Forums → WEPR → Elections 2012

57	12639

offline

tankbuster37

6 posts

Nomad

Posted May 15, '11 11:11pm UTC

I can't imagine what idiots are going to run
for president this election. Does anyone know who
is running so far?

57 Replies

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 22, '11 12:56am UTC

So covert in fact, that Pakistan scrambles its fighter jets during the middle of the operation.

Who cares? We've been bombing [drones] them, harassing them, stepping into their borders all the time and their government doesn't do anything because we give them foreign aid.

I'm sure the 20 or so Billion we give them a year is MUCH better for us than a trillion dollar deficit we'd get by an invasion.

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.

If they didn't want the Shah
Why on earth would we put them there.
It. Is. Not. Our. Country.
Obviously, now we get the backlash for it and we fear WMD's all over the Middle East.

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.

Well, the World bank says 68.2, but whatever.
Also, you still aren't making sense. Saddam didn't keep the interests of the rich, he nationalized oil and many other industries. No private enterprise for that stuff. Also, he was loved in the more populated, eastern half of the country above the gulf. Also, yes, it's a bad thing to give them the right to vote. If they wanted to vote, don't you think they'd be voting? I've never heard of a large number of Iraqi's demanding democracy. If they don't want it, why on earth is it our job to instill it upon them.
Iraq is a deeply divided nation, involving Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc. Saddam's government was secular and repressive. The repression hit its highlights with things such as bio-chem warfare. That, I feel was wrong to condone. Though I didn't like the war, I'd have been cool if we were out once Saddam was done for. It is not our job to pick their leaders, that is not a democracy, it is tyranny. I'm sure that, if we were to leave, they, out of fear, would pick an even more anti-USA man than they would have if we had let them alone.

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.

These bases are our soldiers. I never said we don't need soldiers, keep them entertained with pensions for possibly giving their right ball to defend me, I never said anything against that.

What I'm against is this [something which Moe sort of answered]

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, along with our legitimacy as a nation, we'd like to win wars, or to be on the offensive side of them.
Now, lets look at this way. If we have to win a war, we're going to use the best that we have.
With a 14.7 Billion dollar GDP, i'm sure the government, when needed, will be able to muster up an arsenal, that, when packed together in a ball, will be the size of the moon.

No point in having outdated old crap lying around. Spend to make innovations, keep small amounts of it, when tensions get high, buy loads of crap. It's what our country has done for a long time, a nice, yet old, example is the war of 1812. We were outnumbered 50-1, but we had ironclad ships that held up rather well.

Another example could be Theodore Roosevelt, who did not expand the Navy in numbers, but with technology. He had a 'Great white fleet' that he took for a cruise, of just 16 ships, and said there were more like them.
Furthermore, our navy, though large, was practically pointless in WWII. Most of it was for escort, U-Boats were nasty.
1917, November 17, was the US's first navy victory against U-Boats, 7 months after entering, and before that, U-boats were sinking all that we had. What would have been the point of having old ships?
Also, pre-wwII, when tensions were rising, another example is the Second Vinson Act, authorizing a 20% increase in the US Navy. Came in handy a few years down the road.

That is just the navy, but my point is, we've always been smart enough to employ our best weapons at war, and I think that it only makes sense to me, logically, that we need not build up a pile of old crap we ought to never use.

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.

... Right, because the Bush Tax cuts, [and the 100 Bill dollar cut of last year]
has done SO MUCH to spur investment in jobs in our country and our unemployment rate is declining.
... Not.

You want the leaders to be successful in competition, not lying flat on their backs. As the money moves down the cycle, management takes big portions. As it should, better jobs deserve it. When, though, a company has a buying block and has no issues, hard taxes, or any interest for further success, chances are any surplus revenue or profit will end up in the hands of bank accounts or future funding, not as investments for a job to give light to this amazing productive cycle you are talking about.

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.

Government money could go to defense or other things. Other things can create jobs, too.
Also, you're chain right there dies at the word 'compete' -- As we've stated, our country is de-industrializing. This means the government is not buying enough stuff to boost the economy for this kind of intense production or competition is only adding to a debt that China owns.

Also, stop kidding yourself. We're not making these bombs with our money. If we WERE to get hostile in China, what if they stopped giving us cash. We'd be dead no matter how many nukes we have sitting at home.

Picking ponies over tanks is NOT quality over quantity.

... That's what I said. lol

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.

Lame comparison. You could have thought to mention the Patton, the tank we used before the Abrams. But even then, that is lame. Not only is a tank a difficult weapon to transport, and we don't make much of it, but we 'chose to not make shermans' back in 1955. In terms of tanks, we have been good at picking quality.

Our army's builk is supplied in our expenditure on the navy, air support, and bombs.
Example: Our current 'stockpile' of Nuclear Weapons is 5,113 -- now honestly tell me you don't believe they were all made in the last 20 years.

Furthermore, health care and fuel costs are the two fastest growing pieces of the budget. It's kind to know that our war is wasting money on fuel and health care, when, in fact, it could be helping to produce this big and bag military you'd like us to have.

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.

No, You should look at the facts.
Our last land on our soil was forever ago, 1812 I believe [excluding Mexican encounters] -- I think.
Us being conquered is about the funniest thing i've heard in a while. Though it's something I don't want, we are far from it.
And as I stated before, history has strong implications that Congress and the President have realized when foreign tensions are high, and have realized when arms races are going on, and have, as I've said, made '1000 tanks a little bit before I need to and once they're made I'll own'

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 French were on US Economic aid and had slower ships at the time, that isn't a fair comparison!
Also, I'm not saying we should camp. I'm sure that, even with invading and reducing the number of military personnel there, we'd have a clear line to Baghdad waterways, etc. The French tactic failed because they held out in cities.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not in a war against an army. There are no thousands of Vietnamese monster warriors attacking us.

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.

You quoted to it but you didn't even answer to it.
I said 'and electing conservative leaders'
There might be anti-US demonstrations, but so far I have yet to see any man in office that does not like the USA. In comparison, there are quite a few men on the other side.

You want the polls to be homogenous with the majority.

Sorry, misunderstood homogenous in that context.

Statistics is math; I don't see how Statistics can be good while math is bad... Care to explain?

I understand that. But, as with statistical theories, bigger sample sizes are more accurate and reduce the error margin. That's non-debate able. I thought we were debating against your poll versus the one he pulled out, both that were from 1000-3000 polls. So, what i was saying was, it is pointless to trust such a close opinion that Americans hold [as with homosexuality] seeing as your poll was like 5% in favor, and his was 3% against. Error margins + lack of sample size makes it rather inadequate. I'm not saying those polls are pointless/will be wrong by 200%, I'm saying that in a 50-50 case like this, most of those polls are pointless with smaller sample sizes, as their error margin goes far enough to tip the answer of the question both ways.

F-22 and F-35 are replacing the F-15 and F-16 respectively.

We have around 16 of each ordered. It'll be a while until they're replaced.

The F-15 and F-16 have seen almost 30 years of continued service, and have only just begun to be phased out.

Sure, but in an actual war, I'm sure we'd throw in a F-22 over a 16. They're good, but I'm sure the 22 is better. We wouldn't want seeing a 22 of country X owning a 16 of USA.

Now, if you look at it better, you'd notice that the US isn't engaging in any air combat. Iraqi terrorists do not have F-anythings. The 16's and 15's are seeing this service because this war is more covert than large-scale. That being said, they're 'only just beginning to be phased out' is a bad thing. It could have started sooner. It's worth spending cash to upgrade, it isn't worth spending cash to keep the same thing and use it until it's useless -- because then all that cash is useless.

663.8 Billion < 113.9 Trillion

... Liabilities are not the same as budget and expenditure.
This "Liability" is something the US government needs to pay over time.
The military budget is something we are dishing out.

The US spends the third most on students, yet the US ranks 18th among the 36 industrialized nations. Clearly, spending more isn't helping.

Agreed. We need to make our curriculum tougher and get rid of that No Child Left behind bullcrap. Also, I'd love to see AP Teachers getting paid more. That would drive teachers to pull up to that level, and then we'd have only the best teachers at that level [and, like a trickle down] still good teachers at lower levels.
Although we take all as equal, we need to give good drive to people that are *willing* to learn more. Most highschools I know and myself are going through all the 'hard courses' with a lot of work, but quite ease. I wouldn't mind being in something more difficult right now knowing I'd make bank for it later.

The fact we can make seemingly large amounts of these tanks and other equipment is just a testament to our economy.

Right, because we're in debt so we're squandering our federal government to get something.

That's like being a janitor and having an iPhone and a really nice car. That doesn't prove any economic prowess, all it shows is that this man is willing to pay more for this and a lot less for everything else.

And I'm find with making a bunch of Abrams, really, I am, but making 2000 more right now, at a time where they'll sit around is stupid.

Before that, it lost the Bataan Penisula, the Phillipines, etc. And that was *with* our Carriers remaining unscathed in the attack on Pearl Harbor

Umm, Carriers offer air support [for the most part] and are fat and slow. Our Navy was there, in ample supply, it got bust down, that was just poor spacing and a lack of security seeing as we were a little late on stopping the bombing. Of course we lost with only carriers.

