# The Gulf War-Part Three



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well, it looks like (according to Pres. Obama's speech to the American people on TV last night) that the US is prepared for another "kick at the can" against ISIL/al-Qaeda, and the very same rebels that they were covertly helping to defeat Assad in Syria.

Now that the "chickens (they were helping) have come home to roost", Obama is going to bomb them into submission, but first he had to explain to the American people, what what he plans to do...and warn ISIL/al-Qaeda of his plan. 
He also assured on TV that there would be no US Troops "boots on the ground"...and he was indicating, that would come from the "coalition of the willing"...er..more likely "the coalition of the UN-WILLING", as everyone knows by now, that these middle east wars drag on for years and years, and not the short "shock and awe" style of war that the Americans try at first. 
Tangle with al-Qaeda and you can be assured you will be there for a long time..again.

Retired general Lewis Mackenzie (media commentator) on CBC-Mansbridge last night commented that that was not a very smart thing to do...outline your game plan before you go in. The other problem now, is that ISIL will move their fighters into cities with lots of civilians, and if the US bombs there, there will be a LOT of collateral damage and that will infuriate the middle east even more.
HAMAS is already playing the game with Israel.

So lets go and check the scores from at least 1991

1991: (First Gulf War) George Bush Sr; the US just kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, nothing else changed.
2001: Attack by al-Qaeda on the New York trade center....Bin Laden gives a thumbs up and al-Qaeda wins that sneak attack
2002: George Bush Jr goes gunning for Bin Laden in the Tora-Bora mountains of Afghanistan...after mucho bombing and killing ..and 10 years + of war...nothing has changed there either...the Taliban is making inward progress to take over again.
2011: US Navy Seals targets bin Laden and finally gets him 10 years later Yea for the "good guys". 
2011: Part of the Arab Spring and spillover of the Iraqi insurgency into Syria (US sides with al-Qaeda rebels) against Assad (US does not want to really get involved and Kerry backs down on his line in the sand after the gassing
of Syrian civilians by ????? 
2011 - 2012: Rebel offensives against Assad forces
2012-2013: Assad govt' and Hezbollah offensives..poison gas attacks against civilians..Obama trying to draw lines in the sand against WMD (Sarin gas)
2014: Fighting between ISIS and other rebel groups..US watching from the sidelines

Sept 2014: US decides that ISIS/ISIL have gone too far, and this "scourge" has to be stopped...outlining a comprehensive bombing campaign of all known ISIL strongholds...

..saga continues...

Now what is different about this new style of warfare is that unlike Saddam's forces dug in in the middle of the Iraqi desert, these ISIL fighters are very smart, they will be using civilians as human shields since they really don't care what happens to the civilians..only their mission.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

ISIS can hide in the city.......but it doesn't accomplish much for them. It effectively means they cannot launch any offensives.

The US declares it's intentions to blow them up whenever the opportunity arises..........and waits and watches.

Pop their heads up.........and boom..........gone.

We will see how all these ISIS recruits from the western world.......used to malls and fast food places........like living in their new home.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The first thing Obama needs to do is to stop arming and creating them in Syria in the first place.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Arms, war = one big business for the US ... guess the $1T-and-climbing debt is not enough.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> Arms, war = one big business for the US ... guess the $1T-and-climbing debt is not enough.


I have these guys on my watch list:

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/rtn


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

That would never be on my list - but I still *own* RSI.TO ... why make war when you can enjoy these instead






:biggrin: Gotta to be around to enjoy the profits too.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> That would never be on my list - but I still *own* RSI.TO ... why make war when you can enjoy these instead
> View attachment 1793
> :biggrin: Gotta to be around to enjoy the profits too.


So......you support WMDs huh? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/nutrition-public-health_b_3340488.html murderer!:wink:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Sugar as a WMD and a murderer too, yippee ... so what difference does it make if a war breaks out first on US territory? :wink: 

By the way, I don't own KO or MCD stocks - these would be more like real WMDs ... and ethanol is a by-product of sugar, not lollipops which I can choose to consume or not to consume (depending on the flavour). :biggrin:

Yeah, the US can go and have another kick at the can - more like stirring up the hornests' nest. Can't wait to get :stung: again and again .. so the saga continues.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> .. so the saga continues.


'Twas ever thus and ever thus will be.....it is how we, ('humankind' collectively), operate and have always operated.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Could Obama be using the bombing of ISIS in Syria to get his true intentions through and that is a Nat Gas pipeline through Syria from Qatar.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...syria-will-lead-huge-escalation-middle-east-a


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Arms, war = one big business for the US ... guess *the $1T-and-climbing debt* is not enough.


1 trillion (1,000 Billion or 1,000 million million) was the US climbing debt long before these gulf wars...Beav.

