When will latest World dominance by 5% of World population end?

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Well, one clear example of that away from conflict is the way the US insists on demanding concessions in return for aid in humanitarian disasters.

American aid comes with a price tag attached. One example of that is the way they have directed their aid away from aid organisations who provided free condoms at the height of the AIDs crisis in Africa.

The lobbies behind that are US xtian organisations who use such crises as a lever to sell their particular brand of woo-woo around the world.
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
I had to look up someone a senior bod was due to meet at an organisation I used to work for.

American chap, upstate New York, nice middle class life, kids in decent schools, one of the schools where Paw was on the advisory board. The profile attached to his school board membership claimed he was helping developing countries. No doubt that was what he told his kids when they asked what Daddy did.

The truth is that he was a sovereign debt vulture funder. The business model of the company he worked for was to buy up low or non-performing elements of developing countries' debt for cents on the dollar and then squeezing as much out of the sovereign debt as they could via the international courts systems. These would be the people who are 'activist investors' on the sovereign debt stage, and would happily see a country starve in order to see an extra cent on each dollar they invested.

So you can't tell me that guy doesn't know what he does for a living. There is an entire low-profile industry of such people. Who can't even tell the truth to their own kids about what they do for a living.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
These are the people who seek court orders to impound a country's ships or 'planes in order to pressurise more money out of cash-strapped developing nations. You could see that in action following the Argentinian default.

In Ireland of course the vulture funds are offered an open door by our politicians, who seek to profit themselves by association with such characters. Our politicians are very well aware of who they are dealing with in terms of vultures.

Marc Rich, the American who was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office, was a 'combat trader'. Running a vulture operation making money on margins on oil and logistics supplies in and out of combat zones. One of those 'lords of war', and a parasite with a parasite's business plan run out of Zug in Switzerland.

The group of 'combat traders' he formed and associated with were the people who were behind the super-injunctions taken out against the UK media when this particular company were trailing a rust-bucket of a ship up and down the coast of Africa looking for an 'amenable' location in which to dump said oil.

The only reason that came to light was because an MP raised the matter in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Curious that about the only governments in the world who deliberately inculcate a healthy fear of government intervention in their business affairs are Russia and China.

The US was taken over by its corporations from the 1950s through to the 1980s and they still run it.

Putin and the Chinese politburo would have little compunction about arranging an accident for an oligarch getting out of his pram and starting to lecture them on what the oligarch would prefer in terms of regulation.

Russia and China offer a sort of mafia-like protection racket for their oligarchs- I know the Chinese government sent a warning even to Hong Kong's Triad Tai-Pans a couple of decades back when their intelligence agencies went after a Triad gang who had kidnapped the son of an advisor to the Beijing government. The intelligence agencies found where the son was being kept, freed him, and went back in and executed everyone else at the location out of hand.

The quid pro quo there is that the very wealthy advisor to the Beijing government has (a) reason to be grateful to the Chinese government (b) and is left with no illusions how dangerous it is to wind up Beijing.

Even the Triads of Hong Kong know where the limits of Beijing's patience lie. Putin's deal with various St Petersburg Club oligarchs is an open secret. 'I do the politics, you do the business. Get that the wrong way 'round and you'll be having a nice cup of Sarin some morning with your breakfast'.

As regulatory systems go they are much more effective than the US SEC, for example. There isn't that much difference in economic systems, it is just that the Chinese and Russians know how to regulate their oligarchs. The US SEC is just there to take a cut for the illegality of their banks in particular and get their cut of such activities every two years or so when a bank is 'fined' some hundreds of millions. There is every sign that the US banks incorporate the possibility of such fines into their business plan.

In the same way that FSB retirement clubs extract money from Russian corporations fairly regularly.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
Well, one clear example of that away from conflict is the way the US insists on demanding concessions in return for aid in humanitarian disasters.
There are conditions attached. What "concessions" are you referring to? All countries apply conditions to aid, except in emergencies. The EU does this. Who doesn't attach conditions to formal aid programs?

