CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › World › Putin: A new arms race has begun!

Putin: A new arms race has begun!

Started by neonpilot38 · · 👁 7 views · 49 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants neonpilot38hiddensailor11Brian Cox41Jeremy Wilson3velvetmarlin24goldensailor15goldentrucker17Zachary Watson50Richard Stewart2analogfalcon38Ronald Rodriguez73Dennis Harris5hiddengardener84Ashley Rodriguez41Richard Hayes4
Richard Hayes4 Richard Hayes4 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Feb 2008
#41 ·
velvetmarlin24 said:Hamby used nukes as a response to Pearl Harbor, which also ended the conflict in that area without everyone having to endure a polar winter or extreme heat.
Iraq and Afghanistan were responses to January 11th.
Germany was trying to get rid of the Jews along with others, which some people here find unacceptable.
Obviously, more weapons mean more security. And when you're dealing with provocateurs like China, Russia lately, Iran, and North Korea, having extra security is definitely a good thing.


What are you even talking about here? Iraq being responsible for the attack? During the era of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, they couldn't even get near Iraq; those groups only became active there after Saddam's regime was overthrown!

Major powers don't protect their interests quite like smaller nations might—they look at a much broader scope. The US expanded its influence all the way to the borders of Russia, so naturally, there will be a reaction. Why did Kennedy react during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Ashley Rodriguez41 Ashley Rodriguez41 Member
46 messages
joined Nov 2006
#42 ·
Dennis Harris5 said:Lucky, before you jump headlong into this debate, let me suggest we take a moment to establish some ground rules regarding the fundamentals. It’s crucial that we actually distinguish between public debt and external debt before we proceed any further.

When you discuss Russia's public debt, you're looking at a figure that stands quite firmly on its own merits—which is exactly why it’s documented so clearly in the Treasury Department's official reports. However, if we look closer at the broader picture, Russia's total external debt across all sectors currently exceeds $430 billion. To put that growth into perspective, back in 2006, that figure sat at approximately $310 billion. It is a significant upward trend when you lay the numbers out side by side.

Moscow, April 2 (Reuters) — Looking back at the economic landscape of 2006, there was a rather significant shift in Russia's fiscal position that caught many analysts off guard. During that year, their foreign debt climbed by a substantial 20.4%, eventually reaching a total of $309.7 billion. It was quite a notable spike, reflecting a period of intense global financial activity and shifting credit demands. I remember discussing these kinds of macro shifts with some colleagues back then; it’s always fascinating to see how quickly these massive numbers can escalate when international lending patterns change.

On April 2, Reuters reported on some significant developments regarding international relations and the shifting dynamics of global security. Looking back at this specific moment, it’s fascinating to see how the geopolitical landscape was being shaped by the decisions of major powers. The report highlights the ongoing tensions and the complex maneuvers involving various global players. It reminds me of those long afternoons I used to spend reading through policy briefs during my time working in Washington; there is always a certain gravity to these shifts that isn't immediately apparent until the dust settles. The way intelligence is gathered and then disseminated by agencies like Reuters can change the entire trajectory of public perception overnight. It is a sobering reminder that in the realm of high-stakes diplomacy, nothing is ever truly static. We are constantly navigating a sea of changing alliances and strategic recalculations. One must remain incredibly deliberate when analyzing these movements, as even a small shift in posture can signal a massive change in direction for the nation.

I’m not going to hand over the official link to you... frankly, you haven't earned it.😁

Have you finally grasped the point, or do I need to sit down and draw you a diagram?

I have to head out for a moment, but I will definitely be back.😬

That’s just the debt held by ExxonMobil, Freeport-McMoRan, and other major players who presumably know how to pay it back.

Given how well the American economy is looking, I guess it's nothing.

The Treasury pages don't include the debts of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, or anyone else.
Dennis Harris5 Dennis Harris5 Member
14 messages
joined Feb 2008
#43 ·
Ashley Rodriguez41 said:That’s just the debt held by ExxonMobil, Freeport-McMoRan, and other major players who presumably know how to pay it back.

Given how well the American economy is looking, I guess it's nothing.

The Treasury pages don't include the debts of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, or anyone else.

😕

I'm honestly a bit confused as to why you're directing this at me. You really should have grasped that distinction earlier, especially since you were insisting on something entirely different just a moment ago...

So, you've finally realized that the American external debt stands at over 400 billion dollars... which means it certainly isn't zero, nor is it a mere 40 billion.

It seems some people first need to master basic economic concepts—like understanding the difference between public debt and external debt, and how that structure actually works.

The Treasury website lists the public debt, which is exactly what you were trying to pass off as external debt earlier. Looking back at your posts from today at 5:29 PM, you were quite adamant about calling it foreign debt, which simply wasn't accurate.

We haven't even touched upon the actual composition of the debt until now, yet here you are, attempting to lecture me on debt structure just because you finally spotted the difference between two types of liabilities. It's almost comical, really.🤣

You've finally caught up... the real question is whether you can actually retain the information.🤣
Ashley Rodriguez41 Ashley Rodriguez41 Member
46 messages
joined Nov 2006
#44 ·
The U.S. foreign debt stands at $47.1 billion. That isn't the public debt; the website says so right there. I guess you just didn't read it correctly.

That figure represents the nation's foreign debt, not the debt held by companies resident in the United States.

public debt: http://www1.minfin.ru/en/debt/domestic/
Dennis Harris5 Dennis Harris5 Member
14 messages
joined Feb 2008
#45 ·
Ashley Rodriguez41 said:The U.S. foreign debt stands at $47.1 billion. That isn't the public debt; the website says so right there. I guess you just didn't read it correctly.

That figure represents the nation's foreign debt, not the debt held by companies resident in the United States.

public debt: http://www1.minfin.ru/en/debt/domestic/

It’s honestly starting to become almost comical, the level of intellectual depth I have to navigate when communicating with certain people...🤣

I already told you right here that I don't read Cyrillic... it seems like you clearly missed my point there.

Allow me to offer a bit of guidance here, if you'll permit me...😁

Public debt is simply the obligation of the federal government. For those who don't quite grasp the fundamentals: a nation can choose to issue debt on either the domestic or the international capital markets. It isn't that complicated once you look at the mechanics of how a central government manages its fiscal responsibilities.

When you're looking at how debt is categorized on a balance sheet, it really comes down to where that money is coming from. If you take out a loan from an international lender—say, you're securing financing from a major global bank based in London or Tokyo—that’s classified as external debt. On the other hand, if you're borrowing from within our own borders, like taking a loan from a domestic institution such as Chase or Wells Fargo, that falls under internal, or domestic, debt. It's a simple distinction in accounting, but it's fundamental to understanding a nation's financial structure.

I was just looking through some recent economic reports to get a better sense of the current fiscal landscape, and it’s quite a complex picture when you dive into the numbers. If you are asking about the total external debt held by the United States, the figures fluctuate depending on which specific metrics you look at—whether it's the total outstanding sovereign debt or the specific obligations owed to foreign creditors. To give you a clear perspective, according to recent data from the Treasury Department, the total public debt held by foreign governments and investors is substantial, often cited in the trillions of dollars. It’s a massive figure that reflects the scale of our global financial integration. However, it's important to distinguish between what the government owes to international entities versus the total national debt, which includes everything owed to domestic holders like pension funds and individual Americans. I remember back when I was studying macroeconomics in college, my professor used to emphasize that these numbers aren't just static digits on a spreadsheet; they represent the shifting tides of global confidence and geopolitical influence. Much like how we track the quarterly earnings of a giant like ExxonMobil to gauge energy trends, tracking these debt levels gives us a window into the broader stability of the American economy. It's a lot to digest, but keeping an eye on those official Treasury updates is always the best way to stay informed.
Dennis Harris5 Dennis Harris5 Member
14 messages
joined Feb 2008
#46 ·
Whenever some amateur tries to tell me that what the Treasury Department owes foreign entities isn't considered public debt, I immediately know exactly where they stand and just how little they actually understand about economics...🤣
Ashley Rodriguez41 Ashley Rodriguez41 Member
46 messages
joined Nov 2006
#47 ·
Dennis Harris5 said:Whenever some amateur tries to tell me that what the Treasury Department owes foreign entities isn't considered public debt, I immediately know exactly where they stand and just how little they actually understand about economics...🤣

My bad, the second link refers to domestic debt. 🙂
Dennis Harris5 Dennis Harris5 Member
14 messages
joined Feb 2008
#48 ·
Ashley Rodriguez41 said:My bad, the second link refers to domestic debt. 🙂

Honestly, it doesn't matter much; the important thing is that we finally cleared that up...😉
hiddensailor11 hiddensailor11 Member
10 messages
joined Feb 2008
#49 ·
neonpilot38 said:Are we really saying that a single attack on the military at Pearl Harbor, where a few thousand American soldiers were killed, justifies hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing nearly half a million innocent people through blasts and radiation???

that's just how cowards react!

That’s exactly how they responded after September 11th, too.
For the deaths of 3,000 people, they slaughtered over a million innocent Iraqis who had absolutely nothing to do with that attack (civilians), and they still aren't satisfied—they're still out there killing them!

👍
hiddensailor11 hiddensailor11 Member
10 messages
joined Feb 2008
#50 ·
velvetmarlin24 said:Nuclear weapons have already been tested, and whatever happens next is on Russia—everything moving forward from here is strictly their fault.
The USA didn't start or declare any kind of arms race.
So, there you have it; you wanted multiple powers involved. Now we just wait for the conflict to hit.

heh
that nuclear weapon they tested back in Japan? Compared to what we're looking at now, that was basically a firecracker.
And yeah, you're totally right—the USA didn't start this... it was me, or maybe it was you.
I mean, who exactly is busy setting up those launch pads—you know, the "defensive shields"—right under Russia's nose? Maybe someone in Djibouti or Morocco, I guess.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads