|
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 9:54 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 8:43 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:03:35 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 11:03 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:18:24 -0400, Alex wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 8:24 AM, Tim wrote: 7:10 AMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I don't have a "brand new" Ducati. ......... I know... Mine has 4250 miles, several years old, hardly new. No dents or scratches, though. Let's see a picture of the motorcycle and odometer with a current newspaper in the photo, too.Â* I'll give you a chance to win your $100 back. With Harry sitting on it. Considering the sort of malooks who form the majority in this pigpen, there is no way I am going to post photos of identifiable vehicles. === Right. We wouldn't want any of your imaginary possessions to turn up under someone elses ownership (like the red barn), or worse yet, from an archived set of photos that someone else took (think Google images). PS, you appear to be overworking the word "malook".Â* You must have a thesaurus laying around someplace.Â* If not, there are several free ones online: https://www.google.com/search?ei=M2AiW53EJMGD5wLilLBI&q=free+thesaurus&oq =thesaurus Let's try one just for the fun of it. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=thesaurus&query=maloo k This is odd.Â* The Oxford English dictionary has no exact matches.Â* Are you sure that malook is even a word? It's an Italian-American slang word, the "full" version of the word "mook." It's in the urban dictionary, among other places. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mook Mook is in the online Merriam-Webster. It has several, similar meanings...the most common is "idiot." Growing up when I did in New Haven, I had lots of friends of various cultural backgrounds, including many Italians. In describing someone like you, "malook" was a word that would have been used. Or "mook." It had meanings back then beyond idiot...some of the WASPs were referred to as mooks not necessarily because they were idiots but because they were so "white bread." No decent "ethnics" back then ate Wonder Bread. True. I've heard "malook" often in my married lifetime. Often it was preceded by an adjective. :-) |
Norway wants US Marines
|
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained money managers? |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:03:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/13/18 11:03 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:18:24 -0400, Alex wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 8:24 AM, Tim wrote: 7:10 AMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I don't have a "brand new" Ducati. ......... I know... Mine has 4250 miles, several years old, hardly new. No dents or scratches, though. Let's see a picture of the motorcycle and odometer with a current newspaper in the photo, too. I'll give you a chance to win your $100 back. With Harry sitting on it. Considering the sort of malooks who form the majority in this pigpen, there is no way I am going to post photos of identifiable vehicles. It must be horrible going through life being as scared of everything as you seem to be. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained money managers? Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:48:17 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/14/18 10:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 9:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:46 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. === How do you propose making investments without using the financial services industry? Once again, the Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Banksters they may be but they are not Citibank or Wells Fargo types of banksters. Both Citibank (division of Citigroup) and Wells Fargo are publicly traded companies on the NYSE. That means stock owners own them. That's not the same as being owned by the citizens of the USA. On the other hand SSA is owned by the tax payers and it's only asset is an IOU from a government that had to borrow over $50 billion every month last year just to pay it's bills. The business world would consider that being bankrupt and their stock would drop to zero. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 10:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 10:47 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 9:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:46 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. === How do you propose making investments without using the financial services industry? Once again, the Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Banksters they may be but they are not Citibank or Wells Fargo types of banksters. Both Citibank (division of Citigroup) and Wells Fargo are publicly traded companies on the NYSE. That means stock owners own them. That's not the same as being owned by the citizens of the USA. You think citizens of the USA don't own any Citigroup or Wells Fargo stock? |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained money managers? Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats. Yeah that is what I am talking about. FDR is the one who decided to make it OK for the government to spend the SS surplus and put an IOU in the jar, to hide the cost of Lend Lease. LBJ put the whole program "on Budget" so it just became part of the general revenue to hide the cost of his war. Yeah we can always trust the democrats but the republicans are not any better. They are the ones who say we can't raise the FICA tax to cover the SS/MC deficits so it has just become another welfare program, living on borrowed money. If the kids actually understood the real cost of these programs they would throw momma from the train. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is so financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:20:37 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained money managers? Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats. Yeah that is what I am talking about. FDR is the one who decided to make it OK for the government to spend the SS surplus and put an IOU in the jar, to hide the cost of Lend Lease. LBJ put the whole program "on Budget" so it just became part of the general revenue to hide the cost of his war. Yeah we can always trust the democrats but the republicans are not any better. They are the ones who say we can't raise the FICA tax to cover the SS/MC deficits so it has just become another welfare program, living on borrowed money. If the kids actually understood the real cost of these programs they would throw momma from the train. The question was who would Harry trust. |
Norway wants US Marines
John H
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:Â* On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 Â*Â*wrote:Â* On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze Â* wrote:Â* Â* On 6/13/18 10:37 Â*wrote:Â* On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze Â* - show quoted text - "Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is soÂ* financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share."Â* I just wonder how many Americans would be gung ho about military spending if their taxes were raised to fully pay for it? |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:17:21 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
