Financial Crisis

[midas]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo

More leaked documents.

Green light for conspiracy theorists.

Red light for Klingons.

and one more - Back in 2012, the major US banks settled a federal mortgage-fraud lawsuit for $95,000,000. The suit was filed by Lynn Szymoniak, a white-collar fraud specialist, whose own house had been fraudulently foreclosed-upon. When the feds settled with the banks, the evidence detailing the scope of their fraud was sealed, but as of last week, those docs are unsealed, and Szymoniak is shouting them from the hills. The banks precipitated the subprime crash by "securitizing" mortgages -- turning mortgages into bonds that could be sold to people looking for investment income -- and the securitization process involved transferring title for homes several times over. This title-transfer has a formal legal procedure, and in the absence of that procedure, no sale had taken place. See where this is going? link here http://boingboing.net/2013/08/12/unsealed-court-settlement-docu.html

Do you know how these documents were unsealed so quickly? I thought when they were part of a legal settlement they remained sealed for decades, if not permanently?

[chiang mai]

I hope they don't help the lunatics in to power.

---

Most likely i think the gas attack was the work of anti Assad forces

I do not dismiss the possibility that the attack was undertaken by anti-Assad forces but I'm pretty certain the international community has the ability to figure that one out and come up with the right answer - I believe that's what's happening presently. So regardless of which group is repsonsible, the international community must take action to prevent it from happening again and if that means using any one of a range of military options against the current governement as a result, so be it. The option of sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option, regardless of who the guilty party is.

[Naam]

I hope they don't help the lunatics in to power.

---

Most likely i think the gas attack was the work of anti Assad forces

I do not dismiss the possibility that the attack was undertaken by anti-Assad forces but I'm pretty certain the international community has the ability to figure that one out and come up with the right answer - I believe that's what's happening presently. So regardless of which group is repsonsible, the international community must take action to prevent it from happening again and if that means using any one of a range of military options against the current governement as a result, so be it. The option of sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option, regardless of who the guilty party is.

we all know what shit the "international community" has produced in the past and is still producing by clowns who are blatant liars, countries invaded, hundreds of billions taxpayers' money wasted, terrorists, dictators and murderers supported as long as it deemed opportune, "unwilling" governments sanctioned, etc.

using gas to kill or maim human beings is a terrible thing. but is using cluster or "smart" bombs, hellfire rockets, grenades, depleted uranium ammunition and landmines to kill and maim people humane?

[chiang mai]

I hope they don't help the lunatics in to power.

---

Most likely i think the gas attack was the work of anti Assad forces

I do not dismiss the possibility that the attack was undertaken by anti-Assad forces but I'm pretty certain the international community has the ability to figure that one out and come up with the right answer - I believe that's what's happening presently. So regardless of which group is repsonsible, the international community must take action to prevent it from happening again and if that means using any one of a range of military options against the current governement as a result, so be it. The option of sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option, regardless of who the guilty party is.

we all know what shit the "international community" has produced in the past and is still producing by clowns who are blatant liars, countries invaded, hundreds of billions taxpayers' money wasted, terrorists, dictators and murderers supported as long as it deemed opportune, "unwilling" governments sanctioned, etc.

using gas to kill or maim human beings is a terrible thing. but is using cluster or "smart" bombs, hellfire rockets, grenades, depleted uranium ammunition and landmines to kill and maim people humane?

It is not so much the weapons involved as it is the the large numbers of innocent civilian deaths in one attack, the munitions you describe are typically used in combat which pits one militarised unit against another, not a militiarised unit against the civilian population, when it crosses that line it's a step too far.

[poanoi]

The very nature of civil wars, guerrilla warfare and asymmetric warfare is

that combatants are among civilian population / human shields, and even fighting in civilian clothes.

[cheeryble]

frankly, a chemical weapons attack on a civillian community that caused over 1,600 deaths cannot and should not go unchecked. As for democratic values, where were the democratic values of the 1,600.

Hopefully you were calling for an attack on Israel when their forces killed about the same number of people in Gaza?

ps are you aware Winston Churchill was the first person to order chemical weapons use in the Middle East?

pps never quite understood how chemical weapons are worse than blowing people's arms and legs off and sucking the air out of their lungs whilst turning their brains to pulp.

Edited August 24, 2013 by cheeryble

[midas]

mccw: we talked earlier in the thread about war, Syria and boots on the ground, I see this morning that the UK's Hague is making nosies along the lines of, "an invasion of Syria is on the cards" in response to the latest gas attack!

another UK clown who makes noise and presents bullsh*t as did the former UK clown

Tony B. Liar

I never understood why Margaret Thatcher picked him as her protégé

[Naam]

mccw: we talked earlier in the thread about war, Syria and boots on the ground, I see this morning that the UK's Hague is making nosies along the lines of, "an invasion of Syria is on the cards" in response to the latest gas attack!

another UK clown who makes noise and presents bullsh*t as did the former UK clown

Tony B. Liar

Hague is Foriegn Secretary, Blair was Prime Minister, in that espect Hague is doing his job and his European counterparts should be doing the same thing!

does that change the fact they are both bigmouthed clowns?

[Naam]

I hope they don't help the lunatics in to power.

---

Most likely i think the gas attack was the work of anti Assad forces

I do not dismiss the possibility that the attack was undertaken by anti-Assad forces but I'm pretty certain the international community has the ability to figure that one out and come up with the right answer - I believe that's what's happening presently. So regardless of which group is repsonsible, the international community must take action to prevent it from happening again and if that means using any one of a range of military options against the current governement as a result, so be it. The option of sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option, regardless of who the guilty party is.

we all know what shit the "international community" has produced in the past and is still producing by clowns who are blatant liars, countries invaded, hundreds of billions taxpayers' money wasted, terrorists, dictators and murderers supported as long as it deemed opportune, "unwilling" governments sanctioned, etc.

using gas to kill or maim human beings is a terrible thing. but is using cluster or "smart" bombs, hellfire rockets, grenades, depleted uranium ammunition and landmines to kill and maim people humane?

It is not so much the weapons involved as it is the the large numbers of innocent civilian deaths in one attack, the munitions you describe are typically used in combat which pits one militarised unit against another, not a militiarised unit against the civilian population, when it crosses that line it's a step too far.

-don't lecture an old soldier who has combat experience.

-and don't spread ridiculous rubbish such as "militarised unit against another". how many civilians were killed by carpet bombing in Viet Nam or by the bombing of Baghdad Gulf War Version2.0? not thousands in one attack? your lack of basic knowledge is embarrassing!

[chiang mai]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

[lannarebirth]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

[Cheapcharly]

Just buy cotton to put in your nose and you should be OK!

[chiang mai]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

Are you suggesting we should accept this new status quo as a result, the new norm is that it's Ok to sit back and watch as civillans are murdered in theri thousands in unprovoked attacks, that surely cannot be acceptable just because we're afraid of the unknown outcome.

[Naam]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

more ridiculous rubbish! somebody like me who has experienced the horror of war does not "accept" the death of a single human being by military action. and that no matter whether soldier or civilian.

armchair warmongers using expressions like "boots on the ground" are disgusting!

[chiang mai]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

more ridiculous rubbish! somebody like me who has experienced the horror of war does not "accept" the death of a single human being by military action. and that no matter whether soldier or civilian.

armchair warmongers using expressions like "boots on the ground" are disgusting!

You haven't read the thread to understand the context of the phrase, I can tell!

[lannarebirth]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

Are you suggesting we should accept this new status quo as a result, the new norm is that it's Ok to sit back and watch as civillans are murdered in theri thousands in unprovoked attacks, that surely cannot be acceptable just because we're afraid of the unknown outcome.

