First time visitor? Learn more.

Why A Safe Landing Is The Most Important Aspect Of Any Flight.

by Flyovercountry ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Bailouts, Economy at September 3rd, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Every time I fly with my good friend Dora, just as the plane begins its takeoff, she’ll lean over to me and inform me, one more time, that the takeoff is the most dangerous part of the flight. Then, just for good measure and my peace of mind, she’ll tell me, immediately upon the descent beginning, that landings are every bit as dangerous as the takeoff. My personal belief is that she enjoys seeing my knuckles resembling the same shade of white one sees in the proverbial Bing Crosby White Christmas. (I have to have my little laugh here, so please indulge me for just a second. It gives me great pleasure that the greatest selling Christmas Song in recording history, “White Christmas,” was written by a Jewish guy, Irving Berlin, and recorded by another Jewish guy, Bing Crosby. I now return you to your voluntary reading.)

You may ask yourselves why I would relate this fear I have of flying with Dora, not her real name by the way, and it is a good question. Tomorrow, our Federal Reserve Board will once again release the minutes to their monthly meeting, and will do so late in the day, so as to not affect Wednesday’s trading, like those reactions won’t happen on Thursday instead. There is some conjecture in the investing community as to whether or not Ben Bernanke will announce an end to the drunken revelry known as Quantitative Easing, otherwise known as a flat out robbery of the value of your savings by the Federal Reserve and the Obama Administration.

The last time, if your memory is capable of recalling the third week of June, that Chairman Bernanke hinted at ending this silliness, the capital markets saw a three day loss of 5% of the value in America’s equity holdings. On day number three of the sell off, Big Ben said, “just kidding,” and once again all was well with the Dow Jones Index, climbing once again to record highs. The more astute of you may have noticed some slight turbulence once again in this flight, and that turbulence is once again due to people trying to guess when this five year long drunk will be shut down. Even the most advanced airliner after all must one day land, thus ending its flight. Just like real air travel, a safe landing is more important to the passengers than how spectacularly smooth the flight felt.

Peter Schiff will explain it better than I ever could.

I don’t really care if the market sets record highs if the end result will be an unsafe landing at the end. Now that we’ve gotten ourselves on the Jetson’s famous malfunctioning dog walking treadmill, the question is, how do we stop this crazy thing. Bernanke knows, thanks to his test of our ability to pay attention in June, that once the stopper is placed back on Granny’s whiskey jug, investors will abandon the capital markets with the same artificially inflated vigor that they used to drive prices up to begin with. Bernanke does not want that to be his legacy, leaving with an even scarier crash that heralded the beginning of the Obamanomics economy based on misdirection and snake oil. So my guess is that the Fed Minutes will put the inevitable off until his term ends in December at least. Who ever replaces him though, that person will have some hard decisions to make, like when to deal with the massive hangover that follows any foolish excess in imbibing hard spirits.

Like all great parties in which we drink way more than we can handle, a price must eventually be paid. Hangovers will be felt, and someone will have to clean up the mess. Ben Bernanke has no clue as to how to alleviate the harsh landing that awaits us all, and the dirty little secret is that there is no way to accomplish this. Economic discomfort is as important a part of the price system, otherwise known as capitalism, as economic reward, perhaps more important. Discomfort tells us when we are making mistakes, producing more inefficiency than useful goods and services. The only result of government interference for the purpose of trying to alleviate that discomfort, ignoring important market signals or attempting to subvert them, has been to create much greater pain at a later date. Welcome to the granddaddy of all such market interventions, and the inevitable attempt to stave off that pain. The Keynesian Theory has been proven wrong in its practice each and every time its been applied, and this will be no different. Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama don’t really care though. They’ll be gone, and we’ll be the ones cleaning up the mess.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

86 Responses to “Why A Safe Landing Is The Most Important Aspect Of Any Flight.”
( jump to bottom )

  1. rain of lead
    1 | September 3, 2013 8:21 am

    Gravity is not your friend


  2. 2 | September 3, 2013 12:24 pm

    Ben Bernanke has no clue as to how to alleviate the harsh landing that awaits us all, and the dirty little secret is that there is no way to accomplish this. Economic discomfort is as important a part of the price system, otherwise known as capitalism, as economic reward, perhaps more important. Discomfort tells us when we are making mistakes, producing more inefficiency than useful goods and services

