QuoteBritain sending advanced warship to Falklands
By msnbc.com staff and news services
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F120131-dauntless-1215p.photoblog600.jpg&hash=c9670a68f0e2bca6f68e90c4ba5cb9c1c2bff760)
Britain's HMS Dauntless, touted as one of the most sophisticated warships in the world, will set sail to the disputed Falkland Islands in coming weeks in what the government called a routine operation.
The futuristic destroyer will replace the frigate HMS Montrose, the Ministry of Defense said on Tuesday. The deployment has long been planned but comes as tensions rise between Britain and Argentina over the status of the islands, which are a British dependency.
The Dauntless, armed with anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic capability, could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's," one Navy source told the U.K.'s Telegraph.
The news comes shortly before Prince William, heir to the British throne, is due to arrive in the Falkland Islands as part of his air force training.
Foreign Secretary William Hague told Sky News that while HMS Dauntless's deployment is routine, the British ship "packs a very considerable punch."
A Royal Navy spokesman downplayed the $1 billion destroyer's deployment and rejected that it was a sign of escalation in the tensions between the two countries.
"The Royal Navy has had a continuous presence in the south Atlantic for many years. The deployment of HMS Dauntless to the south Atlantic has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces another ship on patrol," he told the Guardian.
Last month, Argentina persuaded Brazil, Uruguay and Chile to join a Mercosur trade group resolution to turn away any ship flying the Falklands'flag — which depicts a sheep and a ship along with the United Kingdom's red, white and blue Union Jack.
Argentina claims sovereignty of the Falklands, 290 miles (460 kilometers) east of its coast. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has also recently stressed that the people of the Falklands must decide their own future and said Argentina is taking a colonialist approach to the islands' residents.
London's Foreign Office said Tuesday that junior minister Jeremy Browne will travel to the islands in June to mark the 30th anniversary of Britain's brief 1982 war with Argentina over the territory. Browne will be the first foreign minister to visit the Falklands since 2008. Prime Minister David Cameron's office said the British leader had no plans to visit.
Earlier this month, Britain announced that Prince Harry will visit Brazil in March as part of the U.K.'s effort to strengthen ties with Latin America.
QuoteThe Dauntless, armed with anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic capability, could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's," one Navy source told the U.K.'s Telegraph.
That's good stuff.
Couldn't they just say "Vanguard" and be done with it, though?
That is an amusing quote, but a bit politically iffy to say the least!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 01:25:31 AM
The Dauntless, armed with anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic capability, could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's," one Navy source told the U.K.'s Telegraph.
QuoteDuring its first major warfare sea exercise aboard HMS Daring the ship's Combat Management System crashed while under simulated air attack due to a power failure. The ship lost use of its combat management system, i.e. PAAMS. The ship's crew reverted to use of binoculars to spot incoming airborne threats until the CMS had been restarted.[4]
:unsure:
There's only one thing left for Cameron to do - announce a poll tax and roll out the trial version in Scotland.
What an ugly little ship.
I guess they contracted their navy out to the Daleks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2012, 07:54:46 AM
What an ugly little ship.
That's how they build them these days.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 08:37:38 AM
I guess they contracted their navy out to the Daleks.
Reminds me of those French Suffern destroyers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fac%2FSuffren_1.jpg%2F300px-Suffren_1.jpg&hash=29c37118630263924cfc436a5964eae1c48c0e81)
Ugly.
Quote from: Neil on February 01, 2012, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2012, 07:54:46 AM
What an ugly little ship.
That's how they build them these days.
Yeah, all modern designs are very similar due to the phased arrays and stealth profile.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforsvaret.dk%2FFMT%2FMateriel%2FSkibe%2FFregatter%2FFoto%2FFoto%2520PETER%2520WILLEMOES%2F2011%2520PETER%2520WILLEMOES%2F20110628%2520ABSL%2520-%2520WILM%2520f%25C3%25B8rste%2520gang%2520i%2520FRH.jpg&hash=b0cf8df4dfbb3048666b9f9f035c2da02be984fc)
Could be worse IMHO. I think they did allright with our two new classes on the pic above. the support and command ship and the new frig
V
Is the British public stupid enough to be distracted by this sabre-rattling from the financial cuts and unemployment?
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Is the British public stupid enough to be distracted by this sabre-rattling from the financial cuts and unemployment?