Your post assumes that stability in the region is the goal of the Western allies. I don't think that's true. There are many Western "think tanks" that describe that the US empire's goals in the region are to destabilize in order to not allow for any significant trans border power bloc to arise in the forseeable future. I'm not sure if that's what they are doing given them carrying water for the Saudis and Qataris and at once fighting with and partnering with Al Qaeda, but given their failure to execute stated goals in every single country they've engaged in conflict in, it is very easy to believe. In short, I believe failure and regional turmoil is what is wished for by those you would have rush in to "aid"..

[NeverSure]

The very nature of civil wars, guerrilla warfare and asymmetric warfare is that combatants are among civilian population / human shields, and even fighting in civilian clothes.

You are so right, and that's why we must never do it again. I can't prove it, but I once read that no guerrilla army had ever been defeated on its own soil. If that's not quite true, it's darned close.

Look at how fast Libya was taken out. Remember how in WWII the allies bombed cities in Germany and Japan with no regard for civilian casualties. That was before the conventions and treaties after WWII that set rules of war which the enemy has never abided by, but which tie the hands of the Western Nations.

Putting boots on the ground and trying to defeat guerrilla armies didn't work in Vietnam or Korea or Afghan or Iraq or anywhere else it's been tried. Putting a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and sending in rockets and planes and bombs along with the same from many other nations made short work of Libya.

You can't win a fight with you hands tied behind your back.

I repeat. I hope the US and allies just let those Syrians kill each other off and stay out of it. It's another case where the winner might be worse than the defeated.

Haven't we had enough of that?

[chiang mai]

...and your acceptance of large scale civillian deaths is inappropriate.

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

Are you suggesting we should accept this new status quo as a result, the new norm is that it's Ok to sit back and watch as civillans are murdered in theri thousands in unprovoked attacks, that surely cannot be acceptable just because we're afraid of the unknown outcome.

Your post assumes that stability in the region is the goal of the Western allies. I don't think that's true. There are many Western "think tanks" that describe that the US empire's goals in the region are to destabilize in order to not allow for any significant trans border power bloc to arise in the forseeable future. I'm not sure if that's what they are doing given them carrying water for the Saudis and Qataris and at once fighting with and partnering with Al Qaeda, but given their failure to execute stated goals in every single country they've engaged in conflict in, it is very easy to believe. In short, I believe failure and regional turmoil is what is wished for by those you would have rush in to "aid"..

You'll forgive me for not caring a hoot about what US foriegn policy might be in the region, my concerns and my comments come solely from a humanitarian perspective and I doubt that the sixteen hundred dead women and children would have cared about that policy also. It seems to me that we've had more than enough deaths on the back of US foriegn policy needs be they driven by the desire for oil, the Isreali lobbyist in Washington or the unstable thinking of George W, enough is enough.

[lannarebirth]

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

Are you suggesting we should accept this new status quo as a result, the new norm is that it's Ok to sit back and watch as civillans are murdered in theri thousands in unprovoked attacks, that surely cannot be acceptable just because we're afraid of the unknown outcome.

Your post assumes that stability in the region is the goal of the Western allies. I don't think that's true. There are many Western "think tanks" that describe that the US empire's goals in the region are to destabilize in order to not allow for any significant trans border power bloc to arise in the forseeable future. I'm not sure if that's what they are doing given them carrying water for the Saudis and Qataris and at once fighting with and partnering with Al Qaeda, but given their failure to execute stated goals in every single country they've engaged in conflict in, it is very easy to believe. In short, I believe failure and regional turmoil is what is wished for by those you would have rush in to "aid"..

You'll forgive me for not caring a hoot about what US foriegn policy might be in the region, my concerns and my comments come solely from a humanitarian perspective and I doubt that the sixteen hundred dead women and children would have cared about that policy also. It seems to me that we've had more than enough deaths on the back of US foriegn policy needs be they driven by the desire for oil, the Isreali lobbyist in Washington or the unstable thinking of George W, enough is enough.

I hear you and I felt exactly the same way about the protracted war in the Sudan. That one didn't make for good TV however and aid of any kind was thin on the ground.

[midas]

Do you really think with the aid of sophisticated electronics, telemetry, satellite imaging, cruise missles,"smart bombs", tactical nukes or "daisy cutters", the US government or its allies couldn't remove Assad from the face of the Earth any time it wanted to? I think they probably could, so the question is, why haven't they?

To my mind the answer to that question is that, that event will unleash internecine warfare by multiple factions both domestic and foreign to an extent that is beyond prediction as to outcome. Only that it will be "worse".

Are you suggesting we should accept this new status quo as a result, the new norm is that it's Ok to sit back and watch as civillans are murdered in theri thousands in unprovoked attacks, that surely cannot be acceptable just because we're afraid of the unknown outcome.

Your post assumes that stability in the region is the goal of the Western allies. I don't think that's true. There are many Western "think tanks" that describe that the US empire's goals in the region are to destabilize in order to not allow for any significant trans border power bloc to arise in the forseeable future. I'm not sure if that's what they are doing given them carrying water for the Saudis and Qataris and at once fighting with and partnering with Al Qaeda, but given their failure to execute stated goals in every single country they've engaged in conflict in, it is very easy to believe. In short, I believe failure and regional turmoil is what is wished for by those you would have rush in to "aid"..

You'll forgive me for not caring a hoot about what US foriegn policy might be in the region, my concerns and my comments come solely from a humanitarian perspective and I doubt that the sixteen hundred dead women and children would have cared about that policy also. It seems to me that we've had more than enough deaths on the back of US foriegn policy needs be they driven by the desire for oil, the Isreali lobbyist in Washington or the unstable thinking of George W, enough is enough.

chiang mai your concern for the lives of 1600 other human beings is quite admirable but don't you think it would be better spent on the 5000 US servicemen who have lost their lives fighting an enemy which the West is now happily arming in Syria? Why did they need to fight and die then ? What a f**kcing waste

Edited August 25, 2013 by midas

[chiang mai]

Before we get too far off the main topic which is the financial crisis, let's remember that war was put forward as being one of the things that has helped solve such crisis in the past. It's in that context that the current situation in Syria has been raised again.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down the discussion road of military deaths vs US policy by conflict and this is certainly not the place to try, but I do see a big difference between military deaths versus civillian deaths, both are a complete waste I agree but civillian deaths just seem to me to be less justified.

[midas]

Before we get too far off the main topic which is the financial crisis, let's remember that war was put forward as being one of the things that has helped solve such crisis in the past. It's in that context that the current situation in Syria has been raised again.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down the discussion road of military deaths vs US policy by conflict and this is certainly not the place to try, but I do see a big difference between military deaths versus civillian deaths, both are a complete waste I agree but civillian deaths just seem to me to be less justified.

It's relevant in that the financial world is " delicate ", to say the least and if the West intentionally starts a war which could very well be a world War this time (if Russia, China and Iran become involved) which you seem to be encouraging, it would hardly contribute to improving the GFC?

Edited August 25, 2013 by midas

[chiang mai]

Before we get too far off the main topic which is the financial crisis, let's remember that war was put forward as being one of the things that has helped solve such crisis in the past. It's in that context that the current situation in Syria has been raised again.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down the discussion road of military deaths vs US policy by conflict and this is certainly not the place to try, but I do see a big difference between military deaths versus civillian deaths, both are a complete waste I agree but civillian deaths just seem to me to be less justified.

It's relevant in that the financial world is " delicate ", to say the least and if the West intentionally starts a war which could very well be a world War this time (if Russia, China and Iran become involved) which you seem to be encouraging, it would hardly contribute to improving the GFC?

Please show us all where and how I am encouraging such a thing, absolute rubbish!

[midas]

Before we get too far off the main topic which is the financial crisis, let's remember that war was put forward as being one of the things that has helped solve such crisis in the past. It's in that context that the current situation in Syria has been raised again.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down the discussion road of military deaths vs US policy by conflict and this is certainly not the place to try, but I do see a big difference between military deaths versus civillian deaths, both are a complete waste I agree but civillian deaths just seem to me to be less justified.

It's relevant in that the financial world is " delicate ", to say the least and if the West intentionally starts a war which could very well be a world War this time (if Russia, China and Iran become involved) which you seem to be encouraging, it would hardly contribute to improving the GFC?

Please show us all where and how I am encouraging such a thing, absolute rubbish!

“ We need to do this thing, now, regardless of the consequences “ sounds as gung ho as William Hague particularly when the UN haven't even delivered their findings yet?

[chiang mai]

Before we get too far off the main topic which is the financial crisis, let's remember that war was put forward as being one of the things that has helped solve such crisis in the past. It's in that context that the current situation in Syria has been raised again.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down the discussion road of military deaths vs US policy by conflict and this is certainly not the place to try, but I do see a big difference between military deaths versus civillian deaths, both are a complete waste I agree but civillian deaths just seem to me to be less justified.

It's relevant in that the financial world is " delicate ", to say the least and if the West intentionally starts a war which could very well be a world War this time (if Russia, China and Iran become involved) which you seem to be encouraging, it would hardly contribute to improving the GFC?

Please show us all where and how I am encouraging such a thing, absolute rubbish!

“ We need to do this thing, now, regardless of the consequences “ sounds as gung ho as William Hague particularly when the UN haven't even delivered their findings yet?

Let's not reduce this to word games - I support the saving of civillian lives by whatever means are available. I do not encourage war I loathe it but I will support it where and when it's necessary and saving civillian lives is one of the best cases I can imagine.

[midas]

It's relevant in that the financial world is " delicate ", to say the least and if the West intentionally starts a war which could very well be a world War this time (if Russia, China and Iran become involved) which you seem to be encouraging, it would hardly contribute to improving the GFC?

Please show us all where and how I am encouraging such a thing, absolute rubbish!

“ We need to do this thing, now, regardless of the consequences “ sounds as gung ho as William Hague particularly when the UN haven't even delivered their findings yet?

Let's not reduce this to word games - I support the saving of civillian lives by whatever means are available. I do not encourage war I loathe it but I will support it where and when it's necessary and saving civillian lives is one of the best cases I can imagine.

Chiang Mai, if you continue to believe discussing the war in this financial crisis is thread is off topic, I encourage you to read not only this article but also some of the comments written by readers after it. What America has done by saying this is to prove all along that they were intending to attack Syria and it has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian issues. It's all to do with money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-25/syria-allow-inspection-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late

[chiang mai]

Please show us all where and how I am encouraging such a thing, absolute rubbish!

“ We need to do this thing, now, regardless of the consequences “ sounds as gung ho as William Hague particularly when the UN haven't even delivered their findings yet?

Let's not reduce this to word games - I support the saving of civillian lives by whatever means are available. I do not encourage war I loathe it but I will support it where and when it's necessary and saving civillian lives is one of the best cases I can imagine.

Chiang Mai, if you continue to believe discussing the war in this financial crisis is thread is off topic, I encourage you to read not only this article but also some of the comments written by readers after it. What America has done by saying this is to prove all along that they were intending to attack Syria and it has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian issues. It's all to do with money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-25/syria-allow-inspection-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late

I continue to believe that war is a solution to the financial crisis, history proves that is so. But I don't do conspiracy theories and the good people at zero-hedge (and their followers) should get out more, take some walks at lunch time, do yoga, stuff like that!

[lannarebirth]

“ We need to do this thing, now, regardless of the consequences “ sounds as gung ho as William Hague particularly when the UN haven't even delivered their findings yet?

