Gringrich pledges to ignore the Supreme court rulings.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

I'm a Criminal Justice major, and I'd trust the Supreme Court over a career politician (read: asshole) any day. The vast majority of the SC decisions I've read have been agreeable, or have made their point well enough that, even though I disagree with the outcome, I understand why they made it.

Saying stuff like this is not going to net Newt any brownie points.

Newtonyd:
I'm a Criminal Justice major, and I'd trust the Supreme Court over a career politician (read: asshole) any day. The vast majority of the SC decisions I've read have been agreeable, or have made their point well enough that, even though I disagree with the outcome, I understand why they made it.

Saying stuff like this is not going to net Newt any brownie points.

Notable in that his position in Iowa went from "leader" to "third place" since this.

Not sure if cause or not, but notable none the less.

BOOM headshot65:

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:
Hummmmmmmmmm.......

*thinking long and hard*

Nope, Im still going to vote for Gingrich. He still bets the heck out of ANY alternative.

So you think the blatant hypocrite is the best choice? The guy who claims to support the constitution but disregards it at every turn? The guy who'd wind up spending all his time fighting the Supreme Court over his blatantly illegal power grabs?

To answer your question, no. I wish he was honest. But given the choices, he is still the best. Why:
Obama: Has completely failed as president and I hope he is not re-elected.
Romney: To much flip-flopping and DID pass universal health care.
Paul: Really, this guy is nuts. I dont care if he has a docterate, this guy has no touch with reality and is just NUTS.
Everyone else: Has no chance of realistically winning.

Now to say he is the best is to ask weather I would have teeth pulled or get punched in the gut. Neither is good, but the punch will pass quicker. This saddens me. I turned 18 this year. This is the first election I can vote in. I will still vote, but really Washington, you could have done a WAY better job than THIS!

There's more choices than republican and democrat ya know :D I'm not voting for either of those twats.

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:

Shaoken:

So you think the blatant hypocrite is the best choice? The guy who claims to support the constitution but disregards it at every turn? The guy who'd wind up spending all his time fighting the Supreme Court over his blatantly illegal power grabs?

To answer your question, no. I wish he was honest. But given the choices, he is still the best. Why:
Obama: Has completely failed as president and I hope he is not re-elected.

Citation needed. He killed Osama, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, he got the Russians to START. Those are not failures.

Lets pick that apart, shall we:
Osama: Fine, I will give him that one. But one accomplishment a good leader does not make.
Nobel Prize: He hadn't DONE ANYTHING when it was given to him. The only reason they gave it to him was in spite of W. Bush.
Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:
Romney: To much flip-flopping and DID pass universal health care.

UHC which is popular in his state, and in the rest of the first world that is not the United States. So how is that a bad thing?

Have you also noticed that Massachussets is bankrupt...and every other First world nation with UHC is bankrupt, except Sweden and Switzerland. Besides, there are some people out there who can aford insurance, but DONT WANT IT! I think we should conscentrate on making medical cheaper, not pass some law saying "everyone is to have insurance...even though we cant pay for it."

Shaoken:
So, that's two choices better than him.

To you maybe. But not to me.

Vryyk:

BOOM headshot65:

Shaoken:

So you think the blatant hypocrite is the best choice? The guy who claims to support the constitution but disregards it at every turn? The guy who'd wind up spending all his time fighting the Supreme Court over his blatantly illegal power grabs?

To answer your question, no. I wish he was honest. But given the choices, he is still the best. Why:
Obama: Has completely failed as president and I hope he is not re-elected.
Romney: To much flip-flopping and DID pass universal health care.
Paul: Really, this guy is nuts. I dont care if he has a docterate, this guy has no touch with reality and is just NUTS.
Everyone else: Has no chance of realistically winning.

Now to say he is the best is to ask weather I would have teeth pulled or get punched in the gut. Neither is good, but the punch will pass quicker. This saddens me. I turned 18 this year. This is the first election I can vote in. I will still vote, but really Washington, you could have done a WAY better job than THIS!

There's more choices than republican and democrat ya know :D I'm not voting for either of those twats.

Ok...when was the last time a 3rd party won the election? Oh, never! Not even when it was Theadore Roosevelt, who the people loved to death. Sorry, but I am not going to throw away my vote, then complain about how the guy I wanted wasnt elected because I was the only one who voted for him. (like what would happen if Dick Cheney ran) Besides, My state you can only vote if you are registered Democrat or Republican (most likely Republican. Kansas is the Red-ist of the Red), and Republican fit my views WAY better than the Democrats do.

BOOM headshot65:

Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

I hope you don't consider yourself informed about politics, American or otherwise, and not know what START is. It's only been going on for two decades now. It's a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties, of which the latest was signed and ratified in 2010. How do you not know about this?

Vryyk:
There's more choices than republican and democrat ya know :D I'm not voting for either of those twats.

"There's more choices than 'dodge' and 'block' when someone tries to punch you in the face. You could also just take it."

No third party has ever been viable. Our system simply isn't built to handle minority parties like the greens. Voting for them is, for all intents and purposes, throwing your vote away, and in the case where the third-party candidate is essentially on the same side as another candidate, essentially voting against your own best interest. See also: Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader in 2000.

@BOOM Headshot65: Here's just a short list of what the Obama administration has accomplished:
- Captured and killed Osama Bin Laden
- Ended combat operations in Iraq (for real this time)
- Created a health-care bill which fixed possibly the single largest issue with the modern health-care system ("pre-existing condition" bullshit)
- Passed a stimulus bill which essentially "stopped the bleeding" of our economy
- Passed a major finance reform bill (Dodd-Frank)
- Got rid of DADT
- Started to sink unemployment, clearly reversing the trend

That's just a few of the major ones. Here is a more complete list.

Obama has really been about as effective as he could have been, given the republican tendency to use "Filibuster" as a "Destroy anything we disagree with" button, rather than an "Oh god if this passes we're all going to die" emergency panic button, the Red Dog Democrats, and the strength of lobbies in Washington. Perfect? No. Gitmo is still open, and the NDAA is a major black mark on his record. But overall? Definitely a very, VERY strong candidate.

Furthermore, I don't know where you got your figure in regards to Sweden and Switzerland; you missed Germany, England, and France.

Amnestic:

BOOM headshot65:

Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

I hope you don't consider yourself informed about politics, American or otherwise, and not know what START is. It's only been going on for two decades now. It's a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties, of which the latest was signed and ratified in 2010. How do you not know about this?

Because I have been trying to get informed on the policies of the people running, and I just didnt hear about START. But now that I know, I will give him a second victory. Now stack that up to his Mountain of failure. He didnt get my "vote" in 2008, back before I knew that he would be worse than fricking CARTER. He defiately will not get it now. I thought it was awsome that we might have our first black president, but I still didnt like his policies.

