I remember how smug the Brits were when they were lecturing Americans on how to go about winning in Iraq, just after the invasion.
The advice was to push “gently”, and don’t exert too much control…now today they have abandoned the citizens of Basra and left them to the Mahdi Army and other Iranian proxies. The Brits counter-insurgency operations are now widely recognized as a failure and we are now left alone to clean-up the mess.
Discussion?

UK doesn't want the oil as bad as the US.

UK doesn't want the oil as bad as the US.
That’s not the problem:rolleyes: …Britain has ‘Run up the white flag’ in the War on Terrorism because it is not limited to Iraq.
There is a rash of British defeatism regarding Afghanistan too, we have one British commander declaring that there is "no military solution," while another politico declares that Afghanistan is "lost."

They are correct. What's the problem that you see?? Clean up the mess that you started.

They are correct. What's the problem that you see??? Go ahead and clean up the mess that you started.
The problem or question, as I see it, is America making itself dependent on other nations. America was founded on the concept of acting as a nation irrespective of what the others do.

Dude,I totally agree with you. But the U.S. isn't run by its citizens, it's run by corporations and you have to take their priorities and enjoy it.

They are correct. What's the problem that you see??? Go ahead and clean up the mess that you started.

Current members of the UN Security Council
Membership in 2007

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):

Belgium (2008) Italy (2008) Qatar (2007) Congo (2007) Panama (2008) Slovakia (2007)
Ghana (2007) Peru (2007) South Africa (2008) Indonesia (2008)

In an earlier post, I stated that Saddam was in violation of 13 UN Security Council Resolutions. I was wrong. It was actually 17. From the U.S. State Department website:

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
• Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every resolution was backed by the threat of force. Of the 15 member nations of the Security Council listed above, which ones have carried through, and which ones have totally bailed and ignored THEIR OWN RESOLUTIONS??

Oh, and by the way, I didn't see "oil" listed anywhere in those resolutions. Did I just miss it?

Current members of the UN Security Council
Membership in 2007

The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):

Belgium (2008) Italy (2008) Qatar (2007) Congo (2007) Panama (2008) Slovakia (2007)
Ghana (2007) Peru (2007) South Africa (2008) Indonesia (2008)

In an earlier post, I stated that Saddam was in violation of 13 UN Security Council Resolutions. I was wrong. It was actually 17. From the U.S. State Department website:

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
• Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Each and every resolution was backed by the threat of force. Of the 15 member nations of the Security Council listed above, which ones have carried through, and which ones have totally bailed and ignored THEIR OWN RESOLUTIONS???

Oh, and by the way, I didn't see "oil" listed anywhere in those resolutions. Did I just miss it?No you didn't miss it.

Dude,I totally agree with you. But the U.S. isn't run by its citizens, it's run by corporations and you have to take their priorities and enjoy it.
The American government and big business, from the very beginning, was a coalition on which America was founded, as in every country. One difference in America is the option of every citizen to become a part of big business in the form of a stock holder.

Ok, good luck with that.

Ok, good luck with that.
Your ‘one liners’ have progressed from irrelevance to incoherent. :D

You think just by buying a share in Blackwater or News Corp. that you can make a difference?

Whether I can make a difference is completely irrelevant to anything I have said. But if you believe that there is any government that does not exist for the protection of 'big business' please point it out.

So what did you mean when you said: "One difference in America is the option of every citizen to become a part of big business in the form of a stock holder."? Isn't that true of Canada, Japan, Europe, Australia, etc.. What was the point of that statement?

You think just by buying a share in Blackwater or News Corp. that you can make a difference?

No. I think that by starting the next Microsoft or the next Berkshire Hathaway I can make a difference. The great thing about this country, as opposed to any other, is that it is possible to do so. The poor don't need to stay poor, they can become part of the middle class and even the upper class if they work hard enough for it. THAT is what makes America great.

You would rather make a whole bunch of people poor by busting down corporations than get rich by build one up, in order to feel superior, though. That's a sad statement about you, Needkarma.

As for the original post, unilateral isn't bad. Coalition building isn't bad either. It is when doing one or the other acts in other than our nations' best interests that they become good or bad. Waiting for UN approval on an invasion of Iraq was bad for the USA, ergo coalition building of that type was bad. With regard to North Korea, acting unilaterally against them would not have helped our agenda, so building a consensus to force them to give up nuclear arms research was good. The situation determined what ations to take, and whether to work unilaterally or with other nations.