    This ties into my post on the previous thread. Nobody really has any clue about what to do now. If Bernanke even hints that he’ll stop the QE, the stock market, which is bubbled up immensely on the basis of QE Infinity, will crash. All that has been built up since 2008 is smoke and mirrors. There hasn’t been any net real growth to the economy. Yeah the rich are getting vastly richer under Obama, but that vast wealth hasn’t trickled down very far. We have millions of fewer people employed in the private sector than were in 2008. The decline has been broad, and it doesn’t look to be stopping anytime soon. Ultimately, though, other nations are going to refuse to lend us any more money at effectively 0% interest (it is a negligable interest rate, but that is all eaten up by inflation in the currency we are paying the intrest in). What happens then is anybody’s guess, but it isn’t likely to be pretty. There are lots of centrifugal forces at work in America today. We really are two distinct and antithetical cultures now. When the money runs out, FedZilla is going to demand bailouts on a scale that has never been seen. Where will that money come from? Oh, they can print money, but what will inflation be like, then?


  3. 3 | September 3, 2013 1:01 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Interests rates are going up because less people are buying our debt.


  4. eaglesoars
    4 | September 3, 2013 1:02 pm

    Did you know that the Federal Reserve is, in fact, NOT a federal agency at all?


  5. 5 | September 3, 2013 1:03 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yup, it’s a private conglomerate. It’s a banking Cartel in many ways.


  6. 6 | September 3, 2013 1:04 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    Yeah, I know. They will inevitably go higher. There is only so much people are going to be willing to lend us at effectively 0% interest. I went to a town hall with Corker about three years ago, and he said then that he thought it’d be about three years before the bond market really made a correction. He indicated that he thought that would be very swift when it happens. We’re buying $80 billion a month with money Bernanke prints. That’ll keep rates down for some time, but not forever. This house of cards has to fold at some point. And when it does we are all screwed.


  7. 7 | September 3, 2013 1:05 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Corker’s prediction may well be unfolding as we speak.


  8. 8 | September 3, 2013 1:08 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    No problem -- derivatives!


  9. 9 | September 3, 2013 1:10 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Even more dangerous.


  10. 10 | September 3, 2013 1:17 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Not quite true, Bernanke is appointed by a joint act of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our federal government. His decision making is subject to oversight by both bodies. It is a quasi governmental agency, as are all central banks.

    @ Iron Fist:

    And yet, equities are still the best place to house your investments now. Yes there will be an initial crash, but the bubble is reflective of an inflated economy, The relative spread between earnings and prices has not actually changed in any appreciable manner. After the initial drop in prices due to what will be an emotional reaction, prices will rebound to reflect a reversion to the mean, just like they always have, and always will. The mistake that most people make during these crises, which happen one year in five, (coincidentally, we have experienced five years since the last one,) is believing that equity investments do not represent tangible assets, which of course is fallacy. Put out of your mind the belief that this is some sort of casino, and realize that you are purchasing a part of a company that produces goods and services and sells them for a profit. Just as with anything else, those prices will be either too high for what you’re getting, or will be offered at a bargain. You don’t have to sell them, until you wish to, which means you can hold on, until a price you desire is offered.


  11. 11 | September 3, 2013 1:17 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Why do you wish to give me a Heart Attack so early in the afternoon?


  12. 12 | September 3, 2013 1:26 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Yeah derivatives is pure gambling.


  13. 13 | September 3, 2013 1:31 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    And dumb gambling at that, since the people you are betting against have the ability to manipulate the market.


  14. 14 | September 3, 2013 1:35 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    You don’t have to sell them, until you wish to, which means you can hold on, until a price you desire is offered.

    Unless the business goes out of business. Then you have nothing, really. If I had money to spend I’d buy some Smith and Wesson and some Colt stock. I may move some of my 401K into those two. Both are sound investments. Right now, though, I am doing something more important: I am paying off my personal debt. I have a plan that will get me out of all consumer debt except my house and car in roughly three years. I have lived debt-free before, but when I took the beating to get rid of the house, it really ate me up. I don’t see real estate as an investment any more. I always thought that with a nice little house I could always sell it, but it cost me about $60K to get rid of a house that I only paid $90 for. I took a real haircut. I tend to view all of this as speculation and gambling. Right now my 401K is in a S&P 500 Index fund. I won’t beat the market that way, but I also take less of a risk that the whole thing will come crashing down. Though that could happen too. What is going to be the test are when the big bankruptcies, like California and Illinois, hit.


  15. 15 | September 3, 2013 1:35 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Yup, it’s so dangerous People who play with it deserve what they get.