BOOM headshot65:

Amnestic:

BOOM headshot65:

Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

I hope you don't consider yourself informed about politics, American or otherwise, and not know what START is. It's only been going on for two decades now. It's a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties, of which the latest was signed and ratified in 2010. How do you not know about this?

Because I have been trying to get informed on the policies of the people running, and I just didnt hear about START. But now that I know, I will give him a second victory. Now stack that up to his Mountain of failure. He did get my "vote" in 2008, back before I knew that he would be worse than fricking CARTER. He defiately will not get it now. I thought it was awsome that we might have our first black president, but I still didnt like his policies.

Read my post. Obama is only a failure when held up to presidential giants like FDR and Clinton.

BOOM headshot65:

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:

To answer your question, no. I wish he was honest. But given the choices, he is still the best. Why:
Obama: Has completely failed as president and I hope he is not re-elected.

Citation needed. He killed Osama, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, he got the Russians to START. Those are not failures.

Lets pick that apart, shall we:
Osama: Fine, I will give him that one. But one accomplishment a good leader does not make.
Nobel Prize: He hadn't DONE ANYTHING when it was given to him. The only reason they gave it to him was in spite of W. Bush.
Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

Shaoken:

BOOM headshot65:
Romney: To much flip-flopping and DID pass universal health care.

UHC which is popular in his state, and in the rest of the first world that is not the United States. So how is that a bad thing?

Have you also noticed that Massachussets is bankrupt...and every other First world nation with UHC is bankrupt, except Sweden and Switzerland. Besides, there are some people out there who can aford insurance, but DONT WANT IT! I think we should conscentrate on making medical cheaper, not pass some law saying "everyone is to have insurance...even though we cant pay for it."

Universal Healthcare has little to do with Massachusetts financial problems, all but a couple of US States are bankrupt.

As for Countries with UHC that are not in any danger of defaulting, it is most of them. There are only a handful of countries in the word that are in danger of defaulting. Venezuela, Greece, Ireland and Argentina are the highest risk. Portugal, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, Vietnam, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Belgium and Turkey are not in a lot of danger, but might be if things go bad.

Countries with UHC that are not bankrupt.

Norway, Japan, New Zealand, Germany, UK, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Cyprus, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Israel are just the countries with UHC from the developed world.

Developing countries have UHC as well, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Cuba, Costa Rica, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Bhutan, India, Taiwan, Thailand, Russia, South Africa, Algeria, Ghana, Tunisia, Seychelles, Morocco and Mauritius.

Since you are American I am just going to assume you thought most countries with UHC were in financial trouble because you have been fed lies by Fox that UHC is not widespread. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not aware of just how many countries have UHC.

pyrate:

BOOM headshot65:

Shaoken:

Citation needed. He killed Osama, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, he got the Russians to START. Those are not failures.

Lets pick that apart, shall we:
Osama: Fine, I will give him that one. But one accomplishment a good leader does not make.
Nobel Prize: He hadn't DONE ANYTHING when it was given to him. The only reason they gave it to him was in spite of W. Bush.
Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

Shaoken:

UHC which is popular in his state, and in the rest of the first world that is not the United States. So how is that a bad thing?

Have you also noticed that Massachussets is bankrupt...and every other First world nation with UHC is bankrupt, except Sweden and Switzerland. Besides, there are some people out there who can aford insurance, but DONT WANT IT! I think we should conscentrate on making medical cheaper, not pass some law saying "everyone is to have insurance...even though we cant pay for it."

Universal Healthcare has little to do with Massachusetts financial problems, all but a couple of US States are bankrupt.

Well my state is in the black, big time. The only thing that got funding cuts that I thought shouldnt have was education and the arts. We found other ways to make money and cut spending.

As for those other countries you listed, most of them also have little military and get foriegn aid from US. They should pull thier own weight with thier military and only call on the US when things get out of hand.

But I still wont support UHC. Why? Because it is the government forcing me to buy a product, which is something it should never do.

pyrate:
Since you are American I am just going to assume you thought most countries with UHC were in financial trouble because you have been fed lies by Fox that UHC is not widespread. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not aware of just how many countries have UHC.

Oh look, someone who thinks that just because I am an American and Republican I only watch Fox news, believe everything they say, and know nothing. Well, I have news for you. I have a VERY!!!! strict "dont trust one source" policy. I get my news from 4 sources minimum. Fox News, CNN, USA Today, and the Mercury (local paper). And through ALL 4 of these, I have come to the conclusion UHC, while having good intentions, is not something I will support in ALL cases.

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:

Amnestic:

I hope you don't consider yourself informed about politics, American or otherwise, and not know what START is. It's only been going on for two decades now. It's a series of nuclear arms reduction treaties, of which the latest was signed and ratified in 2010. How do you not know about this?

Because I have been trying to get informed on the policies of the people running, and I just didnt hear about START. But now that I know, I will give him a second victory. Now stack that up to his Mountain of failure. He didnt get my "vote" in 2008, back before I knew that he would be worse than fricking CARTER. He defiately will not get it now. I thought it was awsome that we might have our first black president, but I still didnt like his policies.

Read my post. Obama is only a failure when held up to presidential giants like FDR and Clinton.

Well, then I guess its a good thing I dont compare any president to Clinton or FDR, ey? I compare them to ones that I liked, that being Reagan, Eisenhower, and TR.

Stagnant:

Read my post. Obama is only a failure when held up to presidential giants like FDR and Clinton.

I don't think there's any way Obama is a failure as such; it's not the USA is any more about to break than when he took over.

He certainly doesn't measure up well compared to several greats. For that matter, however, I don't think he measures up very well to a load of good ones either. The more I think on it, the more he strikes me an average quality president, and that perhaps Hilary Clinton would have done a better job. I think he had very modest ambitions from the off that were guaranteed to disappoint his voter base, and I've had very little impression he has been prepared to really stand up and fight for his agenda even then. A moderate consensus-builder is not effective in a political system disinclined to consensus where people want great things done. But I guess such a leader is not going to completely screw up either.

But I guess Obama's what the Democrats have to work with, so they may as well talk him up, and there's still the plus that he's better than any of the shower that the Republicans have fielded this cycle.

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:

BOOM headshot65:

Lets pick that apart, shall we:
Osama: Fine, I will give him that one. But one accomplishment a good leader does not make.
Nobel Prize: He hadn't DONE ANYTHING when it was given to him. The only reason they gave it to him was in spite of W. Bush.
Russkies: ...uh...you talking about the corruption filled elections? If that be Obamas doing, then I'm scared for the US.

Have you also noticed that Massachussets is bankrupt...and every other First world nation with UHC is bankrupt, except Sweden and Switzerland. Besides, there are some people out there who can aford insurance, but DONT WANT IT! I think we should conscentrate on making medical cheaper, not pass some law saying "everyone is to have insurance...even though we cant pay for it."

Universal Healthcare has little to do with Massachusetts financial problems, all but a couple of US States are bankrupt.

Well my state is in the black, big time. The only thing that got funding cuts that I thought shouldnt have was education and the arts. We found other ways to make money and cut spending.

As for those other countries you listed, most of them also have little military and get foriegn aid from US. They should pull thier own weight with thier military and only call on the US when things get out of hand.

But I still wont support UHC. Why? Because it is the government forcing me to buy a product, which is something it should never do.

pyrate:
Since you are American I am just going to assume you thought most countries with UHC were in financial trouble because you have been fed lies by Fox that UHC is not widespread. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not aware of just how many countries have UHC.

Oh look, someone who thinks that just because I am an American and Republican I only watch Fox news, believe everything they say, and know nothing. Well, I have news for you. I have a VERY!!!! strict "dont trust one source" policy. I get my news from 4 sources minimum. Fox News, CNN, USA Today, and the Mercury (local paper). And through ALL 4 of these, I have come to the conclusion UHC, while having good intentions, is not something I will support in ALL cases.

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:

Because I have been trying to get informed on the policies of the people running, and I just didnt hear about START. But now that I know, I will give him a second victory. Now stack that up to his Mountain of failure. He did get my "vote" in 2008, back before I knew that he would be worse than fricking CARTER. He defiately will not get it now. I thought it was awsome that we might have our first black president, but I still didnt like his policies.

Read my post. Obama is only a failure when held up to presidential giants like FDR and Clinton.

Well, then I guess its a good thing I dont compare any president to Clinton or FDR, ey? I compare them to ones that I liked, that being Reagan, Eisenhower, and TR.

Out of interest, what State are you from?

Also, out of the countries I listed the only ones that receive considerable foreign aid from the US are Israel (most of which is military) and the South American countries for the War on Drugs. Also note, foreign aid is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

Most of the countries also maintain military strength within line of their GDP and population. The only countries on the list that get 'help' from the US military are Israel and South Korea. Just because the US spends twice as much on the military in terms of GDP as most other countries does not mean those countries are lacking in military capability, they actually match up against other similar countries. These countries are not the ones not spending enough on Defense, it is the US that is spending way too much on Defense.

Also, why wouldn't you compare Obama to Clinton. Clinton is arguably the best president the US has ever had in terms of results. Presidents like Reagan on the other hand are a bit hit and miss. Sure Reagan oversaw economic recovery, but that is what happens after recession, recovery. It is arguable that Reagan stifled recovery. Add to that Reagan slashed funding for programs that aided the poor while the rich benefit greatly from the tax cuts. At the end of the day Reagan nearly tripled the US debt.

Clinton on the other hand oversaw the lowest unemployment in several decades, record lows in poverty, inflation not seen since Kennedy, record home ownership, and record economic growth, while at the same time delivering record budget surpluses. Reagan couldn't reach Clinton if he stood on his desk in the oval office.

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:
Since you are American I am just going to assume you thought most countries with UHC were in financial trouble because you have been fed lies by Fox that UHC is not widespread. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not aware of just how many countries have UHC.

Oh look, someone who thinks that just because I am an American and Republican I only watch Fox news, believe everything they say, and know nothing. Well, I have news for you. I have a VERY!!!! strict "dont trust one source" policy. I get my news from 4 sources minimum. Fox News, CNN, USA Today, and the Mercury (local paper). And through ALL 4 of these, I have come to the conclusion UHC, while having good intentions, is not something I will support in ALL cases.

Well, fair enough.

But it doesn't really answer the fact you are still badly wrong about the financial situation of countries with universal healthcare.

If you want to reject universal healthcare, please do not do so on falsehoods based on jingoistic assumptions of other countries' inadequacies.

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:

BOOM headshot65:

snip

so i take it you dont have car insurance or you dont pay any taxes, after all the government forces you to do that as well.

you want them to make health care cheaper, which is a good goal seeing as america pays at least double what it really should. you want to know by far the most effective way to massively decrease medical costs.... a universal health care system

pyrate:
Out of interest, what State are you from?

Northeast Kansas. Hey, the rest of the counry/world may think Brownback is nuts, But I say, he may have done some things I dont like, but no one is perfect.

pyrate:
Also, why wouldn't you compare Obama to Clinton. Clinton is arguably the best president the US has ever had in terms of results. Presidents like Reagan on the other hand are a bit hit and miss. Sure Reagan oversaw economic recovery, but that is what happens after recession, recovery. It is arguable that Reagan stifled recovery. Add to that Reagan slashed funding for programs that aided the poor while the rich benefit greatly from the tax cuts. At the end of the day Reagan nearly tripled the US debt.

Clinton on the other hand oversaw the lowest unemployment in several decades, record lows in poverty, inflation not seen since Kennedy, record home ownership, and record economic growth, while at the same time delivering record budget surpluses. Reagan couldn't reach Clinton if he stood on his desk in the oval office.

Well, saying that Clinton is the best is your opinion. Mine? He was OK, but I dislike him for passing DADT, and for not just cutting TO the bone with defense, but cutting INTO the bone. You know what. I havent broken out the list in awhile. I will just break out the list again, and you can see what those presidents were like for what I do and Dont want from my government:

Fav Presidents:
1) Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
2) Ronald Reagan (Republican)
3) Harry Truman (Democrat)
4) Theadore Roosevelt (Republican)
5) Tie: George HW Bush, George W Bush (Both Republican)

Least Fav Presidents:
1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
2) Barack H. Obama (Democrat)
3) Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
4) Calvin Coolidge (Republican)
5) Richard Nixon (Republican)

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:

snip

so i take it you dont have car insurance or you dont pay any taxes, after all the government forces you to do that as well.

you want them to make health care cheaper, which is a good goal seeing as america pays at least double what it really should. you want to know by far the most effective way to massively decrease medical costs.... a universal health care system

I dont pay taxes because I am still in Highschool and Working minimum wage, thus not making enough money TO get taxed. However, I do own a 1972 pickup truck, which has a tax of only $17 per month. Besides, I am not one of those people who DOESNT want insurance. I want it because I believe in "pray for the best, prepare for the worst." But I digress.

As for how to make healthcare cheaper, there are ways to do that WITHOUT univeral healthcare. Let places compete with eachother for customers. If you dont like a place, take your business elsewhere. That is the beauty of a Capitalist society. If places compete with eachother, they will either drop thier prices, or keep prices the same but offer better services. This will attract more people, and either make it cheaper, or increase the quality for the price.

BOOM headshot65:
Well, saying that Clinton is the best is your opinion. Mine? He was OK, but I dislike him for passing DADT, and for not just cutting TO the bone with defense, but cutting INTO the bone.

Fun fact: the American Military budget comprises more than half of the total federal budget and is larger than the defense spending of the top 8 next countries combined. Never mind that we haven't had a war we needed to fight since the 70s, and that our most recent wars have shown that maybe we shouldn't have a standing army at all. I'd say that it needs a little cutting, be it to the bone or not. DADT is a negative with him, but there is simply no denying that his overall legacy to the country is immensely positive.

You know what. I havent broken out the list in awhile. I will just break out the list again, and you can see what those presidents were like for what I do and Dont want from my government:

Fav Presidents:
1) Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
2) Ronald Reagan (Republican)
3) Harry Truman (Democrat)
4) Theadore Roosevelt (Republican)
5) Tie: George HW Bush, George W Bush (Both Republican)

Least Fav Presidents:
1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
2) Barack H. Obama (Democrat)
3) Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
4) Calvin Coolidge (Republican)
5) Richard Nixon (Republican)

The bolded kind of leaves me speechless. You hate FDR, the man who got us out of the great depression and created massively popular social programs that are to this day incredibly important to our nation, the kind of which Dwight D. Eisenhower basically said would be political suicide to oppose? One of the greatest presidents ever?

And you liked GWB (as in, top 5 presidents ever liked), the man who got us into two illegal, offensive wars without any good grounding, sent our previous budget surplus into an all-time record deficit, and passed among other things the Clean Air Act (which allowed for pollution to the degree where you can actually see its passing clearly in ice cores with the plain eye), the Clean Water Act (just as bad as the Clean Air Act), and supported the PATRIOT Act (possibly the largest violation of our civil rights ever). He oversaw huge, no-bid government contracts to companies that, anywhere else, would qualify as an incredible conflict of interest. He is more or less the reason the entire rest of the world hates our guts now. And he was a GOOD president? I'm sorry to be blunt, but if your opinion is based on more than "how fun of a person a president is to hang out with" and is more based on "what a president did for this country", then you are as factually wrong and deluded as the Flat Earth Society.

As for how to make healthcare cheaper, there are ways to do that WITHOUT univeral healthcare. Let places compete with eachother for customers. If you dont like a place, take your business elsewhere. That is the beauty of a Capitalist society. If places compete with eachother, they will either drop thier prices, or keep prices the same but offer better services. This will attract more people, and either make it cheaper, or increase the quality for the price.

There's a very basic problem with privatized health care, and it has to do with the best interests of the company going directly against the interests of the customer, and this only becoming apparent once the company needs to pick up its end of the bargain (which it may never need to). I'll expand on this if you want, but I kinda have to go now.

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:
Well, saying that Clinton is the best is your opinion. Mine? He was OK, but I dislike him for passing DADT, and for not just cutting TO the bone with defense, but cutting INTO the bone.

Fun fact: the American Military budget comprises more than half of the total federal budget and is larger than the defense spending of the top 8 next countries combined. Never mind that we haven't had a war we needed to fight since the 70s, and that our most recent wars have shown that maybe we shouldn't have a standing army at all. I'd say that it needs a little cutting, be it to the bone or not. DADT is a negative with him, but there is simply no denying that his overall legacy to the country is immensely positive.

Actually, that fact is only partly true. When you dont count entitlements, it equals 50% of the budget. The reason I say this is because entitlements are (unfortuantaly) a permanant budget. If you include entitlements in the budget as they are are now, it is more like 15% of our spending is on the military. However, it doesnt matter. During Eisenhower, defense spending was 60% of the budget, and we had a space program, the best schools in the world, budget surpluses, and massive prosperity. Others:
Reagan: spent alot on the military, massive prosperity
Truman: spent alot on the military, massive prosperity
Kennedy: Spent alot on the military, massive prosperity

I am noticing a pattern here.

The bolded kind of leaves me speechless.

I want you to know, I saw that one coming from a mile away. Usually happens on here, not so much where I live though.

You hate FDR, the man who got us out of the great depression and created massively popular social programs that are to this day incredibly important to our nation, the kind of which Dwight D. Eisenhower basically said would be political suicide to oppose? One of the greatest presidents ever?

I dont hate him, just his policies. Plus, his policies did not end the Great Depression. That is one of the biggest lies in existance. His policies just kept things from gettign worse, just like Obama's stimulus packages. What ended the depression was defense spending gearing up for WW2 (see above.)

I also dont like how his programs have become corrupted since the '60s. They origionaly were supposed to pay people for public works projects. Thus, the government will pay you...if you go dig a ditch, repair a road, etc. THAT is what I wish it still was today (too bad the unions would throw a fit)

As for other things I dont like about him:
1) Massive corruption starting in his 3rd term. This is part of the reason we say presidents cant serve more than 2 terms anymore.
2) He was, and still is, the closest thing to a fasist we have ever elected to office. You think Bush was bad, FDR was 10x worse.
3) His close ties with Stalin. FDR LOVED the Soviet Union and wanted to be more like them in many ways.

And you liked GWB (as in, top 5 presidents ever liked), the man who got us into two illegal, offensive wars without any good grounding, sent our previous budget surplus into an all-time record deficit, and passed among other things the Clean Air Act (which allowed for pollution to the degree where you can actually see its passing clearly in ice cores with the plain eye), the Clean Water Act (just as bad as the Clean Air Act), and supported the PATRIOT Act (possibly the largest violation of our civil rights ever). He oversaw huge, no-bid government contracts to companies that, anywhere else, would qualify as an incredible conflict of interest. He is more or less the reason the entire rest of the world hates our guts now. And he was a GOOD president? I'm sorry to be blunt, but if your opinion is based on more than "how fun of a person a president is to hang out with" and is more based on "what a president did for this country", then you are as factually wrong and deluded as the Flat Earth Society.