In those situations, you had an entire nation that was devoted to fighting a war,

Right, but even before these situations [and as a history check, BOTH wars began with us NOT wanting to enter] -- we were still mass-producing a military arsenal just in case.
That was smart.
We, right now, on the other hand, are fighting terrorist, and are in no position for the future to go into a war with an actual COUNTRY right now on account of our deeds.

The US in Iraq is currently facing those same tactics, and Armed_Blade's idea would fail the same way France's did.

I already kind of addressed this, but again, we have a military that can connect to Iraq much better than France could have to Vietnam, France was getting economic support from us, we don't need any because we're sort of fine on our own, and we're not fighting an army. Bad war comparison in my opinion.

Less IEDs = Less people getting blown up, both Iraqis and Americans. And when an Iraqi realized that the Americans stopped that IED from blowing up his son, then he may become more inclined to give up intel that could further aid the war effort.

This is true. Still, we have men bolstered around in just about every major city. If there were any actual terrorists, most of the intel is probably out now or the terrorist are living on the outskirts. The locals may appreciate their safety, but many others who've seen Americans come in and out think the other way around, the Americans lead fighting towards them. Also, as records show of where people die, many do not die defending a city, they die on the outskirts. I'd rather have people scouring the outskirts and using technology to find baddies and sending men to camps in the area.
Also, IED's are usually implanted in areas where Americans have crossed through or will cross through to go further into an enemy area.
Thus, I'm sure an Iraqi would be annoyed that the IED's were planted there because of the Americans.

[quote]So covert in fact, that Pakistan scrambles its fighter jets during the middle of the operation.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWho cares? We've been bombing [drones] them, harassing them, stepping into their borders all the time and their government doesn't do anything because we give them foreign aid.\r\n\r\nI'm sure the 20 or so Billion we give them a year is MUCH better for us than a trillion dollar deficit we'd get by an invasion.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf they didn't want the Shah\r\nWhy on earth would we put them there.\r\nIt. Is. Not. Our. Country. \r\nObviously, now we get the backlash for it and we fear WMD's all over the Middle East. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, the World bank says 68.2, but whatever. \r\nAlso, you still aren't making sense. Saddam didn't keep the interests of the rich, he nationalized oil and many other industries. No private enterprise for that stuff. Also, he was loved in the more populated, eastern half of the country above the gulf. Also, yes, it's a bad thing to give them the right to vote. If they wanted to vote, don't you think they'd be voting? I've never heard of a large number of Iraqi's demanding democracy. If they don't want it, why on earth is it our job to instill it upon them.\r\nIraq is a deeply divided nation, involving Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc. Saddam's government was secular and repressive. The repression hit its highlights with things such as bio-chem warfare. That, I feel was wrong to condone. Though I didn't like the war, I'd have been cool if we were out once Saddam was done for. It is not our job to pick their leaders, that is not a democracy, it is tyranny. I'm sure that, if we were to leave, they, out of fear, would pick an even more anti-USA man than they would have if we had let them alone.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThese bases are our soldiers. I never said we don't need soldiers, keep them entertained with pensions for possibly giving their right ball to defend me, I never said anything against that.\r\n\r\nWhat I'm against is this [something which Moe sort of answered]\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAlso, along with our legitimacy as a nation, we'd like to win wars, or to be on the offensive side of them.\r\nNow, lets look at this way. If we have to win a war, we're going to use the best that we have. \r\nWith a 14.7 Billion dollar GDP, i'm sure the government, when needed, will be able to muster up an arsenal, that, when packed together in a ball, will be the size of the moon.\r\n\r\nNo point in having outdated old crap lying around. Spend to make innovations, keep small amounts of it, when tensions get high, buy loads of crap. It's what our country has done for a long time, a nice, yet old, example is the war of 1812. We were outnumbered 50-1, but we had ironclad ships that held up rather well.\r\n\r\nAnother example could be Theodore Roosevelt, who did not expand the Navy in numbers, but with technology. He had a 'Great white fleet' that he took for a cruise, of just 16 ships, and said there were more like them. \r\nFurthermore, our navy, though large, was practically pointless in WWII. Most of it was for escort, U-Boats were nasty.\r\n1917, November 17, was the US's first navy victory against U-Boats, 7 months after entering, and before that, U-boats were sinking all that we had. What would have been the point of having old ships?\r\nAlso, pre-wwII, when tensions were rising, another example is the Second Vinson Act, authorizing a 20% increase in the US Navy. Came in handy a few years down the road.\r\n\r\nThat is just the navy, but my point is, we've always been smart enough to employ our best weapons at war, and I think that it only makes sense to me, logically, that we need not build up a pile of old crap we ought to never use.\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\n... Right, because the Bush Tax cuts, [and the 100 Bill dollar cut of last year] \r\nhas done SO MUCH to spur investment in jobs in our country and our unemployment rate is declining.\r\n... Not.\r\n\r\nYou want the leaders to be successful in competition, not lying flat on their backs. As the money moves down the cycle, management takes big portions. As it should, better jobs deserve it. When, though, a company has a buying block and has no issues, hard taxes, or any interest for further success, chances are any surplus revenue or profit will end up in the hands of bank accounts or future funding, not as investments for a job to give light to this amazing productive cycle you are talking about.\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nGovernment money could go to defense or other things. Other things can create jobs, too.\r\nAlso, you're chain right there dies at the word 'compete' -- As we've stated, our country is de-industrializing. This means the government is not buying enough stuff to boost the economy for this kind of intense production or competition is only adding to a debt that China owns.\r\n\r\nAlso, stop kidding yourself. We're not making these bombs with our money. If we WERE to get hostile in China, what if they stopped giving us cash. We'd be dead no matter how many nukes we have sitting at home. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Picking ponies over tanks is NOT quality over quantity. [/quote]\r\n... That's what I said. lol\r\n\r\n[quote] 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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLame comparison. You could have thought to mention the Patton, the tank we used before the Abrams. But even then, that is lame. Not only is a tank a difficult weapon to transport, and we don't make much of it, but we 'chose to not make shermans' back in 1955. In terms of tanks, we have been good at picking quality. \r\n\r\nOur army's builk is supplied in our expenditure on the navy, air support, and bombs. \r\nExample: Our current 'stockpile' of Nuclear Weapons is 5,113 -- now honestly tell me you don't believe they were all made in the last 20 years. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, health care and fuel costs are the two fastest growing pieces of the budget. It's kind to know that our war is wasting money on fuel and health care, when, in fact, it could be helping to produce this big and bag military you'd like us to have.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, You should look at the facts.\r\nOur last land on our soil was forever ago, 1812 I believe [excluding Mexican encounters] -- I think.\r\nUs being conquered is about the funniest thing i've heard in a while. Though it's something I don't want, we are far from it.\r\nAnd as I stated before, history has strong implications that Congress and the President have realized when foreign tensions are high, and have realized when arms races are going on, and have, as I've said, made '1000 tanks a little bit before I need to and once they're made I'll own'\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]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. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThe French were on US Economic aid and had slower ships at the time, that isn't a fair comparison!\r\nAlso, I'm not saying we should camp. I'm sure that, even with invading and reducing the number of military personnel there, we'd have a clear line to Baghdad waterways, etc. The French tactic failed because they held out in cities. \r\n\r\nIn case you haven't noticed, we are not in a war against an army. There are no thousands of Vietnamese monster warriors attacking us. \r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\nYou quoted to it but you didn't even answer to it.\r\nI said 'and electing conservative leaders'\r\nThere might be anti-US demonstrations, but so far I have yet to see any man in office that does not like the USA. In comparison, there are quite a few men on the other side.\r\n\r\n[quote]You want the polls to be homogenous with the majority.[/quote]\r\nSorry, misunderstood homogenous in that context.\r\n\r\n[quote]Statistics is math; I don't see how Statistics can be good while math is bad... Care to explain?\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nI understand that. But, as with statistical theories, bigger sample sizes are more accurate and reduce the error margin. That's non-debate able. I thought we were debating against your poll versus the one he pulled out, both that were from 1000-3000 polls. So, what i was saying was, it is pointless to trust such a close opinion that Americans hold [as with homosexuality] seeing as your poll was like 5% in favor, and his was 3% against. Error margins + lack of sample size makes it rather inadequate. I'm not saying those polls are pointless/will be wrong by 200%, I'm saying that in a 50-50 case like this, most of those polls are pointless with smaller sample sizes, as their error margin goes far enough to tip the answer of the question both ways.\r\n\r\n[quote]F-22 and F-35 are replacing the F-15 and F-16 respectively.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe have around 16 of each ordered.  It'll be a while until they're replaced.\r\n\r\n[quote]The F-15 and F-16 have seen almost 30 years of continued service, and have only just begun to be phased out.[/quote]\r\nSure, but in an actual war, I'm sure we'd throw in a F-22 over a 16. They're good, but I'm sure the 22 is better. We wouldn't want seeing a 22 of country X owning a 16 of USA.\r\n\r\nNow, if you look at it better, you'd notice that the US isn't engaging in any air combat. Iraqi terrorists do not have F-anythings. The 16's and 15's are seeing this service because this war is more covert than large-scale. That being said, they're 'only just beginning to be phased out' is a bad thing. It could have started sooner. It's worth spending cash to upgrade, it isn't worth spending cash to keep the same thing and use it until it's useless -- because then all that cash is useless.\r\n\r\n[quote]663.8 Billion < 113.9 Trillion[/quote]\r\n\r\n... Liabilities are not the same as budget and expenditure.\r\nThis "Liability" is something the US government needs to pay over time.\r\nThe military budget is something we are dishing out.\r\n\r\n[quote]The US spends the third most on students, yet the US ranks 18th among the 36 industrialized nations. Clearly, spending more isn't helping.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgreed. We need to make our curriculum tougher and get rid of that No Child Left behind bullcrap. Also, I'd love to see AP Teachers getting paid more. That would drive teachers to pull up to that level, and then we'd have only the best teachers at that level [and, like a trickle down] still good teachers at lower levels.\r\nAlthough we take all as equal, we need to give good drive to people that are *willing* to learn more. Most highschools I know and myself are going through all the 'hard courses' with a lot of work, but quite ease. I wouldn't mind being in something more difficult right now knowing I'd make bank for it later.\r\n\r\n[quote]The fact we can make seemingly large amounts of these tanks and other equipment is just a testament to our economy.[/quote]\r\n\r\nRight, because we're in debt so we're squandering our federal government to get something.\r\n\r\nThat's like being a janitor and having an iPhone and a really nice car. That doesn't prove any economic prowess, all it shows is that this man is willing to pay more for this and a lot less for everything else.\r\n\r\nAnd I'm find with making a bunch of Abrams, really, I am, but making 2000 more right now, at a time where they'll sit around is stupid.\r\n\r\n[quote]Before that, it lost the Bataan Penisula, the Phillipines, etc. And that was *with* our Carriers remaining unscathed in the attack on Pearl Harbor[/quote]\r\n\r\nUmm, Carriers offer air support [for the most part] and are fat and slow. Our Navy was there, in ample supply, it got bust down, that was just poor spacing and a lack of security seeing as we were a little late on stopping the bombing. Of course we lost with only carriers.\r\n\r\n[quote]In those situations, you had an entire nation that was devoted to fighting a war,[/quote]\r\nRight, but even before these situations [and as a history check, BOTH wars began with us NOT wanting to enter] -- we were still mass-producing a military arsenal just in case.\r\nThat was smart.\r\nWe, right now, on the other hand, are fighting terrorist, and are in no position for the future to go into a war with an actual COUNTRY right now on account of our deeds. \r\n\r\n[quote]The US in Iraq is currently facing those same tactics, and Armed_Blade's idea would fail the same way France's did.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI already kind of addressed this, but again, we have a military that can connect to Iraq much better than France could have to Vietnam, France was getting economic support from us, we don't need any because we're sort of fine on our own, and we're not fighting an army. Bad war comparison in my opinion.\r\n\r\n [quote]Less IEDs = Less people getting blown up, both Iraqis and Americans. And when an Iraqi realized that the Americans stopped that IED from blowing up his son, then he may become more inclined to give up intel that could further aid the war effort.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is true. Still, we have men bolstered around in just about every major city. If there were any actual terrorists, most of the intel is probably out now or the terrorist are living on the outskirts. The locals may appreciate their safety, but many others who've seen Americans come in and out think the other way around, the Americans lead fighting towards them. Also, as records show of where people die, many do not die defending a city, they die on the outskirts. I'd rather have people scouring the outskirts and using technology to find baddies and sending men to camps in the area.\r\nAlso, IED's are usually implanted in areas where Americans have crossed through or will cross through to go further into an enemy area. \r\nThus, I'm sure an Iraqi would be annoyed that the IED's were planted there because of the Americans.