American aid comes with a price tag attached. One example of that is the way they have directed their aid away from aid organisations who provided free condoms at the height of the AIDs crisis in Africa.
The US is both the largest giver of aid on the planet and the largest distributor of free condoms as aid. Your portrayal here is not just a distortion of reality; it's an inversion of reality. They didn't direct their aid away from orgs who distributed free condoms; they were already doing that themselves. What they did do (under Bush) was to insist a fraction of the money spent on Aids prevention was put into "abstinence". Not something I support myself but free condom distribution under Bush actually increased during his presidency. Do you see now how things get distorted? A little dig there, ignoring the other stuff here add a touch of bias and we go from the facts: Largest distributor of free condoms as aid in the world to its opposite: The US actively restricted condoms. Nice job.

The lobbies behind that are US xtian organisations who use such crises as a lever to sell their particular brand of woo-woo around the world.
You mean the Aids crisis which they responded to by going from already being the largest distributor of free condoms to increasing the number they distributed?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
Curious that about the only governments in the world who deliberately inculcate a healthy fear of government intervention in their business affairs are Russia and China.

The US was taken over by its corporations from the 1950s through to the 1980s and they still run it.

Putin and the Chinese politburo would have little compunction about arranging an accident for an oligarch getting out of his pram and starting to lecture them on what the oligarch would prefer in terms of regulation.

Russia and China offer a sort of mafia-like protection racket for their oligarchs- I know the Chinese government sent a warning even to Hong Kong's Triad Tai-Pans a couple of decades back when their intelligence agencies went after a Triad gang who had kidnapped the son of an advisor to the Beijing government. The intelligence agencies found where the son was being kept, freed him, and went back in and executed everyone else at the location out of hand.

The quid pro quo there is that the very wealthy advisor to the Beijing government has (a) reason to be grateful to the Chinese government (b) and is left with no illusions how dangerous it is to wind up Beijing.

Even the Triads of Hong Kong know where the limits of Beijing's patience lie. Putin's deal with various St Petersburg Club oligarchs is an open secret. 'I do the politics, you do the business. Get that the wrong way 'round and you'll be having a nice cup of Sarin some morning with your breakfast'.

As regulatory systems go they are much more effective than the US SEC, for example. There isn't that much difference in economic systems, it is just that the Chinese and Russians know how to regulate their oligarchs. The US SEC is just there to take a cut for the illegality of their banks in particular and get their cut of such activities every two years or so when a bank is 'fined' some hundreds of millions. There is every sign that the US banks incorporate the possibility of such fines into their business plan.

In the same way that FSB retirement clubs extract money from Russian corporations fairly regularly.
The stench of sneaking regard in that post. Sheesh. That's what we're dealing with here on this thread. Closet totalitarians who if push ever came to shove would happily throw their lot in with the closed, authoritarian governments of China and Russia over that of the current Western order.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
946
I am trying to help you show that you aren't just engaging in another "I hate America" information-free screed by inviting you for the third time to

"... explain how America has a 'veto on the actions of other countries' in a way other super powers don't. "

Your OP is an unfocused re-heated list of complaints straight out of the looney left/stop-the-war playbook.
As the lack of substance in your replies becomes more apparent, you start to SHOUT in your postings. The US has started to shout as well as they find more countries are ignoring them.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
As the lack of substance in your replies becomes more apparent, you start to SHOUT in your postings. The US has started to shout as well as they find more countries are ignoring them.
You mean like the lack of substance where I responded to every single piece of information you offered as backing for your roofless OP and from which you ran away from? OK.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
There are conditions attached. What "concessions" are you referring to? All countries apply conditions to aid, except in emergencies. The EU does this. Who doesn't attach conditions to formal aid programs?


The US is both the largest giver of aid on the planet and the largest distributor of free condoms as aid. Your portrayal here is not just a distortion of reality; it's an inversion of reality. They didn't direct their aid away from orgs who distributed free condoms; they were already doing that themselves. What they did do (under Bush) was to insist a fraction of the money spent on Aids prevention was put into "abstinence". Not something I support myself but free condom distribution under Bush actually increased during his presidency. Do you see now how things get distorted? A little dig there, ignoring the other stuff here add a touch of bias and we go from the facts: Largest distributor of free condoms as aid in the world to its opposite: The US actively restricted condoms. Nice job.


You mean the Aids crisis which they responded to by going from already being the largest distributor of free condoms to increasing the number they distributed?
Kevin, I'm well aware that you are a paid up member of the neocon American approach to everything.

That has been obvious on this forum for years. So you are wasting your fingers trying to pretend you don't have a dog in this game.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
Kevin, I'm well aware that you are a paid up member of the neocon American approach to everything.

That has been obvious on this forum for years. So you are wasting your fingers trying to pretend you don't have a dog in this game.
Is this your way of trying to direct attention away from being caught completely misrepresenting (let's be frank - lying about things) facts that have been twisted to suit your own biases, misapprehensions and fake grievances? Good-O.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
Still no content from you.
This is how it works:

* You made several reference-free assertions.
* I attempted to refute the assertions you were making as they are all - to greater or lesser degrees - either flat out misrepresentation, irrelevant or absurdly twisted. I presented an argument as to why this was so in each case.
* A person making an assertion must present a case for those assertions. This is the rule that prevents arguments going like this: "There's a dashboard from a 1983 Cortina 1.6 GL in orbit around Proxima Centuri. It's navy blue and has the child of Prague statue glued to the middle of it. Unless you can provide evidence that contradicts my assertion, I win."

To give but one example, the assertion you made of the US having a veto over other countries you backed up by a news story that showed that the US did not have a veto over that country. And so on.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
946
The stench of sneaking regard in that post. Sheesh. That's what we're dealing with here on this thread. Closet totalitarians who if push ever came to shove would happily throw their lot in with the closed, authoritarian governments of China and Russia over that of the current Western order.
Most people want to get away from the them and us mentality of past empires. Hopefully the Americans are the last of the dominating empires and that World affairs become more democratic after them. Russia certainly won't follow the US and probably have no desire to. China is less clear cut but I think they will be content with having influence and taking full ownership of Taiwan and Hong Kong
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
Most people want to get away from the them and us mentality of past empires.
That must be why the entire premise of your OP is basically to pit an "Us" (the rest of the world) and "Them" (the US) against each other.

Hopefully the Americans are the last of the dominating empires and that World affairs become more democratic after them. Russia certainly won't follow the US and probably have no desire to.
Russia's economy is smaller than Australia's. I know this probably pains people who look to it in fawning admiration and with fever dreams of once again uniting the proletariat in opposition to the capitalist overlords . It is also highly amusing that a country which annexes land from neighbours (the literal embodiment of imperialism) is being held up here in a positive light when compared to the US. The level of self-awareness here is really quite astonishing.

Here's another absolute belter.

China is less clear cut but I think they will be content with having influence and taking full ownership of Taiwan and Hong Kong
Actual LOL. China is just ramping up its gargantuan loan spree in the developing world to buy influence and create economic vassal states.

Your "middle ground" then appears to be which the US can do no good and its authoritarian rivals can do no ill.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
946
That must be why the entire premise of your OP is basically to pit an "Us" (the rest of the world) and "Them" (the US) against each other.


Russia's economy is smaller than Australia's. I know this probably pains people who look to it in fawning admiration and with fever dreams of once again uniting the proletariat in opposition to the capitalist overlords . It is also highly amusing that a country which annexes land from neighbours (the literal embodiment of imperialism) is being held up here in a positive light when compared to the US. The level of self-awareness here is really quite astonishing.

Here's another absolute belter.


Actual LOL. China is just ramping up its gargantuan loan spree in the developing world to buy influence and create economic vassal states.