What are you talking about? The Earth IS flat ;) /sarcasm

In all seriousness, I DO rank my presidents on how good for this country I thought they were. Bush was Decent, but still bad in some ways. (will explain later) The reason I like him is because I like the way he handled 9/11, how he stayed calm and collected because he had to appear unphased to the nation. Then, he actually RETAILIATED against the attacks (there is justification for one war). As for Iraq...I know some say that he was just continueing his fathers war, but really, we should have killed Saddam in '91, not given him 12 years to rearm THEN gone back in. So, I supported that war too. Plus, I was old enough to actually remember that until 2006, things were GREAT here. It wasnt until 2006 things went downhill. But you know what happened in 2006? Congress was divided. Democrats controlled the House, Republicans the Senate. Its ALWAYS hard to work with that, unless you are Reagan or Eisenhower, who actually understood that an effective politian comprimses on some things, and is immovable on others. Now as for your other points on him:

Halliburton contract: There is a reason they were given the contract that most people dont know about, and no, it is not Dick Cheney. HALLIBURTON HAS THIER OWN ARMY! The contract said that the company would have to defend their own oilfields, and the only other company was a Russian company with MASSIVE human rights and pollution violations. Way bigger than anthing Halliburton has ever done.
Clean Air Act:...you do know this wasnt passed by him, right? It was passed by Nixon...in 1970...
"The world hates us": Really, I could care less about the world opinion of us. There will always be people who complain even when we gave them that freedom TO complain. And the other nations of Europe have ALWAYS hated us, so nothing new there.
Budget: While it is true that the Iraq war was not budgeted in, the amount of money spent in the 3 years of the Iraq war that Bush had it pales in comparisan to the debt racked up by Obama in the same timespan.
PATRIOT act: K, I will give you this one. I thought that was a rather bone-headed move, but no one is perfect.

Now for the explaination I promised. There is actually a BIG gap between 3 and 4 on my list. 1-3 are "Son of God/Spawn of Satan", while 4 and 5 are "Best/Worse of the AVERAGE presidents." You hear that? He was only 2.5 out of AVERAGE presidents. Thus, he was average...but still WAY better than what we have now.

As for how to make healthcare cheaper, there are ways to do that WITHOUT univeral healthcare. Let places compete with eachother for customers. If you dont like a place, take your business elsewhere. That is the beauty of a Capitalist society. If places compete with eachother, they will either drop thier prices, or keep prices the same but offer better services. This will attract more people, and either make it cheaper, or increase the quality for the price.

There's a very basic problem with privatized health care, and it has to do with the best interests of the company going directly against the interests of the customer, and this only becoming apparent once the company needs to pick up its end of the bargain (which it may never need to). I'll expand on this if you want, but I kinda have to go now.

Alright then, please, explain how two or more companies competing for customers and willing to do anything to get customers away from the other one(s) by lowering prices and/or improving service, is a bad thing.

BOOM headshot65:
Actually, that fact is only partly true. When you dont count entitlements, it equals 50% of the budget. The reason I say this is because entitlements are (unfortuantaly) a permanant budget. If you include entitlements in the budget as they are are now, it is more like 15% of our spending is on the military.

All right, I'll give you this. It's still the largest in the world by an incredibly vast margin for no good reason, however.

However, it doesnt matter. During Eisenhower, defense spending was 60% of the budget, and we had a space program, the best schools in the world, budget surpluses, and massive prosperity. Others:
Reagan: spent alot on the military, massive prosperity
Truman: spent alot on the military, massive prosperity
Kennedy: Spent alot on the military, massive prosperity

I am noticing a pattern here.

Which breaks in half if Clinton really "cut into the bone". But even if that was false, guess what: correlation ≠ causation. What is the causation that links a huge military program to prosperity?

I dont hate him, just his policies. Plus, his policies did not end the Great Depression. That is one of the biggest lies in existance. His policies just kept things from gettign worse, just like Obama's stimulus packages. What ended the depression was defense spending gearing up for WW2 (see above.)

It was a major economic upturn either way, in the same way that it's an upturn if you go from losing 100,000 jobs a week to 1,000 jobs a week - technically, you're still bleeding, you may still be about to die from blood loss, but at least they can start fixing things. Furthermore, you didn't address how the programs were immensely popular and incredibly successful.

I also dont like how his programs have become corrupted since the '60s. They origionaly were supposed to pay people for public works projects. Thus, the government will pay you...if you go dig a ditch, repair a road, etc. THAT is what I wish it still was today (too bad the unions would throw a fit)

I'm confused, I'm talking about Social Security, Unemployment, and Medicare - the government safety net.

As for other things I dont like about him:
1) Massive corruption starting in his 3rd term. This is part of the reason we say presidents cant serve more than 2 terms anymore.

Citation needed.

2) He was, and still is, the closest thing to a fasist we have ever elected to office. You think Bush was bad, FDR was 10x worse.

Citation needed.

3) His close ties with Stalin. FDR LOVED the Soviet Union and wanted to be more like them in many ways.

Citation needed.

In all seriousness, I DO rank my presidents on how good for this country I thought they were. Bush was Decent, but still bad in some ways. (will explain later) The reason I like him is because I like the way he handled 9/11, how he stayed calm and collected because he had to appear unphased to the nation.

Wait, what? First, when he was told "the nation is under attack", he just sat there for a minute or two, then continued to read the storybook to the kids. After that, he ran to an air force base. It could've been worse, but that's not ideal by any means.

Then, he actually RETAILIATED against the attacks (there is justification for one war).

No. No there isn't. Al Qaeda was stationed in Afghanistan, but that does not justify a foreign invasion any more than Timothy McVeigh justifies bombing the state of Oklahoma. Strike teams? Interaction with the foreign power? Maybe. But not a full-scale, massively mismanaged invasion of a sovereign nation.

As for Iraq...I know some say that he was just continueing his fathers war, but really, we should have killed Saddam in '91, not given him 12 years to rearm THEN gone back in. So, I supported that war too.

WHAT?!

All right, let's get something straight here.

Dick Cheney:
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Yeah. Dick Cheney said that. As defense secretary under George H. W. Bush. Seriously, that's a big part of why we didn't go after Saddam back then: it was a fucking horrible idea, and we knew it. Saddam was a toothless dictator with nothing left to harm anyone beyond his own people, and even barely the ability to do that. If that's why we would want him out, then there were better, more realistic targets than a dictator in the fucking middle east. And look what happened: we got stuck there for 8 years as democratic initiatives failed left and right, the insurgency gained strength, and what little civilization was there was more or less destroyed. Now it's looking like it's going to become an Islamofascist theocracy.
What makes it even worse is why we went to Iraq: the administration lied their asses off. There was no evidence of nuclear weapons. There was no evidence of chemical weapons. There was no evidence of a remote ability to strike even at Israel, let alone the USA. And yet we get gems like this:


Jesus christ, they even tried to justify it by claiming that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, which any research shows is blatantly false. And every time they were shown to be full of shit, the narrative shifted: once it was shown that there was no nukes, it was chemical weapons. Once there were none of those, it was links to Al Qaeda. Once that was proven wrong, it was the liberty and freedom of the Iraqi people... who, increasingly, hated the USA and the occupying forces, leading to an increasing insurgency.