It's approaching 18 TRILLION...but defence spending/wars are just a small part of it at 605.7 BILLION.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Now, IF we had 605 Billion to spend on war machines, ..imagine what kind of fancy weaponry we could buy to impress our NATO neighbours, lots of F35s, a few strategic stealth bombers, some missile carrying frigates and a badly needed aircraft carrier to carry...oh wait, we don't have any aircraft carrier retrofited planes for landing on them,
hmmm?...Mr. Harper..did you know that?:biggrin:

..and we have the submarines already...but somebody has to clean the spider's webs from them, and they
spring leaks if submerged...but at the same time, we did get them at bargain basement prices.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We are not so much better off than the Americans, although our politicians like to tell us we are.

We can't afford to spend too much more on the military, without raising more revenue.

Americans have significant ways to increase revenues, while Canada has pretty well tapped out the available tax revenue sources.

Here is a chart showing different country debt to GDP percentages. 

Our national debt has increased considerably under the Harper government.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> We are not so much better off than the Americans, although our politicians like to tell us we are.
> 
> We can't afford to spend too much more on the military, without raising more revenue.
> 
> ...


Ok..something "funny going on here"..why is that debt to GDP ratio climbing where we are just 10 percentage points to the US?
Are we in debt because of: Afghan war? Loss of manufacturing to the US and China? Fishing industry dried up? 
We are still exporting oil the last I heard, so why are we not rolling in dough like the Arabs that sell oil?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> 1 trillion (1,000 Billion or 1,000 million million) was the US climbing debt long before these gulf wars...Beav.
> 
> It's approaching 18 TRILLION...but defence spending/wars are just a small part of it at 605.7 BILLION.
> http://www.usdebtclock.org/
> ...


 ... so I'm behind the economic times ... besides, does a few more zeros matter if it can't be paid off anyways? :biggrin: 

No, we don't need $605B to spend on war machines - we got big brother Yankee to do all that spending. Besides, who are we fighting them machines with? Aren't the bargain basement subs enough for playing? :biggrin: 

I'm glad to be living in peace paradise in Canada.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> I'm glad to be living in peace paradise in Canada.


Me too. At least most of our tax money is spent on us...discounting what we spent on Afghanstan that is turning out to be
another pile of money wasted..after the US pulls out next year. 

We should be spending those tax dollars on ourselves, not on some foreign wars. Big brother will ensure we are not attacked
because they in turn would get attacked, especially up in Alaska..way up North..North to Alaska, where the river s windin',
big nuggets they're findin' They go north to Alaska, *North to Russia's own. *

Used to be a song way way back in the early 60s/..Johnny Horton sang it...of course you wouldn't remember it :biggrin:
Of course it was my misinterpretation listening to the song, the rush is on`` sounded a lot like `Russia`s own`..at least thats
what I think I heard on the radio....



> Where the river is windin'
> Big nuggets they're findin'
> North to Alaska
> They go north, the rush is on
> ...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just wait til our housing market collapses; RE accounts for nearly 1/3 of our GDP when you consider all associated industries (banking is mostly tied to real estate too). The housing bubble is a huge part of the Canadian economy.

If housing crashes, our debt to GDP will skyrocket and there's a chance some of that debt held at the CMHC (public balance sheet) could also go bad.

Not to mention that our banks will become insolvent and require bailouts by government, further indebting the country.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Just wait til our housing market collapses; RE accounts for nearly 1/3 of our GDP when you consider all associated industries (banking is mostly tied to real estate too). The housing bubble is a huge part of the Canadian economy.
> 
> If housing crashes, our debt to GDP will skyrocket and there's a chance some of that debt held at the CMHC (public balance sheet) could also go bad.
> 
> Not to mention that our banks will become insolvent and require bailouts by government, further indebting the country.


LOL! ..that is the sky is falling scenario...yes it is true the big banks in Canada prefer to have their money tied up in mortgages...after all..
that is the Canadian way to do things... but we are more cautious with our lending than the Americans. 

Canadians also realize that their house is the only real (estate) long term possession they may have and try to protect their investments. 
The monetary policy here in Canada is a lot different from the US, where you have the federally created and approved, Fannie Maes /Freddie Macs, lending out mortgages on margin..



> After finding out whether your mortgage is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, see if you may be eligible for a Home Affordable Refinance by clicking on the links below.


So lets see..you buy your house with no or little down payment, then any equity you may have, you can give it to "another shark'R"us" loan consolidator to suck up any possible equity you do manage to accumulate to pay off those credit cards or for the first payment on that new truck ....leaving you with zero equity and more bad loans...ah yes..it's the American Way. 

Federal agencies lending mortgages to those that really can't even afford a mortgage, and with practically no down payment to show affordability or money management.
In most cases these people just bought housing with deferred mortgage payments for 1 or even 2 years..so they lived like squatters... until the whole economy and their housing market collapsed.

That is not the way we do things here though...to buy some property, you definitely need a down payment and for those where the down payment isn't enough, to fill out an application for CMHC approved mortgage.