The financial cuts and unemployment have been going on for four years now. If this is a plan to distract them it is a little late. Why the sudden boil with rage and froth over the rather bland and uninteresting current Brit government?
The question also presupposes that budget cuts are something that require distracting from.
What budget cuts? I see no budget cuts :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:32:00 AM
What budget cuts? I see no budget cuts :hmm:
Just naval glory amiright? *sings 'Rule Britannia'*
Ok Marty maybe it is working.
As much as I love the Argies, I also love seeing them get tweaked over their Falklands fixation. Send more ships, plz.
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands. But everything they do seems designed to piss the Islanders off. Is it incompetence or are the Falklands just too convenient as a distraction :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands. But everything they do seems designed to piss the Islanders off. Is it incompetence or are the Falklands just too convenient as a distraction :hmm: ?
all they have to do is bribe 3 of the 5 islanders and they're golden.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands. But everything they do seems designed to piss the Islanders off. Is it incompetence or are the Falklands just too convenient as a distraction :hmm: ?
But there is no way they can get the islanders to want to be part of Argentina, ever. Why would they?
I am convinced that the only reason Argenitna doesn't just give up on the Falklands altogether at this point is stubborn pride.
It's the same reason the US still has an embargo on Cuba. It doesn't make any sense, but nobody has the balls to just stop it.
Quote from: Berkut on February 01, 2012, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands. But everything they do seems designed to piss the Islanders off. Is it incompetence or are the Falklands just too convenient as a distraction :hmm: ?
But there is no way they can get the islanders to want to be part of Argentina, ever. Why would they?
I am convinced that the only reason Argenitna doesn't just give up on the Falklands altogether at this point is stubborn pride.
It's the same reason the US still has an embargo on Cuba. It doesn't make any sense, but nobody has the balls to just stop it.
Florida is to blame for the Cuba embargo, isn't it?
*edit* or to be more accurate, cubans living in florida.
Quote from: Berkut on February 01, 2012, 12:12:47 PM
It's the same reason the US still has an embargo on Cuba UK continues to stay in Ireland. It doesn't make any sense, but nobody has the balls to just stop it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 01, 2012, 12:12:47 PM
It's the same reason the US still has an embargo on Cuba UK continues to stay in Ireland. It doesn't make any sense, but nobody has the balls to just stop it.
It is exactly the same reason: the locals do not want them to.
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
Florida is to blame for the Cuba embargo, isn't it?
*edit* or to be more accurate, cubans living in florida.
New Jersey, too. And their Republican stooges.
it'd be better if the irish just learned their place. Every time they try to go at it alone they fail miserably. They should just accept the guiding hand of England and be happy with it.
:P
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:17:54 PM
it'd be better if the irish just learned their place. Every time they try to go at it alone they fail miserably. They should just accepting the guiding hand of England and be happy with it.
:P
I saw your first post, faggit. Nice try. :P
Maybe the Argentinians should do the same thing, then: infuse the Falklands with more Argies than Brits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
Florida is to blame for the Cuba embargo, isn't it?
*edit* or to be more accurate, cubans living in florida.
New Jersey, too. And their Republican stooges.
There are cubans in Joisey? their boats get lost or something?
Quote from: Berkut on February 01, 2012, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands. But everything they do seems designed to piss the Islanders off. Is it incompetence or are the Falklands just too convenient as a distraction :hmm: ?
But there is no way they can get the islanders to want to be part of Argentina, ever. Why would they?
I am convinced that the only reason Argenitna doesn't just give up on the Falklands altogether at this point is stubborn pride.
It's the same reason the US still has an embargo on Cuba. It doesn't make any sense, but nobody has the balls to just stop it.
Britain was neglecting the Falklands and their population was falling before the war, that might have been a time for an Argentine charm offensive, subsidised ferry to the mainland, sweet trade deals...........that sort of thing. Instead that idiot Galtieri invaded to bolster his crummy regime; how he thought that Thatcher would put up with it eludes me.
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
Florida is to blame for the Cuba embargo, isn't it?
*edit* or to be more accurate, cubans living in florida.
I think it has more to do with absence of any moves in the direction of political freedom that the US can respond to.
Plus the fact that Cuba can't afford to buy anything we make.
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
Florida is to blame for the Cuba embargo, isn't it?
*edit* or to be more accurate, cubans living in florida.