But even if you're willing to ignore all of this, here's the clincher: it was an unprovoked offensive war, something which is strictly illegal according to international law. Realistically, Bush should've been taken to the Hague and tried for it. But somehow he wasn't. Probably because he was the president of the USA. Really, as much as I think Ron Paul is nuts, his ad on the subject completely nails it.

Defending the USA's role in the Iraq War is like defending Germany's in the second world war. You are trying to defend the indefensible, and it just goes to show how depressing partisan politics have become in this country. The Iraq War and its legacy alone should be enough to place Bush Jr. in the bottom 5 presidents of all time. An unprovoked, aggressive, poorly-thought-out, poorly-executed invasion of a sovereign nation, sold to the people through outright lies, which cost us thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and the respect of the international community. Even if Saddam had to go, we could not have afforded it. Not at this cost, which Cheney (and others) predicted back in the 90s. Iraq should have been the killing blow to his legitimacy. Throw in ratcheting up the deficit to ridiculous heights, the allegations of extreme electoral fraud in 2000, essentially legitimizing torture in the US Army as a way of gathering information, and sending us into a second great depression... Bush is possibly the worst president ever.

And yet, for some reason, "not completely fumbling the reaction to a major attack on our soil" and "retaliating against the bad guy by bombing the country he lives in" is enough to qualify him as the 5th-best president in the history of this country.

What.

The.

FUCK!?!

Is.

Wrong.

With.

You.

"The world hates us": Really, I could care less about the world opinion of us.

This stands for itself as an incredibly ignorant and arrogant statement, thank you very much.

Budget: While it is true that the Iraq war was not budgeted in, the amount of money spent in the 3 years of the Iraq war that Bush had it pales in comparisan to the debt racked up by Obama in the same timespan.

Yep, and you know what? Bush came into office during a time of ridiculous prosperity, due largely in part to the wisdom of the Clinton regime. The fact that he managed to turn our surplus into a deficit would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad. Obama came into office in the middle of a gigantic depression, and most of the massive deficit he racked up came from the stimulus package (which we needed, badly), the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush wars.

image

Alright then, please, explain how two or more companies competing for customers and willing to do anything to get customers away from the other one(s) by lowering prices and/or improving service, is a bad thing.

It all comes down to the fact that the entire system is set up in such a way that screwing the customer over is not only good business practice, but the best business practice, to the extent that everyone is doing it. They pay in, year for year, and then when they need a payout, you screw them with "pre-existing conditions" you never mentioned during the years they paid in. This is something which the Affordable Care Act got rid of, actually, and is an achievement in its own right. But riddle me this... In a system so ridiculously broken, what's the solution? It's like if all the major oil companies participate in price fixing to raise the overall price - what's to stop them if it's legal?

Stagnant:
Which breaks in half if Clinton really "cut into the bone". But even if that was false, guess what: correlation causation. What is the causation that links a huge military program to prosperity?

It produces TONS of jobs, that is why. You need people to build the weapons, make the boots, sow the uniforms. Then, you need to grow that cotton somewhere, you need to someone to harvest the rubber, you need someone to mine iron ore, which would then need to be smelted into steel. Now lets not forget that you need people to design these weapons, and new uniforms, and better boots. Oh, and did we mention all this stuff must now be transported, which will give jobs to truckers, locomotive engineers, and distibution hubs? And this doesnt even include the people who will now join the military and use all this stuff. So, supplying for 1 soldier just put 1000's of people to work. Now multipy that about 1,477,896. Your welcome ;)

It was a major economic upturn either way, in the same way that it's an upturn if you go from losing 100,000 jobs a week to 1,000 jobs a week C technically, you're still bleeding, you may still be about to die from blood loss, but at least they can start fixing things.

Fine, I will give you that one.

I'm confused, I'm talking about Social Security, Unemployment, and Medicare C the government safety net.

So am I. Or at least Unemplyment. It used to be that the governmetn would give you that check...after you had done some work for them. There are stories Ive read of government flatbed trucks driving into homeless camps, government works shouting "Hey, who wants to work and get paid now?" The trucks were overloaded in second. These people were then taken to various construction projects...and paid. Also, you do know that Medicare was not passed by FDR...It was passed by LBJ in the early 70's.

Wait, what? First, when he was told "the nation is under attack", he just sat there for a minute or two, then continued to read the storybook to the kids. After that, he ran to an air force base. It could've been worse, but that's not ideal by any means.

Exactly. If he had just jumped up, ran to Air Force One, and be taken to some bunker somewhere, people would start freaking out. The fact that he remained says alot about his character. And the fact that he said All planes must land NOW in order to pervent more attacks was a VERY good idea. I think it is the best response we could have gotten.

No. No there isn't. Al Qaeda was stationed in Afghanistan, but that does not justify a foreign invasion any more than Timothy McVeigh justifies bombing the state of Oklahoma. Strike teams? Interaction with the foreign power? Maybe. But not a full-scale, massively mismanaged invasion of a sovereign nation.

Ok, lets look at how we tried to take down Bin-Laden:
Commando strike: Failed first go around in 2001, worked in 2011 because of better intel.
Cruise Missile strike: Failed because he relocated because someone told him missiles were coming.
Training local forces: The gurellias we trained botched thier ambush and he escaped.
Drone strike: Bad intel made us hit someone that LOOKED like him, but wasnt.
Demand the Afgans turn him over: They said it would never happen because he was an honored guest in thier country.

People need to get it through thier thick skulls that sometimes, the best way to keep the peace is to start a war.

WHAT?!

All right, let's get something straight here.

Dick Cheney:
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Yeah. Dick Cheney said that. As defense secretary under George H. W. Bush.

Humm, K. Now, lets look at what he says leading up to the '03 Iraq war:
[In response to "Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"] "Well, I dont think its likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. Ive talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House....The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators.
Meet The Press with Tim Russert. [13] (March 16, 2003)

And another:
[In response to "We have not been greeted as liberators."] "Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, youll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.
Meet The Press with Tim Russert. [14] (Sept. 14, 2003)

And another:
"America has shown we are serious about removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction."..."We now know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.... We know he had the necessary infrastructure because we found the labs and the dual-use facilities that could be used for these chemical and biological agents. We know that he was developing the delivery systems ballistic missiles that had been prohibited by the United Nations."
Fundraising dinner in New Mexico, February 6, 2004 [17]

And another:
"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action."
Vice Presidential Debate October 5, 2004 [19] [20]

Plus, I know alot of guys who served in Iraq. The sentament was the same.

I will stop now. Let that sink in.

Now it's looking like it's going to become an Islamofascist theocracy.