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted May 22, '11 9:42pm UTC

I'm sure the 20 or so Billion we give them a year is MUCH better for us than a trillion dollar deficit we'd get by an invasion.

It'd be a one time payment though. 1 Trillion now, 20 Billion a year for who knows how long.

If they didn't want the Shah
Why on earth would we put them there.
It. Is. Not. Our. Country.
Obviously, now we get the backlash for it and we fear WMD's all over the Middle East.

Only the select few who are now in power hated the Shah. The majority of Iranians preferred the Shah. The Shah's problem was that he did some very stupid things that pissed alot of people off in the end.

Also, yes, it's a bad thing to give them the right to vote. If they wanted to vote, don't you think they'd be voting? I've never heard of a large number of Iraqi's demanding democracy. If they don't want it, why on earth is it our job to instill it upon them.

Really? Hussein banned all oposition parties except for the Baath, and rigged all the elections so he was the only candidate on the ballots. Anybody who voiced any dissent was publicaly hanged during prime time television, or their bodies dumped in vats of acid. Yes, they wanted to vote, but they could not achieve that. The US has set up elections, made sure they were fair, and we are now helping to get their government up and running.

I'd have been cool if we were out once Saddam was done for. It is not our job to pick their leaders, that is not a democracy, it is tyranny. I'm sure that, if we were to leave, they, out of fear, would pick an even more anti-USA man than they would have if we had let them alone.

If we had left once we booted Saddam, Iraq would have been in the hands of another tyrant within weeks. And then where would that leave us? Next, we didn't pick their leaders. All we did was ensure that their elections for government positions were fair, open to the public, and unbiased. Allowing a government to form isn't picking their leaders, and isn't tyranny. Failing to allow democracy, in my opinion, is tyranny.

No point in having outdated old crap lying around. Spend to make innovations, keep small amounts of it, when tensions get high, buy loads of crap. It's what our country has done for a long time, a nice, yet old, example is the war of 1812. We were outnumbered 50-1, but we had ironclad ships that held up rather well.

Its beneficial to the US to keep a standing army. If we didn't keep one, people might get the idea that we were weak, and attack us. Also, what would happen if the main supplier of our arms decided to go anti-US? Its cheaper in the long run to keep and maintain a standing army, and then update your equipment as the times demand.

That is just the navy, but my point is, we've always been smart enough to employ our best weapons at war, and I think that it only makes sense to me, logically, that we need not build up a pile of old crap we ought to never use.

We don't have a pile of old crap. We have the best in technology, and our economy grants us the ability to ahve a lot of it. Look at the F-22, F-35 JSF, Stryker, USS Ronald Reagean, Peacekeeper Missile Program, Super Cobra Zulu, etc. You can't see these things and then call them outdated. There the cutting edge in kick-*** technology, as anyone on the recieveing end will tell you.

... Right, because the Bush Tax cuts, [and the 100 Bill dollar cut of last year]
has done SO MUCH to spur investment in jobs in our country and our unemployment rate is declining.
... Not.

Actually, the Federal Government recieved more in tax revenue than expected this year, enabling them to push back the date when our debt equals our GDP to mid-August. And imagine where our economy would be without the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Pretty bad, I'd imagine.

You want the leaders to be successful in competition, not lying flat on their backs. As the money moves down the cycle, management takes big portions. As it should, better jobs deserve it. When, though, a company has a buying block and has no issues, hard taxes, or any interest for further success, chances are any surplus revenue or profit will end up in the hands of bank accounts or future funding, not as investments for a job to give light to this amazing productive cycle you are talking about.

Exactly. If you take away from the profits that a company makes, what they have left they'll lock away. This is why you don't want to tax people into oblivion, they'll either go bankrupt and not pay anymore taxes, or they'll ship out to Mexico or China, and not pay taxes to the US.

Also, you're chain right there dies at the word 'compete' -- As we've stated, our country is de-industrializing.

No. First example that pops into my head is the fact that BMW has opened a new factory in Spartanburgh, South Carolina. Boeing is trying to open a new factory in Charleston, South Carolina, but the Feds keep screwing them over.

This means the government is not buying enough stuff to boost the economy for this kind of intense production or competition is only adding to a debt that China owns.

The US Government isn't the driving force in our economy. The consumer is. Its simple supply and demand. The problem is that if you have two toasters, one made in the US, and the other in China, the one from China will be cheaper. So the Consumer buys the cheaper toaster, and the US manufacturer loses profits. Companies need to figure out how to boost quality and profits without screwing their workers or customers over. The US Government also needs to pass legislation that encourages companies to come to America to build their factories. China has us beat in this regard; They can make vast amounts for cheap, and companies don't have to worry about labor laws. Rather than taxing companies into oblivion, lower taxes, and remove tariffs. This could aid in encouraging trade and foreing companies investing in the US.

We're not making these bombs with our money. If we WERE to get hostile in China, what if they stopped giving us cash. We'd be dead no matter how many nukes we have sitting at home.

May be not, but the US Government buys them from American companies, and that money later goes into our economy.

As I've mentioned before, what would happen if a country who supplied us arms became hostile to us? We'd be screwed, because those companies who do make arms in the US now would have left to other, more profitable, markets abroad.

And on a side note, a war with China might actually be advantegeous. Win, and their goes the largest holder of US debt. Add in a few reperations and you've got a pretty sweet deal.

Our army's builk is supplied in our expenditure on the navy, air support, and bombs.
Example: Our current 'stockpile' of Nuclear Weapons is 5,113 -- now honestly tell me you don't believe they were all made in the last 20 years.

Not the warheads, no. But the devices that transport the warheads, the missiles, were.

Furthermore, health care and fuel costs are the two fastest growing pieces of the budget. It's kind to know that our war is wasting money on fuel and health care, when, in fact, it could be helping to produce this big and bag military you'd like us to have.

We already have this big and bad military. Imagine if we didn't have to spend boatloads on health care. We could do so many other things! Like pay off our national debt, or help fund forays into alternative energies, or improove the infrastruture in the more rural areas of the US, or quite possibly aid those who have been displaced by the Mississippi River's flooding, and begin to contain and repair the damage the water's have caused.

Our last land on our soil was forever ago, 1812 I believe [excluding Mexican encounters] -- I think.
Us being conquered is about the funniest thing i've heard in a while. Though it's something I don't want, we are far from it.

Or... may by Pearl Harbor in 1941... A Japanese Submarine shelling the California coast in 1942... German Commandos landing on the East Coast in late 1942... Japanese Balloon Bombs throughout 1942 and 1943. Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean it can't happen again. To base something on the chances of an action not occuring is a recipe for disaster.

And as I stated before, history has strong implications that Congress and the President have realized when foreign tensions are high, and have realized when arms races are going on, and have, as I've said, made '1000 tanks a little bit before I need to and once they're made I'll own'

So... wait a few months as you amass the nessasary forces to attack or use your standing forces and attack within 48 hours... Several months... 48 hours... Hmmm...

And if our standing army wasn't enough, Congress could just activate the Reserves, or call in the National Guard, or tell everyone with a hunting license that its open season on the invaders.

The French were on US Economic aid and had slower ships at the time, that isn't a fair comparison!
Also, I'm not saying we should camp. I'm sure that, even with invading and reducing the number of military personnel there, we'd have a clear line to Baghdad waterways, etc.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was comparing. I was comparing your idea of hiding out in a bunch of bases to the French strategy in Indochina, doing the exact same thing. And the French lost out because of that.

And what waterways? Baghdad is land locked, and Iraq has acess to only a handful of ports. Iraq's naval presecne, both military and civillian, is practically non existant.

The French tactic failed because they held out in cities.

No. The French failed because they had no presence outside their 'hedgehogs'. The enemy never even had to attack the fortifications, because they had undisputed acess to the roads and riverways that allowed them to have control of the rest of the country.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not in a war against an army. There are no thousands of Vietnamese monster warriors attacking us.

Vietnamese used guerilla tactics, and the Taliban, al-Queda, and other insurgents use guerilla tactics.

You quoted to it but you didn't even answer to it.
I said 'and electing conservative leaders'
There might be anti-US demonstrations, but so far I have yet to see any man in office that does not like the USA. In comparison, there are quite a few men on the other side.

Define 'conservative leaders' please.

May be not openly. Many politicians like the US because its the US giving them huge pensions at the end of their terms. And many politicians continue to support legislation that only harms the US.

understand that. But, as with statistical theories, bigger sample sizes are more accurate and reduce the error margin. That's non-debate able. I thought we were debating against your poll versus the one he pulled out, both that were from 1000-3000 polls

Of course, larger polls are more accurate. I was defending my use of polls that were smaller than his. I've prooved that 1000 person polls are still accurate, and are still valid data.

We have around 16 of each ordered. It'll be a while until they're replaced.

The F-22 hit service formally in December, 2005. The JSF is projected to Hit service at the end of this year. The USAF has 183 F-22s in service currently, and is looking to place an order for 150 more. The US also intends to buy 2,443 F-35s, though budget limitations may decrease this number.

Sure, but in an actual war, I'm sure we'd throw in a F-22 over a 16. They're good, but I'm sure the 22 is better. We wouldn't want seeing a 22 of country X owning a 16 of USA.

The F-22 is banned from export. Also, the USAF would most likely deploy both, as the situation demanded.

Now, if you look at it better, you'd notice that the US isn't engaging in any air combat. Iraqi terrorists do not have F-anythings. The 16's and 15's are seeing this service because this war is more covert than large-scale.

Most air operations in Iraq, and the Middle East for that matter (with the exception of Libya), is ground support. JDAMs taking out buildings, Apaches suppressing areas, and close fire support, for example. So just because we have total air superiority, doesn't mean that the plane's jobs are over.

That being said, they're 'only just beginning to be phased out' is a bad thing. It could have started sooner. It's worth spending cash to upgrade, it isn't worth spending cash to keep the same thing and use it until it's useless -- because then all that cash is useless.

Thats true. On the opposite end of the spectrum, cutting stuff before the technology to replace is is avaliable is also useless. The equipment being phased out now are outdated, in the sense that the current times demand duties which could be fullfilled better by newer technology. The F-22 replacing the F-15 and the F-35 replacing the F-16, for example. Equipment is also updated as long as possible, so you aren't constantly spending money on replace ments. The M1A3 being developed to update the M1A2s, or example.

... Liabilities are not the same as budget and expenditure.
This "Liability" is something the US government needs to pay over time.
The military budget is something we are dishing out.

They're called Liabilities for a reason. They ultimately cost the US, so they aren't beneficial. Remove the the Welfare Programs, and you remove the liabilities, and a large source of cash the US Government loses every year.

Agreed. We need to make our curriculum tougher and get rid of that No Child Left behind bullcrap. Also, I'd love to see AP Teachers getting paid more. That would drive teachers to pull up to that level, and then we'd have only the best teachers at that level [and, like a trickle down] still good teachers at lower levels.
Although we take all as equal, we need to give good drive to people that are *willing* to learn more. Most highschools I know and myself are going through all the 'hard courses' with a lot of work, but quite ease. I wouldn't mind being in something more difficult right now knowing I'd make bank for it later.

Combine that with a program to evaluate teachers and fire those that don't make the grade, and we won't race to the top, we'll fly.

And I'm find with making a bunch of Abrams, really, I am, but making 2000 more right now, at a time where they'll sit around is stupid.

Today may seem great, but no one knows what tomorrow holds. Its better to be prepared and have the tanks, and never need them, than to be unprepared and not have the tanks, and then have cause to use them.

Umm, Carriers offer air support [for the most part] and are fat and slow. Our Navy was there, in ample supply, it got bust down, that was just poor spacing and a lack of security seeing as we were a little late on stopping the bombing. Of course we lost with only carriers.

Air support, and air superiority, is crucial to winning a battle. No planes = no win. Actually, the opposite is true. We won with just carriers. The Coral Sea was the first naval battle in which the opposing forces never saw each other. They simply launched planes at each other. and our pilots had more skill, better luck, and good timing.

And carriers, and planes in general, are crucial to operations in all stages. In Iraq right now, air craft provide an important role in aiding our troops. An M16 versus a pickup truck with a machinegun isn't to much help. Having aircraft their to take out the obstacles that a normal infantryman can't is crucial to winning the war effort, and keeping your guys alive.

We, right now, on the other hand, are fighting terrorist, and are in no position for the future to go into a war with an actual COUNTRY right now on account of our deeds.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Most of our military is stationed in the US, and we ahve enough forces to engage in multiple theaters. Worse case scenario, they Feds call up a draft. Financially, our military is a crucial part of our budget, and ussualy gets first dibs on funds.

I already kind of addressed this, but again, we have a military that can connect to Iraq much better than France could have to Vietnam, France was getting economic support from us, we don't need any because we're sort of fine on our own, and we're not fighting an army. Bad war comparison in my opinion.

As I've already said, we're facing guerilla tactics in Iraq, much like the French faced gureilla tactics from the Vietnamese. And I was comparing your idea of making a bunch of bases to France's 'hedgehog' strategy. And France lost. So, if history is any guide, your idea wouldn't amount to much either.

Still, we have men bolstered around in just about every major city. If there were any actual terrorists, most of the intel is probably out now or the terrorist are living on the outskirts.

In Iraq, most lines of trade center around large cities. Therefore, it makes sense to station your men around where the enemy smuggles arms along those same lines to the cities. Most terrorist activity takes place in or around the cities, so thats where you station your men.

The locals may appreciate their safety, but many others who've seen Americans come in and out think the other way around, the Americans lead fighting towards them.

Enemy activity flairs up in a region, the US sends in armed forces to deal with it, the activity if suppressed, and a minimal number of men stay behind to keep the peace. Ultimately, the area is left safer, and everybody wins.

Also, as records show of where people die, many do not die defending a city, they die on the outskirts. I'd rather have people scouring the outskirts and using technology to find baddies and sending men to camps in the area.

They die on the outskirts of cities because they're stopping those baddies from getting in. And its slightly better to have 3 Americans killed in an IED, than 3 Americans and 10 innocent Iraqies if an IED went off in a marketplace rather than the outskirts of a town.

Also, IED's are usually implanted in areas where Americans have crossed through or will cross through to go further into an enemy area.

Thats typically how wars work. If the cities are fairly secured, than they just place them on the sides of roads where the Americans are likely to drive inbetween the cities.

Thus, I'm sure an Iraqi would be annoyed that the IED's were planted there because of the Americans.

When the Iraqis see that that the Americans are concerned with detecting IEDs, not just for their own safety, but for the safety of the Iraqis, that shows just how much the US values civillian lives. And the Insurgents will happily blow up a 100 Iraqi's, if it means killing just one US Soldier. So who do you think the Iraqis hate more?

[quote]I'm sure the 20 or so Billion we give them a year is MUCH better for us than a trillion dollar deficit we'd get by an invasion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt'd be a one time payment though. 1 Trillion now, 20 Billion a year for who knows how long.\r\n\r\n[quote]If they didn't want the Shah\r\nWhy on earth would we put them there.\r\nIt. Is. Not. Our. Country.\r\nObviously, now we get the backlash for it and we fear WMD's all over the Middle East.[/quote] \r\n\r\nOnly the select few who are now in power hated the Shah. The majority of Iranians preferred the Shah. The Shah's problem was that he did some very stupid things that pissed alot of people off in the end.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, yes, it's a bad thing to give them the right to vote. If they wanted to vote, don't you think they'd be voting? I've never heard of a large number of Iraqi's demanding democracy. If they don't want it, why on earth is it our job to instill it upon them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nReally? Hussein banned all oposition parties except for the Baath, and rigged all the elections so he was the only candidate on the ballots. Anybody who voiced any dissent was publicaly hanged during prime time television, or their bodies dumped in vats of acid. Yes, they wanted to vote, but they could not achieve that. The US has set up elections, made sure they were fair, and we are now helping to get their government up and running.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'd have been cool if we were out once Saddam was done for. It is not our job to pick their leaders, that is not a democracy, it is tyranny. I'm sure that, if we were to leave, they, out of fear, would pick an even more anti-USA man than they would have if we had let them alone.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf we had left once we booted Saddam, Iraq would have been in the hands of another tyrant within weeks. And then where would that leave us? Next, we didn't pick their leaders. All we did was ensure that their elections for government positions were fair, open to the public, and unbiased. Allowing a government to form isn't picking their leaders, and isn't tyranny. Failing to allow democracy, in my opinion, is tyranny.\r\n\r\n[quote]No point in having outdated old crap lying around. Spend to make innovations, keep small amounts of it, when tensions get high, buy loads of crap. It's what our country has done for a long time, a nice, yet old, example is the war of 1812. We were outnumbered 50-1, but we had ironclad ships that held up rather well.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIts beneficial to the US to keep a standing army. If we didn't keep one, people might get the idea that we were weak, and attack us. Also, what would happen if the main supplier of our arms decided to go anti-US? Its cheaper in the long run to keep and maintain a standing army, and then update your equipment as the times demand. \r\n\r\n[quote]That is just the navy, but my point is, we've always been smart enough to employ our best weapons at war, and I think that it only makes sense to me, logically, that we need not build up a pile of old crap we ought to never use.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe don't have a pile of old crap. We have the best in technology, and our economy grants us the ability to ahve a lot of it. Look at the F-22, F-35 JSF, Stryker, USS Ronald Reagean, Peacekeeper Missile Program, Super Cobra Zulu, etc. You can't see these things and then call them outdated. There the cutting edge in kick-*** technology, as anyone on the recieveing end will tell you.\r\n\r\n[quote]... Right, because the Bush Tax cuts, [and the 100 Bill dollar cut of last year]\r\nhas done SO MUCH to spur investment in jobs in our country and our unemployment rate is declining.\r\n... Not.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually, the Federal Government recieved more in tax revenue than expected this year, enabling them to push back the date when our debt equals our GDP to mid-August. And imagine where our economy would be without the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Pretty bad, I'd imagine.\r\n\r\n[quote]You want the leaders to be successful in competition, not lying flat on their backs. As the money moves down the cycle, management takes big portions. As it should, better jobs deserve it. When, though, a company has a buying block and has no issues, hard taxes, or any interest for further success, chances are any surplus revenue or profit will end up in the hands of bank accounts or future funding, not as investments for a job to give light to this amazing productive cycle you are talking about.[/quote]\r\n\r\nExactly. If you take away from the profits that a company makes, what they have left they'll lock away. This is why you don't want to tax people into oblivion, they'll either go bankrupt and not pay anymore taxes, or they'll ship out to Mexico or China, and not pay taxes to the US.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, you're chain right there dies at the word 'compete' -- As we've stated, our country is de-industrializing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo. First example that pops into my head is the fact that BMW has opened a new factory in Spartanburgh, South Carolina. Boeing is trying to open a new factory in Charleston, South Carolina, but the Feds keep screwing them over.\r\n\r\n[quote]This means the government is not buying enough stuff to boost the economy for this kind of intense production or competition is only adding to a debt that China owns.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe US Government isn't the driving force in our economy. The consumer is. Its simple supply and demand. The problem is that if you have two toasters, one made in the US, and the other in China, the one from China will be cheaper. So the Consumer buys the cheaper toaster, and the US manufacturer loses profits. Companies need to figure out how to boost quality and profits without screwing their workers or customers over. The US Government also needs to pass legislation that encourages companies to come to America to build their factories. China has us beat in this regard; They can make vast amounts for cheap, and companies don't have to worry about labor laws. Rather than taxing companies into oblivion, lower taxes, and remove tariffs. This could aid in encouraging trade and foreing companies investing in the US.\r\n\r\n[quote]We're not making these bombs with our money. If we WERE to get hostile in China, what if they stopped giving us cash. We'd be dead no matter how many nukes we have sitting at home.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMay be not, but the US Government buys them from American companies, and that money later goes into our economy.\r\n\r\nAs I've mentioned before, what would happen if a country who supplied us arms became hostile to us? We'd be screwed, because those companies who do make arms in the US now would have left to other, more profitable, markets abroad.\r\n\r\nAnd on a side note, a war with China might actually be advantegeous. Win, and their goes the largest holder of US debt. Add in a few reperations and you've got a pretty sweet deal.\r\n\r\n[quote]Our army's builk is supplied in our expenditure on the navy, air support, and bombs.\r\nExample: Our current 'stockpile' of Nuclear Weapons is 5,113 -- now honestly tell me you don't believe they were all made in the last 20 years.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot the warheads, no. But the devices that transport the warheads, the missiles, were. \r\n\r\n[quote]Furthermore, health care and fuel costs are the two fastest growing pieces of the budget. It's kind to know that our war is wasting money on fuel and health care, when, in fact, it could be helping to produce this big and bag military you'd like us to have.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe already have this big and bad military. Imagine if we didn't have to spend boatloads on health care. We could do so many other things! Like pay off our national debt, or help fund forays into alternative energies, or improove the infrastruture in the more rural areas of the US, or quite possibly aid those who have been displaced by the Mississippi River's flooding, and begin to contain and repair the damage the water's have caused.\r\n\r\n[quote]Our last land on our soil was forever ago, 1812 I believe [excluding Mexican encounters] -- I think.\r\nUs being conquered is about the funniest thing i've heard in a while. Though it's something I don't want, we are far from it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOr... may by Pearl Harbor in 1941... A Japanese Submarine shelling the California coast in 1942... German Commandos landing on the East Coast in late 1942... Japanese Balloon Bombs throughout 1942 and 1943. Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean it can't happen again. To base something on the chances of an action not occuring is a recipe for disaster.\r\n\r\n[quote]And as I stated before, history has strong implications that Congress and the President have realized when foreign tensions are high, and have realized when arms races are going on, and have, as I've said, made '1000 tanks a little bit before I need to and once they're made I'll own'[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo... wait a few months as you amass the nessasary forces to attack or use your standing forces and attack within 48 hours... Several months... 48 hours... Hmmm...\r\n\r\nAnd if our standing army wasn't enough, Congress could just activate the Reserves, or call in the National Guard, or tell everyone with a hunting license that its open season on the invaders.\r\n\r\n[quote]The French were on US Economic aid and had slower ships at the time, that isn't a fair comparison!\r\nAlso, I'm not saying we should camp. I'm sure that, even with invading and reducing the number of military personnel there, we'd have a clear line to Baghdad waterways, etc. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou seem to have misunderstood what I was comparing. I was comparing your idea of hiding out in a bunch of bases to the French strategy in Indochina, doing the exact same thing. And the French lost out because of that.\r\n\r\nAnd what waterways? Baghdad is land locked, and Iraq has acess to only a handful of ports. Iraq's naval presecne, both military and civillian, is practically non existant.\r\n\r\n[quote]The French tactic failed because they held out in cities.[/quote] \r\n\r\nNo. The French failed because they had no presence outside their 'hedgehogs'. The enemy never even had to attack the fortifications, because they had undisputed acess to the roads and riverways that allowed them to have control of the rest of the country.\r\n\r\n[quote]In case you haven't noticed, we are not in a war against an army. There are no thousands of Vietnamese monster warriors attacking us.[/quote] \r\n\r\nVietnamese used guerilla tactics, and the Taliban, al-Queda, and other insurgents use guerilla tactics.\r\n\r\n[quote]You quoted to it but you didn't even answer to it.\r\nI said 'and electing conservative leaders'\r\nThere might be anti-US demonstrations, but so far I have yet to see any man in office that does not like the USA. In comparison, there are quite a few men on the other side.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDefine 'conservative leaders' please.\r\n\r\nMay be not openly. Many politicians like the US because its the US giving them huge pensions at the end of their terms. And many politicians continue to support legislation that only harms the US. \r\n\r\n[quote] understand that. But, as with statistical theories, bigger sample sizes are more accurate and reduce the error margin. That's non-debate able. I thought we were debating against your poll versus the one he pulled out, both that were from 1000-3000 polls[/quote]\r\n\r\nOf course, larger polls are more accurate. I was defending my use of polls that were smaller than his. I've prooved that 1000 person polls are still accurate, and are still valid data.\r\n\r\n[quote]We have around 16 of each ordered.  It'll be a while until they're replaced.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe F-22 hit service formally in December, 2005. The JSF is projected to Hit service at the end of this year. The USAF has 183 F-22s in service currently, and is looking to place an order for 150 more. The US also intends to buy 2,443 F-35s, though budget limitations may decrease this number.\r\n\r\n[quote]Sure, but in an actual war, I'm sure we'd throw in a F-22 over a 16. They're good, but I'm sure the 22 is better. We wouldn't want seeing a 22 of country X owning a 16 of USA.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe F-22 is banned from export. Also, the USAF would most likely deploy both, as the situation demanded.\r\n\r\n[quote]Now, if you look at it better, you'd notice that the US isn't engaging in any air combat. Iraqi terrorists do not have F-anythings. The 16's and 15's are seeing this service because this war is more covert than large-scale.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMost air operations in Iraq, and the Middle East for that matter (with the exception of Libya), is ground support. JDAMs taking out buildings, Apaches suppressing areas, and close fire support, for example. So just because we have total air superiority, doesn't mean that the plane's jobs are over.\r\n\r\n[quote]That being said, they're 'only just beginning to be phased out' is a bad thing. It could have started sooner. It's worth spending cash to upgrade, it isn't worth spending cash to keep the same thing and use it until it's useless -- because then all that cash is useless.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThats true. On the opposite end of the spectrum, cutting stuff before the technology to replace is is avaliable is also useless. The equipment being phased out now are outdated, in the sense that the current times demand duties which could be fullfilled better by newer technology. The F-22 replacing the F-15 and the F-35 replacing the F-16, for example. Equipment is also updated as long as possible, so you aren't constantly spending  money on replace ments. The M1A3 being developed to update the M1A2s, or example.\r\n\r\n[quote]... Liabilities are not the same as budget and expenditure.\r\nThis "Liability" is something the US government needs to pay over time.\r\nThe military budget is something we are dishing out.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey're called Liabilities for a reason. They ultimately cost the US, so they aren't beneficial. Remove the the Welfare Programs, and you remove the liabilities, and a large source of cash the US Government loses every year.\r\n\r\n[quote]Agreed. We need to make our curriculum tougher and get rid of that No Child Left behind bullcrap. Also, I'd love to see AP Teachers getting paid more. That would drive teachers to pull up to that level, and then we'd have only the best teachers at that level [and, like a trickle down] still good teachers at lower levels.\r\nAlthough we take all as equal, we need to give good drive to people that are *willing* to learn more. Most highschools I know and myself are going through all the 'hard courses' with a lot of work, but quite ease. I wouldn't mind being in something more difficult right now knowing I'd make bank for it later.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCombine that with a program to evaluate teachers and fire those that don't make the grade, and we won't race to the top, we'll fly.\r\n\r\n[quote]And I'm find with making a bunch of Abrams, really, I am, but making 2000 more right now, at a time where they'll sit around is stupid.[/quote]\r\n\r\nToday may seem great, but no one knows what tomorrow holds. Its better to be prepared and have the tanks, and never need them, than to be unprepared and not have the tanks, and then have cause to use them.\r\n\r\n[quote]Umm, Carriers offer air support [for the most part] and are fat and slow. Our Navy was there, in ample supply, it got bust down, that was just poor spacing and a lack of security seeing as we were a little late on stopping the bombing. Of course we lost with only carriers.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAir support, and air superiority, is crucial to winning a battle. No planes = no win. Actually, the opposite is true. We won with just carriers. The Coral Sea was the first naval battle in which the opposing forces never saw each other. They simply launched planes at each other. and our pilots had more skill, better luck, and good timing. \r\n\r\nAnd carriers, and planes in general, are crucial to operations in all stages. In Iraq right now, air craft provide an important role in aiding our troops. An M16 versus a pickup truck with a machinegun isn't to much help. Having aircraft their to take out the obstacles that a normal infantryman can't is crucial to winning the war effort, and keeping your guys alive.\r\n\r\n[quote]We, right now, on the other hand, are fighting terrorist, and are in no position for the future to go into a war with an actual COUNTRY right now on account of our deeds.[/quote] \r\n\r\nI'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Most of our military is stationed in the US, and we ahve enough forces to engage in multiple theaters. Worse case scenario, they Feds call up a draft. Financially, our military is a crucial part of our budget, and ussualy gets first dibs on funds.\r\n\r\n[quote]I already kind of addressed this, but again, we have a military that can connect to Iraq much better than France could have to Vietnam, France was getting economic support from us, we don't need any because we're sort of fine on our own, and we're not fighting an army. Bad war comparison in my opinion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs I've already said, we're facing guerilla tactics in Iraq, much like the French faced gureilla tactics from the Vietnamese. And I was comparing your idea of making a bunch of bases to France's 'hedgehog' strategy. And France lost. So, if history is any guide, your idea wouldn't amount to much either.\r\n\r\n[quote]Still, we have men bolstered around in just about every major city. If there were any actual terrorists, most of the intel is probably out now or the terrorist are living on the outskirts.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn Iraq, most lines of trade center around large cities. Therefore, it makes sense to station your men around where the enemy smuggles arms along those same lines to the cities. Most terrorist activity takes place in or around the cities, so thats where you station your men.\r\n\r\n[quote]The locals may appreciate their safety, but many others who've seen Americans come in and out think the other way around, the Americans lead fighting towards them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEnemy activity flairs up in a region, the US sends in armed forces to deal with it, the activity if suppressed, and a minimal number of men stay behind to keep the peace. Ultimately, the area is left safer, and everybody wins.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, as records show of where people die, many do not die defending a city, they die on the outskirts. I'd rather have people scouring the outskirts and using technology to find baddies and sending men to camps in the area.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey die on the outskirts of cities because they're stopping those baddies from getting in. And its slightly better to have 3 Americans killed in an IED, than 3 Americans and 10 innocent Iraqies if an IED went off in a marketplace rather than the outskirts of a town.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, IED's are usually implanted in areas where Americans have crossed through or will cross through to go further into an enemy area.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThats typically how wars work. If the cities are fairly secured, than they just place them on the sides of roads where the Americans are likely to drive inbetween the cities.\r\n\r\n[quote]Thus, I'm sure an Iraqi would be annoyed that the IED's were planted there because of the Americans.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhen the Iraqis see that that the Americans are concerned with detecting IEDs, not just for their own safety, but for the safety of the Iraqis, that shows just how much the US values civillian lives. And the Insurgents will happily blow up a 100 Iraqi's, if it means killing just one US Soldier. So who do you think the Iraqis hate more?