New Jersey, too. And their Republican stooges.
There are cubans in Joisey? their boats get lost or something?
Robert Torricelli was one of the biggest anti-Castro assholes on the hill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:26:17 PM
Plus the fact that Cuba can't afford to buy anything we make.
Pish posh. I'm sure they can afford subsidized corn and cable TV.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:26:17 PM
I think it has more to do with absence of any moves in the direction of political freedom that the US can respond to.
Plus the fact that Cuba can't afford to buy anything we make.
Yeah but we put them on the list for being a Soviet ally and sponsoring rebels during the Cold War not because of their crap freedom record. If we embargoed everybody who had a crap political freedom record we would not be shipping our manufacturing to China now would we?
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Yeah but we put them on the list for being a Soviet ally and sponsoring rebels during the Cold War not because of their crap freedom record. If we embargoed everybody who had a crap political freedom record we would not be shipping our manufacturing to China now would we?
And if the question were should we slap an embargo on them starting now your argument would be valid and we would not. But to change an existing policy you need some gestures from the other guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
And if the question were should we slap an embargo on them starting now your argument would be valid and we would not. But to change an existing policy you need some gestures from the other guys.
What was Vietnam's big gesture? Freedom Fries for all?
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
And if the question were should we slap an embargo on them starting now your argument would be valid and we would not. But to change an existing policy you need some gestures from the other guys.
What was Vietnam's big gesture? Freedom Fries for all?
Cheap labor, and a willingness to let us listen in on China, all covert-like and whatnot.
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
What was Vietnam's big gesture? Freedom Fries for all?
Helping document MIAs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:26:17 PM
Plus the fact that Cuba can't afford to buy anything we make.
You're getting it all wrong. Opening trade with Cuba will solve <insert current top U.S. economic problem here> overnight!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
And if the question were should we slap an embargo on them starting now your argument would be valid and we would not. But to change an existing policy you need some gestures from the other guys.
Why? If the raison d'etre of the policy is gone, why on earth keep it on just for lack of some empty gesture from the other side?
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 12:57:29 PM
Yeah but we put them on the list for being a Soviet ally and sponsoring rebels during the Cold War not because of their crap freedom record. If we embargoed everybody who had a crap political freedom record we would not be shipping our manufacturing to China now would we?
What Yi said. At this point it's as much of a face-saving thing as anything else (and I'm not discounting the value of saving face). If the Cuban leadership gives us something to hang our hat on, in the form of meaningful political/economic reforms, it would be a lot easier to end the embargo.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 01:43:47 PM
Why? If the raison d'etre of the policy is gone, why on earth keep it on just for lack of some empty gesture from the other side?
Because policies need to be sold to the public and because we ostensibly value political freedom and democracy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Because policies need to be sold to the public and because we ostensibly value political freedom and democracy.
Does the whole US public actually strongly support the present policy?
I would think the valuing freedom would include ideals like freedom to travel and freedom to trade, invest, etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
Does the whole US public actually strongly support the present policy?
Does a majority of the US public strongly support changing the policy?
QuoteI would think the valuing freedom would include ideals like freedom to travel and freedom to trade, invest, etc.
Cuba can grant those rights too while they're at it. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands.
Wrong. As long as one person on the Falklands wants to remain British, it is Britain's duty to defend him or her with the utmost necessary force, as it is America's duty to support, and fight alongside them if need be.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:05:38 PM
Does a majority of the US public strongly support changing the policy?
I dont think that is a requirement before policy is changed. Policies get changed all the time even in the absence of strong support. In fact typically policies get changed in an atmosphere of general apathy.
The problem here is not "the public" - it is a narrow and vocal interest group that has held the policy hostage.
QuoteCuba can grant those rights too while they're at it. :P
Yes that would be nice, but regardless we probably shouldn't be using their conduct as a model.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands.
Wrong. As long as one person on the Falklands wants to remain British, it is Britain's duty to defend him or her with the utmost necessary force, as it is America's duty to support, and fight alongside them if need be.
Fuck that, you Rio Treaty violating motherfucker.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 03:27:47 PM
The problem here is not "the public" - it is a narrow and vocal interest group that has held the policy hostage.
It's a narrow and vocal interest group who's antipathy to the Castro regime is shared to a lesser degree by a large swath of the general population.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 03:27:47 PM
The problem here is not "the public" - it is a narrow and vocal interest group that has held the policy hostage.
It's a narrow and vocal interest group who's antipathy to the Castro regime is shared to a lesser degree by a large swath of the general population.
A narrow and vocal interest group that still has a shitload of Bautista money from when Madre y Padre came over in '60.
The larger swath of the general population has been drinking the same anti-commie Kool-Aid since Kennedy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 03:29:43 PM
Fuck that, you Rio Treaty violating motherfucker.
The Rio Treaty said nothing about aiding aggressive conquest -_-
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 03:38:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 03:29:43 PM
Fuck that, you Rio Treaty violating motherfucker.
The Rio Treaty said nothing about aiding aggressive conquest -_-
DUDNT HAFF TO
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 01, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
Does the whole US public actually strongly support the present policy?
Does a majority of the US public strongly support changing the policy?
QuoteI would think the valuing freedom would include ideals like freedom to travel and freedom to trade, invest, etc.
Cuba can grant those rights too while they're at it. :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F5228%2F2zzv7iqsezc7y4wmwgoa.gif&hash=6e105382ba53bf5522a50130503ebf2b46cb4c39) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/2zzv7iqsezc7y4wmwgoa.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117829/americans-steady-backing-friendlier-cuba-relations.aspx Yep.
I just want a taste of the nightlife. Johnny Olaf knows this place.
Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
And if the question were should we slap an embargo on them starting now your argument would be valid and we would not. But to change an existing policy you need some gestures from the other guys.
What was Vietnam's big gesture? Freedom Fries for all?
China's was a willingness to kill lots of students with tanks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 03:45:20 PM
I just want a taste of the nightlife. Johnny Olaf knows this place.
I've read that if you fly to Mexico first they can work out a no visa stamp deal.
How did this become about Cuba all of a sudden?
Oh, that reminds me...gotta buy suntan lotion. Heading there soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:47:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 03:45:20 PM
I just want a taste of the nightlife. Johnny Olaf knows this place.
I've read that if you fly to Mexico first they can work out a no visa stamp deal.
Actually, upon your arrival to Cuba, the Cubans are more than happy to give you a separate card insert instead of a passport stamp. Because they care, and they don't want you charged with a victimless crime by Los Federales.
Quote from: Josephus on February 01, 2012, 03:48:22 PM
How did this become about Cuba all of a sudden?
Oh, that reminds me...gotta buy suntan lotion. Heading there soon.
oppressor of the people!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 01, 2012, 11:56:40 AM
They need to get a majority of the Falkland Islanders to want to be a part of Argentina, then they will get the islands.
Wrong. As long as one person on the Falklands wants to remain British, it is Britain's duty to defend him or her with the utmost necessary force, as it is America's duty to support, and fight alongside them if need be.
Fuck that, you Rio Treaty violating motherfucker.
The Rio Treaty sucks. Monroe Doctrine sucks.
Quote from: Josephus on February 01, 2012, 03:48:22 PM
Oh, that reminds me...gotta buy suntan lotion. Heading there soon.
Stop supporting universal health care.
Maybe the US could make the first step. Like giving up Posada. You know, the guy that blew up a Cuban airliner.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
Maybe the US could make the first step. Like giving up Posada. You know, the guy that blew up a Cuban airliner.
That never happened. The US government has told me so.
Wow baseball player and terrorist. guys got quite the resume.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
Maybe the US could make the first step. Like giving up Posada. You know, the guy that blew up a Cuban airliner.
Or like allowing the export of food and medicine, and increasing remittance caps and allowing more emigre visits.
Cuba of course responded to this gesture by tossing the dudes who were passing around a petition for something allowed under the Cuban constitution into the gulag.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:56:47 PM
Cuba of course responded to this gesture by tossing the dudes who were passing around a petition for something allowed under the Cuban constitution into the gulag.
Shame we can't throw our anti-Castros in jail. Especially when they fly from Florida to violate Cuban airspace to drop leaflets.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
Maybe the US could make the first step. Like giving up Posada. You know, the guy that blew up a Cuban airliner.
Or like allowing the export of food and medicine, and increasing remittance caps and allowing more emigre visits.
Cuba of course responded to this gesture by tossing the dudes who were passing around a petition for something allowed under the Cuban constitution into the gulag.
Is there a point to this? Or do you genuinely think we should play tit-for-tat with distributorships? Perhaps we should embargo Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Nigeria, Vietnam, Russia
etc until they go all find the power of true love, friendship and liberal democracy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 03:56:47 PM
Cuba of course responded to this gesture by tossing the dudes who were passing around a petition for something allowed under the Cuban constitution into the gulag.
Shame we can't throw our anti-Castros in jail. Especially when they fly from Florida to violate Cuban airspace to drop leaflets.
The exile community is a den of vipers. And there are those in this country who have no problem sheltering mass murderers.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Is there a point to this? Or do you genuinely think we should play tit-for-tat with distributorships? Perhaps we should embargo Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Nigeria, Vietnam, Russia
etc until they go all find the power of true love, friendship and liberal democracy.
You said maybe we should make the first move. I pointed out that we already did. If you're uncomfortable with that subject and would like to change to a different one, maybe you should have considered that before you introduced the subject.
I think tit for tat is a pretty good diplomatic strategy, but I fail to see how easing travel and trade restrictions on Cuba, then Cuba tossing activists in jail, is an example of the US playing tit for tat. It's an example of Cuba playing tat. I don't think Cuba should play tat, that's been my entire theme.
I don't think we should embargo the countries you've listed but feel free to make the case.
I think we should definitely embargo PRChina. Saudi Arabia is too vital to embargo, but on the plus side it's pretty easy to colonize a desert nation with only like ten million people.
Fuck the Cubans. Fuck Castro and fuck the exiles. Piss on all foreigners.
And tax H-1B visa holders at 100% once they surpass the 75th percentile wage in their country of origin. SORRY, ROTW, WE'RE FULL.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 04:10:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Is there a point to this? Or do you genuinely think we should play tit-for-tat with distributorships? Perhaps we should embargo Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Nigeria, Vietnam, Russia
etc until they go all find the power of true love, friendship and liberal democracy.
You said maybe we should make the first move. I pointed out that we already did. If you're uncomfortable with that subject and would like to change to a different one, maybe you should have considered that before you introduced the subject.
I think tit for tat is a pretty good diplomatic strategy, but I fail to see how easing travel and trade restrictions on Cuba, then Cuba tossing activists in jail, is an example of the US playing tit for tat. It's an example of Cuba playing tat. I don't think Cuba should play tat, that's been my entire theme.
I don't think we should embargo the countries you've listed but feel free to make the case.
Fair enough, but why point out something has nothing to do with us? Cuba tossed some guy in jail shouldn't bother our relations with them anymore then Germany should be bother because we execute someone in Texas.
And those countries I named tossed their own people in jail all the time. Who cares? If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:10:50 PM
I think we should definitely embargo PRChina. Saudi Arabia is too vital to embargo, but on the plus side it's pretty easy to colonize a desert nation with only like ten million people.
Getting chummy with the Saudi fucks is one of the biggest blots on the West's integrity. I don't think there is a single family in the world, royal or otherwise, I'd like to see more executed with extreme prejudice than the House of Saud.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
And tax H-1B visa holders at 100% once they surpass the 75th percentile wage in their country of origin. SORRY, ROTW, WE'RE FULL.
Hell, I'd cut the quotas for H1-B. Hire Americans first. Wanting to outsource? That'll be an extra 20% tax on income Mr. Corporation. No deductions.
And no more F-1 visas to students from the third world. Dirty fucks. Only if you can play football or basketball.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 04:20:03 PM
Fair enough, but why point out something has nothing to do with us? Cuba tossed some guy in jail shouldn't bother our relations with them anymore then Germany should be bother because we execute someone in Texas.
And those countries I named tossed their own people in jail all the time. Who cares? If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?
Do you think we should lift our sanctions against Myanmar? Why should it bother us if they throw some mouthy broad in jail? How about Syria? Why should it bother us if shoot some rebels?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2012, 04:24:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
And tax H-1B visa holders at 100% once they surpass the 75th percentile wage in their country of origin. SORRY, ROTW, WE'RE FULL.
Hell, I'd cut the quotas for H1-B. Hire Americans first. Wanting to outsource? That'll be an extra 20% tax on income Mr. Corporation. No deductions.
There aren't enough qualified Armericans for the jobs that companies bring people in on H1-Bs for though. Right now the company I work is desperately trying to hire more people to do what I do, they pay rather well, and cannot find enough, so are bringing in people from India. WIth the full realization that they won't be as effective as a native speaker.
