FINALLY. Now we can go in, find these 'nonexsistant' wmds and Bush's 'lies' and offically restate our foreign policy as "We were right. You were wrong. Thanks for alllll you help. Oh, by the way, you opinions don't matter anymore. Cheers!" We're a super power, we need to stop this Clintonian style of pussyfooting around.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Mar 17 2003, 06:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Mar 17 2003, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> FINALLY. Now we can go in, find these 'nonexsistant' wmds and Bush's 'lies' and offically restate our foreign policy as "We were right. You were wrong. Thanks for alllll you help. Oh, by the way, you opinions don't matter anymore. Cheers!" We're a super power, we need to stop this Clintonian style of pussyfooting around.
Yes, I'm a right wing nutball :-P <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I keep asking myself whether this is satire or reality.
This confict started a long time ago, <a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/wtc.htm' target='_blank'>here is an example</a>, though there are even more in our past.
A quote from the link. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Trade Center was the target of another terrorist strike eight years ago, a car bomb that damaged the building and caused casualties but did not bring either of the towers down. The attack on the World Trade Center Tuesday was not the first on the 110-story twin towers. In February 1993, a truck bomb exploded there, killing six people, and displacing business in the complex for six months. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing, and sentenced to life in prison. The attack was meant to pressure the United States to stay out of the Middle East and curb its support of Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On a side note, yet still kind of related to the topic at hand, my Canadian government is a bunch of morons. I think that if you don't support a war with Iraq, you don't support UN resolutions, if the past 12 years is any indication.
Well so far its looking good for the stock market, this is going to be a very good war for my countries economy, hmmm maybe bush is killing 2 birds with 1 stone, but nahhhh hes just a crazy cowboy right right....
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 17 2003, 06:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 17 2003, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> War is bad for the economy. WWII is the only exception. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> war is the best thing for the USA's economy
<!--QuoteBegin--Jobabob+Mar 17 2003, 07:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jobabob @ Mar 17 2003, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 17 2003, 11:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 17 2003, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> War is bad for the economy. WWII is the only exception. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How in hell is war BAD for an ecocony that spends 200 billion squillion dollars annualy on defence and the military?! Those bullets don't fire themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Instead of spending money on building a bridge park or roads you spend money on bombs missles or bullets which don't last all that long.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sephiroth2k+Mar 17 2003, 10:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sephiroth2k @ Mar 17 2003, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->omg what an idiot. he just expects sadaam and his sons to leave iraq? how is he going to enforce this even if they do comply?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush does not expect Hussein & Co. to up and get the hell out of Dodge. If they do *HURRAH* and we send our troops in to kick butt and do their duty; if they don't *HURRAH* and we send our troops in to kick butt and do their duty, and we put Hussein on a War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity tribunal...if he survives that far.
Either way we're sending our military in to do what they have to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"<i>What else can be done when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object</i>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Jobabob+Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jobabob @ Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and you seriously expect the american government to 'disarm' by spending less on defense?? Jeeeeeez <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, and i don't want america to disarm either.
<!--QuoteBegin--Merkaba+Mar 18 2003, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Mar 18 2003, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, the US would be unwise to disarm and redirect its defence budget - what about its <i>offence</i> budget? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well said
<!--QuoteBegin--Merkaba+Mar 18 2003, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Mar 18 2003, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, the US would be unwise to disarm and redirect its defence budget - what about its <i>offence</i> budget? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Offence=defence, defence=offence
On that issue - the economically most potent nation in the world has spent the last 60 years investing about half a trillion US dollars each year in its defense. Yet, it still sees itself threatened.
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 18 2003, 02:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 18 2003, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On that issue - the economically most potent nation in the world has spent the last 60 years investing about half a billion US dollars each year in its defense. Yet, it still sees itself threatened.
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or that something is completely wrong in what they're saying...
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 18 2003, 02:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 18 2003, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On that issue - the economically most potent nation in the world has spent the last 60 years investing about half a billion US dollars each year in its defense. Yet, it still sees itself threatened.
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you mean half a trillion dollars a year. The Soviet Union was threatened by an American nuclear strike, and others are afraid of an attack, but just because you have a powerful military doesn't mean that all your problems go away. The military intimadates (sp) and when a threat arises, should be able to deal with it swiftly and correctly (nuking them isn't the solution-damn teenagers thinking it's cool to nuke a country). The police have many weapons and SWAT teams, but still people oppose them-does that mean that we shouldn't have any police or security forces?
I was actually counting the seconds until someone would start dismantling my little piece of rethoric here.
What I was emphasizing was the extreme amount of money invested year after year, no matter under what geopolitical situation, into the alledged defense against enemies, even at times where there was just no enemy (I'm thinking of the time between Perestroika and the beginning of the Middle East - era here). I do not doubt the necessity of a defensive force, but investing more money into it than some <i>continents</i> spend each year is overdoing it, if you ask me. Taking it on the level of law enforcement - every statistic will tell you that investing what money one would be putting into stronger police forces into projects to dissolve the social reasons for crime will pay back tenfold.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jobabob+Mar 18 2003, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jobabob @ Mar 18 2003, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 18 2003, 04:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 18 2003, 04:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Instead of spending money on building a bridge park or roads you spend money on bombs missles or bullets which don't last all that long.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jobabob+Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jobabob @ Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and you seriously expect the american government to 'disarm' by spending less on defense??<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, and i don't want america to disarm either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> does anyone see a contradiction here? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What contradiction? I said war isint good for the economy.
You said spending less will cause america to disarm.
I said no. because we will just have less of military. And i dont want america to disarm because when something terrible does happen we will have to play catch up.
I'm a bit out of my depth here, and I don't have any immediate facts to back me up-- so feel free to correct/ignore/abuse me . . .
But it seems to me that the entire military budget isn't just to stack your deck with the current technology-- a large percent of it seems to go to R&D (or, at least to subsidize R&D meant for other industries). So sure, the US always spends a disproportionate amount of money on the military, even when there is no apparent enemy, but the increase in tech sure helps when an enemy inevitably materializes (or is created, so to speak).
Iraq had (this is off the top of my head, and might be a bit off, so feel free to correct) the fourth largest army, but it was stocked primarily with equipment that was designed/manufactured in the late 70s-- whereas the US had equipment from the late 80s/early 90s . . .
A tech advantage of just one decade resulted in <i>how much</i> of a strategic advantage?
Edit: Yes, I know, I can't isolate that from all the other factors surrounding the Gulf War . . . but regardless, their hardware was <i>seriously</i> outclassed.
Comments
And there was me thinking he was just a short ginger guy who liked the ladies.
Well good luck to him - politicians who stand by their moral convictions are hard to come by.
Now we can go in, find these 'nonexsistant' wmds and Bush's 'lies' and offically restate our foreign policy as "We were right. You were wrong. Thanks for alllll you help. Oh, by the way, you opinions don't matter anymore. Cheers!" We're a super power, we need to stop this Clintonian style of pussyfooting around.
Yes, I'm a right wing nutball :-P
Now we can go in, find these 'nonexsistant' wmds and Bush's 'lies' and offically restate our foreign policy as "We were right. You were wrong. Thanks for alllll you help. Oh, by the way, you opinions don't matter anymore. Cheers!" We're a super power, we need to stop this Clintonian style of pussyfooting around.
Yes, I'm a right wing nutball :-P <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I keep asking myself whether this is satire or reality.
A quote from the link.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Trade Center was the target of another terrorist strike eight years ago, a car bomb that damaged the building and caused casualties but did not bring either of the towers down. The attack on the World Trade Center Tuesday was not the first on the 110-story twin towers. In February 1993, a truck bomb exploded there, killing six people, and displacing business in the complex for six months. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing, and sentenced to life in prison. The attack was meant to pressure the United States to stay out of the Middle East and curb its support of Israel.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On a side note, yet still kind of related to the topic at hand, my Canadian government is a bunch of morons. I think that if you don't support a war with Iraq, you don't support UN resolutions, if the past 12 years is any indication.
hehehe
I just hope this speech is worth watching.
war is the best thing for the USA's economy
How in hell is war BAD for an ecocony that spends 200 billion squillion dollars annualy on defence and the military?! Those bullets don't fire themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Instead of spending money on building a bridge park or roads you spend money on bombs missles or bullets which don't last all that long.
How does shooting something boost the economy?
Bush does not expect Hussein & Co. to up and get the hell out of Dodge. If they do *HURRAH* and we send our troops in to kick butt and do their duty; if they don't *HURRAH* and we send our troops in to kick butt and do their duty, and we put Hussein on a War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity tribunal...if he survives that far.
Either way we're sending our military in to do what they have to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"<i>What else can be done when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object</i>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PS - 44 hours to go before something happens.
No, and i don't want america to disarm either.
well said
Offence=defence, defence=offence
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back.
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or that something is completely wrong in what they're saying...
What does that tell me? It tells me that this money didn't pay back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you mean half a trillion dollars a year. The Soviet Union was threatened by an American nuclear strike, and others are afraid of an attack, but just because you have a powerful military doesn't mean that all your problems go away. The military intimadates (sp) and when a threat arises, should be able to deal with it swiftly and correctly (nuking them isn't the solution-damn teenagers thinking it's cool to nuke a country). The police have many weapons and SWAT teams, but still people oppose them-does that mean that we shouldn't have any police or security forces?
What I was emphasizing was the extreme amount of money invested year after year, no matter under what geopolitical situation, into the alledged defense against enemies, even at times where there was just no enemy (I'm thinking of the time between Perestroika and the beginning of the Middle East - era here). I do not doubt the necessity of a defensive force, but investing more money into it than some <i>continents</i> spend each year is overdoing it, if you ask me.
Taking it on the level of law enforcement - every statistic will tell you that investing what money one would be putting into stronger police forces into projects to dissolve the social reasons for crime will pay back tenfold.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jobabob+Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jobabob @ Mar 18 2003, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and you seriously expect the american government to 'disarm' by spending less on defense??<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, and i don't want america to disarm either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
does anyone see a contradiction here? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What contradiction? I said war isint good for the economy.
You said spending less will cause america to disarm.
I said no. because we will just have less of military. And i dont want america to disarm because when something terrible does happen we will have to play catch up.
But it seems to me that the entire military budget isn't just to stack your deck with the current technology-- a large percent of it seems to go to R&D (or, at least to subsidize R&D meant for other industries). So sure, the US always spends a disproportionate amount of money on the military, even when there is no apparent enemy, but the increase in tech sure helps when an enemy inevitably materializes (or is created, so to speak).
Iraq had (this is off the top of my head, and might be a bit off, so feel free to correct) the fourth largest army, but it was stocked primarily with equipment that was designed/manufactured in the late 70s-- whereas the US had equipment from the late 80s/early 90s . . .
A tech advantage of just one decade resulted in <i>how much</i> of a strategic advantage?
Edit: Yes, I know, I can't isolate that from all the other factors surrounding the Gulf War . . . but regardless, their hardware was <i>seriously</i> outclassed.