Let's not reduce this to word games - I support the saving of civillian lives by whatever means are available. I do not encourage war I loathe it but I will support it where and when it's necessary and saving civillian lives is one of the best cases I can imagine.

Chiang Mai, if you continue to believe discussing the war in this financial crisis is thread is off topic, I encourage you to read not only this article but also some of the comments written by readers after it. What America has done by saying this is to prove all along that they were intending to attack Syria and it has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian issues. It's all to do with money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-25/syria-allow-inspection-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late

I continue to believe that war is a solution to the financial crisis, history proves that is so. But I don't do conspiracy theories and the good people at zero-hedge (and their followers) should get out more, take some walks at lunch time, do yoga, stuff like that!

Killing and maiming isn't nearly the fiscal cure all that it used to be. When whole economies had to "turn to" in prior eras it had the capability of turning whole economies around. Now it is only a small segment of the economy that benefits from warfare. Namely, the government and and the civilian contractors(lobbyists) that prosecute war endlessly.

[chiang mai]

Let's not reduce this to word games - I support the saving of civillian lives by whatever means are available. I do not encourage war I loathe it but I will support it where and when it's necessary and saving civillian lives is one of the best cases I can imagine.

Chiang Mai, if you continue to believe discussing the war in this financial crisis is thread is off topic, I encourage you to read not only this article but also some of the comments written by readers after it. What America has done by saying this is to prove all along that they were intending to attack Syria and it has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian issues. It's all to do with money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-25/syria-allow-inspection-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late

I continue to believe that war is a solution to the financial crisis, history proves that is so. But I don't do conspiracy theories and the good people at zero-hedge (and their followers) should get out more, take some walks at lunch time, do yoga, stuff like that!

Killing and maiming isn't nearly the fiscal cure all that it used to be. When whole economies had to "turn to" in prior eras it had the capability of turning whole economies around. Now it is only a small segment of the economy that benefits from warfare. Namely, the government and and the civilian contractors(lobbyists) that prosecute war endlessly.

But which is it, is it the game changing event with far reaching rafimifcations with an uncertain outcome, the likes of which terrifies you, if it is that then almost certainly it contains a fiscal cure. Or is it a local war that benefits governement/civillian contractors/lobbyists, the two sceanarios seem incompatible? It can be argued that only those events with a large dollop of the former have any real significance or benefit and that all military events contain elements of the latter.

[midas]

Chiang Mai, if you continue to believe discussing the war in this financial crisis is thread is off topic, I encourage you to read not only this article but also some of the comments written by readers after it. What America has done by saying this is to prove all along that they were intending to attack Syria and it has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian issues. It's all to do with money.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-25/syria-allow-inspection-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says-too-late

I continue to believe that war is a solution to the financial crisis, history proves that is so. But I don't do conspiracy theories and the good people at zero-hedge (and their followers) should get out more, take some walks at lunch time, do yoga, stuff like that!

Killing and maiming isn't nearly the fiscal cure all that it used to be. When whole economies had to "turn to" in prior eras it had the capability of turning whole economies around. Now it is only a small segment of the economy that benefits from warfare. Namely, the government and and the civilian contractors(lobbyists) that prosecute war endlessly.

But which is it, is it the game changing event with far reaching rafimifcations with an uncertain outcome, the likes of which terrifies you, if it is that then almost certainly it contains a fiscal cure. Or is it a local war that benefits governement/civillian contractors/lobbyists, the two sceanarios seem incompatible? It can be argued that only those events with a large dollop of the former have any real significance or benefit and that all military events contain elements of the latter.

I have just returned from a walk and yoga, so perhaps now you could clarify something?

Yesterday you were advocating a war on humanitarian grounds. Today, you are saying going to war will provide some kind of " miracle cure " for a $17 trillion debt?

Can you please explain how?