Unemployment in the technical services sector is effectively zero.
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
I heard that 2Pac is alive in Cuba and will return in 2014.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
The problem with this from an employer's POV is that there is no way to guarantee the employee will be around long enough to amortize the training investment.
Maybe we should legalize indentured servitude. :hmm:
Non-compete clause?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
WHy would we train prospective employees? That makes no sense.
Our business is expanding, there simply are not enough current employees or junior level people to move up. Of course they are moving people up, but the idea that a company can simply promote from within to handle growth betrays a certain lack of understanding of how business actually works that is in fact common among people who say things like "ZOMG NO MORE VISAS HIRE AMERIKKANNN!!!!"
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 05:03:24 PM
Non-compete clause?
I bet in law school they teach that those things actually work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
The problem with this from an employer's POV is that there is no way to guarantee the employee will be around long enough to amortize the training investment.
The real problem is that if you currently have 10 employees at level 1, 6 at level 2, and 2 at level 3, but you need triple all those numbers, then training and promotion simply does not work to solve that problem, especially when you are also dealing with routine attrition in all those positions as well, which is unavaoidable in a tight labor market.
I love the idea that slogans and populist rhetoric, if stated loudly enough, can somehow solve basic problems of math. There are not enough highly skilled IT workers in the industry. Period. That means we either fail because we don't have the labor to support successful business growth, or we bring in talent from outside the US.
I guess the Ide's can bitcth that the US should be better at turning the low skilled unemployed into highly skilled workers, but that doesn't help out our business much.
Promoting within is horrible for moral too, which is counter intuitive. Jealous employees make bad employees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
The problem with this from an employer's POV is that there is no way to guarantee the employee will be around long enough to amortize the training investment.
Correct, which makes it a good candidate for a public program to increase the employee pool in these fields. Unfortunately fewer than half of graduates from science and engineering programs go into science and engineering careers. The rate is much higher among foreign-born students than natives, however, so a foreign-born student is actually a better investment.
Also, my personal experience from the job hunt is that people with 5 or more years of experience are in much shorter supply relative to demand than recent grads.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 04:20:03 PM
Fair enough, but why point out something has nothing to do with us? Cuba tossed some guy in jail shouldn't bother our relations with them anymore then Germany should be bother because we execute someone in Texas.
And those countries I named tossed their own people in jail all the time. Who cares? If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?
Do you think we should lift our sanctions against Myanmar? Why should it bother us if they throw some mouthy broad in jail? How about Syria? Why should it bother us if shoot some rebels?
Honestly, I don't care that much. Also I should note that Myanmar is not 90 miles off our coast. I have noticed that you have conflated sanctions and embargo. We do not embargo
Syria or Myanmar. So got anything else?
Oh, I forgot myself. You never answered my question: "If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?"
Myanmar never upset the US casino industry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 05:22:26 PM
Myanmar never upset the US casino industry.
More importantly there aren't a bunch of expat Burmese in a swing state for for the GOP to pander to. It's like Ethanol except they run drugs and guns.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
Another issue is that most people suck no matter how much training they get. There are only so many talented enough individuals within a group to cover certain jobs. So it is a big advantage for the US to be able to lure skilled workers from other groups.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2012, 05:09:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 05:03:24 PM
Non-compete clause?
I bet in law school they teach that those things actually work.
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they're against public policy. I guess in real life, they're almost never enforced.
One was used on me once. Sigh. -_-
Quote from: BerkutWHy would we train prospective employees? That makes no sense.
Well, they'd just be employees if you hired and trained them, not prospective.
If X industry could not find best-qualified employees in the past, before globalization, before even national labor mobility had entirely developed, what did they do? Close up shop? Or did they simply take on more of the responsibility of bringing new employees up to speed than they currently do?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
Honestly, I don't care that much. Also I should note that Myanmar is not 90 miles off our coast. I have noticed that you have conflated sanctions and embargo. We do not embargo
Syria or Myanmar. So got anything else?
To be consistent, you have to go past not caring that much to not caring at all. And you have to be in favor of lifting the sanctions.
Not sure how sanctions and embargos are distinguishable for the purposes of our discussion.
On the other hand your point about Myanmar's relative location is a real humdinger and I've got no suitable response to it.
QuoteOh, I forgot myself. You never answered my question: "If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?"
It's not a game breaker for the US and China because no one is advocating any change in US policy towards China. In other words, it's not a game breaker because the games are different.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 04:59:39 PM
Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.
The problem with this from an employer's POV is that there is no way to guarantee the employee will be around long enough to amortize the training investment.
In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2012, 06:49:13 PM
In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p
Berkut may a somewhat combative poster, but he hasn't shown himself to be a liar yet, so when he says that the US labor market for computer geeks is tight I'm inclined to believe him.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 05:27:47 PM
If X industry could not find best-qualified employees in the past, before globalization, before even national labor mobility had entirely developed, what did they do? Close up shop? Or did they simply take on more of the responsibility of bringing new employees up to speed than they currently do?
I imagine it depended on the circumstances. In some cases, I am sure a lack of qualified workers simply resulted in some business not growing as quickly as they could otherwise. Do you think that would be a good solution? The companies in the US that are growing should just stop and be crushed by competition from other countries that are not full of reactionary dumbasses who insist that we "hire Americans!" even if there aren't enough Americans who can do the work? Surely that would make America a stronger global competitor!
But the US was importing labor long before "globalization".
I hate foreigners. Get off my lawn.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 07:00:45 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2012, 06:49:13 PM
In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p
Berkut may a somewhat combative poster, but he hasn't shown himself to be a liar yet, so when he says that the US labor market for computer geeks is tight I'm inclined to believe him.
As of May 2011 (a bit dated, but the quickest data I could find) the unemployment rate for the IT industry was 3.8% while the national average at that time was 9.1%.
So yeah, it simply is not an issue in the IT industry right now. I got laid off from my job in January of last year, and found a job making 12% more within weeks, and job making about 23% more a few months later.
And I still get multiple calls a week from recruiters looking to fill spots. In Rochester, NY - which has a terrible overall economy.
You're getting old and flabby Throbs. Previously you would have taken issue with the combative. :P
Quote from: Berkut on February 01, 2012, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2012, 05:27:47 PM
If X industry could not find best-qualified employees in the past, before globalization, before even national labor mobility had entirely developed, what did they do? Close up shop? Or did they simply take on more of the responsibility of bringing new employees up to speed than they currently do?
I imagine it depended on the circumstances. In some cases, I am sure a lack of qualified workers simply resulted in some business not growing as quickly as they could otherwise. Do you think that would be a good solution? The companies in the US that are growing should just stop and be crushed by competition from other countries that are not full of reactionary dumbasses who insist that we "hire Americans!" even if there aren't enough Americans who can do the work? Surely that would make America a stronger global competitor!
But the US was importing labor long before "globalization".
In your industry's case, foreign workers may actually be necessary in order to sustain growth. My problem is when it leads to displacement, or wage depression, or
effective wage depression given the differential in U.S. education costs and foreign education costs.
P.S. foreigners grabbing LL.M.s to sit for several American state bars can just go die.
Poor Ide. The US post-secondary education system isn't really all that useful to most individual Americans, even though it's incredibly valuable to the United States as a whole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 06:17:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
Honestly, I don't care that much. Also I should note that Myanmar is not 90 miles off our coast. I have noticed that you have conflated sanctions and embargo. We do not embargo
Syria or Myanmar. So got anything else?
To be consistent, you have to go past not caring that much to not caring at all. And you have to be in favor of lifting the sanctions.
Not sure how sanctions and embargos are distinguishable for the purposes of our discussion.
On the other hand your point about Myanmar's relative location is a real humdinger and I've got no suitable response to it.
QuoteOh, I forgot myself. You never answered my question: "If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?"
It's not a game breaker for the US and China because no one is advocating any change in US policy towards China. In other words, it's not a game breaker because the games are different.
Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi? And me not caring much is entirely consistent. Myanmar's sanctions have been relaxed recently. They also serve some sort of purpose beyond pandering to an important demographic in a swing State. If the Cuban embargo was intended to serve as some sort of economic coercion then it has long since failed to achieve effects in the Cuban Government. Sanctions and embargo are different though similar. Try looking up the differences. I'm not against sanctions in general, but usually you do so with a clear goal in mind. Your statement about China is simply incorrect. There's plenty of people who want to change US policy toward China. You have everything from people who want to push the Chinese harder on currency and trade laws to people like Ide and Seedy who would want to simply nuke the bastards.
