The new Afghanistan Strategy

[Smurf-Herder]

Big Brother Barry won't be on TV until later this morning to show us his teleprompter face. But I found a good take on it last night. If they follow Petraeus on this, I think it's a good plan. If Obama is deferring judgement to the Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, it's probably the only decision he's made that I can say makes sense, so far. And this story shows where Biden stands - the man picked for his foreign policy experience.

Afghanistan debate

The Obama administration has conducted a vigorous internal debate over its new strategy for Afghanistan, expected to be unveiled by the president in a speech Friday.

According to two U.S. government sources close to the issue, senior policymakers were divided over how comprehensive to make the strategy, involving an initial boost of 17,000 U.S. troops.

On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan that one source described as a "lowest common denominator" approach.

The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.

The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort.

The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state.

According to one defense official close to the debate, the key to success in Afghanistan remains eliminating terrorist safe havens and training camps, which are no longer in Afghanistan but in Pakistan.

"However, all of our actions are oriented on four lines of operation - security to set conditions for governance, development, rule of law with information operations and counternarcotics cross-cutting efforts," the official said.

The key to any strategy remains Pakistan and its border regions, which remain terror safe havens, said the official, who, like the other sources, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Additionally, Gen. Petraeus made sure the Afghan strategy sought to borrow from the successful counterinsurgency strategy and tactics used in Iraq. According to one official in Afghanistan, many of the Afghans are not "hateful against the West."

A White House spokesman and an aide to Mr. Holbrooke declined to comment on the strategy or the debate over it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/inside-the-ring-23718486/

[Dale escondido]

Intel and air force, I dont care who like us and I sure dont like the price of nation building when we got enough to do here.
We sure can learn from our enemys on fighting war.
Short and brutal.

North Pakistan has ALWAYS been where we should have been from the start.

[Smurf-Herder]

Intel and air force, I dont care who like us and I sure dont like the price of nation building when we got enough to do here.
We sure can learn from our enemys on fighting war.
Short and brutal.

North Pakistan has ALWAYS been where we should have been from the start.

We need to do whatever is necessary to ensure another 911 can't be perpetrated. And that involves bringing overall security to the areas in question. US ground forces have penetrated Pakistani territory on at least one occasion.

Unfortunately, I'm hearing that even this move by Obama appears to be half-hearted; in his not committing enough troops to do the job properly. Which was my biggest gripe with Rumsfeld over how Iraq was poorly planned. Only time will tell.

[foxbaron]

Either we commit an overwhelming force of arms or we are wasting our time.

It is time Pakistan is given a choice, join us or get out of the way or go to war against us and we flatten your country and we make it a territory of the United States.

Let's stop giving these people back their land. Take it, keep, use their resources, and then burn it on the way out.

We gotta use our nukes somewhere.

[Smurf-Herder]

It turns out none of those 4000 troops are combat troops. Only trainers for the afghan Army. The Commanders on the ground wanted more, but he wants to wait until the end of the year to decide. The original story appears to have been based on incomplete information and false assumptions.

Obama Plan Would Narrow War Goals in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/politics/28prexy.html

[Dale escondido]

It turns out none of those 4000 troops are combat troops. Only trainers for the afghan Army. The Commanders on the ground wanted more, but he wants to wait until the end of the year to decide. The original story appears to have been based on incomplete information and false assumptions.

Obama Plan Would Narrow War Goals in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/politics/28prexy.html

Maybe having Obama in the white house will keep us safe from terrorists?
Why would they mess with a good thing?

[stefan segal]

The problem with Obama you people face is not one of tactics or strategy, but one of self agrandizing one's own immaturity.

If you people would simply open your thinking to the possibility that there are levels of intelligence and maturity that your personal limits preclude you from apprehending.

I would suggest that you attempt to stretch you limits asn possibly grow into a more comprehensive unit, rather than expose yourselves as blatent assholes.

Stefan

[Smurf-Herder]

The problem with Obama you people face is not one of tactics or strategy, but one of self agrandizing one's own immaturity.

If you people would simply open your thinking to the possibility that there are levels of intelligence and maturity that your personal limits preclude you from apprehending.

I would suggest that you attempt to stretch you limits asn possibly grow into a more comprehensive unit, rather than expose yourselves as blatent assholes.

Stefan

This is what I mean by an elitist attitude.

Are you saying we shouldn't question Presidential decisions?

Especially decisions that directly affect people who have family in the military who could end up over there risking their lives.

Tell me how this isn't a double standard, when compared to liberals questioning Bush's policies in Iraq?

Also, you have no opinion on the topic itself?

[stefan segal]

This is what I mean by an elitist attitude.

Are you saying we shouldn't question Presidential decisions?

