Conquer Club

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

GoranZ wrote:the problems with Greece were top news headlines for 5 years instead one simple sentence "Yes there was a problem with one of our members but we solved it"

You might be surprised how few problems can be solved that quickly.

Economical problems usually don't come suddenly... So if someone is choosing to ignore the signals then its quite justified suddenly to be left without money(actually it will be suddenly for him but it wont be for the others).
So when ever some sign appear preparations for the bad outcome should start. Then you will have solution that is solved quickly for everyone, except for those that actually solved it.

Most of the people that "ignored" the signals were not left without money.

thegreekdog wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

GoranZ wrote:the problems with Greece were top news headlines for 5 years instead one simple sentence "Yes there was a problem with one of our members but we solved it"

You might be surprised how few problems can be solved that quickly.

Economical problems usually don't come suddenly... So if someone is choosing to ignore the signals then its quite justified suddenly to be left without money(actually it will be suddenly for him but it wont be for the others).
So when ever some sign appear preparations for the bad outcome should start. Then you will have solution that is solved quickly for everyone, except for those that actually solved it.

Most of the people that "ignored" the signals were not left without money.

Not only that, If they are smart usually they turn out much richer In almost any crisis there is money to be made, and almost always general public pays the bills... Example Wall Street value is similar as before the crisis but I doubt that the general public gets the same salaries.

GoranZ wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

GoranZ wrote:the problems with Greece were top news headlines for 5 years instead one simple sentence "Yes there was a problem with one of our members but we solved it"

You might be surprised how few problems can be solved that quickly.

Economical problems usually don't come suddenly... So if someone is choosing to ignore the signals then its quite justified suddenly to be left without money(actually it will be suddenly for him but it wont be for the others).
So when ever some sign appear preparations for the bad outcome should start. Then you will have solution that is solved quickly for everyone, except for those that actually solved it.

Most of the people that "ignored" the signals were not left without money.

Not only that, If they are smart usually they turn out much richer In almost any crisis there is money to be made, and almost always general public pays the bills... Example Wall Street value is similar as before the crisis but I doubt that the general public gets the same salaries.

Correct. It helps to have friends that can write laws and enforce them on your behalf.

oh the hypocrisy

Speaking at 10 Downing Street just hours after the result of the referendum was announced, Mr Cameron said it sent a clear message to Argentina.
"They should take careful note of this result," said the Prime Minister. "The Falkland islanders couldn't have spoken more clearly. They want to remain British and that view should be respected by everybody, including by Argentina."

David Cameron wrote:But today’s vote of the Crimean Parliament to join Russia and the decision to bring forward an unconstitutional referendum to 10 days time are serious steps in the wrong direction. The Ukrainian government has been clear that such a referendum would be illegal. And today European leaders have backed their position.

All the political leaders involved, regardless of the side, are hypocrites.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:All the political leaders involved, regardless of the side, are hypocrites.


--Andy

It only remains to call all of them Hitlers to maintain the level of discussion

AndyDufresne wrote:All the political leaders involved, regardless of the side, are hypocrites.


--Andy

I wonder if the folks in the UK (or David Cameron) would call Cameron a hypocrit considering his actioans and statements are in the best interest of the UK. I've thought about this a little bit in the context of U.S. foreign policy. If we hadn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan would my life be better or worse (or neither)? If the answer is my life would have been worse, then maybe there is something to be said for engaging in selfish foreign policy.

Countries wouldn't spend their time and money on foreign policy if there was no benefit to them. Fluid values and attitudes merely allow them to maximise that benefit.

mrswdk wrote:Countries wouldn't spend their time and money on foreign policy if there was no benefit to them. Fluid values and attitudes merely allow them to maximise that benefit.

I'm not limiting it to "the country." I'm wondering if the normal citizen's life is positively or negatively affected by foreign policy. Obviously, someone whose child is killed in Afghanistan would be negatively affected. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your average non-combatant. Will the average Russian have cheaper gasoline or better jobs because of this situation in the Ukraine? Will the average American have a tougher time because of the situation in Ukraine? If the answer to that question is yes, then maybe we should be okay with an Obama flex here.

mrswdk wrote:Countries wouldn't spend their time and money on foreign policy if there was no benefit to them. Fluid values and attitudes merely allow them to maximise that benefit.

True enough but after spending time and money on covert operations to destabilise a democratically elected govt.,it is necessary to follow thru when opposition is encountered otherwise it has been a massive mistake and waste of resources.Nixon knew this in 1973 in Chile..but then again Allende was not Putin.

chang50 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Countries wouldn't spend their time and money on foreign policy if there was no benefit to them. Fluid values and attitudes merely allow them to maximise that benefit.

True enough but after spending time and money on covert operations to destabilise a democratically elected govt.,it is necessary to follow thru when opposition is encountered otherwise it has been a massive mistake and waste of resources.Nixon knew this in 1973 in Chile..but then again Allende was not Putin.

I mean, if you already lost $300,000 from gambling, you may as well gamble some more, right?

(No, cuz sunk costs are sunk).

Three 2016 GOP candidates have weighed-in on the pending "aid" (pay-offs) Senators Menendez and Corker want the U.S. to give the coup regime in Kiev ...

• Marco Rubio: Send aid to Kiev government, even if the U.S. has to borrow the money. “I would prefer that it would be offset, but I think that’s important enough that we should move forward on it even if it isn’t.”
  
  Rand Paul: Don't send aid to the Kiev government. “We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine. If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting."
  
  Ted Cruz: no comment

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/u ... Page2.html

Not to mention, Ukraine is about $1.4 billion in the arrears to Russia already for nat gas. Any aid that goes to Ukraine ends up going to Russia who apparently we are for some reason upset with.

So, today in Russia there were pro-intervention rallies in Moscow and there were anti-intervention rallies in Moscow. The anti-intervention rallies were unsanctioned and therefore shut down by the police.

Let the bombs fly already.

saxitoxin wrote:Three 2016 GOP candidates have weighed-in on the pending "aid" (pay-offs) Senators Menendez and Corker want the U.S. to give the coup regime in Kiev ...

• Marco Rubio: Send aid to Kiev government, even if the U.S. has to borrow the money. “I would prefer that it would be offset, but I think that’s important enough that we should move forward on it even if it isn’t.”
  
  Rand Paul: Don't send aid to the Kiev government. “We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine. If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting."
  
  Ted Cruz: no comment

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/u ... Page2.html

I'm sorry, we are going to make this thread Russian. You are now only allowed to repeat what Obama agrees with.

Actually, that doesn't make sense. You are now only allowed to say what Nick Saban agrees with.

saxitoxin wrote:Three 2016 GOP candidates have weighed-in on the pending "aid" (pay-offs) Senators Menendez and Corker want the U.S. to give the coup regime in Kiev ...

• Marco Rubio: Send aid to Kiev government, even if the U.S. has to borrow the money. “I would prefer that it would be offset, but I think that’s important enough that we should move forward on it even if it isn’t.”
  
  Rand Paul: Don't send aid to the Kiev government. “We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine. If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting."
  
  Ted Cruz: no comment

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/u ... Page2.html

Let me add additional translation.

Marco Rubio: SMALL GOVERNMENT. Except for defense. And this is defense... so... Hey guys, look, Obamacare!
Rand Paul: SMALL GOVERNMENT. For everything, including defense. Yeah, I know I'm not going to win the Republican primary. Oh well.

Vaguely relevant:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... ast-n47276



Also, lol.

tkr4lf wrote:Vaguely relevant:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... ast-n47276



Also, lol.

1941 few days before attack on Perl Harbor. Guys where will Japanese hit us? We are still analyzing.
Yup it worked

Relevant.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

chang50 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Countries wouldn't spend their time and money on foreign policy if there was no benefit to them. Fluid values and attitudes merely allow them to maximise that benefit.

True enough but after spending time and money on covert operations to destabilise a democratically elected govt.,it is necessary to follow thru when opposition is encountered otherwise it has been a massive mistake and waste of resources.Nixon knew this in 1973 in Chile..but then again Allende was not Putin.

I mean, if you already lost $300,000 from gambling, you may as well gamble some more, right?

(No, cuz sunk costs are sunk).

Or alternatively don't start something you can't finish..

Jmac1026 wrote:

Relevant.

LMAO, this is the funniest thing ever. It was funny when I just thought it was photoshop but then I actually went to Patrick Stewart's Twitter feed and it's even funnier.

DoomYoshi wrote:Actually, that doesn't make sense. You are now only allowed to say what Nick Saban agrees with.

Ouch. Does saxi even follow American College Football?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Actually, that doesn't make sense. You are now only allowed to say what Nick Saban agrees with.

Ouch. Does saxi even follow American College Football?

He will now.

I'd like to inform everyone, battling back any number of hostile forces, in the year 1450 I supported an Orthodox religious uprising in Crimea, and they then turned to down my my Orthodox Byzantine Empire (Re: EU4). Suck on that.


--Andy