  16. 16 | September 3, 2013 1:55 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Your first sentence has opened up a host of issues that usually has me speaking for a couple of hours when pontificating in a seminar type of setting. If your equity holdings are mostly in companies that are going out of business, you have a whole host of worse issues to solve with your investing habits than our little conversation deals with, and this trite little concern called inflation is literally the least of your issues.


  17. 17 | September 3, 2013 2:10 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    When California goes bankrupt, a lot of wealth is going to go up in smoke. We’ve not seen anything like that since the 1930s (if even then), but it doesn’t take a genius to see where California is headed. The voters of the State put in a super-majority of Democrats just to make damned sure that they didn’t escape the inevitable crash. This isn’t science fiction. It is going to happen as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. You can’t simply borrow money forever, and you can’t print your way out of debt. Someone is going to have to pay for California’s extended binge. I think we’ll see something of how that will work out in Detroit. The public employee pensions are going to have to go. They were simply never affordable. They weren’t intended to be affordable. The government that put them into place wasn’t thinking about affordability, or long-term feasibility.


  18. rain of lead
    18 | September 3, 2013 2:15 pm

    rush is discussing this

    Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

    There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

    The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light

    Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

    More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

    “The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.

    The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.

    Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.

    And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?

    It is a colossal failure.

    And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?

    Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?


  19. rain of lead
    19 | September 3, 2013 2:20 pm

    poll on drudge about granting obombya war powers now has over 510,000
    votes

    still over 91% against


  20. 20 | September 3, 2013 2:25 pm

    @ rain of lead:

    This is Assad propaganda. There are valid reasons to be against intervening in Syria, but I refuse the join the rest of the Right in parroting Assad and Hezzie propaganda.

    If Rush wants to jump over the cliff with this, its on him. Me I oppose intervention in Syria based on the fact they are both evil.


  21. 21 | September 3, 2013 2:27 pm

    New Thread up at 4 PM. See ya all.


  22. 22 | September 3, 2013 2:28 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died.

    That doesn’t sound lik ebelievable numbers for Sarin. That shit is very lethal. They are saying that 3600 people were hit and only ten percent of them died? Seems pretty small, to me. I’d expect a lot more deaths. There’s a reason they call gas weapons “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Maybe it could have happened like that, but I don’t really believe that. The numbers sound mor elike what the opposition might throw together to bring Obama in. Limited use of weapons against a small population. I still don’t know that I believe only 10% of the people affected with the shit died.


  23. rain of lead
    23 | September 3, 2013 2:35 pm

    @ Goldwaterite:

    the rest of the right?
    wtf dude you’ve got bohner, cantor, McCain and graham just frothing
    at the mouth trying to drag us into this and the media wanting to find a way,any way to make their boyfriend look good.

    so f-ing what if’s assad propaganda, doesn’t mean there might not
    be kernals of truth there

    and just to be clear… I think we need to just sit back and let
    them kill each other

    not like this type of crap has never been done to drag the U.S.
    into someone else’s conflict


  24. 24 | September 3, 2013 2:36 pm

    This is exactly why I say that having “Republicans” like McCain and Graham is worse than having Democrats in their place:

    The White House faces a tough task in convincing a majority in the House and Senate to approve authorization for a military strike against Syria.

    The administration is pulling out all the stops to convince Congress, but Democrats and Republicans alike are seeking more answers from the White House on the U.S. mission in Syria.

    Some on the right and the left have already staked out firm opposition.

    The White House has found two key GOP allies: Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could also play a significant role in helping the White House round up votes on the left.

    How could replacing Graham with a Democrat be significantly worse? All Graqham and McCain manage to do is convince the low info voters that this is a “bipartisan” effort.


  25. rain of lead
    25 | September 3, 2013 2:37 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    sounds like a set up right


  26. RIX
    26 | September 3, 2013 2:39 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    Obama drew his “Red Line” based on movement or usage of letah gas.
    Asaad knew it & the Rebels knew it. Who had the motivation?
    I don’t know what happened, but I would not rule out the rebels.


  27. RIX
    27 | September 3, 2013 2:47 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    sounds like a set up right

    Assad is winning. Why would he want to suck the U.S in and end up like Sadam?