Especially decisions that directly affect people who have family in the military who could end up over there risking their lives.

Tell me how this isn't a double standard, when compared to liberals questioning Bush's policies in Iraq?

Also, you have no opinion on the topic itself?

smurf...I am saying that you ought to open up to more "info" than you are currenatly exposed to...that you should allow for the outside chance that there exists better informed, better intentioned, and more mature intellects than you personally exhibit here on this list.

The main and primary question you should personally respond to, is, whether or not to act now and proactively for the future, to correct our capitalist system from it's path of theft and greed that has crashed our country's finance to date.

If you agree that inequities exist and utilizing the existing model is not feasible for continuing growth, then instead of criticizing those who have engaged in the remedy of our financial debacle, you should instead offer up either support or solutions of your own.

The fact that you choose instead to simply badmouth our president...a new thing I didn't find present here from you when that piece of shit butch was in office, leads me to conclude that you are simply mean spirited and largely deserve shit like butch and cheney...I wish you god's speed in gaining what you deserve.

Stefan

[Smurf-Herder]

smurf...I am saying that you ought to open up to more "info" than you are currenatly exposed to...that you should allow for the outside chance that there exists better informed, better intentioned, and more mature intellects than you personally exhibit here on this list.

The main and primary question you should personally respond to, is, whether or not to act now and proactively for the future, to correct our capitalist system from it's path of theft and greed that has crashed our country's finance to date.

If you agree that inequities exist and utilizing the existing model is not feasible for continuing growth, then instead of criticizing those who have engaged in the remedy of our financial debacle, you should instead offer up either support or solutions of your own.

The fact that you choose instead to simply badmouth our president...a new thing I didn't find present here from you when that piece of shit butch was in office, leads me to conclude that you are simply mean spirited and largely deserve shit like butch and cheney...I wish you god's speed in gaining what you deserve.

Stefan

What does your self agrandizing, politically elitist attack rant above have, in any way, anything to do with the topic of this thread - the debate on the present strategy in Afghanistan?

[Dale escondido]

This is what I mean by an elitist attitude.

Are you saying we shouldn't question Presidential decisions?

Especially decisions that directly affect people who have family in the military who could end up over there risking their lives.

Tell me how this isn't a double standard, when compared to liberals questioning Bush's policies in Iraq?

Also, you have no opinion on the topic itself?

What hes saying is we is stupid.
Not seeing the depth of an issue just scanning the surface and coming to conclusions based on our ignorance.

There is no defense of obama left , so atacking is all thats left.

Hardcore obamites are trying to find something to grasp.

[Smurf-Herder]

What hes saying is we is stupid.
Not seeing the depth of an issue just scanning the surface and coming to conclusions based on our ignorance.

There is no defense of obama left , so atacking is all thats left.

Hardcore obamites are trying to find something to grasp.

Hopefully in their desperation, they'll eventually have to look at things more objectively.

I know a few Obama voters who now that they see what they got for their vote regret their decision.

[mwillman]

hahaha,

He has it right when he says your stupid at least when it comes to politics.

We don't need to defend Obama he has only been president for two months and still has a very high approval rating.

You hard core right wingers are not even a large minority any more.

[Dale escondido]

hahaha,

He has it right when he says your stupid at least when it comes to politics.

We don't need to defend Obama he has only been president for two months and still has a very high approval rating.

You hard core right wingers are not even a large minority any more.

Now you get to be the silent majprity:lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

hahaha,

He has it right when he says your stupid at least when it comes to politics.

We don't need to defend Obama he has only been president for two months and still has a very high approval rating.

You hard core right wingers are not even a large minority any more.

His approval rating is sliding downhill, if you've been keeping track - primarily because of his handling of the economic crisis.

[mwillman]

keep watching Fox and its lies there smurf, he is still at 60% that is a super majority.

I know you dream of his failure but don't you think times are a little to dangerous to be playing high school games.

[stefan segal]

What does your self agrandizing, politically elitist attack rant above have, in any way, anything to do with the topic of this thread - the debate on the present strategy in Afghanistan?

smurf...I wasn't speaking of Afghanistan...as you've gleaned and noted. What you've failed to note or respond to is my critique of your vacuous attack on my president. In so many words, I reported on your lack of inner character and standards which preclude you as a person capable of grasping Obama's level of maturity and intelligence, hence...are in no position to make judgements of him.

Of course you can make your judgements, and the adults among us will laugh or ignore you, but this activity of yours is self destructive, as it shunt you off to be secluded with your gaggle of mind-dead, amoral and unprincipled repugs.