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 22, '11 11:56pm UTC

It'd be a one time payment though. 1 Trillion now, 20 Billion a year for who knows how long.

I'm sure that 20 Billion a year for who knows how long [and it will end, if we work at it] will cancel out the amount of cash this war has sucked. Also, this 'one time payment' you've talked about has, for so long at least, been going on for 10 years. 20 Billion for ten years versus trillions for 10 years... I'm sure the war is making strong progress in beating out foreign aid for years to come, trust me.

Only the select few who are now in power hated the Shah. The majority of Iranians preferred the Shah. The Shah's problem was that he did some very stupid things that pissed alot of people off in the end.

No, that's completely wrong! Most Iranians wanted a theocracy and the Shah's likelihood of the west, deals with national resources, and his openness to Western culture was in popular opposition!
Though it is true, that the military coup was of just a small number of Muslim fundamentalists, it is important to note that there was no wide-spread opposition to the resulting regime following the Shah's departure, clearly validating the belief that he was not too popular at all. Also, he was very oppressive to other political movements within the nation in order to preserve his pro-western regime.
Lastly, and I think this speaks for itself, the current leaders of today and of a few years following the Shah (Khomeini) further help to better prove that our 'lacement' of the Shah not only violated our beliefs of self-determination but also the trust of the Iranian people,

The US has set up elections, made sure they were fair, and we are now helping to get their government up and running.

We'll just have to wait and see, there isn't much else to say on the matter. I know that there was no hope of them electing another leader, but there was no official attack on the Iraqi Army, rebellion, etc, in those times.
The reason he oppressed all other political parties was to gain support from his own political base. He wanted Eastern Iranians voting for him, and that meant oppressing everyone else against his voting block. In America, we have peace and civil strife is solved through courts. Rural Iran and it's agricultural areas still have ways to go before we can just randomly instill democracy.

Iraq would have been in the hands of another tyrant within weeks. And then where would that leave us? Next, we didn't pick their leaders. All we did was ensure that their elections for government positions were fair, open to the public, and unbiased. Allowing a government to form isn't picking their leaders, and isn't tyranny. Failing to allow democracy, in my opinion, is tyranny.

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. Also, it depends as to who the people pick for their leaders. I think we'll see in time if they'd rather go conservative or liberal. Also, I'm sure we have had ways in any country with picking leaders. We transfer money to governments all around.

ts beneficial to the US to keep a standing army. If we didn't keep one, people might get the idea that we were weak, and attack us. Also, what would happen if the main supplier of our arms decided to go anti-US? Its cheaper in the long run to keep and maintain a standing army, and then update your equipment as the times demand.

Standing Army = Soldiers. Sure
A bunch of weapons in storage = Wtf?
Also, Nobody is going to think that we are weak and attack us. Our defensive base is by far the largest in the world, and, unlike many other countries, is an international one. You should honestly think about our 'Top Dog' position. We're not Top Dog. Right now, we're pretty much the only Dog. I understand your defensive concerns, but for the last 200 years, we've been all offense. So this unpredictable fear you have of a homeland attack is pointless. Terrorism? That's going to happen no mater how much we improve our military, history has shown that it is improved more through security.

We don't have a pile of old crap.

Yes, we do. If you look up the number of arsenal that some sites will show you, you'll see a much smaller number of all those weapons you listed in comparison to our old pile of crap.

As I said before, the reason you are pointing those weapons out is because we, as always, use our best. So why make worse, or so much of it that it isn't even in service?

Actually, the Federal Government recieved more in tax revenue than expected this year, enabling them to push back the date when our debt equals our GDP to mid-August. And imagine where our economy would be without the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Pretty bad, I'd imagine.

...
....
......
The 'expected tax revenue' is based off of previous tax revenues. The amount we choose to tax on the number of registered taxpayers was reduced by 100 Billion this year. The extra haul in taxes was based in part by Obama's small expansion in the IRS and around 60% of taxes being payed electronically, saving time, money, and messups.

Also, following the tax cuts, average income declined by 2,000.
The federal government fell into debt, leading to further taxes in the future.
The second of the two bills, in 2003, lead to a nasty over exploitation of the housing market [not entirely his fault]
And lastly, corporations filed in the biggest savings in the following years until 2007, relating to a lack of competition and less investments. This is just an economist, but these people are fact checked

From the article:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

I'm chocking after reading that. Not only did we have no growth, corporations made more money and we fell into debt!

Exactly. If you take away from the profits that a company makes, what they have left they'll lock away.

False, as stated by the article -- and the obvious nature for humans to WANT growth -- if they're not making enough, they'll invest to make more. They cant' just 'lock up money'. A real estate agency can't just 'shut down' and sit around with empty homes and non-liquid assets. I'm not saying tax into oblivion. But right now, taxes are at 50 year lows -- we're de-taxing them into being fat and not having to work towards any kind of investment, and our economy and unemployment rate proves that.

No

I know there are a few examples of factories over there, but if you'd like a graph, I'll show you one -- we're industrializing less.

Also, there's a key point to be noted in your example. Both of those are quality factories, not toaster makers. We need those tariffs for people like BMW and Sony to ask us to make Hi-Def. TV's. China will ALWAYS win with regard to making Toasters. They have 1 Billion people, a bunch of them poor, a bunch of them willing to work for less, a pathetic GDP/per capita, -- so why on earth are we, America, making Toasters and expecting them to sell. Or, just fix our educational issue and do what our economy's been doing for the last 30 years -- switching from manufacturing to service sector jobs.

The US Government isn't the driving force in our economy.

Funny considering you said it shouldn't tax.
Of course the consumer is the driving force, but the Government controls the monetary supply, taxes, and the federal budget, along with international and interstate commerce.

Not the warheads, no. But the devices that transport the warheads, the missiles, were.

As part of an agreement with Russia, we've removed ICBMs from Turkey, Europe, and in a later one we agreed to stop making ICBMs ourselves in the 90's.

As I've mentioned before, what would happen if a country who supplied us arms became hostile to us?

Except... we can supply ourselves with arms.

And on a side note, a war with China might actually be advantegeous. Win, and their goes the largest holder of US debt. Add in a few reperations and you've got a pretty sweet deal.

I'm sure, extremely sure, that a war with China would not be a 1-on-1 conflict.
And win, there goes the largest holder of US debt -- I agree. As for reparations, I don't think we'd be able to force that on 1 Billion people unless we made some epic humanitarian failures along the way -- Furthermore, our economy would be devastated following the war considering we'd A) Expand our military a crapload for a while and B) would have no cheap stuff

Or... may by Pearl Harbor in 1941... A Japanese Submarine shelling the California coast in 1942... German Commandos landing on the East Coast in late 1942... Japanese Balloon Bombs throughout 1942 and 1943. Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean it can't happen again. To base something on the chances of an action not occuring is a recipe for disaster.

These are minor attacks. They will occur no matter how large our arsenal is, and these examples only help to prove that. German commandos landing on the East Coast while we have the largest Navy in the world. --> Wtf
That's a lack of intelligence, or them having really good and sneaky subs/ships.

Imagine if we didn't have to spend boatloads on health care.

Different argument, and not a good one. Personally, I feel we need a mix of both.

And what waterways? Baghdad is land locked, and Iraq has acess to only a handful of ports. Iraq's naval presecne, both military and civillian, is practically non existant.

http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/maps/iz-map.jpg

I think that speaks for itself.

They're called Liabilities for a reason

It's a debt without interest. It's better than having to TAKE debt for a war that you don't have money for, and pay interest for it.

Combine that with a program to evaluate teachers and fire those that don't make the grade, and we won't race to the top, we'll fly.

We agree on something! No child left behind is pointless and is holding better teachers back from doing anything.

Vietnamese used guerilla tactics, and the Taliban, al-Queda, and other insurgents use guerilla tactics.

All use guerilla tactics.

One just happened to have a larger population in the middle of a jungle completely committed to annihilating an enemy, that one won, too.

No. The French failed because they had no presence outside their 'hedgehogs'. The enemy never even had to attack the fortifications, because they had undisputed acess to the roads and riverways that allowed them to have control of the rest of the country.

Vietnam is a jungle, Iraq is not. I showed you the river that passed through Baghdad. Also, I didn't say to hedgehog in a fortress, but we don't need all that military scouring the area -- We have many tanks and equipment outside of roads and connecting areas of the nation.

Air support, and air superiority, is crucial to winning a battle

You are proving my point. You said that we lost many battles before winning our first -- even with an unscathed carrier supply. Why didn't our carriers win the first few battles? Ah, we didn't have anything else to help. Why? For some reason, a large portion of our western navy was in pearl harbor, and that was busted.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

That's what I mean. It gets dibs on funds, it's crucial, and we can fight just about anywhere.
Except, that doesn't seem to be happening for a while.
So -- Yeah, no need to pay so much for a military. -- I'm not asking to make it any smaller, but I'm asking to stop making it any larger until we see any reason to do so.

Enemy activity flairs up in a region, the US sends in armed forces to deal with it, the activity if suppressed,

But that's not how guerillas work. They'll hit, run, and hit again. The minimal forces left back to stop them = owned. Or, the Guerillas move elsewhere.

Which is why I think this war is pointless anyway.

So who do you think the Iraqis hate more?

Depends on what he thinks.
"Even though he's getting rid of the IED, if he weren't here, it wouldn't, either, and that won't make two problems go away!"