Elliot

Elliot, you do make me laugh. :)


You would rather make a whole bunch of people poor by busting down corporations than get rich by build one up, in order to feel superior, though. That's a sad statement about you, Needkarma.I have no idea what state of mind brings you to that conclusion but I certainly cannot argue with that.

The great thing about this country, as opposed to any other, is that it is possible to do so. See my post right above yours. Your country isn't unique. But it is unique in the amount of money your representatives are allowed to receive (on the books and off the books).

DC
Yeah I remember them lecturing us about the helmets and goggles our troops would wear while their troops were walking around in berets . But it is their leadership that was the problem . The troops on the ground are tough as nails .There was one battle they fought where the Highlanders were outnumbered 20 to 100 . They fixed bayonets and charged . As I recall they only had a few minor casualties in the exchange.

The problem was there was this assumption that the Brits were the source of record dealing with urban counter insurgency because of their experiences in N.Ireland . But our troops are seasoned enough now to know that much of the Brit game plan is smoke and mirrors . Basra has become a model of how not to run a counter insurgency campaign. They were given the Southern sector and for a long time now they have garrisoned themselves in a four star hotel out near the airport ,and let radical Iran puppets gain a huge advantage . The Brits have managed to turn one of the more stable areas of Iraq into one of the least.They did a deal with Mookie al-Sadr that they would be left alone in exchange for the Mahdi Army having the freedom to route the security forces that the Brits poorly trained. . They have now declared that they don't like shooting people .

The sad part is that the American tactics are working . But when Gen.P next goes to Capitol Hill to report the Dems will say . Look at Basra . We will have to divert some of our troops to protect the supply line from Kuwait and we will have to take over counterinsurgency operation in that key Southern city . Tell you one thing ;if the Iranians ever tried to seize an American ship the sailors wouldn't quietly submit to become hostages .

You are also correct that if they view this vital area as not in the sphere of British national interests they sure as hell are not going to think that of Afghanistan . I expect the surrender monkey G.Brown to abandon the commitment there also ,even though there is no question that the operation there is a multi-national NATO one . I wonder if he has procured enough white flags to handle both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

You think just by buying a share in Blackwater or News Corp. that you can make a difference?


I remember in the 80s, there was a movement to divest from South Africa because of apartheid and yes ordinary people made a difference.


apartheid (http://www.msu.edu/~divest/apartheid.html)
Divestment was a major contributor in bringing down the apartheid regime. Renowned South African anti-apartheid activist and Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote






Grace and Peace

You may the beginnings to a good grass roots movement... if people weren't more worried about their mortgage payments and getting a plasma TV. :(

Dude,I totally agree with you. But the U.S. isn't run by its citizens, it's run by corporations and you have to take their priorities and enjoy it.


I will give you my theory on this.

The more government has power the more corporations will try to influence the government.

If the government can raise taxes, theoretically making more money, to spend more on entitlements or make new entitlements it gets more power by:
1] taking more money from working citizens
2] enslaving more people and voters with nanny state "programs" to the point they can't do things for themselves and feel the government has to do it for them.

Because the government has more and more power, corporations will ever more try to influence government in their own favor.

And when government has more and more control, and "evil" job, service, and product producing corporations have less and less, you get... communism/ socialism...
And we know how well they treat ordinary citizens.


So, if you are really concerned about ordinary citizens, then the solution is to take power away from the government by
1] stop taking more money away from those that actually earn it.
2] rely on yourself not the government
3] and work within the system to change it rather than relying on pandering politicians that lie and can't keep the promises they made to get elected.







Grace and Peace

Elliot, you do make me laugh. :)

I have no idea what state of mind brings you to that conclusion but I certainly cannot argue with that.

How about your constant complaints about large corporations. That seems to be a hint to me that you would get rid of large corporations if you coul, rather than trying to create your own. Is that statement untrue?



See my post right above yours. Your country isn't unique. But it is unique in the amount of money your representatives are allowed to receive (on the books and off the books).