  28. 28 | September 3, 2013 2:47 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    not like this type of crap has never been done to drag the U.S.
    into someone else’s conflict

    Tonkin Gulf with nerve gas, is what I am thinking. Obama wants a foreign war to distract from his domestic scandals. Some Republicans do appear to like war for its own sake. There is nothing for the United States to fight for here. Neither side is the “Good Guys”. No matter whom we assist or don’t assist it remains the fact that both the Assad Government and all of the various factions fighting against him are enemies of the United States. Obama intends to send us in with Republican backing, and then if we are hit with poison gas? If Obama really wants this, he should explicitly go back to the policy where a gas is a germ is a nuke. Tim efor Obama to pull his big-boy pants on and really stand up, if he’s going to do it. Not give some speil over the finer points international “law”, and, worse than going in lets us get hurt bad and pulls out in disgrace. That is what is going to happen if Obama leads us into a war in Syria. It’ll be a war Obama chose, and one that he Should bear the responsibility of. But I expect that the press is already waiting to blame the coming debacle on the Republicans.


  29. rain of lead
    29 | September 3, 2013 2:53 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    did you see where McCain said he can’t support limited missle strikes
    he wants a full fledged war war warwarwarwar!!!


  30. 30 | September 3, 2013 2:55 pm

    @ RIX:

    Yeah, Assad had no real reason to use the gas. He may have thought Obama was bluffing, but why would he call that bluff? Using gas, he knew, would be seen as an “escalation” on his part. He hit 3500 people with this, and only killed ten percent of them? That just doesn’t sound realistic to me. If the shit is in high enough a concentration to actually detect, it is probably high enough to kill half of the people affected with it. I don’t remebre the LD50 for Sarin, but it is tiny. Sarin! Isn’t the World Wide Web useful?

    AIRBORNE EXPOSURE LIMIT (AEL): The permissible airborne exposure concentration for GB for an 6 hour workday or a 40 hour work week is an 8 hour time weight average (TWA) of 0.0001 mg/m3. This value is based on the TWA or GB which can be found in “AR 40-8, Occupational Health Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Occupational Exposure to Nerve Agents GA, GB, GD, and VX.” To date, however, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has not promulgated a permissible exposure concentration for GB.

    It is colorless and odorless. Silent and very deadly. If you had 3500 people exposed enough to require medical attention, more of them should have died. I doubt seriously that Doctors Without Borders would have had the required amoung of atropine on hand to handle that many victims. I am certainly no expert on this, but I am suspicious.


  31. heysoos
    31 | September 3, 2013 2:55 pm

    I don’t believe anything the feds say…why would I?…
    anybody that does is a fool


  32. 32 | September 3, 2013 2:58 pm

    @ rain of lead:

    Yeah, I saw that. Really, having a Democrat in McCain’s seat would not be as bad as McCain. McCain, because of his seniority, gives a certain weight to the arguement when he makes it. To us, that is an automatic turn-off. I’ve never had any illusions about McCain and only voted for him as a “least Worst” secenario. And, too, picking Sarah Palin gave me the hope that he would die in office. She was so much more qualified than any of the others running in the general election, yet she was the “dumb” one.


  33. RIX
    33 | September 3, 2013 3:03 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    If Assad actually did it, then he is out of his mind.
    I don’t know who did it, but the Rebels had motive.
    We don’t have a dog in this fight, but a Rebel victory would be worse for us.


  34. lobo91
    34 | September 3, 2013 3:04 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They are saying that 3600 people were hit and only ten percent of them died?

    No, they’re saying that 3600 people were brought to them for treatment (presumably still alive when brought there) and that 355 of those 3600 later died.

    People who receive a lethal dose of Sarin will die within about 8 minutes without treatment, which means that most of them would have been long dead before they ever reached a hospital.

    Another thing to remember about the Middle East is that things don’t work the way they do here. When someone dies, they don’t necessarily call 911 and have the body picked up and taken to the coroner’s office. They generally just take them to the local mosque and bury them.


  35. heysoos
    35 | September 3, 2013 3:07 pm

    McCain and Graham are not the problem, they are the result or symptom of politicking for personal gain rather than serving for the good of the nation….it’s all a grand game and when they are gone, little will change…the feds are dysfunctional from top to bottom, they are just a couple of players


  36. 36 | September 3, 2013 3:11 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Which, I guess, makes me ask how many were really affected? Are there mass graves, then, in Syria that could be shown where Assad got rid of the corpses? I’d think that there would be mountains of them, depending on the population where he hit. It was in a suburb of Damascus, wasn’t it? That would seem to be population-dense, but I don’t really know the area. There are a lot of unknowns here, and really no one without an agenda to sell to get the details from. It is in the interest of the “rebels” to maximize this, and the Assad regieme to down-play it, and I surely don’t expect the truth to ever pass Obamas lips. It still leaves us on the cusp of war under a President who (charitably) lacks the stature of a war-time President. A man of questionale loyalties and questionable character. I wouldn’t by a used car from Obama. I am going to need a lot more than his word before I am comfortable with him leading us into war. Like I said, if I were in congress, I’d dig out Obama’s anti-war speeches when he was a Senator and say them word for word back to him. That would be interesting.


