The "Occupy Wall St" Protest

We may not have a choice Sam. The last time we embargoed a country and asked the rest of the world to join in was in 1939.

If you corner an animal, expect to be attacked.

jpete wrote:We may not have a choice Sam. The last time we embargoed a country and asked the rest of the world to join in was in 1939.

If you corner an animal, expect to be attacked.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the Occupy Wall Street protest, but:

This is exactly why we were attacked by Japan. We had rather effectively cut off (embargoed) literally all of their oil supplies by August 1st of 1941, and since Japan doesn't have any oil of it's own, this meant an inevitable rapid economic decline and eventual mass nationwide starvation. They had to act to secure oil for themselves.

In a corner or not I think their knowing that there are very few if any others that would join them they won't do much more than make noise. The problem is who would go to war with them, we can't afford it unless maybe they give up some political salary & cut their Benni's, maybe even have the upper income people (who make money off of wars) go & fight them.
It indirectly has to do with Wall St. because they are the ones that run things.

lsayre wrote:

jpete wrote:We may not have a choice Sam. The last time we embargoed a country and asked the rest of the world to join in was in 1939.

If you corner an animal, expect to be attacked.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the Occupy Wall Street protest, but:

This is exactly why we were attacked by Japan. We had rather effectively cut off (embargoed) literally all of their oil supplies by August 1st of 1941, and since Japan doesn't have any oil of it's own, this meant an inevitable rapid economic decline and eventual mass nationwide starvation. They had to act to secure oil for themselves.

War is the health of the state right?

Beware the military-industrial complex and all that. Also the theory that WWII "pulled us out of the Great Depression" and that we are "experiencing the worst downturn since the Great Depression."

Add in the fact that we don't typically switch presidents during wartime and it doesn't take Steven Hawking to do that math.

lsayre wrote:

jpete wrote:We may not have a choice Sam. The last time we embargoed a country and asked the rest of the world to join in was in 1939.

If you corner an animal, expect to be attacked.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the Occupy Wall Street protest, but:

This is exactly why we were attacked by Japan. We had rather effectively cut off (embargoed) literally all of their oil supplies by August 1st of 1941, and since Japan doesn't have any oil of it's own, this meant an inevitable rapid economic decline and eventual mass nationwide starvation. They had to act to secure oil for themselves.

Well, that and the fact that they had invaded China, who was an ally.

And Japan was our customer from 1931~ when Japan invaded China until 1939 when the new POTUS decided he was going to embargo them.

But the Roosevelts have a long history of starting wars for their own purpose.

FDR = WWII

TR = Spanish-American War.

jpete wrote:And Japan was our customer from 1931~ when Japan invaded China until 1939 when the new POTUS decided he was going to embargo them.

But the Roosevelts have a long history of starting wars for their own purpose.

FDR = WWII

TR = Spanish-American War.

C'mon I thought you were well informed on history. TR had no power to start that war.

What led to the attack on Pearl Harbor was a mis-translation of US demands which was mistakenly thought to insist on the evacuation of Manchuria. I am no fan of FDR but that was not his fault.

franco b wrote:

jpete wrote:And Japan was our customer from 1931~ when Japan invaded China until 1939 when the new POTUS decided he was going to embargo them.

But the Roosevelts have a long history of starting wars for their own purpose.

FDR = WWII

TR = Spanish-American War.

C'mon I thought you were well informed on history. TR had no power to start that war.

What led to the attack on Pearl Harbor was a mis-translation of US demands which was mistakenly thought to insist on the evacuation of Manchuria. I am no fan of FDR but that was not his fault.

http://www.spanamwar.com/tr2.htm

Long apparently knew Roosevelt well, but not well enough. When Long was absent Roosevelt sprang into action moving ammunition, coal, ordering the repair of various ships, and readying of them for action, moving to have Congress allow for enlisting unlimited men, and for the purchasing of auxiliary cruisers, etc. Significantly, Roosevelt cabled Dewey to be ready if war were to break out, and gave him his objectives. Long was shocked and angered, however, he did nothing to rescind any of Roosevelt's orders, but he did resolve never to leave the ambitious, young, "bull in a china shop" in charge again.

He did this as the Ass't Sec'y of the Navy!

When the war started, Teddy resigned, and joined the "Rough Riders" which cemented his image in the public's eyes and was subsequently elected POTUS.

As far as FDR goes, he didn't have to blockade Japan. What happens if you cut off the fuel to a country with no capacity to make it's own? Desperation sets in and if the Japanese were to ever cement their foothold on China, they knew they had to disable the Pacific Fleet. They did exactly what you would expect. I know the US expects the rest of the world to bow, heel, and kneel, but that's not how it works.

jpete wrote:He did this as the Ass't Sec'y of the Navy!

When the war started, Teddy resigned, and joined the "Rough Riders" which cemented his image in the public's eyes and was subsequently elected POTUS.

As far as FDR goes, he didn't have to blockade Japan. What happens if you cut off the fuel to a country with no capacity to make it's own? Desperation sets in and if the Japanese were to ever cement their foothold on China, they knew they had to disable the Pacific Fleet. They did exactly what you would expect. I know the US expects the rest of the world to bow, heel, and kneel, but that's not how it works.

He did not join the Rough Riders, he organized them. He was not elected President initially but Vice President, he became Pres. when McKinley was shot.

The US was ready to lift the sanctions if the US demands were met but the Japanese mistakenly thought they would have to give up Manchuria which they would not do, so they determined on war. Oil was available in the same place they got it during the war, Indonesia.

What do you do if you can't run on your record -- on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America's dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn't work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama's base lusts for above all.

Hence Obama's new strategy: Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich -- and their Republican protectors -- for wrecking America.

In Obama's telling, it's the refusal of the rich to "pay their fair share" that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous. Obama's most coveted tax hike -- an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) -- would have reduced last year's deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day's federal spending. You could collect Obama's favorite tax loophole -- depreciation for corporate jets -- for 100 years and it wouldn't cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obama's self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora's box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation's leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China's currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war -- a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees -- except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It's perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank -- after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi's-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching -- to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program -- less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What's the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven't gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles -- and its failures -- on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it's working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.

Sorry double post. I see jpete is anti American as ever.

I think Ann Coulter figured out who is occupying Wall Street.

So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."

Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-10-12.html

Dann757 wrote::) Sorry double post. I see jpete is anti American as ever.

Yeah. Because I don't advocate a policy that is guaranteed to kill millions of Americans. I'm an a$$hole like that.

A little debunking of Coulter's perspective.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

The Tea Party was a revolt against BIG GOVERNMENT which enabled and supported monopoly.

The OWSers represent and support BIG GOVERNMENT in its desire to dominate market segments with government supported monopoly and legislative collusion. Think single-payer health care, union control, heavy regulation. They can despise big corporations all they want, but most of them have considerable competition.

Where the OWSers may be correct is in wanting to break the trust of BIG BANKS and the full support and complicity of BIG GOVERNMENT in their monopolistic control of the currency. Without each other, BIG GOVERNMENT deficit spending and Bankster profiteering isn't possible.

But, what the OWSers don't understand is that powerful people throughout history have risen to the top and dominated economic resources. When they fail, someone else takes their place. This occurs under all regimes of all types. People are motivated by greed and that will never change.

The OWSers are merely whining and envious malcontents whose lack of cognitive clarity has put them in their respective economic positions in life.

Anne Coulter is right about them. The OWSers are more like the rebels at Shay's Rebellion than at the Boston Tea Party, that is, more rabble than patriot.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.