Really? How often is it that a commoner in England can become part of the elite of England? Not very.

Austrlia may be closer to us than most countries, but there too, movement from class to class is limited.

Japan has a whole hierarchy built into their system... people do NOT freely change jobs or start corporations there. It is actually quite hard to do if you are not part of the already-existing upper class of Japanese society. And unless you are part of an already existing keiretsu or family of companies, your company isn't going anywhere significant. And unless your company is recognized by the shunto or unions, you aren't going to be able to hire any decently qualified employees.

Most of Europe hasn't been capitalist long enough to see people move from one class to another. 20 years is a very short period in a capitalist economy. Most corporations in European countries have been started by AMERICAN INVESTORS, mostly because the locals were too poor. Given time they may be able to develop a system, wherein it becomes easy to start and build a business on their own and move from class to class. But that system does not currently exist in most of Europe.

As for Canada, it used to be that Canadians could up and start a business whenever they wished. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has become to involved in regulating business... especially the health care business, but other industries as well. As a result, it has become more difficult to start a business from scratch there, and even harder to build it up into something huge. And the taxation system in Canada virtually guarantees that people will remain in the class into which they were born forever.

For now, the USA is the only country where starting a company is easy to do, where building it up is a function of hard work, not political favors, and where a poor kid from the 'hood can become a major corporate leader of his own major company.

Simply put, while other countries would like to think so, there is no country that has the opportunities afforded to the USA. Many try, and some are getting closer. But none are quite there yet.

I only hope that we don't become our own worst economic enemy by taxing ourselves into destruction, as France, Switzerland, Sweden and other countries are doing.

Elliot

Yeah, "sub prime" loans was an entitlement that backfired. But I suspect you had 'concern for the poor' confused with real entitlement.

How about your constant complaints about large corporations. That seems to be a hint to me that you would get rid of large corporations if you coul, rather than trying to create your own. Is that statement untrue?Completely untrue for several reasons: a) my "constant complaints about large corporations" is a something you made up, and b) why get rid of large corporations? I want to lessen their grip on the government.





Really? How often is it that a commoner in England can become part of the elite of England?How did a discussion about buying shares and having a vote become aiming to be part of the elite? Seriously, stop twisting s.hit around, it's really annoying.


For now, the USA is the only country where starting a company is easy to do, where building it up is a function of hard work, not political favors, and where a poor kid from the 'hood can become a major corporate leader of his own major company. I'm in Canada and could start a company in 20 minutes. Get out and vist the world a bit.

DC
yeah I remember them lecturing us about the helmets and goggles our troops would wear while their troops were walking around in berets . But it is their leadership that was the problem . The troops on the ground are tough as nails .There was one battle they fought where the Highlanders were outnumbered 20 to 100 . They fixed bayonets and charged . As I recall they only had a few minor casualties in the exchange.

The problem was there was this assumption that the Brits were the source of record dealing with urban counter insurgency because of their experiences in N.Ireland . But our troops are seasoned enough now to know that much of the Brit game plan is smoke and mirrors . Basra has become a model of how not to run a counter insurgency campaign. They were given the Southern sector and for a long time now they have garrisoned themselves in a four star hotel out near the airport ,and let radical Iran puppets gain a huge advantage . The Brits have managed to turn one of the more stable areas of Iraq into one of the least.They did a deal with Mookie al-Sadr that they would be left alone in exchange for the Mahdi Army having the freedom to route the security forces that the Brits poorly trained. . They have now declared that they don't like shooting people .

The sad part is that the American tactics are working . But when Gen.P next goes to Capitol Hill to report the Dems will say . Look at Basra . We will have to divert some of our troops to protect the supply line from Kuwait and we will have to take over counterinsurgency operation in that key Southern city . Tell you one thing ;if the Iranians ever tried to seize an American ship the sailors wouldn't quietly submit to become hostages .

You are also correct that if they view this vital area as not in the sphere of British national interests they sure as hell are not going to think that of Afghanistan . I expect the surrender monkey G.Brown to abandon the commitment there also ,even though there is no question that the operation there is a multi-national NATO one . I wonder if he has procured enough white flags to handle both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.
As usual, another good analysis. :D

Completely untrue for several reasons: a) my "constant complaints about large corporations" is a something you made up, and b) why get rid of large corporations? I want to lessen their grip on the government.