Hum, I wonder why that is? I mean, it cant be because we pulled out our troops at a very crutial time in Iraqs development and that now no one is maintaining the peace.

In seemingly unrelated news, John McCain is feeling a moment of "I told you so."

What makes it even worse is why we went to Iraq: the administration lied their asses off. There was no evidence of nuclear weapons. There was no evidence of chemical weapons. There was no evidence of a remote ability to strike even at Israel, let alone the USA. And yet we get gems like this:

Now, here the thing...HIS OWN FREAKING GENEARL BELIEVE THAT HE HAD NUKES TOO!!! Plus, Bush was acting on intel from the UN!!!! and was the only one with the guts to act on it. I say, "better safe than sorry." As for chemical weapons, WE should know he has them. WE GAVE THEM TO HIM!!! HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!

But even if you're willing to ignore all of this, here's the clincher: it was an unprovoked offensive war, something which is strictly illegal according to international law. Realistically, Bush should've been taken to the Hague and tried for it. But somehow he wasn't. Probably because he was the president of the USA.

Wrong, good sir. It is because the US is not a member of the ICC. Thus, we CANT be tried for it. Besides, what are we supposed to do. With those international laws, we would just twidle our thumbs as a madman in charge of a country enslaves and kills his people for nothing but the lulz. I for one am glad we are not in those laws. It lets us hit the dictators rather than let them get away with it because "Hey, they did attack anyone. We cant attack without being attack." Tell me one country that has followed that dotirine, gotten attack, and survived.

What.

The.

FUCK!?!

Is.

Wrong.

With.

You.

Absolutely nothing. I am a perfectly sane 18 year old man with Aspergers. What the frick is wrong with you. ;)

Yep, and you know what? Bush came into office during a time of ridiculous prosperity, due largely in part to the wisdom of the Clinton regime. The fact that he managed to turn our surplus into a deficit would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad. Obama came into office in the middle of a gigantic depression, and most of the massive deficit he racked up came from the stimulus package (which we needed, badly), the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush wars.

And do you remember that this prosperity continued until 2007, even after the Iraq war was budgeted in. Because I do.

image

I am invoking my "dont trust one source" policy on you. I want a news organization that is less baised than the Washington Post.

Also, they fudged the number a bit there. They raised the price of the Iraq war, lowered the cost of the stimulus packages, and made it look worse than it is. The truth is Bush racked up his deficet in 8 years. Obama racked up his in 3. Obama is spending WAY faster than Bush ever did, and that is VERY bad.[/quote]

It all comes down to the fact that the entire system is set up in such a way that screwing the customer over is not only good business practice, but the best business practice, to the extent that everyone is doing it. They pay in, year for year, and then when they need a payout, you screw them with "pre-existing conditions" you never mentioned during the years they paid in. This is something which the Affordable Care Act got rid of, actually, and is an achievement in its own right. But riddle me this... In a system so ridiculously broken, what's the solution? It's like if all the major oil companies participate in price fixing to raise the overall price C what's to stop them if it's legal?

Who told you that. The system is SUPPOSED to be "If you dont like how this company operates, take your business elsewhere. Let your wallet do the talking." Now granted, alot of companies DO act rather pig-ish. You dont like it. TAKE YOUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE!! If enough people do that, they will get the hint as their profits drop from people leaving: Stop acting like a bunch of pigs and change your ways, lest ye go bankrupt. And who told you that the system was broken? The slackers in OWS? I wouldnt pay attention to them son, they are a bad infulence. The system is not even close to broken. People just dont realise that some things are broken, but not the WHOLE system.

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:
Out of interest, what State are you from?

Northeast Kansas. Hey, the rest of the counry/world may think Brownback is nuts, But I say, he may have done some things I dont like, but no one is perfect.

and you think kansas is in the black. hilarious.

Well my state is in the black, big time

just goes to show how uninformed some americans are

anyway heres your states debt clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-kansas-debt-clock.html

its not the worse by far. but seeing the amount of cuts kansas have had to make just to keep it in check is not exactly promising

reonhato:

BOOM headshot65:

pyrate:
Out of interest, what State are you from?

Northeast Kansas. Hey, the rest of the counry/world may think Brownback is nuts, But I say, he may have done some things I dont like, but no one is perfect.

and you think kansas is in the black. hilarious.

Well my state is in the black, big time

just goes to show how uninformed some americans are

anyway heres your states debt clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-kansas-debt-clock.html

its not the worse by far. but seeing the amount of cuts kansas have had to make just to keep it in check is not exactly promising

Hum, wierd. Most of the stuff I have seen in Kansas from local stuff says we are in the black.

BOOM headshot65:

It produces TONS of jobs, that is why. You need people to build the weapons, make the boots, sow the uniforms. Then, you need to grow that cotton somewhere, you need to someone to harvest the rubber, you need someone to mine iron ore, which would then need to be smelted into steel. Now lets not forget that you need people to design these weapons, and new uniforms, and better boots. Oh, and did we mention all this stuff must now be transported, which will give jobs to truckers, locomotive engineers, and distibution hubs? And this doesnt even include the people who will now join the military and use all this stuff. So, supplying for 1 soldier just put 1000's of people to work. Now multipy that about 1,477,896. Your welcome ;)

You know that's a MASSIVELY liberal economic ideology you have there, right? The concept that the government can improve the economy by spending ignores that every dollar used on those things has to be taxed out of the private sector to produce them, nevermind the inevitable waste from government inefficiency. Sure, Keynesian economics suggests that government spending can sometimes help improve the economy, but it's a little bit more complicated than that. Military spending is only justified to the amount that we need a military to protect us. No serious economist would ever argue that military spending is any better than government spending on anything else. You could hire people to cut the grass of the white house lawn with toenail clippers, and it would "create" jobs.

kingpocky:

BOOM headshot65:

It produces TONS of jobs, that is why. You need people to build the weapons, make the boots, sow the uniforms. Then, you need to grow that cotton somewhere, you need to someone to harvest the rubber, you need someone to mine iron ore, which would then need to be smelted into steel. Now lets not forget that you need people to design these weapons, and new uniforms, and better boots. Oh, and did we mention all this stuff must now be transported, which will give jobs to truckers, locomotive engineers, and distibution hubs? And this doesnt even include the people who will now join the military and use all this stuff. So, supplying for 1 soldier just put 1000's of people to work. Now multipy that about 1,477,896. Your welcome ;)

You know that's a MASSIVELY liberal economic ideology you have there, right? The concept that the government can improve the economy by spending ignores that every dollar used on those things has to be taxed out of the private sector to produce them, nevermind the inevitable waste from government inefficiency. Sure, Keynesian economics suggests that government spending can sometimes help improve the economy, but it's a little bit more complicated than that. Military spending is only justified to the amount that we need a military to protect us. No serious economist would ever argue that military spending is any better than government spending on anything else. You could hire people to cut the grass of the white house lawn with toenail clippers, and it would "create" jobs.

