Integrity

[Ddrak]

If this is true, I applaud the decision:

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/fe ... 52799.html

American International Group Inc's former Chief Executive Robert Willumstad has rejected a $22 million severance payment, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing a person familiar with the decision.

Willumstad e-mailed his successor, Edward Liddy, of his decision to forego the severance since he was not able to execute the restructuring plan he had developed, the paper said.

Dd

[Harlowe]

If that's true, it's incredibly refreshing to see one of these guys take some accountability for the failure of their companies.

[Partha]

Gee, he only managed to lead his company, what, 80 billion in debt?

Now, if he were in stocks in the public square, it might serve as a good example.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Gee, he only managed to lead his company, what, 80 billion in debt?

Now, if he were in stocks in the public square, it might serve as a good example.

You really need to get some therapy for your hate.

[Partha]

Gee, he only managed to lead his company, what, 80 billion in debt?

Now, if he were in stocks in the public square, it might serve as a good example.

You really need to get some therapy for your hate.

I just heard from someone who can argue that it's perfectly legal to shoot someone who enters your home to rob you that shaming robber barons who destroy your finances through unregulated shenanigans is too evil.

Oooookay.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It's not 1920 anymore Partha. You need to move on and get over it.

[Partha]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

[Arkaron]

reducto ad Santayana

Well kind of, because he didn't really say that specifically, but the point is, that's almost as bad as a Goodwin.

[Kulaf]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Says the guy who's voting for the same thing that set us along the path to the biggest buildup of big government ever in the history of the U.S.

[Harlowe]

Oh for fuck's sake, that's beyond ridiculous.

[Partha]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Says the guy who's voting for the same thing that set us along the path to the biggest buildup of big government ever in the history of the U.S.

You're damn right. You know why? Because we built a large portion of our infrastructure with that big government, and we won World War II with that big government. With your small government, we've been losing two wars and New Orleans. Results matter for everyone except for gated community Libertardians like you.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

I fail to see how you can win a war that you shouldn't have been involved in, or that's not really a war to begin with. And what about Vietnam, how was that possibly won ?

Results don't always matter, there's no result in war, there's no winner and no loser, there's just lots of dead Americans and for what cause, because we felt obligated to go in and save people, and at what cost ? Money is such a make believe concept to the people spending it

[Partha]

I fail to see how you can win a war that you shouldn't have been involved in, or that's not really a war to begin with. And what about Vietnam, how was that possibly won ?

Vietnam could not have been 'won' for the same reason that Iraq can't be 'won'.

What we learned from WW II and it's aftermath is that if you destroy nations by blowing up their infrastructure during the fighting, you damn well have to spend a ton of money and time rebuilding it if you want to finalize the results. We poured 12 BILLION dollars in the late '40s into Western Europe for that effort with the Marshall Plan. That's a bit over $100 billion in current money, and compare it with the $9 billion we actually spent in Iraq in the two years after the war.

[Ddrak]

And what about Vietnam, how was that possibly won ?

I thought Vietnam was won quite convincingly by the North?

Results don't always matter, there's no result in war, there's no winner and no loser, there's just lots of dead Americans and for what cause, because we felt obligated to go in and save people, and at what cost ? Money is such a make believe concept to the people spending it

Uh, wtf?

Wars can absolutely be won. Wars are just politics by force, and are won and lost by the achievement of political goals. WW2 was won convincingly by the Allies in both theaters, as was WW1. Korea was a stalemate. Vietnam was a loss. The first Gulf War was a win. The second is yet to be determined, but looking like a loss all around though the US may still pull a draw out of the hat.

Wars rarely have anything to do with "going in and saving people". Iraq certainly didn't (though it was the reason given after the other psuedo-reasons lost steam). Iraq was primarily about establishing a US-friendly government in the Middle East so the US could exert influence in the area, with the secondary goal of establishing permanent military bases in that country. Read the PNAC document - it's all spelled out there. WMD, Saddam and terrorism were just flimsy excuses to pursue the Bush Doctrine as an evolution of the PNAC project. No conspiracy required, just a fundamental misunderstanding of the reaction of an unstable nation to invasion - even if it is to depose a mad dictator.

Iraq in the end, however, will be orders of magnitude less costly than the current financial meltdown.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

Wars against states can be won. We beat the the Republic of Iraq in 2 wars. Each time defeating them in about a week or 2.
Wars against ideas are another story. There is no leader to surrender.

[Harlowe]

Wars against states can be won. We beat the the Republic of Iraq in 2 wars. Each time defeating them in about a week or 2.
Wars against ideas are another story. There is no leader to surrender.

You make a good point, though this one isn't about any kind of surrender - winning means leaving a stable democracy within Iraq. Which seems pretty unrealistic to say the least.

[Klast Brell]

Armies are real good at blowing shit up and killing people. Taking people who hate us and making them love us? Not so much.

[Kulaf]

Oh for fuck's sake, that's beyond ridiculous.

It's not rediculous.....he freely admits it and is looking forward to it.

[Harlowe]

Well my bad, that sounded ridiculous.

[Kulaf]

I fail to see how you can win a war that you shouldn't have been involved in, or that's not really a war to begin with. And what about Vietnam, how was that possibly won ?

Vietnam could not have been 'won' for the same reason that Iraq can't be 'won'.

What we learned from WW II and it's aftermath is that if you destroy nations by blowing up their infrastructure during the fighting, you damn well have to spend a ton of money and time rebuilding it if you want to finalize the results. We poured 12 BILLION dollars in the late '40s into Western Europe for that effort with the Marshall Plan. That's a bit over $100 billion in current money, and compare it with the $9 billion we actually spent in Iraq in the two years after the war.

I think your monetary conversion is incorrect. I assume you were using the CPI......which is not what you should be using. You should be using dollars relative to the share of the GDP of the years in question. So that 12 BILLION in the 40's is actually more like 720 BILLION today.