[quote]It'd be a one time payment though. 1 Trillion now, 20 Billion a year for who knows how long.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm sure that 20 Billion a year for who knows how long [and it will end, if we work at it] will cancel out the amount of cash this war has sucked. Also, this 'one time payment' you've talked about has, for so long at least, been going on for 10 years. 20 Billion for ten years versus trillions for 10 years... I'm sure the war is making strong progress in beating out foreign aid for years to come, trust me.\r\n\r\n[quote]Only the select few who are now in power hated the Shah. The majority of Iranians preferred the Shah. The Shah's problem was that he did some very stupid things that pissed alot of people off in the end.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, that's completely wrong! Most Iranians wanted a theocracy and the Shah's likelihood of the west, deals with national resources, and his openness to Western culture was in popular opposition!\r\nThough it is true, that the military coup was of just a small number of Muslim fundamentalists, it is important to note that there was no wide-spread opposition to the resulting regime following the Shah's departure, clearly validating the belief that he was not too popular at all. Also, he was very oppressive to other political movements within the nation in order to preserve his pro-western regime.\r\nLastly, and I think this speaks for itself, the current leaders of today and of a few years following the Shah (Khomeini) further help to better prove that our 'placement' of the Shah not only violated our beliefs of self-determination but also the trust of the Iranian people,\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]The US has set up elections, made sure they were fair, and we are now helping to get their government up and running.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe'll just have to wait and see, there isn't much else to say on the matter. I know that there was no hope of them electing another leader, but there was no official attack on the Iraqi Army, rebellion, etc, in those times.\r\nThe reason he oppressed all other political parties was to gain support from his own political base. He wanted Eastern Iranians voting for him, and that meant oppressing everyone else against his voting block. In America, we have peace and civil strife is solved through courts. Rural Iran and it's agricultural areas still have ways to go before we can just randomly instill democracy. \r\n\r\n[quote]Iraq would have been in the hands of another tyrant within weeks. And then where would that leave us? Next, we didn't pick their leaders. All we did was ensure that their elections for government positions were fair, open to the public, and unbiased. Allowing a government to form isn't picking their leaders, and isn't tyranny. Failing to allow democracy, in my opinion, is tyranny.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMaybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. Also, it depends as to who the people pick for their leaders. I think we'll see in time if they'd rather go conservative or liberal. Also, I'm sure we have had ways in any country with picking leaders. We transfer money to governments all around. \r\n\r\n[quote]ts beneficial to the US to keep a standing army. If we didn't keep one, people might get the idea that we were weak, and attack us. Also, what would happen if the main supplier of our arms decided to go anti-US? Its cheaper in the long run to keep and maintain a standing army, and then update your equipment as the times demand.[/quote]\r\n\r\nStanding Army = Soldiers. Sure\r\nA bunch of weapons in storage = Wtf?\r\nAlso, Nobody is going to think that we are weak and attack us. Our defensive base is by far the largest in the world, and, unlike many other countries, is an international one. You should honestly think about our 'Top Dog' position. We're not Top Dog. Right now, we're pretty much the only Dog. I understand your defensive concerns, but for the last 200 years, we've been all offense. So this unpredictable fear you have of a homeland attack is pointless. Terrorism? That's going to happen no mater how much we improve our military, history has shown that it is improved more through security. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]We don't have a pile of old crap.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes, we do. If you look up the number of arsenal that some sites will show you, you'll see a much smaller number of all those weapons you listed in comparison to our old pile of crap.\r\n\r\nAs I said before, the reason you are pointing those weapons out is because we, as always, use our best. So why make worse, or so much of it that it isn't even in service?\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Actually, the Federal Government recieved more in tax revenue than expected this year, enabling them to push back the date when our debt equals our GDP to mid-August. And imagine where our economy would be without the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Pretty bad, I'd imagine.[/quote]\r\n...\r\n....\r\n......\r\nThe 'expected tax revenue' is based off of previous tax revenues. The amount we choose to tax on the number of registered taxpayers was reduced by 100 Billion this year. The extra haul in taxes was based in part by Obama's small expansion in the IRS and around 60% of taxes being payed electronically, saving time, money, and messups.\r\n\r\nAlso, following the tax cuts, average income declined by 2,000. \r\nThe federal government fell into debt, leading to further taxes in the future.\r\nThe second of the two bills, in 2003, lead to a nasty over exploitation of the housing market [not entirely his fault]\r\nAnd lastly, corporations filed in the biggest savings in the following years until 2007, relating to a lack of competition and less investments.[url=http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/] This is just an economist, but these people are fact checked[/url]\r\n\r\nFrom the article:[quote]Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm chocking after reading that. Not only did we have no growth, corporations made more money and we fell into debt!\r\n\r\n[quote]Exactly. If you take away from the profits that a company makes, what they have left they'll lock away. [/quote]\r\n\r\nFalse, as stated by the article -- and the obvious nature for humans to WANT growth -- if they're not making enough, they'll invest to make more. They cant' just 'lock up money'. A real estate agency can't just 'shut down' and sit around with empty homes and non-liquid assets. I'm not saying tax into oblivion. But right now, taxes are at 50 year lows -- we're de-taxing them into being fat and not having to work towards any kind of investment, and our economy and unemployment rate proves that.\r\n\r\n[quote]No[/quote]\r\n\r\nI know there are a few examples of factories over there, but if you'd like a graph, I'll show you one -- we're industrializing less.\r\n\r\nAlso, there's a key point to be noted in your example. Both of those are quality factories, not toaster makers. We need those tariffs for people like BMW and Sony to ask us to make Hi-Def. TV's. China will ALWAYS win with regard to making Toasters. They have 1 Billion people, a bunch of them poor, a bunch of them willing to work for less, a pathetic GDP/per capita, -- so why on earth are we, America, making Toasters and expecting them to sell. Or, just fix our educational issue and do what our economy's been doing for the last 30 years -- switching from manufacturing to service sector jobs.\r\n\r\n[quote]The US Government isn't the driving force in our economy.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nFunny considering you said it shouldn't tax.\r\nOf course the consumer is the driving force, but the Government controls the monetary supply, taxes, and the federal budget, along with international and interstate commerce.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not the warheads, no. But the devices that transport the warheads, the missiles, were.[/quote]\r\nAs part of an agreement with Russia, we've removed ICBMs from Turkey, Europe, and in a later one we agreed to stop making ICBMs ourselves in the 90's. \r\n\r\n[quote]As I've mentioned before, what would happen if a country who supplied us arms became hostile to us? [/quote]\r\n\r\nExcept... we can supply ourselves with arms.\r\n\r\n[quote]And on a side note, a war with China might actually be advantegeous. Win, and their goes the largest holder of US debt. Add in a few reperations and you've got a pretty sweet deal.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm sure, extremely sure, that a war with China would not be a 1-on-1 conflict. \r\nAnd win, there goes the largest holder of US debt -- I agree. As for reparations, I don't think we'd be able to force that on 1 Billion people unless we made some epic humanitarian failures along the way -- Furthermore, our economy would be devastated following the war considering we'd A) Expand our military a crapload for a while and B) would have no cheap stuff\r\n\r\n[quote]Or... may by Pearl Harbor in 1941... A Japanese Submarine shelling the California coast in 1942... German Commandos landing on the East Coast in late 1942... Japanese Balloon Bombs throughout 1942 and 1943. Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean it can't happen again. To base something on the chances of an action not occuring is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThese are minor attacks. They will occur no matter how large our arsenal is, and these examples only help to prove that. German commandos landing on the East Coast while we have the largest Navy in the world. --> Wtf\r\nThat's a lack of intelligence, or them having really good and sneaky subs/ships. \r\n\r\n[quote]Imagine if we didn't have to spend boatloads on health care.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDifferent argument, and not a good one. Personally, I feel we need a mix of both.\r\n\r\n [quote]And what waterways? Baghdad is land locked, and Iraq has acess to only a handful of ports. Iraq's naval presecne, both military and civillian, is practically non existant.[/quote][img]http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/maps/iz-map.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\n\r\nI think that speaks for itself.  \r\n\r\n[quote]They're called Liabilities for a reason[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's a debt without interest. It's better than having to TAKE debt for a war that you don't have money for, and pay interest for it.\r\n\r\n[quote]Combine that with a program to evaluate teachers and fire those that don't make the grade, and we won't race to the top, we'll fly.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe agree on something! No child left behind is pointless and is holding better teachers back from doing anything.\r\n\r\n[quote]Vietnamese used guerilla tactics, and the Taliban, al-Queda, and other insurgents use guerilla tactics.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAll use guerilla tactics.\r\n\r\nOne just happened to have a larger population in the middle of a jungle completely committed to annihilating an enemy, that one won, too.\r\n\r\n[quote]No. The French failed because they had no presence outside their 'hedgehogs'. The enemy never even had to attack the fortifications, because they had undisputed acess to the roads and riverways that allowed them to have control of the rest of the country.[/quote]\r\n\r\nVietnam is a jungle, Iraq is not. I showed you the river that passed through Baghdad. Also, I didn't say to hedgehog in a fortress, but we don't need all that military scouring the area -- We have many tanks and equipment outside of roads and connecting areas of the nation.\r\n\r\n[quote]Air support, and air superiority, is crucial to winning a battle[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou are proving my point. You said that we lost many battles before winning our first -- even with an unscathed carrier supply. Why didn't our carriers win the first few battles? Ah, we didn't have anything else to help. Why? For some reason, a large portion of our western navy was in pearl harbor, and that was busted.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. \r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's what I mean. It gets dibs on funds, it's crucial, and we can fight just about anywhere.\r\nExcept, that doesn't seem to be happening for a while.\r\nSo -- Yeah, no need to pay so much for a military. -- I'm not asking to make it any smaller, but I'm asking to stop making it any larger until we see any reason to do so.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Enemy activity flairs up in a region, the US sends in armed forces to deal with it, the activity if suppressed,[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut that's not how guerillas work. They'll hit, run, and hit again. The minimal forces left back to stop them = owned. Or, the Guerillas move elsewhere.\r\n\r\nWhich is why I think this war is pointless anyway.\r\n\r\n[quote]So who do you think the Iraqis hate more?[/quote]\r\n\r\nDepends on what he thinks.\r\n"Even though he's getting rid of the IED, if he weren't here, it wouldn't, either, and that won't make two problems go away!"

offline

Dragonblaze052

26,677 posts

Peasant

Posted May 23, '11 9:31am UTC

Now that the man I would vote for and my back up both dropped out, I have no idea of the person I will be voting for. i do know that I will not be voting for President Obama, however.

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 23, '11 7:40pm UTC

i do know that I will not be voting for President Obama, however.

Under any circumstances? Like...
Palin V Obama?

offline

Paarfam

1,558 posts

Nomad

Posted May 23, '11 7:51pm UTC

Palin goes up against Obama, she will get her *** handed to her on a silver platter.

I think it'll be a close match. Idiot v. idiot. They're both popular enough to compete. I just don't think either of them will make it until the end. I'd like to see Trump go. If Palin or Obama tries again I'm gonna laugh till I cry.

offline

Paarfam

1,558 posts

Nomad

Posted May 23, '11 7:56pm UTC

Obama isn't politically experienced.
Obama:
"****, our country is broke. Oh, I know, I'll fix it with more spending!" Don't tell me that isn't stupid.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted May 23, '11 8:05pm UTC

"****, our country is broke. Oh, I know, I'll fix it with more spending!" Don't tell me that isn't stupid.

Its not stupid. You can't help a failing economy without spending.

offline

Paarfam

1,558 posts

Nomad

Posted May 23, '11 8:11pm UTC

Sure, he needed to spend a little bit, but definitely not 700 billion.

offline

Paarfam

1,558 posts

Nomad

Posted May 23, '11 8:15pm UTC

I'm just saying it'd be a good idea to take some R&R and just take the nice, easy job as a senator for a while. He's so young.

offline

Paarfam

1,558 posts

Nomad

Posted May 23, '11 8:22pm UTC

I meant when his presidential term is over.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted May 23, '11 8:44pm UTC

Sure, he needed to spend a little bit, but definitely not 700 billion.

Since that at least helped stabilize the economy I would say it was necessary. Although I am one of those people who thinks they should have let the economy fall so we can pick ourselves back up instead of needing bailouts every decade or so now.

Showing 46-57 of 57

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Elections 2012