I see no evidence other than hearsay that lage corporations have any sort of grip on government. Last I saw, the government was in the business of regulating and taxing large corporations and small businesses out of existence, they way they did the flu vaccination manufacturers.

I do see evidence, however, of you advocating for bringing down the power structure in the corporate world in order to (as you put it) "lessen their grip on government".

Raise their taxes, take the money they make and redistribute it to the poor, take away their market by creating government-run industries, sue them for being too successful. That way their grip on government will weaken. Right?

Wrong... the only thing that will do is break those companies, leave millions unemployed and throw the economy into a major depression.

But as long as those companies have lost their power, what do you care, right?


How did a discussion about buying shares and having a vote become aiming to be part of the elite? Seriously, stop twisting s.hit around, it's really annoying.

Buying shares and voting was YOUR contribution to this string. Mine was about the fact that this country offers greater opportunity than any other to become one of the elites. You claimed that the USA is not unique in that level of opportunity, and cited the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, and Europe as examples, and I disproved them one by one.


I'm in Canada and could start a company in 20 minutes. Get out and vist the world a bit.

I have. I'm also an expert in finance and economics... it comes with my job description.

You can file the paperwork to open a business in Canada, sure. But can you make it successful? Can you turn it onto the next Microsoft or Exxon/Mobil or Berkshiore Hathaway? Not likely. Canada's taxation system prevents it. That means that even if you can start a business, making it successful is more difficult than in the USA, and turining it into a major international conglomorate is nearly impossible. In the USA it happens several times a year. Ergo, the opportunities available to us in the USA are greater than those in any other country in the world, including Canada.

Elliot

I see no evidence other than hearsay that lage corporations have any sort of grip on government. Last I saw, the government was in the business of regulating and taxing large corporations and small businesses out of existence, they way they did the flu vaccination manufacturers.

I do see evidence, however, of you advocating for bringing down the power structure in the corporate world in order to (as you put it) "lessen their grip on government".

Raise their taxes, take the money they make and redistribute it to the poor, take away their market by creating government-run industries, sue them for being too sucessful. That way their grip on government will weaken. Right?

Wrong... the only thing that will do is break those companies, leave millions unemployed and throw the economy into a major depression.

But as long as those companies have lost their power, what do you care, right?



Buying shares and voting was YOUR contribution to this string. Mine was about the fact that this country offers greater opportunity than any other to become one of the elites. You claimed that the USA is not unique in that level of opportunity, and cited the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, and Europe as examples, and I disproved them one by one.



I have. I'm also an expert in finance and economics... it comes with my job description.

You can file the paperwork to open a business in Canada, sure. But can you make it successful? Can you turn it onto the next Microsoft or Exxon/Mobil or Berkshiore Hathaway? Not likely. Canada's taxation system prevents it. That means that even if you can start a business, making it successful is more difficult than in the USA, and turining it into a major international conglomorate is nearly impossible. In the USA it happens several times a year. Ergo, the opportunities available to us in the USA are greater than those in any other country in the world, including Canada.

Elliot
What he did was hijack the thread, that was the purpose of his comments; seems to be the purpose of 3 or 4 people here on a regular basis.

What he did was hijack the thread, that was the purpose of his comments; seems to be the purpose of 3 or 4 people here on a regular basis.Oh the irony, since you and your cronies have hijacked the entire Politics forum. Don't believe me? Check it our who makes 95% of the posts here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/

Oh the irony, since you and your cronies have hijacked the entire Politics forum. Don't believe me? Check it our who makes 95% of the posts here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/
:eek:

Oh the irony, since you and your cronies have hijacked the entire Politics forum. Don't believe me? Check it our who makes 95% of the posts here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/


Ahh.. the good old days,

Like this

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/bushs-idealogues-91165.html

When retired navy single handedly took the politically incorrect view. :(






Grace and peace

Ahh..., the good old days,

like this

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/bushs-idealogues-91165.html

when retired navy single handedly took the politically incorrect view. :(






Grace and peace
Interesting read, I read through 7 pages of a one against many. I would say the arguments are much more balanced today than they were then. What I didn’t see was anyone high jacking the thread in order to shut someone up.