  37. RIX
    37 | September 3, 2013 3:15 pm

    Andrea Mitchell ✔ @mitchellreports

    .@NancyPelosi says 5 yr old grandson told her “no war”w/ Syria -- she said children were killed -- he asked “were they in the unitedstates?”
    10:36 AM -- 3 Sep 2013

    ht Twitchy
    Pelosi was trying to make the case that those who oppose Obama on Syria have the cognitive skills of a five year old.
    Instead I think that she proves that the five year old has superior critical thinking than she does.


  38. lobo91
    38 | September 3, 2013 3:17 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Which, I guess, makes me ask how many were really affected?

    That’s always the question in that part of the world. Remember when people on the far left were coming up with all sorts of ridiculous claims of Iraqi casualties? They were based on surveys asking people if they knew anyone who had been killed. No names (not that they would have helped much with half the people named Mohammed), no ID numbers, no real evidence at all.

    The reality is, they don’t know how many people they have in the first place.


  39. lobo91
    39 | September 3, 2013 3:18 pm

    @ RIX:

    Pelosi was trying to make the case that those who oppose Obama on Syria have the cognitive skills of a five year old.
    Instead I think that she proves that the five year old has superior critical thinking than she does.

    I agree. The kid asks better questions than she does.


  40. RIX
    40 | September 3, 2013 3:20 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Pelosi was trying to make the case that those who oppose Obama on Syria have the cognitive skills of a five year old.
    Instead I think that she proves that the five year old has superior critical thinking than she does.

    I agree. The kid asks better questions than she does.

    She actually made a point that she was not trying to.


  41. lobo91
    41 | September 3, 2013 3:24 pm

    @ RIX:

    She’s not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.


  42. 42 | September 3, 2013 3:39 pm

    @ lobo91:

    What you are essentially saying is that the number is unknown and, really, unknowable. There could be windrows of dead in buildings in Damascus, but there equally could not be. One thing is clear: I don not trust the Obama Administration to tell us the truth. I just read Taranto’s summary of it, and it is pretty good. I disagree with his conclusions, though. He reluctantly supports the war, for reasons that are well thought out. I disagree, because I think the costs of Losing a war in Syria are to great, and I have absolutely no faith in Obama to do anything but get nerve gas used on our troops. Obama doesn’t have it in him to nuke Syria in the event Assad used nerve gas against us, and has explicitly disavowed the old US doctrine that WMD were basically interchangable. If Assad had to fear W-88s aimed at his primary residence, I doubt seriously that he’d use gas against us, but since Obama has already taken that off the table, why not use gas against us? After all, Assad doesn’t have a comfortable retirement planned out in Paraguy. If he loses, he will almost undoubtably be executed, just as Saddam Hussein and Kadaffy were executed. I think the risk of going in is simply too great unless Obama is willing to make it plain that he can and will not permit America to lose. There is absloutely nothing that Obama has done to give me any confidence in him. I wish they could call a no-confidence vote on Obama right now. We’d see what the country wants, maybe.


  43. Lily
    43 | September 3, 2013 3:39 pm

    rain of lead wrote:

    Gravity is not your friend

    I have noticed that. I also try to avoid the mirror! Hey {rain}! And hugs to {momcat} and the {girl}!


  44. Lily
    44 | September 3, 2013 3:42 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ Mike C.:

    Why do you wish to give me a Heart Attack so early in the afternoon?

    Thanks for the warning there!!! I already have heart problems.


  45. lobo91
    45 | September 3, 2013 3:42 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    There is absloutely nothing that Obama has done to give me any confidence in him. I wish they could call a no-confidence vote on Obama right now. We’d see what the country wants, maybe.

    What the people want is utterly irrelevant to Obama. These hearings are even more of a sham than they usually are. Whether Congress approves this or not, he’s already said that he’s going to launch his little attack.


  46. RIX
    46 | September 3, 2013 3:44 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    She’s not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    She is almost a parody of herself. She is like an SNL skit.


  47. lobo91
    47 | September 3, 2013 3:45 pm

    @ RIX:

    And now Boxer’s talking. The collective IQ of the room just dropped 20 points.