Work a little harder, and perhaps you can indeed get me.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi?
Don't have to look very hard. They're falling from the sky.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2012, 07:59:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi?
Don't have to look very hard. They're falling from the sky.
You could stop all if it by simply conceding.
I've not followed this but a couple of things screamed out at me. Indonesia and Nigeria are democracies Raz.
And I think we should consider the slow lifting of sanctions on Burma considering the steps they've taken this past year which have been weird, remarkable and surprising.
The weird thing for me is that part of the reasons sanctions are strict on Cuba is because they're a 'state sponsor of terrorism'. They're on the list with Sudan, Syria and Iran. The difference is, of course, that the Cubans don't really sponsor terrorism. The evidence by the State Department on Cuba was that there's no proof that they've severed ties with FARC and that there's been some contact with ETA. They may as well mention that they historically did support the PIRA. But I think it's very difficult to justify keeping them on that list for anything but nakedly political reasons. It seems to me to devalue the importance of action against sponsors of terrorism if the list is actually just used in this way.
Both Nigeria and Indonesia have those witch murders and stuff.
I really hate stuff. :angry:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Both Nigeria and Indonesia have those witch murders and stuff.
Yeah, but you included them in a list with Saudi, Vietnam and Russia - so autocracies you deal with - not, say, Kenya or Tanzania or other countries with witchcraft murders. You also wanted them to 'embrace the power of true love, friendship and democracy'. They've got the last one so again you weren't that clear on how important witch murders were to you :P
I for one am very troubled by Raz's pro-witch stance.
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2012, 01:45:10 PM
I really hate stuff. :angry:
Filling in for Ed Anger are we?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2012, 01:21:41 PM
The weird thing for me is that part of the reasons sanctions are strict on Cuba is because they're a 'state sponsor of terrorism'. They're on the list with Sudan, Syria and Iran. The difference is, of course, that the Cubans don't really sponsor terrorism.
I thought it was because they used to sponsor leftist revolutionary groups in the old Cold War days.
The sad part is that Bush took North Korea off the list for godsake but left the Cubans on it. Cuba is a bigger enemy and sponsor of criminal activity than North Korea? LOL. It must be all those gestures of freedom they did.
Cuba is dangerous to the US because it demonstrates that excellent education, healthcare and general happiness can be provided by a system that is completely different from the soulless capitalism of America.
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2012, 03:46:54 PMI thought it was because they used to sponsor leftist revolutionary groups in the old Cold War days.
The sad part is that Bush took North Korea off the list for godsake but left the Cubans on it. Cuba is a bigger enemy and sponsor of criminal activity than North Korea? LOL. It must be all those gestures of freedom they did.
Iraq, Yemen, Libya, others and North Korea, as you say, have been on and off there. But apparently the Cubans are up there with Iran, Sudan and Syria in terms of terrorist sponsorship. They should probably try to sponsor enough terrorism so they hit the Pakistan corollary and get billions of military aid instead of sanctions.
Edit: Looking into it apparently only Syria and Cuba have been on the list since it was created in the late 70s.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2012, 07:55:14 PM
Iraq, Yemen, Libya, others and North Korea, as you say, have been on and off there. But apparently the Cubans are up there with Iran, Sudan and Syria in terms of terrorist sponsorship. They should probably try to sponsor enough terrorism so they hit the Pakistan corollary and get billions of military aid instead of sanctions.
Edit: Looking into it apparently only Syria and Cuba have been on the list since it was created in the late 70s.
:lol:
:lol: Ditto, mongers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2012, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Both Nigeria and Indonesia have those witch murders and stuff.
Yeah, but you included them in a list with Saudi, Vietnam and Russia - so autocracies you deal with - not, say, Kenya or Tanzania or other countries with witchcraft murders. You also wanted them to 'embrace the power of true love, friendship and democracy'. They've got the last one so again you weren't that clear on how important witch murders were to you :P
Fine, take Nigeria and Indonesia out. Jesus. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2012, 07:55:14 PM
But apparently the Cubans are up there with Iran, Sudan and Syria in terms of terrorist sponsorship.
By many accounts Cuba has one of the tightest foreign intelligence operations out there, but it's mission is so narrowly defined and predicated upon anti-Castroism, that its efficiency against other elements is questionable.