And the other difference is your primary residence is tax free when you sell..not so in the US where you can write off most (if not all) of your mortgage payments, but be liable for federal income tax on sale of your housing asset.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Real estate sales are slowing..........and that alone could be enough to cause distress in the economy.

Real estate and related activity permeates through the whole economy and supports a lot of jobs.

Everyone is waiting to see if higher interest rates will be the catalyst for a decline in prices. 

Maybe the "black swan" event will be that homes have become "unaffordable" for most people.

Something like 70% of Canadians already own homes. 

A sizeable portion of the remaining 30% pool of potential buyers....may not want, or be able to afford homes.

The banks have pretty much been reduced to raiding each other's customers.........have they not?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Real estate sales are slowing..........and that alone could be enough to cause distress in the economy.
> 
> Everyone is waiting to see if higher interest rates will be the catalyst for a decline in prices.
> 
> ...


Yes. I noticed that trend quite a bit this year. BMO just announced on TV that they are offering a 2.99% mortgage.
Of course, there are a lot of other mortgage companies offering even lower deals than that s low as 2.20 for a 5 year term.
http://www.ratehub.ca/best-mortgage-rates

so the major banks need a bit of 'catching up" to do, if they want any new business that is. 
http://www.ratehub.ca/banks/bank-mortgage-rates

What remains to be seen of course, is what happens over the next 10 years as the baby boomers head off into retirement, some heading off to LTCs or dying early, leaving a large portion of real estate that they have been living in for the last 20 or 30 years to be put on the market at current prices. At that point if there is an oversupply of
resales, the prices will drop between what the real estate is listed for... and what the new buyers will pay or
AFFORD TO PAY.

If there is a glut of some of the older properties (that need a lot more in repairs in some cases), and the prioes are not
adjusted to reflect the higher cost of repairs these days..(ie: roofs, furnaces, modernization of kitchens/bathrooms etc)
those properties will stay on the market for much longer period than newer homes that you can just move in and
pay the mortgage payments and not have to worry about repairs and maintenance. 

For example; who wants to pay upwards of $500K for an older 80->100 year old home in Toronto that needs a lot
of work, and is downtown, unless you work downtown and take the subway to work. Most of the younger
yuppies are heading off to the "burbs" or buying new maintenance free condos..nobody these days wants
to buy an older home and find out the horror stories of toilets that don't flush properly due to sewer rats/roots
in the sewer, lead water pipes to bring water into the house, knob and tube antiquated wiring and very poor
insulation throughout.

Coupled with the high cost of repairs to these older homes and inflated taxes based on
their inflated real estate prices..many prospective buyers are going to think twice about buying these older homes. 

This glut of boomer homes on the market will cause a downshift in real estate prices over all because like any market
it's based on SUPPLY AND DEMAND..and if the supply exceeds the demand..somethings gotta give.

Dan Arnold an "economic prognosticator-doomsday book writer" has been forcasting for a few years now since 2002, he's a bit like Wiarton Willie predicting the early arrival of spring in Canada (LOL!)
His book titled "THE BIG BUST AHEAD'... (ok now that is not a Jayne Mansfield type pitch here:biggrin:,but some "Chicken'
Little forcasting", that change is inevitable in any economy. Whethe the "Big One" that he is projecting will ever happen in
our times, is pure speculation..not even the financial experts out there can predict that..until it actually happens!



> Prices for commercial real-estate will plummet in this depression. Businesses should try to re-negotiate what will turn out to be very high priced real estate leases and only enter into new leases that have termination dates close to the onset of the depression.





> In a 2009 footnote to this 2002 book, author Daniel Arnold warns that the 2008 financial crisis was not the coming great depression he warned of but merely a warm-up for the Big One that lies ahead. The crux of the problem lies in the fact that the* growth of Western economies has been borne by the free-spending habits of the Baby Boomers—a population that is now entering retirement and dialing back its consumption levels*. What’s more, the Boomers are beginning to withdraw funds from the 401(k)s and IRAs that have pumped up the stock market since they began to replace defined pension plans in the mid-70s.





> So...as we enter the post-boomer Great Bust period, how do we find ourselves positioned to handle it ?
> The U.S. government has already been running up record debt, which is now over $17.3 trillion, larger than our entire economy. $6.6 trillion has been added to the debt in President Obama's five years in office alone. The Federal Reserve has been propping up the economy with trillions of dollars of Quantitative Easing (artificially increasing the monetary base). We have a mountain of unfunded entitlement promises (mostly SS and Medicare) that the government has to fulfill, and frankly, they have no idea how to address it. Shrinking economic growth (Great Bust) and massive entitlement increases (retired boomers) at the same time don't add up. We are heading for disaster. The federal government has not only abdicated responsibility on this issue, it is making things demonstrably worse, which I have referred to several times on this blog as Total Economic Fantasyland.
> *Maybe the Great Recession and the last five years are not a fiscal aberration in the economic cycle. Maybe it is simply an adjustment to the new normal, with things about to become far worse in the years ahead.*


----------