Your "middle ground" then appears to be which the US can do no good and its authoritarian rivals can do no ill.
You need to read what it says on the tin more. The OP is when will the US decline lower them below empire status. As Lumpy says maybe you have skin in the game. There are so many single views out there: I dropped my hat, oh it must have been Russia :love:
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
You need to read what it says on the tin more. The OP is when will the US decline lower them below empire status. As Lumpy says maybe you have skin in the game. There are so many single views out there: I dropped my hat, oh it must have been Russia :love:
When it comes to who is the global superpower, we all have skin in the game. Let's go back to your assertions. America has been the undisputed world superpower since 1991.

"National independence and control over your own raw resources and territory are anathema to [the USA]"

You have provided no evidence or examples of the USA seeking to control the territory and natural resources of other countries. Well, you did by providing the example of Iraq, where the US controls no oil or territory as Iraq was handed back to the people having being the personal property of the Hussein crime family (which predictably was met with howls of outrage by your side of politics).

The US represents less than 5% of the World's population but its corporations own about 50% of the World's output.

So what? Where's the European Intel? The Russian General Electric? The Chinese McDonalds? The world's largest industrial bandits are the Chinese who have engaged in wholesale industrial espionage and intellectual property theft for decades.

The US wants a veto on the actions of other countries.

Hilariously, the example you gave in support of this assertion was one where the US failed to pressure Turkey into not buying the S1A missile system from Russia. Pretty strong veto there.

Look, if your agenda here isn't obvious to yourself, I can assure you it is totally transparent to everyone else. There's no coherent argument. No coherent examples backing up your assertions. You're just flinging poo with a bit of chomsky lipstick on it.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
946
The US wants a veto on the actions of other countries.

Hilariously, the example you gave in support of this assertion was one where the US failed to pressure Turkey into not buying the S1A missile system from Russia. Pretty strong veto there.
It is not whether Turkey bought or did not buy, it is the chauvinistic pressure that the US applied to Turkey to impose their will on them … and as you point out the American pressure failed … because more and more countries are ignoring the US and getting on establishing alternative trading and currency approaches. The US can slow down their decline if they can learn from this i.e. if you are not advising them!
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,410
Twitter
Deiscirt
It is not whether Turkey bought or did not buy, it is the chauvinistic pressure that the US applied to Turkey to impose their will on them … and as you point out the American pressure failed … because more and more countries are ignoring the US and getting on establishing alternative trading and currency approaches. The US can slow down their decline if they can learn from this i.e. if you are not advising them!
What country does not try to exert influence? You hold the US to an impossible standard whilst ignoring the (actual) crimes of the countries you admire.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,291
Well, one clear example of that away from conflict is the way the US insists on demanding concessions in return for aid in humanitarian disasters.

American aid comes with a price tag attached. One example of that is the way they have directed their aid away from aid organisations who provided free condoms at the height of the AIDs crisis in Africa.

The lobbies behind that are US xtian organisations who use such crises as a lever to sell their particular brand of woo-woo around the world.

All aid comes with strings, whether it's a local bookshop donating books to a school, getting named in sponsorship material or wealthy donors giving to museums, colleges or endowments, restricting the use of their donations or the US giving aid to another nation after a natural disaster. It's not unreasonable, for instance to ask that aid not be used to support groups that have threatened or would harm the US army corp of engineers, helping after the latest natural disaster. ok egregious suggestion but it's never too much to ask or insist that aid voluntarily given from the taxpayer money be well spent and accounted for and not ultimately harm the US., something inherently difficult to do in fragile and war torn countries.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
That is a mild explanation of what the US does in relation to aid. It is certainly viewed in Washington as a 'quid pro quo' opportunity, and the conditions that are attached are political.

This naive and childish 'white hat' versus 'black hat' view of the world is ridiculous. There is very little difference between Washington, Moscow and Beijing in that regard.

My point is that viewing Washington as somehow different or assuming they are the natural good guys in any global political situation is a very blinkered view.

Washington is no less totalitarian in its dealings with the rest of the world than Moscow or Beijing.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top