Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,827
#5,827
red butler said:
Read this quote on IMF operations by former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz and tell me you can't see these types of operations happening all over the world today.



You could argue that the IMF/World bank are not US government institutions... but with recent actions, it would be hard to argue the US government doesn't work for these banking cartels.
Click to expand...

So you are saying nationalized industry that is subsidized at an unstatinable rate is infintely better? While I agree there is some shady tactics involved in capitalism it is up to these countries to manage their resources and negotiate contracts for the development of their resources. Worst case scenario a corrupt leader screws his country over. In that case, it is the public's responsibility to depose of the leader.
 
#5,830
#5,830
volprof said:
Hamid Karzai laughs at you.
Click to expand...

Karzai is a perfect example. He refused to sign the bilateral security deal with the US, which would have kept US troops there for an indefinite amount of time. So after he was pressured to do it and continued to refuse, he announced he wasn't going to run for re-election and this gave the US the opportunity to get their puppet in place... who ended up signing the bilateral security agreement the day after he was inaugurated.
 
#5,831
#5,831
Rasputin_Vol said:
Karzai is a perfect example. He refused to sign the bilateral security deal with the US, which would have kept US troops there for an indefinite amount of time. So after he was pressured to do it and continued to refuse, he announced he wasn't going to run for re-election and this gave the US the opportunity to get their puppet in place... who ended up signing the bilateral security agreement the day after he was inaugurated.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anything less from a Putin sycophant, who thinks men ought to rule a country for over a decade or more, just as long as they agree with him.

And Karzai still laughs at you.
 
#5,832
#5,832
SergeantVol said:
Gimme something post 60s or I will start listing all the countries Russia has conquered from Peter the Great on.
Click to expand...

All 3 of those are not only post 1960's... those are fairly recent. The day after the Fed Reserve announced their end to QE in October, Japan announced that they were going to do the biggest treasuries purchase in the history of mankind. Argentina over the past year or so has been fighting a US court ruling that said that Argentina could only pay certain US/multinational bondholders first, and couldn't re-organize their debt to pay their debts in a more reasonable manner. Meanwhile, China (and the new BRICS bank) may step in and assist countries like Argentina and Venezuela with more favorable lending practices and more favorable ways of managing their debts.
 
#5,833
#5,833
Rasputin_Vol said:
Karzai is a perfect example. He refused to sign the bilateral security deal with the US, which would have kept US troops there for an indefinite amount of time. So after he was pressured to do it and continued to refuse, he announced he wasn't going to run for re-election and this gave the US the opportunity to get their puppet in place... who ended up signing the bilateral security agreement the day after he was inaugurated.
Click to expand...

Without googling could you explain the roles and appointments of the Afghan Interim Administration and the Afghan Transitional Administration?

Who set this up, who the panels were comprised of and what the administration restrictions for both were?

Something tells me you couldn't. Otherwise you wouldn't be, in vain, trying to hock that Karzai was a US puppet.

And the bilateral agreement is actually not just of US import, it's UN as well. Mostly because the Afghan government doesn't want to try to play hardball and say "all get out at once" and have happen to them what happened to the Iraqi government. If the US/UN/NATO pulled out of Afghanistan, I doubt they would stand long against the surge of ISIS.

Besides, pink-socking Afghanistan is also strategically dangerous for not only the Afghan people but also the United States. Afghanistan being stable is not only something the Afghan people and government want but also something that is strategically important to the US.

I think you need to understand the history of the rise of the Afghani government and also stop being so belligerent. The bilateral security agreement is mutually beneficial and it's something the people and government of Afghanistan wanted. Karzai was corrupt and was ousted after long overstaying his welcome in Afghanistan.

It's possible, you know, for a nation to look at possibilities and decide being friends with the US isn't so bad after all.
 
#5,834
#5,834
SergeantVol said:
So you are saying nationalized industry that is subsidized at an unstatinable rate is infintely better? While I agree there is some shady tactics involved in capitalism it is up to these countries to manage their resources and negotiate contracts for the development of their resources. Worst case scenario a corrupt leader screws his country over. In that case, it is the public's responsibility to depose of the leader.
Click to expand...

Iran tried that very thing with British Petroleum and it ended causing the overthrow of Massedegh. Libya and Iraq wanted to trade oil for gold and Euros and it ended up causing the overthrow of Ghaddafi ans Saddam. Iran has been selling oil outside of the USD for over a decade, side stepping the terms of sanctions that were placed on Iran.
 
#5,835
#5,835
Rasputin_Vol said:
All 3 of those are not only post 1960's... those are fairly recent. The day after the Fed Reserve announced their end to QE in October, Japan announced that they were going to do the biggest treasuries purchase in the history of mankind. Argentina over the past year or so has been fighting a US court ruling that said that Argentina could only pay certain US/multinational bondholders first, and couldn't re-organize their debt to pay their debts in a more reasonable manner. Meanwhile, China (and the new BRICS bank) may step in and assist countries like Argentina and Venezuela with more favorable lending practices and more favorable ways of managing their debts.
Click to expand...

Holy crap. You can't possibly believe this line, can you?
 
#5,837
#5,837
agent|orange said:
Something tells me you couldn't. Otherwise you wouldn't be, in vain, trying to hock that Karzai was a US puppet.
Click to expand...

If me clearly stating that he refused to sign the bilateral security agreement is somehow interpreted as him being a US puppet, then I throw my hands up. It is a clear indication to me that he was not willing to be controlled by the US (at least, not controlled on that particular item).
 
#5,838
#5,838
agent|orange said:
Holy crap. You can't possibly believe this line, can you?
Click to expand...

Where have you been? This is old news.

Argentina Once More on the Map, Invited by BRICS | Inter Press Service


In addition, incorporation in the bloc would open a new window for external financing, when Argentina is in need of foreign exchange and investment, he said.

At the Fortaleza summit a formal decision could be reached on creating a regional development bank as an alternative to international financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank or Interamerican Development Bank.

The new bank would have a 50 billion dollar fund for financing infrastructure in the bloc’s member countries. It would also establish a joint foreign exchange reserves pool of 100 billion dollars, “which would serve as insurance against the volatility of the markets,” Vallejos said.
Click to expand...
 
#5,839
#5,839
Rasputin_Vol said:
If me clearly stating that he refused to sign the bilateral security agreement is somehow interpreted as him being a US puppet, then I throw my hands up. It is a clear indication to me that he was not willing to be controlled by the US (at least, not controlled on that particular item).
Click to expand...

What is a Loya Jirga and how many members are there of it?

Answer that without googling it.
 
#5,841
#5,841
Rasputin_Vol said:
I have no idea right off hand. What are you driving at?
Click to expand...

Loya Jirga is a meeting of 2,500 delegates of Afghanistan. Village elders, etc. They voted in favor of the bilateral security agreement.

Karzai had gone off the deep end and was not representing the will of the Afghani people... no matter what your fringe conspiracy groups say. They voted someone in that would represent their desires.

That's how a democracy is supposed to work. We could take some lessons from Afghanistan.

After a year of negotiations, the Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, of 2,500 delegates approved the agreement to keep US troops in the country after the current combat mission ends in 2014.
Click to expand...

Somehow, the US found a way to control the majority of a 2,500 delegate council but couldn't control the single puppet it installed (but actually didn't install at all)?

Hamid Karzai refuses to sign US-Afghan security pact | World news | The Guardian

Guess the US controls the Guardian also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,842
#5,842
SergeantVol said:
So you are saying nationalized industry that is subsidized at an unstatinable rate is infintely better? While I agree there is some shady tactics involved in capitalism it is up to these countries to manage their resources and negotiate contracts for the development of their resources. Worst case scenario a corrupt leader screws his country over. In that case, it is the public's responsibility to depose of the leader.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anything that's subsidized is a better alternative to the free market. But I'm not blind to the fact that the world banking system is set up to prey on unsophisticated/uneducated countries.

It could be argued that a country's resources (i.e. oil, minerals) should not be raped through the type of "privatization" that usually happens when the IMF gets involved. When a country's major industries are privatized, it's not like they're broken down into shares and distributed among the citizens. What usually happens is the mega corporations buy them up at bargain prices, ensuring the country remains impoverished.

It kind of reminds me of the typical payday lender scam. Of course you would have to be stupid to borrow money at 14,000% interest. But there are stupid/desperate people out there, and vultures that will take advantage of them.
 
Last edited:
#5,843
#5,843
Additionally, I do commend your frank honesty in admitting you don't know how Afghani politics work while simultaneously waxing poetic about how you're quite sure it's a puppet government.

That said, most Afghans are actually somewhat happy with US involvement. They wanted a scale-down in US presence but didn't want the US/NATO/UN to completely pull out especially given what happened to Iraq when it got the full pull-out it requested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,846
#5,846
agent|orange said:
Loya Jirga is a meeting of 2,500 delegates of Afghanistan. Village elders, etc. They voted in favor of the bilateral security agreement.

Karzai had gone off the deep end and was not representing the will of the Afghani people... no matter what your fringe conspiracy groups say. They voted someone in that would represent their desires.

That's how a democracy is supposed to work. We could take some lessons from Afghanistan.



Somehow, the US found a way to control the majority of a 2,500 delegate council but couldn't control the single puppet it installed (but actually didn't install at all)?

Hamid Karzai refuses to sign US-Afghan security pact | World news | The Guardian

Guess the US controls the Guardian also.
Click to expand...

I know what the Loya Jirga is, you asked me how many people were in it. Regardless, you act as though the Afghan election in May was a clear cut decision by the people, when we both know that the US came in and negotiated a winner nearly 90 days later...

Afghanistan's disputed election: Divide and rule | The Economist

AFGHANISTAN has been held hostage by political stalemate for months. On September 21st it was finally broken, when the country’s two feuding presidential candidates, Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, signed a power-sharing agreement. Though the ceremony, at the Arg, the presidential palace in the capital Kabul, was brief and low-key, the deal will radically—and perhaps wisely—change the country’s political framework.

Neither man spoke and neither looked quite at ease. But the agreement will at least allow the new government to get on with the massive task of winning the confidence of a country that has been waiting for the deadlock to end. The four-page document, signed in the presence of outgoing President Hamid Karzai, and later by witnesses James Cunningham, the American ambassador, and Jan Kubis, the United Nations’ senior Afghanistan representative (both of whom were banned from the palace ceremony by Mr Karzai), divests the president of his vast powers.

The so-called National Unity Government intends for Mr Ghani, a Western-educated technocrat and former World Bank employee, to become president and for Dr Abdullah (or his nominee) to assume a the role of chief executive officer, newly created by decree and similar to the position of prime minister. A constitutional change, within the next two years, will confirm the role. The pair will split the allocation of senior positions, including ministries. They have also pledged to fix the country’s election system, which allows voter fraud to flourish.

The secret backroom deal, which many think usurps democratic process, was announced hours before the election commission declared Mr Ghani the winner, and Dr Abdullah the CEO. In a strange kowtowing to Dr Abdullah, who had argued that the poll was poisoned by undetectable fraud, neither the vote tallies nor the turnout were announced. The “everyone’s-a-winner” arrangement, similar to a politically-correct primary school sports day, came about after a bitterly disputed election season prompted threats to form a parallel government and fears of a return to civil war.
Click to expand...
 
#5,847
#5,847
#5,848
#5,848
Rasputin_Vol said:
All 3 of those are not only post 1960's... those are fairly recent. The day after the Fed Reserve announced their end to QE in October, Japan announced that they were going to do the biggest treasuries purchase in the history of mankind. Argentina over the past year or so has been fighting a US court ruling that said that Argentina could only pay certain US/multinational bondholders first, and couldn't re-organize their debt to pay their debts in a more reasonable manner. Meanwhile, China (and the new BRICS bank) may step in and assist countries like Argentina and Venezuela with more favorable lending practices and more favorable ways of managing their debts.
Click to expand...

What natural resources were involved?
 
#5,849
#5,849
Because that is what we are talking about. Larger countries strong arming smaller countries for natural resources not the war of economy.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top