and introduced lower retirement ages but actually had the audacity to start living longer. Who blames myopic union stupidity though? So, it was probably Lawson who created the funding crisis, not Brown (and it was Lamont who decided to reduce ACT).
Increased longevity (to name but one thing) based on over-optimistic actuarial assumptions has resulted in the decline of final salary pensions. 20 years too late, someone eventually realised that if the relationship between entitlement to a pension and salaries has not changed, but sovereign bond yields, mortality rates and interest rates have, then the present value of a future promise has/had to change. Even as babyboomer membership climbed, no one bothered to think ahead.. . actuaries, g'ment, employers, trustees and employees, none of them stopped to question where the money was going to come from.
Finally, thankfully, policies, expectations and commitment levels are starting to converge. Like it or not (and I'm guessing you won't), that's the reality.
In the days before links were available, companies weren't putting lots into pensions.
At the the risk of you loosing off another Gordon Brown broadside, it was actually Nigel Lawson who cast the first stone. It was he who decided to allow employers to take contribution breaks from contributing to final salary pension schemes and to also tax scheme surpluses above a funding level of 105%. Unions and memberships didn't mind. Ironically (and this was before my time) the pension holidays were presented as a way to stop companies from growing vast pension funds (and subsequently allowing them to pay employees whatever pensions the unions demanded).
So the unions played along with anything that seemed to allow members to get benefits earlier by making the earlier drawdown of benefits from employers far easier to acquiesce to. And members too, demanded and introduced lower retirement ages but actually had the audacity to start living longer. Who blames myopic union stupidity though? So, it was probably Lawson who created the funding crisis, not Brown (and it was Lamont who decided to reduce ACT).
Increased longevity (to name but one thing) based on over-optimistic actuarial assumptions has resulted in the decline of final salary pensions. 20 years too late, someone eventually realised that if the relationship between entitlement to a pension and salaries has not changed, but sovereign bond yields, mortality rates and interest rates have, then the present value of a future promise has/had to change. Even as babyboomer membership climbed, no one bothered to think ahead.. . actuaries, g'ment, employers, trustees and employees, none of them stopped to question where the money was going to come from.
Finally, thankfully, policies, expectations and commitment levels are starting to converge. Like it or not (and I'm guessing you won't), that's the reality.
That is NOT a minion and not voicing an opinion either.
You've a policy of anti Americanism, problem is when you have to defend it to you have to go back through the timeline and build an opinion. In other words, your anti US stand comes before the facts of any given situation.
Makes reverse engineering an opinion tough as evidenced by your reliance on a staffers comment as the centerpiece of your dislike of the US policy. Amazing you don't seem to spend much time on Russian aggression, unless of course you and RR are like minded.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts