Forums → WEPR → Elections 2012
| 57 | 12642 |
- 57 Replies
No offense, but fail. We haven't invaded Pakistan, it was a completely covert operation -- probably using runways we have in surrounding countries.
So covert in fact, that Pakistan scrambles its fighter jets during the middle of the operation.
That's the most unethical thing I've heard. Our work there is prompting anti-US'ism across the globe, and our establishment of a 'ro-us' government is the stupidest idea I've heard so far. People need to brush up on our history. Iran would be 200 times more 'ro-us' if we hadn't faltered and decided to dictate the lives of millions by placing the Shah of Iran back in the day, something that completely contradicts what our country is supposed to stand for.
No. We put the Shah back to stop the guys who currently hold power from getting that power. Obviously, we failed, and Iran is very staunchily Anti-US.
You need to look at it from a view of the majority, not their richest people. Most Iraqi's farm or hold low tech jobs, most of them are poor, their life expectancy is terrible [and did go down further into the war] and now, thanks to us, the majority of them can vote -- and all they know is that they're poor. So yes, Economically trashed
So its a bad thing we gave them the right to vote? Promoting democracy is a bad thing? The CIA's 2011 Life Expectancy estimate is 70.55 years, which is fairly good all things considered. Its in the rich's best interest to keep the poor placated, and this means giving them such things as roads, hospitals, etc. Hussein did this exact thing, and the people loved him till he went crazy in the end.
You're point is terribly flawed. We are the top dogs in the world not by virtue of our military, but our economy.
We have a GDP of 14.7 Trillion dollars.
If we need something, we'll get it. The issue is not about the size of our arsenal, for, in most wars so far, the old stuff we have never used. I am not asking for the discontinuation of technological improvement in war weapons, I am questioning our massive production of such technology, both old and new, when our arsenal is already huge.
Military spending is crucial to our economy. This is part of the reason why the South has one of the best economys of the nation. We have scores of military bases down here. And Military Bases aren't self sufficient; you need grocery stores, and barber shops, and garages, and entertainment, and whole communities spring up around servicing these bases. And whenever one of these bases close down, the entire community becomes economically blighted. Look at Georgie, South Carolina, Alabama, and you'll find out very quickly that this is true.
{url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry]Arms Industry[/url]
Infact the US is only the 8th largest importer of Arms in the world, while being the largest exporter of Arms.
Here are the 2001 numbers from the Defense Industry:
1. Lockheed Martin Corp.: $17 billion
2. Boeing Co.: $16.6 billion
3. Northrop Grumman Co.: $8.7 billion
4. Raytheon: $7.0 billion
5. General Dynamics Co.: $7.0 billion
6. United Technologies Co.: $3.6 billion
7. Science Applications International: $2.1 billion
8. TRW Inc.: $2.0 billion
9. Health Net, Inc.: $1.7 billion
10. L-3 Communications Holding, Inc.: $1.7 billion
The size of our arsenal is crucial to our legitmacy as a nation. If we ever allow ourselves to become lax in maintaining such a large aresenal, we damage the legitamacy of our nation. We cannot run the risk that we may face a nation that could have more weapons than us. We are top dog in the world, and I, along with most Americans, want us to remain top dog.
Also, the idea is NOT for corporations to make money. We want people to have it, to flourish an economy, and expand industry/technology by adding to a strong consumerist background. What on earth will corporations contribute to our economy with it? Rich people have a thing called a 'net worth' -- because they have money sitting in the bank. Everyone else just has an income.
Those Corporations have to pay their employees, giving them money to save, spend on nessecities, and spend in the economy. Only the top few percent who work in a Corporation make vast amounts of money. The vast majority gets payed from these few individuals. Its in the workers best interest for the Leaders fo the Company to be successful, otherwise the amount of money they make will decrease. So the workers work harder, the Leaders have more sucess, and they use the money to pay the workers more. The workers then work even harder and have their morale boosted, the Leaders have more success, and then they pay the workers even more. So its a very productive cycle.
You say 'Any job'. It's government money. If they weren't wasting their money on this, it's not as if they'd just say 'oh guess no workers lets let the unemployment rate off-shoot'
Because it's not like the government invests in other stuff, like, say, education, infrastructure, science, colleges, tax burdens, debt,
Oh wait.. they do. And that makes jobs.
Government spending on Defense does create jobs. As the Government awards Defense Contracts to various companies, those companies have to employ more people in order to compete, win, and produce the materials needed in those contracts. So more people get payed, the economy becomes stimulated, and the Government gets more and better arms to defend itself with. Its a win-win situation. I was simply using Poland as an example with which to demonstrate this idea with. If the US cuts Defense spending, we won't be able to adequately defend ourselves, and we won't be around much longer.