To respond to Afghanistan...it appears that Karzi and the rest of the world applaud Obama's Afghanistan effort, to say nothing of the raging approval of the overpowering majority of our citizens here, so it seems there is only you, palin and the unlicenced plummer who find something to bitch about...have fun.

Stefan

[Smurf-Herder]

smurf...I wasn't speaking of Afghanistan...as you've gleaned and noted. What you've failed to note or respond to is my critique of your vacuous attack on my president. In so many words, I reported on your lack of inner character and standards which preclude you as a person capable of grasping Obama's level of maturity and intelligence, hence...are in no position to make judgements of him.

Of course you can make your judgements, and the adults among us will laugh or ignore you, but this activity of yours is self destructive, as it shunt you off to be secluded with your gaggle of mind-dead, amoral and unprincipled repugs.

To respond to Afghanistan...it appears that Karzi and the rest of the world applaud Obama's Afghanistan effort, to say nothing of the raging approval of the overpowering majority of our citizens here, so it seems there is only you, palin and the unlicenced plummer who find something to bitch about...have fun.

Stefan


I'll leave your last post uncommented upon concerning "Obama's level of maturity and intelligence". It speaks for itself.

BTW, I am not a registered Republican.

And on your answer concerning Afghanistan, I originally started this thread in approval of what I thought Obama was doing in Afghanistan, unless you missed that point. My fear is that he's not going far enough - considering the commanders on the ground wanted more troops - the same flaw in the Iraq strategy until 2007.

[stefan segal]

I'll leave your last post uncommented upon concerning "Obama's level of maturity and intelligence". It speaks for itself.

BTW, I am not a registered Republican.

And on your answer concerning Afghanistan, I originally started this thread in approval of what I thought Obama was doing in Afghanistan, unless you missed that point. My fear is that he's not going far enough - considering the commanders on the ground wanted more troops - the same flaw in the Iraq strategy until 2007.

If I mixed your comments up with another's, I am sorry for my mistake...although you should admit that of all the commentary here, it's hard to separate the chaff from the shit.

Neither of us has the inside track on what is best to do with Afghanistan. My belief is that in an ancient society without a history of centralized government, the notion to create a top-down democratic government there is not only ignorant, but stupid.

Obama is our nation's best hope...especially when contrasting him to mccain or his ilk...Obama noted the decentralized history of Afghanistan in stating that Afghanistan's new government won't have the look of what we understand as governance...and I believe this is a crutial understanding of diplomacy with other cultures.

This last, is an example of Obama's high intellect and maturity of which I spoke, and most of all, he is acting on our behalf.

His plan to train and turn over military and police power to the Afghans, is the only real solution to this area, which also insures Obama's aim to preclude terrorist from making it a basecamp haven.

I personally believe the tallyban are a disaster for the twenty-first century, a judgement which includes all religious fanatics...christians not excluded.


Stefan

Ps...If I called you a repug and you are not, then for this, I am truely sorry, as I have only the greatest contempt for this group of subhumans.

[Smurf-Herder]

If I mixed your comments up with another's, I am sorry for my mistake...although you should admit that of all the commentary here, it's hard to separate the chaff from the shit.

Neither of us has the inside track on what is best to do with Afghanistan. My belief is that in an ancient society without a history of centralized government, the notion to create a top-down democratic government there is not only ignorant, but stupid.

Obama is our nation's best hope...especially when contrasting him to mccain or his ilk...Obama noted the decentralized history of Afghanistan in stating that Afghanistan's new government won't have the look of what we understand as governance...and I believe this is a crutial understanding of diplomacy with other cultures.

This last, is an example of Obama's high intellect and maturity of which I spoke, and most of all, he is acting on our behalf.

His plan to train and turn over military and police power to the Afghans, is the only real solution to this area, which also insures Obama's aim to preclude terrorist from making it a basecamp haven.

I personally believe the tallyban are a disaster for the twenty-first century, a judgement which includes all religious fanatics...christians not excluded.


Stefan

Ps...If I called you a repug and you are not, then for this, I am truely sorry, as I have only the greatest contempt for this group of subhumans.

Stephan, I want the policy in Afghanistan to work. My son and future daughter-in-law may end up there, if they don't return to Iraq per their present orders. I just want to be sure Obama listens to the commanders on the ground and Petraeus, as the the best overall strategy for getting things under control. So far it looks like things are on track. But I really want him to deal strongly with Pakistan on the elements of the ISI which are supporting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I blame the Republicans for individual corruption, and their failure to do what they were elected to do. However, I also blame the Democrats for their corruption and apparent scheming to take this country toward a one-party system. I certainly haven't seen them provide any better oversight, or cut wasteful spending since taking control of Congress in 2007. I think the most productive course of action should be putting Libertarians in office at every opportunity. The constant partisan battles betwen these two parties is tearing this country apart.

MY EDIT >>>

However, from what I've seen since Obama got inaugurated, we've entered a whole new era in government - taking advantage of the mess, to gain more control at a faster rate than anyone could have anticipated. That's why I can't ignore what Obama represents. Now it's more the man than the party. A quantum leap into the Brave New World.

[Smurf-Herder]

Looks like they might really mean business. Pakistan is the key.

UK backs Pakistan offensive
Defence secretary insists Britain has to back American plans to hunt down al-Qaida leaders across the Afghan border

Mark Townsend, defence correspondent
The Observer, Sunday 29 March 2009

Britain has offered its full backing for a renewed military offensive inside Pakistan, as UK ministers confirmed the country was now "part of a single campaign" alongside Afghanistan.

Defence secretary John Hutton said the UK supported targeting Pakistan-based Taliban and al-Qaida positions and urged Europe to begin offering assistance to eradicate insurgents in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.

Confirming that Britain was being drawn into a widening regional conflict, Hutton said the time had come to target Taliban and al-Qaida havens inside Pakistan. In his most explicit statement of intent against Afghanistan's troubled neighbour, Hutton said that the military objectives in the region must now have "an equal focus on both countries".

He added: "AQ [al-Qaida] is in retreat, scuttling across the border into Pakistan. Trying to buy time. Desperate to regroup. That is why there must be no let-up ... there can be no escape, no hiding place."

He indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan and remains its largest trading partner in Europe, must play a principal role in supporting the American military effort in the region.

The defence secretary said: "In Europe, we can no longer offload the tough questions about how we deal effectively with AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan to the US.

"The political burden of dealing with the Pakistan side of the border must be shared. And there are many European countries with strong ties to Pakistan that can more effectively share that burden with America."

However, the US tactic of targeting senior al-Qaida figures using drones inside Pakistan has drawn international condemnation and undermined public support in Pakistan. The country's Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit warned recently that Islamabad regarded "drone attacks on our territory as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and definitely counter-productive".

An MoD spokesman said that Britain was ready to offer military, political and diplomatic support to a renewed offensive in Pakistan's tribal lands, but what precisely that entailed was dependent on the resources other Nato members were prepared to offer. However, the initial aim would be to support the Pakistani government, rather than place British forces on the ground inside the country.

US officials yesterday indicated that attacks along Pakistan's western frontier, apparently by unmanned CIA aircraft, would continue, amid speculation that coalition ground units may begin crossing into Pakistan's borderlands at some point. A Pentagon spokesman, lieutenant-colonel Mark Wright, told the Observer that the US had already offered to launch "joint-military operations" with Pakistan's Frontier Corps in the tribal areas.

The most recent evidence that Pakistan was becoming an increased focus of concern surfaced last week when Gordon Brown pinpointed al-Qaida in Pakistan as the greatest threat facing the UK in his national security strategy. Two thirds of terror plots uncovered by British intelligence agencies have a Pakistani connection.

Additional military resources are also likely to be deployed to the region once Britain withdraws its 4,000-strong force from Iraq this July, with moves to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8,300 to potentially above 10,000 within a year.

The new-found focus on Pakistan will dominate Nato's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg this week, in which Britain and the US will attempt to drum up more support for the twin Afghanistan and Pakistan - AfPak - mission. President Obama has promised an extra 21,000 troops for Afghanistan on top of the 38,000 US troops already there. By contrast, Nato has sent 32,000, with Germany so far sending just 3,640, France 2,780 and Spain 780. These three countries will, say Nato sources, be under pressure to increase their contingent.

Defence officials in Whitehall are increasingly exasperated that, even as the conflict broadens, prominent Nato members are not pulling their weight. Hutton condemned "the massive leadership imbalance" between Europe and the US in Nato. He added: "It's an imbalance set to grow in the coming months as America commits vastly more resources of every kind to the mission in Afghanistan."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/pakistan-afgan-border-foreign-policy

[stefan segal]

Stephan, I want the policy in Afghanistan to work. My son and future daughter-in-law may end up there, if they don't return to Iraq per their present orders. I just want to be sure Obama listens to the commanders on the ground and Petraeus, as the the best overall strategy for getting things under control. So far it looks like things are on track. But I really want him to deal strongly with Pakistan on the elements of the ISI which are supporting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I blame the Republicans for individual corruption, and their failure to do what they were elected to do. However, I also blame the Democrats for their corruption and apparent scheming to take this country toward a one-party system. I certainly haven't seen them provide any better oversight, or cut wasteful spending since taking control of Congress in 2007. I think the most productive course of action should be putting Libertarians in office at every opportunity. The constant partisan battles betwen these two parties is tearing this country apart.

MY EDIT >>>

However, from what I've seen since Obama got inaugurated, we've entered a whole new era in government - taking advantage of the mess, to gain more control at a faster rate than anyone could have anticipated. That's why I can't ignore what Obama represents. Now it's more the man than the party. A quantum leap into the Brave New World.

Smurf-Herder...I am pleasantly surprised by your considered post. You have stated clearly the what and why of your opinions, and I can't fault you for that, even though I don't share your concerns about Obama.

I would like to ask you your opinion of FDR's grab for power, and do you think it was a proper response to a like situation that we are on the brink of experiencing now?

I listened to FDR's fireside chats and was enamoured of him as I am presently with Obama...although in FDR's case I was less critical as I was a child. None the less, I believe FDR's early presidencies before he became inept through his illness, were the best we could hope for, and that we are still enjoying his projects and programs today.

Your wish to install Libertarians into the government is in my view, exactly the wrong tack for what is required today. I also find Libertarians a bad model for human society, in that they resist providing for those of our society who cannot fend for themselves. That Libertarians demand equality for all when throughout the history of man their individule capacities have never been equal, is a cold disregard for the "halt and the lame" which people every society.

That aside, I appreciate your post.

Stefan

[Smurf-Herder]

Smurf-Herder...I am pleasantly surprised by your considered post. You have stated clearly the what and why of your opinions, and I can't fault you for that, even though I don't share your concerns about Obama.

I would like to ask you your opinion of FDR's grab for power, and do you think it was a proper response to a like situation that we are on the brink of experiencing now?

I listened to FDR's fireside chats and was enamoured of him as I am presently with Obama...although in FDR's case I was less critical as I was a child. None the less, I believe FDR's early presidencies before he became inept through his illness, were the best we could hope for, and that we are still enjoying his projects and programs today.

Your wish to install Libertarians into the government is in my view, exactly the wrong tack for what is required today. I also find Libertarians a bad model for human society, in that they resist providing for those of our society who cannot fend for themselves. That Libertarians demand equality for all when throughout the history of man their individule capacities have never been equal, is a cold disregard for the "halt and the lame" which people every society.

That aside, I appreciate your post.

Stefan

The Libertarians could break the cycle of constant Left/Right bickering; and bring more of an overall balance to the system. All three parties keeping each other in check - not that I want the Libertarians to dominate.

I originally thought FDR's decisions were good. But looking into it further, I found his policies were in fact using the crisis at hand to advance his vision for what America should be. And not that it was bad in itself, but that his policies contributed to prolonging the Great Depression. The details of why that is are in the analysis below.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[The Professor]

franklin deficit roosevelt was overall a disaster

he invented social security, the greatest boondoggle in world history

soc sec taxes each individual at the rate of 7.65%, matched by your employer

for a fella or feline making 50G per, that's EXACTLY $637.50 PER MONTH

for RETIREMENT insurance

as all us advanced-age investors all know, were a TWENTY YEAR OLD to set aside even ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS a month, EVERY month, for FIFTY years

he or she would RETIRE a multi millionaire by age 60

due to the almost necromancical powers of compound interest

soc sec in contrast takes SIX HUNDRED a month and is BANKRUPT

african american males, by the way, are the most violently ripped off by the system

if you die before your time, the lockbox essentially keeps the whole thing

THE SAVINGS OF AN ENTIRE LIFETIME

PLUS THE INTEREST OF FIVE DECADES

and it's STILL bankrupt

on top of all THAT!

only govt can demonstrate such astronomical inefficiency

a NEGATIVE RETURN on a LIFETIME's INVESTMENT

the other great stain vs fdr is YALTA

which his apologists always point to his obvious illness at the time, their only excuse

ie, even THEY have no justification for the old man's consignment of a HALF BILLION human beings to the soviet slave state

and that was just the FIRST GENERATION

finally, despite all the alphabets in fdr's soup recipes, HIS depression went on FOREVER

google, if you dare: roosevelt recession 1937

you'll see HIS economy, which never got below 10% unemployment, tanked even darker and deeper in 1937

ie, FIVE YEARS in

so much so it became a BUZZWORD

the roosevelt recession of 37---a recession ON TOP OF a depression

what's coming ahead for us is FAR WORSE

obama supporters know this

it's why they're so moody, even after their BIG WIN

cliff

[stefan segal]

franklin deficit roosevelt was overall a disaster

he invented social security, the greatest boondoggle in world history

soc sec taxes each individual at the rate of 7.65%, matched by your employer

for a fella or feline making 50G per, that's EXACTLY $637.50 PER MONTH

for RETIREMENT insurance

as all us advanced-age investors all know, were a TWENTY YEAR OLD to set aside even ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS a month, EVERY month, for FIFTY years

he or she would RETIRE a multi millionaire by age 60

due to the almost necromancical powers of compound interest

soc sec in contrast takes SIX HUNDRED a month and is BANKRUPT

african american males, by the way, are the most violently ripped off by the system

if you die before your time, the lockbox essentially keeps the whole thing

THE SAVINGS OF AN ENTIRE LIFETIME

PLUS THE INTEREST OF FIVE DECADES

and it's STILL bankrupt

on top of all THAT!

only govt can demonstrate such astronomical inefficiency

a NEGATIVE RETURN on a LIFETIME's INVESTMENT

the other great stain vs fdr is YALTA

which his apologists always point to his obvious illness at the time, their only excuse

ie, even THEY have no justification for the old man's consignment of a HALF BILLION human beings to the soviet slave state

and that was just the FIRST GENERATION

finally, despite all the alphabets in fdr's soup recipes, HIS depression went on FOREVER

google, if you dare: roosevelt recession 1937

you'll see HIS economy, which never got below 10% unemployment, tanked even darker and deeper in 1937

ie, FIVE YEARS in

so much so it became a BUZZWORD

the roosevelt recession of 37---a recession ON TOP OF a depression

what's coming ahead for us is FAR WORSE

obama supporters know this

it's why they're so moody, even after their BIG WIN

cliff


Professor...I can presume you get your "facts" from fox and rush...best find a more reality-based source.

You nonsense about FDR's programs don't fit reality. I am supplying you with a GDP chart which includes Hoover and FDR. This chart tells the whole story, but I've included some copy which, though too short, does explain FDR's strategy.

What is not included, is the pushback FDR was experiencing for those of your ilk, and that of the supreme court in 36-7 which slowed his momentum. The other prime factors not included are: getting off the gold/dollar, and the repeal of prohibition.

Stefan

The chart won't print. Here is the link...take a long look...after enlarging.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Great_Depression,_U.S.


New Deal
For more information, see: New Deal
From 1933 onward, Roosevelt argued a restructuring of the economy would be needed to prevent another or avoid prolonging the current depression. New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending, by:

Reforming the financial system, especially the banks and Wall Street. The Securities Act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. This was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which created the Securities and Exchange Commission. (The key provisions of both Acts are still in force as of 2007). Federal insurance of bank deposits was provided by the FDIC (still operating as of 2007), and the Glass-Steagal Act (which remained in effect for 50 years and has now been repealed.).
Instituting regulations which ended what was called "cut-throat competition," which kept forcing down prices and profits for everyone. (The NRA, which opertated 1933-35).
Setting minimum prices and wages and competitive conditions in all industries. (the NRA)
Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class. (Wagner Act, 1935)
Cutting farm production so as to raise prices and make it possible to earn a living in farming (done by the AAA and successor farm programs).
The most controversial aspect of the New Deal agencies was the National Recovery Administration (NRA). It lasted less than two years (1933-35) and ordered:

businesses to work with government to set price codes;
the NRA board to set labor codes and standards.
These reforms (together with relief and recover measures) are called by historians the "First New Deal." It was centered around the use of an alphabet soup of agencies set up in 1933 and 1934, along with the use of previous agencies such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to regulate and stimulate the economy. By 1935, the "Second New Deal" added social security, a national relief agency (the WPA) and, through the National Labor Relations Board, a strong stimulus to the growth of labor unions. Unemployment fell by two-thirds in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933 to 1937), but then remained stubbornly high until 1942.

In 1929, federal expenditures constituted only 3% of the GDP. Between 1933 and 1939, they tripled, funded primarily by a growth in the national debt. The debt as proportion of GNP rose under Hoover from 20% to 40%. Roosevelt kept it at 40% until the war began, when it soared to 128%. After the Recession of 1937, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan Conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, by 1943, had abolished all of the relief programs.

Recession of 1937
Chart 2: Total employment in 1920-1940, in millions (excludes farms and WPA)By 1936 all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained stubbornly high. In 1937, the American economy took an unexpected nosedive, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. The Roosevelt administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the depression, and appointing Thurman Arnold to act; Arnold was not effective and the attack ended once World War II began and corporate energies had to be directed to winning the war. By 1939 the effects of the 1937-recession had disappeared.

[Hog Trash]

The problem with Obama you people face is not one of tactics or strategy, but one of self agrandizing one's own immaturity.

If you people would simply open your thinking to the possibility that there are levels of intelligence and maturity that your personal limits preclude you from apprehending.

I would suggest that you attempt to stretch you limits asn possibly grow into a more comprehensive unit, rather than expose yourselves as blatent assholes.