John H On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:* On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 **wrote:* On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze * wrote:* * On 6/13/18 10:37 *wrote:* On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze * - show quoted text - "Apparently, the 30,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam felt otherwise. The point is, if Norway is so* financially astute, why do they seek the NATO umbrella and not pay their fair share."* I just wonder how many Americans would be gung ho about military spending if their taxes were raised to fully pay for it? Pay for *our* defense, or pay for NATO? Why should we pay more than our fair share foe NATO? Who do you think pays for our military spending? |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, Â* wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box.Â* They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club? I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but Russia ain't our good buddy. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 1:49 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, Â* wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box.Â* They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club? I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but Russia ain't our good buddy. Holy Crap. Now, because I point out that Russia played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII (which is historically correct) I am now a member of the Putin Fan Club? Something wrong with your head Harry. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. 'World War II in Color' does a good job of showing the Russian contribution. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:49:02 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, * wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box.* They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club? I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but Russia ain't our good buddy. If it hadn't been for Russia occupying so much of Hitler's attention and resources, all of Europe would probably be speaking German. |
Norway wants US Marines
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 6/14/18 8:46 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. === How do you propose making investments without using the financial services industry? Once again, the Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Banksters they may be but they are not Citibank or Wells Fargo types of banksters. So much venom. Can we assume it was Wells Fargo and Citibank thst stripped you of your wealth, Fat Harry? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Norway wants US Marines
justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 6/14/18 8:46 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. === How do you propose making investments without using the financial services industry? Once again, the Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Banksters they may be but they are not Citibank or Wells Fargo types of banksters. So much venom. Can we assume it was Wells Fargo and Citibank thst stripped you of your wealth, Fat Harry? D’uh. No, **** for brains. They are both crooked financial institutions, though I did make some money off of Citibank in the late 1960s when it bought out a client of mine. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 3:14:23 PM UTC-4, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 6/14/18 8:46 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. === How do you propose making investments without using the financial services industry? Once again, the Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Banksters they may be but they are not Citibank or Wells Fargo types of banksters. So much venom. Can we assume it was Wells Fargo and Citibank thst stripped you of your wealth, Fat Harry? Heh, heh. The foreclosure and the turned-down boat ride must still sting. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. === The russians would certainly agree with that. |
Norway wants US Marines
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:18:24 -0400, Alex wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 8:24 AM, Tim wrote: 7:10 AMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I don't have a "brand new" Ducati. ......... I know... Mine has 4250 miles, several years old, hardly new. No dents or scratches, though. Let's see a picture of the motorcycle and odometer with a current newspaper in the photo, too. I'll give you a chance to win your $100 back. Does it have to be a 'real' newspaper, or would an imaginary one do the job. Harry's Ducati came about after Tim and I started talking motorcycles. I think the poor boy just wants to be part of the gang. I'd have to see the title in the picture also. Hell, he'd probably pay some Ducati owner to let him take a photo. He's a right sneaky little bugger. He would have to find one with 4250 miles. Not a chance in hell! |
Norway wants US Marines
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/13/18 11:03 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:18:24 -0400, Alex wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 8:24 AM, Tim wrote: 7:10 AMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I don't have a "brand new" Ducati. ......... I know... Mine has 4250 miles, several years old, hardly new. No dents or scratches, though. Let's see a picture of the motorcycle and odometer with a current newspaper in the photo, too. I'll give you a chance to win your $100 back. With Harry sitting on it. Considering the sort of malooks who form the majority in this pigpen, there is no way I am going to post photos of identifiable vehicles. An odometer and a newspaper? No need for a side shot just the gauges. Good luck. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:05:55 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? You mean like the turn of the century when we engineered the taking of Panama? (no canal) or all of the stuff we got from the Spanish American war?. You could even go back to the Mexican war. I think they like to point out the end of WWII because that was when the world pretty much stopped using wars as an excuse for Europeans and Americans to take other people's land ... well maybe with one exception. |
Norway wants US Marines
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:22:37 -0400, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:09 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:01:49 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:52 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 4:42 PM, Bill wrote: And why are you opposed to social security funds in the stock market? My recollection is that the private wall street banksters were lobbying to "invest" those funds and earn their profit off it. Norges Bank belongs to the people of Norway. Norway invests all over the world in all sorts of things, Those investments return real capital gains. The SS/MC funds are not really invested in anything. There are just IOUs in the box and the government spent the money on things that do not generate any income for the government. They chalk up phony interest payments but some of the money has to be borrowed from someone else when they actually have to pay people the benefits they promise. I suppose I should explain in pidgin English. I am not opposed to investing. I oppose using the banksters in the USA to handle those investments on behalf of our citizenry. You didn't explain anything. Are you really saying you would rather have politicians and bureaucrats handling your money than trained money managers? Well sure, as long as they're *Democrat* politicians and bureaucrats. Yeah that is what I am talking about. FDR is the one who decided to make it OK for the government to spend the SS surplus and put an IOU in the jar, to hide the cost of Lend Lease. LBJ put the whole program "on Budget" so it just became part of the general revenue to hide the cost of his war. Yeah we can always trust the democrats but the republicans are not any better. They are the ones who say we can't raise the FICA tax to cover the SS/MC deficits so it has just become another welfare program, living on borrowed money. If the kids actually understood the real cost of these programs they would throw momma from the train. Al "lockbox" Gore was unsuccessful with his campaign that focused often on that topic. |
Norway wants US Marines
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 1:49 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 1:05 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki: In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40% prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market turmoil was recuperated by November 2009. Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to developments in international financial markets. In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor, was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since 2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000 people) in August 2011. Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone), building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel. Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value, after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's electric power, more than any other country in the world. Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future. I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners. Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should doing that themselves, not sponging off of us. And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets. So why don't we? I would start with Europe. A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not. It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII. How about since prior to WWI? True but the USA really didn't emerge as a "Superpower" until after WWII. The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club? I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but Russia ain't our good buddy. Holy Crap. Now, because I point out that Russia played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII (which is historically correct) I am now a member of the Putin Fan Club? Something wrong with your head Harry. Putin wasn't even born during WWII. Harry is just a fat, lying, narcissistic asshole. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there. I am not even sure we would try. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:49:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/14/18 1:37 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. Wasn't it wonderful for the Soviets to sign a treaty with the Nazis, who then abrogated it and invaded Russia, giving the Soviets the ability to fight back and then overrun a huge percentage of Europe and impose itself over kazillions of people and cause us to waste trillions of dollars on the Cold War? Yep, tremendous contributions. So, have you signed up for the Trump-Putin Fan Club? I know it isn't fashionable for you Trumpsters to remember this, but Russia ain't our good buddy. I think the Russians decided that since they lost about a third of all of the people who died in the war from all causes and all theaters, they deserved to keep what they fought for. In any other time prior to that in human history it was the normal outcome of war. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 7:24 PM, Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 11:03 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:18:24 -0400, Alex wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/13/18 8:24 AM, Tim wrote: 7:10 AMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - I don't have a "brand new" Ducati. ......... I know... Mine has 4250 miles, several years old, hardly new. No dents or scratches, though. Let's see a picture of the motorcycle and odometer with a current newspaper in the photo, too.Â* I'll give you a chance to win your $100 back. With Harry sitting on it. Considering the sort of malooks who form the majority in this pigpen, there is no way I am going to post photos of identifiable vehicles. An odometer and a newspaper?Â* No need for a side shot just the gauges. Good luck. You can't trust pictures anymore. Photoshop is pretty good. |
Norway wants US Marines
|
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII? Try to pay attention. |
Norway wants US Marines
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII? Try to pay attention. Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong motivator. Get it? -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Norway wants US Marines
On 6/14/2018 9:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII? Try to pay attention. Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong motivator. Get it? No. Motivator for what? Kicking an invading army's ass? I was commenting on sacrifices made in WWII. I guess it's impossible for me to think like you. |
Norway wants US Marines
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 9:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII? Try to pay attention. Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong motivator. Get it? No. Motivator for what? Kicking an invading army's ass? I was commenting on sacrifices made in WWII. I guess it's impossible for me to think like you. Those sacrfices might not have been a motivator for the Sov’s land snatch. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Norway wants US Marines
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:03:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made by Russia. It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German. If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be neutral at the time. If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try. The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related causes and had 671,801 total injured. The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000 fatalities with 14,685,593 injured. That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a Putin lover. Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from about 8 million to 20 million. What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII? Try to pay attention. Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong motivator. Get it? It's a good thing too. If the Russians had of worried about the casualties and sued for peace in 1941-42 as Hitler thought they would and Stalin had pulled back to the territory he could keep, UK would have been crushed, long before there was anything we could have done to stop them. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com