Again, my point is our production upon military units. Not the modernization of our military. I'm sure if Poland spent its money on inventing a tank, they'd have a tank. Instead, they just made a bunch of ponies. Quality over Quantity. I'm asking why we have such a big quantity. I'm fine with paying companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing to make planes.
Picking ponies over tanks is NOT quality over quantity. Its the exact opposite; they chose the cheaper option, and decided they'd rather have more horses than tanks. And they got screwed for it. The US has the best military equipment on the earth, and our large economy enables us to spend large amounts to get more of this equipment. For example, Abrahms M1A2 cost 4.4 million USD. A Sherman tank cost, 33,500 USD. So you could make 130 Sherman Tanks for every 1 Abrahms tank. Choosing to make the M1A2 over the Sherman is picking Quality over Quantity.
As to why we're getting a bunch of planes, boats, bombs, that we already have in a huge mass is insane. If tensions were to get any worse in another country, THAT is when the USA should prepare for war. In WWI and II, we were expanding our arsenal immensely before we ever hit combat. Thereby, we were ready for war, and the war was helpful to the economy because it was big enough to spend out that arsenal, calling for the making of weapons.
These arms take time to manufacture. You can't just say "I'll make 1000 Tanks when I find the need to". By the time you do find a need, its too late. Part of what makes our military so great is that we can deploy to any part of the world in under 48 hours. If we had to wait for the ships and guns and planes and tanks to be manufactured, by the time we had ammased the nessasary materials, the war would be over or we would have been conquered.
Now, if we had captured Baghdad in 21 days and then pulled out and made bases and kicked *** from there, or did the same in Afghanistan working more on intel and using our advanced non-man military, I'm sure we'd be in the same place or better off.
The French tried to do that with Indochina with the 'Hedgehog' Strategy, and they got their arses beat back to Europe. Camping out in a base all day would just piss even more people off. The US Military has units go on patrol, and to look for IEDs to keep them and the people safe. Everybody wins from this: the Units don't get blown up, and the indegenous population doesnt get themselves killed either. You don't seem to understand that theres more to a military campaign then just killing the baddies and then leaving when its over.
It's 68.2, and that doesn't reflect a great statistic. Iraq is not completely super urban like the USA, so it depends where you are.
and yeah, 70% is a great number for this day and age. That's 9.4 million out of 31.4 Million that basically can't go into a modern day job or society.
You assume that Iraq's economy works like ours. Literacy, while imporant, isn't crucial to getting a job over their. Many illerterate people can get jobs in the oil industry doing manual task that require no use of reading. And 68.2% literacy is fairly decent for a country in Iraq's state. They're doing fairly well, and are in the process of improoving. Give them time to do that.
Yeah because the fact that they happen in different cities and that many of their elected leaders are still very conservative shows to prove nothing.
They're many anti-US Demonstrations in US Cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, etc. But that doesn't mean that all of America is anti-US. You're trying to take the actions of a small group of likeminded people, and then apply it to the majority.
I don't get it, but is that a joke?
Yes, it was.
Honestly, watch the primaries and look at the pre-voting polls, they're usually always off, and over time, as the election comes closer, they change a lot.
Just becasue the results of a poll 9 months ago don't reflect the thoughts of people today doesn't mean its wrong. A poll is a way to look at what people believe at that specific moment in time. Conduction accurate but smaller polls allows more polls to be conducted, and then allows trends to be made about how to population believes.
1) Why would you want homogenity, aren't you looking to represent an average of all the views within the nation?
Exactly, meaning that the views represented in the poll are homogenous with those held by the majority. You want the polls to be homogenous with the majority.
2) How is it accurate and with quality with smaller sample sizes, that is just a logic fail.
19 out of 20 polls of 1000 people have a margin of error of 3%. That means that 19 out of 20 polls of 1000 people are accurate to within 3%. Its not a logic fail; its upheld by statistical theory.
It is bad math, even IF it is good statistics. As for statistics, it can be wrong, a lot. Just look at presidential elections, the weather, etc.
Statistics is math; I don't see how Statistics can be good while math is bad... Care to explain?
Predicting rain works on barometric pressure. They look at the barometer, and then say; there X chance that it will rain today. They can be wrong; because X is never 100%. Polls can be wrong too, because X is never guanteed with certainty. IE, X is not 100%.
The difference is, with the F-35 have VTOL capabilities, it can be deployed on short run ways and due to the smaller size, can be used on naval aircraft carriers.
So? The Sea Harrier has VTOL capabilites, and can be deployed on short runways and on naval aircraft carriers. That doesn't make it a better plane then say, an F-15 Fighting Falcon. Also, the JSF's VTOL capabilities has several problems. For example, whenever it takes takes off vertically in a sandy environment, it sandblasts its underside, and removes its stealthiness.