StefanStefan, at some point you're going to have to see Obama for what he really is....A not too bright man who bullshited his way into the White House.

You ever wonder why he guards his IQ from the public so closely?...He can't speak a coherant sentance without a teleprompter...Let's face it, we fucked up as a nation.

[The Professor]

my source is my memory

concerning the supreme court, you seem to forget franklin deficit roosevelt tried to PACK IT

in summation:

1. soc sec---greatest ripoff in history

2. yalta---nuff said

3. alphabet soup---roosevelt recession of 1937, a recession ON TOP OF a depression, 5 years in, HIS depression went on FOREVER

plus his ATTEMPT to pack the court, after nra blue eagle was ruled unconstitutional

thanks, cliff

[stefan segal]

Stefan, at some point you're going to have to see Obama for what he really is....A not too bright man who bullshited his way into the White House.

You ever wonder why he guards his IQ from the public so closely?...He can't speak a coherant sentance without a teleprompter...Let's face it, we fucked up as a nation.

Hog Trash...I guess Obama conned those dopes at Harvard to vote in the their first black president of their Harvard law review.

I wonder how such a dumb guy fooled the whole country...except you...of course :)

Climb out of your bottle...you are pathetic. Why choose a more vacuous attack than even the repugs, who fear "their" dollars are going to go to the poor...making them crazy.

Are you prejudiced? I can't believe you actually believe what you posted above...there must be some other reason...is it your lame attempt at humor?

Stefan

[The Professor]

2008 was the bluest year of my lifetime

obama actually underperformed, compared to the big picture

what happened in the senate is a closer, more accurate measure of how thoroughly my party got its butt kicked

it is what it is

cliff

[Hog Trash]

Hog Trash...I guess Obama conned those dopes at Harvard to vote in the their first black president of their Harvard law review.If you know anything about acadamia you are aware of Political Correctness and white guilt driven affirmative action and charisma...

I wonder how such a dumb guy fooled the whole country...except you...of course :)The same thing that worked in college played a big part in getting him elected in the 21st century political arena along with being articulate{providing there's a teleprompter of course}wealthy backers, and most importantly, an extremely friendly press.

Climb out of your bottle...you are pathetic. Why choose a more vacuous attack than even the repugs, who fear "their" dollars are going to go to the poor...making them crazy.

Are you prejudiced? I can't believe you actually believe what you posted above...there must be some other reason...is it your lame attempt at humor?

StefanNot necessary, who cares, no, I do, maybe a little.

[The Professor]

yes, me, too, with all due respect, i really don't care much what my friend and neighbor mr hog, here, thinks

i'm much more interested in obama

what HE thinks

and what he's DOING

dc junkie 1---obama is a total loser, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's going to get us all killed

junkie 2---junkie 1 has bad breath

in other words---why are we talking about one of the junkies?

anyone who starts talking about one of the junkies INSTEAD OF DEFENDING THIS BIG DUMB KID OF A PRESIDENT immediately loses the argument

by tacitly conceding the arguing points

2 + 2

QED

i'm, in contrast, much more interested in obama

what HE thinks

and the TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of things he's ALREADY done...

obama is a total loser, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's gonna get us all killed

talk about THAT

cliff

[Cat slave]

Stefan, at some point you're going to have to see Obama for what he really is....A not too bright man who bullshited his way into the White House.

You ever wonder why he guards his IQ from the public so closely?...He can't speak a coherant sentance without a teleprompter...Let's face it, we fucked up as a nation.

And waiting for the next election is not a plan. There wont be another
prez election. This was planned. The blazing speed with which BO is forging
ahead with his ideology is worse than expected. And, some people still dont
get it? Amazing.

BO is just the figure head for something bigger. Someone who could win
over the masses, break down our economy and voila.....NWO.

Again, HT hits the nail on the head.

[Cat slave]

yes, me, too, with all due respect, i really don't care much what my friend and neighbor mr hog, here, thinks

i'm much more interested in obama

what HE thinks

and what he's DOING

dc junkie 1---obama is a total loser, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's going to get us all killed

junkie 2---junkie 1 has bad breath

in other words---why are we talking about one of the junkies?

anyone who starts talking about one of the junkies INSTEAD OF DEFENDING THIS BIG DUMB KID OF A PRESIDENT immediately loses the argument

by tacitly conceding the arguing points

2 + 2

QED

i'm, in contrast, much more interested in obama

what HE thinks

and the TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of things he's ALREADY done...

obama is a total loser, he doesn't know what he's doing, he's gonna get us all killed

talk about THAT

cliff


Right Prof! We need to get our priorities in order like now!!

[Smurf-Herder]

And waiting for the next election is not a plan. There wont be another
prez election. This was planned. The blazing speed with which BO is forging
ahead with his ideology is worse than expected. And, some people still dont
get it? Amazing.

BO is just the figure head for something bigger. Someone who could win
over the masses, break down our economy and voila.....NWO.

Again, HT hits the nail on the head.

HT has it right.

I see 2012 being fixed somehow and 2016 never happening.

But the key is, do we have the ability to interrupt the momentum in 2010? I believe there is still that possibility. All pieces of the puzzle are not yet in place. And the details aren't clear. Only the general mountain peaks are visible; not the terrain in between.

Even if the future is set in stone, the timeline might not be.

[Hog Trash]

yes, me, too, with all due respect, i really don't care much what my friend and neighbor mr hog, here, thinks

cliffWow!...Just curious?...Is it only me that you're not interested in what I think, or are there others?....Something personal?

You may speak frankly as I am not overly sensitive....By the way, I personaly have found most of your posts very interesting.

[The Professor]

Wow!...Just curious?...Is it only me that you're not interested in what I think, or are there others?....Something personal?

You may speak frankly as I am not overly sensitive....By the way, I personaly have found most of your posts very interesting.

i'm sorry, my friend, i misspoke

i have seen you CRITICIZE our new president

i have seen SUPPORTERS of our new president attack YOU in response, instead of DEFENDING their guy

that's what i was TRYING to say

talk about obama, like you do, mr hog, sir

don't talk about cliffy, smurf, chief, or mr hog

no one but our moms are really all that interested in US, we don't really signify

at least not in comparison to our big dumb new president

anyone who attacks cliffy or mr hog when cliffy or mr hog CRITICIZES our big dumb new president is getting lost in personalities

like girls on the schoolyard

marcia marcia marcia

no faster way to LOSE an argument

the argument is ABOUT mr obama

not mr cliffy or mr hog

clearly

thanks, sir

much respect, friend, clifford

please keep doing exactly what you're doing

sincerely, i find you FASCINATING

no exaggeration

but that's just ME

outside dcjunkies, very few have even heard of mr hog, or mr cliff

what was it of yours i read last nite, just blew me away

i'm sorry i forget, it's so early monday, you understand

[The Professor]

i just searched thru mr hog's posts the last 2 days, there are so many

they're all good, but the one i'm looking for i can't find

it's just too early and too monday, i know you understand

it was very literate, it made literary allusions that BLEW ME AWAY

sincerely, cliff

[Hog Trash]

talk about obama, like you do, mr hog, sir

don't talk about cliffy, smurf, chief, or mr hog

no one but our moms are really all that interested in US, we don't really signify

at least not in comparison to our big dumb new president

anyone who attacks cliffy or mr hog when cliffy or mr hog CRITICIZES our big dumb new president is getting lost in personalities

Normaly I would agree with you, other than occasionaly I do get a little personal, but there's much more to this that you have not seen.

I once posted some links that compared Obama to Mao, Lenin and Hitler, for which I was unjustly banned without warning.

This is a liberal controlled forum and they are once again after me....I have never complained about their rude obsinities.

Instead of my normaly somewhat sane posts, I have been "in your face" with the libbies the last couple of days.

They are insisting I take up the practice of political correctness....Ain't gonna happen boys and girls, so ban me!

I will not adjust my style of posting to please the PC sensibilities of liberals....Their happiness is not my responsibility.

[The Professor]

Normaly I would agree with you, other than occasionaly I do get a little personal, but there's much more to this that you have not seen.

I once posted some links that compared Obama to Mao, Lenin and Hitler, for which I was unjustly banned without warning.

This is a liberal controlled forum and they are once again after me....I have never complained about their rude obsinities.

Instead of my normaly somewhat sane posts, I have been "in your face" with the libbies the last couple of days.

They are insisting I take up the practice of political correctness....Ain't gonna happen boys and girls, so ban me!

I will not adjust my style of posting to please the PC sensibilities of liberals....Their happiness is not my responsibility.

i understand

i saw elsewhere that you risked your life for MY freedoms

thanks forever for that

bigtime, thanks

AMERICA!!!

FIRST, LAST AND ALWAYS!!!

RED, WHITE and BLUE!!!

cliffy

[Hog Trash]

Originally Posted by The Professor

no one but our moms are really all that interested in US, we don't really signifyDammit Professor, my Over-Grown, X-Large, Biggy-Sized, Inflated Ego just won't allow my mind except this.

I'm almost positive everybody here loves Hog just as much as me and my Mommy do!...How could they not?

[The Professor]

well, take a little solace in this:

i'm beginning to

always, cliffy