  48. Lily
    48 | September 3, 2013 3:47 pm

    @ RIX:

    Hey {Rix} and {lobo} and {IF}! I haven’t been on the blog lately trying to ignore some of this stuff I can’t do anything about it…but Obama really wants to get involved with Syria.


  49. 49 | September 3, 2013 3:48 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    he’s already said that he’s going to launch his little attack.

    Yeah, I agree, and based on that I’d vote no on any resolution. Obama’s war on Libya was an Illegal war, really, but the Republicans were divided on the issue, and so nothing was done about it. I don’t really know what the House of Representatives can do other than give him a downcheck. They aren’t going to impeach him over it when he tells them to Pound Sand.


  50. lobo91
    50 | September 3, 2013 3:50 pm

    @ Lily:

    These hearings are nothing but show. Whatever the outcome, Obama’s going to attack Syria.


  51. Lily
    51 | September 3, 2013 3:51 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    If Assad actually did it, then he is out of his mind.
    I don’t know who did it, but the Rebels had motive.
    We don’t have a dog in this fight, but a Rebel victory would be worse for us.

    Exactly! Hasn’t Russia especially Putin been trying to keep Obama out of Syria?


  52. lobo91
    52 | September 3, 2013 3:51 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Hell. Pelosi and King have both said that they think Obama should ignore Congress on this matter if he doesn’t get his way.


  53. 53 | September 3, 2013 3:52 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Obama really wants to get involved with Syria.

    Obama wants to distract from his domestic scandals. That’s all this is really about. And in that, his strategy has been a success. What have you heard lately on the IRS and Benghazi? Our ADD nation can’t focus on two things at the same time. Even if Obama gets slapped down in the Congress, it has changed the nature of the debate. The Republicans don’t have sense enough to strangle Obama with this. Like I’ve said, if I were in the House or Senate, I’d do a little research, and then give word for word what Obama said during the push for the Surge in Iraq back to him.


  54. Lily
    54 | September 3, 2013 3:55 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    And now Boxer’s talking. The collective IQ of the room just dropped 20 points.

    Dear heavens!!! It is now below 100!!!


  55. 55 | September 3, 2013 3:55 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Yeah, I think under the Obama Administration we have seen the concept of competing interests and separation of powers pretty much collapse. Obama is Imperial in a way that would have made Nixon blush. Obama has never passed a budget, and Congress just keeps voting the continuing resolution through, so the budget (such as we have) stays the same as it was when Obama did his trillion dollar “Stimulous”. I don’t have any real hope left for our nation. Obama won’t be the last President of the United States, but I think he is already measuring the casket they’ll put the Republic in when he’s done.


  56. heysoos
    57 | September 3, 2013 3:56 pm

    bunch of AmIdol drama…Elvis left the house and any reasonable options followed him out…it’s less important who’s gassing who than containing it inside Syria…bombing alot of sand won’t make any difference…degrading Assads capabilities to wage war won’t make any difference…the politicians are playing the grand game…they look like fools…if you want to punish Assad, bomb his house and kill his family…it’s too late to stop gas attacks


  57. Lily
    58 | September 3, 2013 3:57 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:

    These hearings are nothing but show. Whatever the outcome, Obama’s going to attack Syria.

    Yep and the media is helping him! All you have to do is glance at it and know we are going to strike Syria!


  58. lobo91
    59 | September 3, 2013 3:58 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Yeah, I think under the Obama Administration we have seen the concept of competing interests and separation of powers pretty much collapse.

    When have you ever seen one branch of government just gleefully give up its power? This is insane.


  59. Lily
    60 | September 3, 2013 4:00 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Bingo IF! I haven’t heard anything about those scandals…but I know about them …the Obamacare will probably be heard of haven’t the Unions dropped out? They took a closer look and didn’t like it?


  60. darkwords
    61 | September 3, 2013 4:05 pm

    If the Russians float a couple of ships up to Syria Obama will collapse. Or put us into a big time shooting war.


  61. Lily
    62 | September 3, 2013 4:06 pm

    What about the Congo? They are beating the war drums about Syria but in the Congo nearly 3 million dead! Yet the media says nothing about that. It’s really a mad world out there!


  62. Lily
    63 | September 3, 2013 4:08 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    If the Russians float a couple of ships up to Syria Obama will collapse. Or put us into a big time shooting war.

    I have heart problems and back problems and bone problems and you leave me with this…..but everything is fine with me and the world. ;)

    It’s crazy out there!!!!


  63. 64 | September 3, 2013 4:19 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Yes, the House and Senate are trying to abdicate from the Power to Declare War. Can you iagine if Bush had done the same? Even with the same antagonists? Obama himself would have led the charge to impeach Bush. And, indeed, he might have been removed from office had he done such a thing. Obama is under no such check on his power. He increasingly feels that he can treat the whole Legislative branch as a kick -toy. Like I said, no budget for five years and counting. Where then lies the power of the purse?


  64. Guggi
    65 | September 3, 2013 4:36 pm

    Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds

    Americans widely oppose launching missile strikes against the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that finds little appetite for military action across the country despite a growing drumbeat in Washington.

    Nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes in light of the U.S. government’s determination that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people. Democrats and Republicans alike oppose strikes by double digit margins, and there is deep opposition among every political and demographic group in the survey. Political independents are among the most clearly opposed, with 66 percent saying they are against military action.

    (WaPo)


  65. heysoos
    67 | September 3, 2013 5:08 pm

    catastrophic!
    dangerous consequence!
    our national security at stake!
    no word yet on how this can be, just a bunch of dramatic bluster


  66. heysoos
    68 | September 3, 2013 5:10 pm

    Kerry is mewing that Syria might IMPLODE!
    which is exactly the reason to not strike or arm the rebels…
    he has it exactly backwards


  67. RIX
    69 | September 3, 2013 5:25 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    And now Boxer’s talking. The collective IQ of the room just dropped 20 points.

    Throw Sheila Jackson Lee in there & Median IQ is close to negative.


  68. RIX
    70 | September 3, 2013 5:32 pm

    @ Lily:
    Obama played tough guy & drew a red line. Now his self image as a tough guy is at stake.
    I believe that if he had proof positive that the Rebels did it, he would suppress the info.
    McCain is actually a disgrace giving Obama bi-partisan cover.


  69. 71 | September 3, 2013 5:37 pm

    We[[, Lily, I’ve caught with you on one thing -- I’ve got a broken foot as well.


  70. lobo91
    72 | September 3, 2013 5:52 pm

    Kerry now claims to know what Assad will do if we don’t attack. He says that is “absolutely certain” that he’ll use chemical weapons to kill more of his people.

    Did Assad send him a memo or something?


  71. 73 | September 3, 2013 6:02 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Kerry’s a psychic now. Honestly, though, what will happen if we go in with troops is that Assad will probably use his nerve gas against us. From his standpoint, why wouldn’t he use it? Obama has already taken nukes off the table. Do we even have nerve gas in storage that we could use in retaliation? That is really an academic question, because there is no way Obama would OK the use of our poison gas, if we have any. So if Assad is risking being deposed, he likely will use his poison gas. Obama doesn’t give him any real reason not to.


  72. lobo91
    74 | September 3, 2013 6:16 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Do we even have nerve gas in storage that we could use in retaliation?

    Nope. We’ve been working to destroy our chemical weapons stockpiles for about 20 years now, and we’re about 90% finished. We still have some mustard gas stored east of Pueblo, CO, though. It’s still there because the enviro-nuts are keeping us from destroying it.

    We haven’t had any usable chemical weapons in a long time. Most of what we had was produced in the ’50s and ’60s, and it had become dangerously unstable by the time we started destroying it. It’s all highly corrosive, and tends to eat through the containers from the inside.


  73. 75 | September 3, 2013 6:32 pm

    @ lobo91:

    That wasw pretty much what I though. When we started doing away with it the American doctrine that WMD were WMD. A gas is a germ is a nuke. We always reserved the right to break out the nukes after a chemical attack on us. With all unconvential weapons blocked by the Administration, that would leave fighting it out in a chemical environment the only practical answer. Personally, though, I would be very skeptical that Obama would fight it out in a chemical environment. I think he’d do what Reagan did when that Marine barracks was bombed. Disengage and run. I don’t necessarily think that is the Plan. I don’t think they have a plan for what to do if Syria gasses our troops. If I were Bashar aAssad, I’d be weighing that option heavily. If that happens, it’ll make Blackhawk Down look like a nursery school field trip.


  74. lobo91
    76 | September 3, 2013 6:38 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    That wasw pretty much what I though. When we started doing away with it the American doctrine that WMD were WMD. A gas is a germ is a nuke. We always reserved the right to break out the nukes after a chemical attack on us.

    Nixon implemented that doctrine.


  75. lobo91
    77 | September 3, 2013 6:40 pm

    McCain playing poker on his iPhone

    As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”


  76. 78 | September 3, 2013 6:47 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It seems to me to be a prudent rule. I remember talk in the ’80s of what would happen if the Soviets gifted some terrorist group with chemical weapons, and they were used on us. We considered using a nuke to be replying in kind. Such a threat has real deterrant value. Even if your opponent thinks you are bluffing, copnsequences are so catastrophic that you can’t afford to take the risk. When Obama removed that from the table, he took our nuclear deterrent off the table, really. We can’t respond in kind.

    They way he is acting, I almost wonder if Obama’s trying to get Assad to gas us.


  77. heysoos
    79 | September 3, 2013 6:49 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    a lot of speculation there…if US troops are in Syria fighting to depose Assad, any gas attack would be a tactically futile parting shot and probably just kill more civvies than US troops…if it comes to that I expect the Syrian military to evaporate…but none of that is gonna happen…Putin is the key to this whole stupid mess and cutting him out is the biggest mistake by far…our people are irrational, by the time there are ‘boots on the ground’, the gas will either be long gone or destroyed…Assad is not going to duke it out with the US unless Putin gets into the fray, and even Putin doesn’t want that…he wants a port, not his ego stroked


  78. lobo91
    80 | September 3, 2013 7:01 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Soviet military doctrine never made any distinctions between tactical nukes, chemical weapons, and conventional forces. They said that they wouldn’t use biological weapons, but at the same time, they maintained the world’s largest facilities for their production.

    We always had every expectation that a war with the Soviets would involve nuclear and chemical weapons. They always figured that there wasn’t much point in producing weapons you weren’t willing to use.


  79. 81 | September 3, 2013 7:02 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Oh, I don’t know that we are going to get boots on the ground, ever, but we won’t affect regieme change without it. Also, Assad might be willing to work with his terrorist allies to send a boatload of it to America, and use it in one of our cities. He hasn’t done that so far, but I would expect him to get really nasty when it is time for him to go.

    Assad is not going to duke it out with the US unless Putin gets into the fray,

    Why wouldn’t Assad fight it out? If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught our enemies that as long as they are willing to fight, we can ultimately be beaten.


  80. lobo91
    82 | September 3, 2013 7:10 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Why wouldn’t Assad fight it out? If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught our enemies that as long as they are willing to fight, we can ultimately be beaten.

    Hell, Vietnam taught them that.


  81. 83 | September 3, 2013 7:12 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    They always figured that there wasn’t much point in producing weapons you weren’t willing to use.

    That is true. You have to be willing to use them, or, at the very least your enemies have to believe you would use them. With Obama, I honestly don’t think he’d use nuclear forces to retaliate against any Islamic nation. Not even if Iran were to nuke us. Mutually Assured Destruction only works when both parties believe that their opponent will use the weapons if called upon to do so. Back before the Iraq war I was debating with a peacenik on another site who was adamant that we’d be able to Deter Saddam Hussein because we deterred the Soviets. I pointed out the problem with his logic is that Saddam Hussein was going to believe we’d nuke him after having drawn so many lines in the sand only to see Hussein step over them like they weren’t there. That is the biggest (probably only) reason to go to war with Syria now. Giving Assad a “Red Line” was foolish if you didn’t alrady have the plans drawn up and ready to rock’n roll before you draw your line in the sand. It is clear that Obama hasn’t got any plans. He simply assumed that he was such a bad ass that Assad would allow his kingdom to fall before he crossed him.


  82. lobo91
    84 | September 3, 2013 7:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Back before the Iraq war I was debating with a peacenik on another site who was adamant that we’d be able to Deter Saddam Hussein because we deterred the Soviets.

    I’m sure that person believes the same thing about Iran today.

    These people always forget that a large part of the Iranian leadership actually believes that a cataclysmic war with the west would be a good thing, or they think it’s just bluster.

    Being able to say “I told you so” after the shit hits the fan isn’t going to be much comfort.


  83. 85 | September 3, 2013 7:25 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Being able to say “I told you so” after the shit hits the fan isn’t going to be much comfort.

    Nope, this would be one thing that I would rather be wrong on. People that fondly remember MAD don’t really remember what MAD was. We aimed gigatons of nuclear fire at each others’ major population centers holding them hostage against the good behavior of the other. It’d be like two drunks in a bar with shotguns pointed at each others’ kids and calling it deterrance.


  84. heysoos
    86 | September 3, 2013 7:43 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    because he would lose…big


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David