Article

2006-12-17 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-12-17 04:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As usual, what VDH suggests makes too much sense.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-12-17 09:25|| 2006-12-17 09:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Cutting farm subsidies and raising taxes on gas? Are those the best ways he can think of funding raising those troops? That is the first time Victor has lost me in his argument.

Posted by Jules 2006-12-17 09:36|| 2006-12-17 09:36|| Front Page Top

#3 These people conduct the vast majority of their cowardly activies along major supply routes (MSR). Tele-commuting has not caught on here yet, so it would follow that most of them reside within walking distance or a short Toyota drive of their operational areas. The "kill boxes" are already identified. All that is needed is the will to put some B-52's in the ATO and monitor the kinetic effects. The kak will stop soon thereafter.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-12-17 09:46|| 2006-12-17 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Where would they be without Toyotas and cell phones? Mebbe the question should be When would they be...

Posted by .com 2006-12-17 09:51|| 2006-12-17 09:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, unless you add more troops with the same rules of engagement, so that more ~~dumb stupid~~ troops are killed, so that the Cut and Run imperative becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It is all about Stupid George, after all.

/sarcasm

Posted by john">john 2006-12-17 10:46|| http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/]">[http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/] 2006-12-17 10:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Jules, I think VDH is simply pointing out how easy it would be to fund the extra troops if we had the will power. We were just paying $3 a gallon for gas; an extra 10 cents right now wouldn't hurt anyone.

I'm no expert, but I'm coming around to the belief that our military needs to be bigger in the long term. I know Rumsfeld was against that, but we're going to be in situations where we need more Marines and more soldiers. Starting now with a new division of each, properly raised, trained and equipped (and yes I know how long that'll take) seems to be a good idea to me.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-12-17 11:28|| 2006-12-17 11:28|| Front Page Top

#7 100% of Rantburgers who open and study the following map of Baghdad, will understand the need to support one sect over the other. Kurdistan is peaceful because Kurds dominate. (Pardon AOL's subversion of easy linkage)

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7155/257/1600/baghdad-updates-nov27.7.jpg

The second issue: who do we support? We have never had good relations with non-Secular Shiites. On the other hand, we have mutual beneficial relations with Sunnis. (Screw the Wall Street Journal for promoting play of the Shiite card)

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-17 15:08|| 2006-12-17 15:08|| Front Page Top

#8 And the world, especially in Europe, has become vigilant against Islamic fundamentalism.

That is painfully optimistic.

And of course they play to the millions of their brethren appeasers who dont really want these radicals to bring them a Taliban Dark Ages, but sorta, kinda, like the idea that they kill a few of those arrogant infidel Westerners as blood sport.

And therein lies the rub. So long as we do not make Muslims in general feel our pain, they will never summon the will to begin singling out their jihadists. Instead, it will be the same old have-it-both-ways for as long as we let them get away with it.

If more Muslims were actually being shipped back to those "Dark Ages" locations, they might have second thoughts about tactily supporting terrorism. Until then, we are just so many targets that have not been hit ... yet.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-17 15:36|| 2006-12-17 15:36|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd like to have the advice and counsel of folk here at RB on a serious and personal matter.

My better half and I have been saving money for my daughter's college education for a number of years. All of the savings are in mutual funds (stocks). My daughter is 19 months away from starting college.

In 2000 we had approximately $45K in custodial accounts and Ed. IRA set aside. Today that amount is now about $50K with no intervening contributions. (times been tough)

We (actually SHE, my daughter) can't afford to take a major hit in the stock market insofar as these monies are for her college education because there isn't enough time for the market to rebound to help pay for her education.

I guess this is the Big Question: Knowing what I do about the world, believing as I do that the President and CIC is gonna take it to the f*ckin' Persians in due course: Should I liquidate her mutual funds and put 'em into CD's and money market funds NOW or can I afford to be greedy and wait another 8-12 months in light of the superb returns the market is giving now?

What would the folk at RB do?

I'm listening.

Flash poll: "Sell" or "hold for 8-12 months"? (or any combination thereof?)

Posted by Mark Z">Mark Z 2006-12-17 17:22|| 2006-12-17 17:22|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm still hopeful we'll take action against Iran, but don't know if we will. I have my $ in Janus Overseas, JAOSX. It's invested enough in the Pac Rim economy to (hopefully) weather an Iran shutoff, although that may depend on others upping their output. YMMV

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-12-17 17:28|| 2006-12-17 17:28|| Front Page Top

#11 According to everything I've read, Mark Z, (and remembering that I really don't have a good grasp on topics related to money), you should be slowly -- at monthly intervals or so, perhaps? -- liquidating the college funds precisely because you can't afford to take a big hit just as the young lady arrives at the door of her dormitory. Remember that most of those who lost big in the technology bubble of the '90s rode the wave up, then all the way back down, because they weren't willing to leave the table with enough rather than with the maximum of the peak. Only God gets the timing right every time. ;-)

Vanguard's website talks a bit about this link, and has a link to an asset allocator calculator.

Choose an asset allocation

In formulating an asset allocation for your college investment portfolio, focus on growing your assets in the early years and on protecting your accumulated assets in later years. As your beneficiary moves through the teenage years, you should methodically shift from more aggressive assets, such as stocks, to more conservative assets, such as bonds and short-term reserves.

If you're investing in a 529 plan, you'll find that most plans offer age-based options that automatically adjust your allocation to be more conservative as the beneficiary ages. If you're managing your own investment strategy, you should check your allocations at least once a year.

The allocation strategy that's best for you depends on your investor temperament, which reflects your risk tolerance. Keep this in mind: Even if you tend to be an aggressive investor, force yourself to move toward more-conservative investments sooner than you would with your retirement savings because of the limited time you have to save and use the proceeds.

Our asset allocation questionnaire can help you determine your investor temperament and a suitable mix of investments for your college savings plan.

By the way, $50,000 is an impressive sum to get her started in life! She's lucky to have to have you and Mrs. Z as parents.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-17 18:51|| 2006-12-17 18:51|| Front Page Top

#12 Mark Z, I favor "Sell", But what are the tax consequences?

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-12-17 19:25|| 2006-12-17 19:25|| Front Page Top

#13 FJ, RJ, TW...thank you one and all for your input.
You're kind to take the time to jot down your thoughts. Much appreciated.

I hear what you're saying TW (thanks for the link BTW) but I'm leaning towards RJ's advice: PULL NOW out of the stock funds (and just transfer into "custodial fund / ED. IRA" money market funds until she needs to draw down for tuition).

(TW...I'm content the 1996 Buick I drive and my wife says she is happy with her 1999 Toyota.)

Thanks again...

Posted by Mark Z 2006-12-17 20:04|| 2006-12-17 20:04|| Front Page Top

#14 Mark Z, I married a man who offered me the choice of a fancy diamond engagement ring or a new bed, then a fancy wedding or the downpayment on a house... so I knew what I was getting into. ;-) And honestly, you probably have a better grasp of matters financial than I, since most people do.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-17 20:28|| 2006-12-17 20:28|| Front Page Top

#15 Mark, I saw what was coming in Iraq and I believed that the market was high enough, so I moved mine to fixed dollar account, but as always, the lack of victory in Iraq or at the polls has had no effect at all on Wall St.
You may be right about future war with Iran, even nuclear, but that does not necessarily translate to a decline in the DOW. Real oil shortage, however would have an effect.

Posted by wxjames 2006-12-17 21:40|| 2006-12-17 21:40|| Front Page Top

#16 Here on Guam we have TWO CNN channels. Anyhoo, CNN guests > MOUD + RADICAL ISLAM WANT A WORLD WITHOUT AMERICA. As said times before, Dubya correctly interpreted the 9-11/WOT > EITHER AMER RULES THE WORLD, OR AMER WILL BE DESTROYED, ERGO AMER CHOOSES TO RULE THE WORLD. In absence of Dubya-USA imposing democratic regime change around the world vv the Rogues, the best Dubya and any GOP-Dem POTUS successor can hope for is to MINIMIZE, NOT 100% ELIMINATE, ANY NEW 9-11's = Amer Hiroshimas. The USA needs to do what is needed or requisite to SURVIVE, PREVAIL, AND BE VICTORIOUS - DRAFT > about Survival and victory of the Amer Nation, NOT GOP-DEM, etal.........@ ideo POLITIX. GEN. SHERMAN on WINDSOFCHANGE.NET > WAR IS CRUELTY/HELL. One side engages in cruelty = hellishness not for same's sake, BUT TO INDUCE THE ENEMY TO SURRENDER OR OTHERWISE CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT CONFLICT. Sherman's fam adage > NOT MEAN SO POLITICOS CAN WIN ELEX FOR ELEX'S SAKE. Sherman = MAcArthur > Prolonged, Protracted in-decision and inaction in War only results in Protracted Casualties. TO NOT FIGHT FOR VICTORY IN WAR IS THE SUREST, QUICKEST WAY TO CERTAIN DEFEAT = DESTRUCTION. MAY NOT HAPPEN OVER-NITE, BUT YOU AND YOUR SIDE WILL END UP JUST AS DEFEATED, JUST AS DEAD, JUST AS DESTROYED, BECUZ ARE PUTTING YOUR FATE-SURVIVAL IN THE UNILATERAL, SINGULAR HANDS OF YOUR ENEMIES. CHICOMS DEFENSE WHITE PAPER > America is not even officially Socialist or Communist or under OWG yet but have already lost 1/2 of CONUS-NORAM and 200Miyuhn out of 300Milyuhn AMericans.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-17 21:49|| 2006-12-17 21:49|| Front Page Top

23:26 Swamp Blondie
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 Pappy
23:07 Zenster
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:00 Zenster
22:58 Pappy
22:56 Old Patriot
22:45 Sneaze Shaiting3550
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:32 Zenster
22:32 Barbara Skolaut
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:24 trailing wife
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:10 SpecOp35
22:09 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:01 JosephMendiola
22:01 Zenster
22:00 SpecOp35
21:57 Verlaine
21:49 JosephMendiola