reply to post by MrXYZ
Keep in mind, when I say fight Russia and China at the same time and win, I mean on the battlefield.
The war in Iraq is over with. All thats left there are criminals and occasional terrorism that their government can handle. In comparison, the Mexican
narco conflict is far worse than Iraq.
The problems in Afghanistan are the same problems, found in any asymetrical war. Its not fighting an opponent on the battlefield. Its fighting an
enemy who dresses as a civilian and hides among women and children. So far though, we have performed above and beyond the Soviets when they were
there. Most of the fighting is in the south and originates out of Pakistan. Until we can neutralize the origins in Pakistan, we will still face a
minor insurgency. It should be noted that the Afghan insurgency is far less intense than the Iraqi insurgency at its height and its continuing to
weaken. Insurgencies take time, we fought one against native tribes here in the US for over 40 years, before it finally broke.
The issue raised on the link by the US financial system involves the entire world's financial system and the story does mention that. The entire
global financial system is based on fiat currency and in danger of collapse.
Expect the G-20 and the Bank for International Settlements to form a new Bretton Woods style plan, probably in the next ten years. It will most likely
evolve the fiat system and not replace it, leading to the formation of Global Currency Units and a global reserve bank based in Washington DC or
NYC.
I'm sure we will have plenty more environmental disasters to come. Some people will get mad. Some will even commit acts of terrorism in response, but
it will not stop the wheel of progress. It will roll right over them like it has in the Amazon. Good or bad, the Green River formation will be
developed just like the Athabasca oil sands are being developed. It should be mentioned that the Saudis have caused massive environmental damage
through their oil industry, especially to the Persian Gulf.
Money rules the world
Note if you look over what I said, this is exactly what I implicated.
I'll explain again.
The US Federal Reserve owns the majority of US debt and the Federal Reserve is owned by US banks. The entire world is in debt to the US over $15
trillion, again to US banks. Right now we are in the process of loaning money from US banks to the EU to bail out the PIIGS nations.
In terms of monetary power, the US Federal Reserve and its owning US banks, have the world by the throat.
And why on earth would a Palestinian state be like Haiti???
There arn't any indicators that they would be remotely productive, the PA are making a gamble to make Palestine a tourist and casino resort, investing
millions in hotels, etc. Without any real resources or industry, they will at best end up like Jamaica. With its growing population, lack of
education, and unemployment, it will require aid from donor nations to make up for the lack of revenue to cover social welfare programs. If they don't
provide these social programs, it will implode as angry, unemployed, and hungry people tear it apart.
Morals went out the window long long ago. I can't think of a major empire in world history that actually ruled morally or ethically. Humans by nature
are selfish, ambitious, and aggressive. When a human collective forms that emerges to become a major power, it does so not by morals or ethics, but by
threats, force and manipulation.
Like I said before it is a blunt and brutal reality.
In Vietnam, we actually did win the "war". You have to check out the history. Nixon began a bombing campaign that forced North Vietname to sign a
cease fire and end the war at peace talks in Paris. In January of 1973, all sides signed the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace treaty.
Henry Kissinger even won a Nobel Peace prize for it. The war was over and we had won. We began to withdraw from Vietnam and then something totally
absurd happened.
The US Congress passed legislation, the Case–Church Amendment, in June of 1973, preventing the US from intervening if North Vietnam attacked South
Vietnam. The legislation was passed with a veto proof majority.
Not long after the legislation passed, North Vietnam attacked the South. By January 1974, the peace accords were dead. Nixon almost defied Congress
and would have had US forces intervene anyway, but the Watergate scandal broke. Nixon resigned as POTUS in August of 1974. Finally on 30 April of
1975, NVA forces took Saigon and the South was no more. We failed to protect a client state, due to partisan political infighting.
We didn't lose Vietnam militarily, we lost it due to asinine politics.
edit on 21/9/11 by MikeboydUS because: (no reason given)