Military spending is actually the worst kind of spending one can do in an economic sense. Your just not wasting time, such as "you dig hole, you fill it back up," and creating inflation by creating money without a good or service to go with it, but your also actively DESTROYING resources that can't be replaced. Bombs, bullets, tank shells, rations, men, etc, all of this is going to creating nothing of economic value in their destruction, and thus are just a big fat money hole. WW2 did get us out of the Great Depression. Not because we spent our way out, it wasn't just because the US government poured money into every industry to produce guns, planes, and everything else, it is because we were able to knock out our gloomy outlook to a glamorous view of the VICTORS (and when people are happy, they are more willing to spend money) and the fact all potential competition was bombed to Hell.

BOOM headshot65:

Stagnant:
Which breaks in half if Clinton really "cut into the bone". But even if that was false, guess what: correlation causation. What is the causation that links a huge military program to prosperity?

image

I am invoking my "dont trust one source" policy on you. I want a news organization that is less baised than the Washington Post.

Also, they fudged the number a bit there. They raised the price of the Iraq war, lowered the cost of the stimulus packages, and made it look worse than it is. The truth is Bush racked up his deficet in 8 years. Obama racked up his in 3. Obama is spending WAY faster than Bush ever did, and that is VERY bad.

The figures are from Congress reports, the graph is not just from the Washington Post, it was spread around most of the US media. I think it was the New York Times that originally published it, but I cannot be certain.

When you look at the Bush figures that the Republicans use they always leave out the cost of the wars because Bush never put them on the books. Obama put them on the books and all of a sudden the Republicans blame him for the costs. Essentially spending is ok under the Republicans as long as you don't put it in the budget.

BOOM headshot65:
It produces TONS of jobs, that is why. You need people to build the weapons, make the boots, sow the uniforms. Then, you need to grow that cotton somewhere, you need to someone to harvest the rubber, you need someone to mine iron ore, which would then need to be smelted into steel. Now lets not forget that you need people to design these weapons, and new uniforms, and better boots. Oh, and did we mention all this stuff must now be transported, which will give jobs to truckers, locomotive engineers, and distibution hubs? And this doesnt even include the people who will now join the military and use all this stuff. So, supplying for 1 soldier just put 1000's of people to work. Now multipy that about 1,477,896. Your welcome ;)

What you are referring to is, essentially, a massive government stimulus; the government spending money to put people to work. I agree that this is a good idea in tough economic times. I just think that we're better off doing things like, say, building bridges, roads, fixing electricity infrastructure, and creating a decent mass transit system than putting people to work creating something that we will hopefully never, ever use.

Exactly. If he had just jumped up, ran to Air Force One, and be taken to some bunker somewhere, people would start freaking out. The fact that he remained says alot about his character. And the fact that he said All planes must land NOW in order to prevent more attacks was a VERY good idea. I think it is the best response we could have gotten.

Best? No. Not by a mile. The best response would've been, uh, doing something about the attack beforehand. Your selective memory is coming into play again - forgetting things like Bush ignoring intelligence briefings regarding the attack. Even then, the correct answer was not to sit there and continue the photo op until even the reporters had left. That you see his actions that day as "amazing" is truly mind-boggling.

Ok, lets look at how we tried to take down Bin-Laden:
Commando strike: Failed first go around in 2001, worked in 2011 because of better intel.
Cruise Missile strike: Failed because he relocated because someone told him missiles were coming.
Training local forces: The gurellias we trained botched thier ambush and he escaped.
Drone strike: Bad intel made us hit someone that LOOKED like him, but wasnt.
Demand the Afgans turn him over: They said it would never happen because he was an honored guest in thier country.

People need to get it through thier thick skulls that sometimes, the best way to keep the peace is to start a war.

The problem here isn't so much with your facts (which I'm not going to check, I'll take your word for it) but with the logic. To show you how, I want you to replace him and Afghanistan with, say, John Cleese and Great Britain. Lets imagine that, hypothetically, Cleese and a group of his followers (hell, let's throw in the whole Monty Python troupe for good measure) were behind a major terror attack on American soil. Now what if the British government was either unable (because they don't know where he is either) or unwilling, be it due to extreme, wide-spread and thoroughly justified anti-american sentiment (oh look, the world's opinion of us DOES matter) or the fact that Cleese and the rest of Monty Python are seen as an incredibly positive influence for the country, and a very strong force among the people.

Would the right answer, after a failed attempt at another, less invasive strategy, be then to invade Great Britain and demand that they comply to our will? NO! For fuck's sake, this was not an Afghan military strike. This was a group of extremely well-respected radical terrorists in Afghanistan staging an attack with no backing beyond their own. And it's at that point where you have to wonder: how much collateral damage is reasonable to ensure that we get this guy? 17,611 - 37,208 dead Afghani civilians? Over 2800 dead allied soldiers? The complete destabilization of a region which is already kind of screwed? 10 years with still no end in sight? It would've been more cost-effective and less of a complete fuck-up if we had just nuked the mountains nearby, and it probably would've had less negative results on our international standing, our military, and the quality of life in Afghanistan.

What some people with exceptionally thick skulls don't realize is, that sometimes the best way to keep the peace is to fall back and reassess priorities. I'll be blunt: if you think that even just the first 3 years of the Afghanistan war would've been worth catching Osama Bin Laden and putting him to justice, then I just don't know what to say.

Humm, K. Now, lets look at what he says leading up to the '03 Iraq war:
[In response to "Do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"] "Well, I dont think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House....The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators.
Meet The Press with Tim Russert. [13] (March 16, 2003)

I don't really know what I'm supposed to do with statements like this. On one hand, it is the Vice President, and we should be willing to assume that he at least isn't lying to us. On the other hand, there's no denying that Cheney personally benefited from the Iraq war, that there was major dissent from top military brass and other well-informed officials, the overall incompetence of the administration in terms of the Iraqis, and that, of course, when everything was said and done, it turns out that they were dead wrong. Even if we don't assume that Cheney was lying through his teeth, it still doesn't help his record that he (and the administration as a whole) was about as wrong as one could possibly be on this issue.

And another:
"America has shown we are serious about removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction."..."We now know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.... We know he had the necessary infrastructure because we found the labs and the dual-use facilities that could be used for these chemical and biological agents. We know that he was developing the delivery systems - ballistic missiles - that had been prohibited by the United Nations."
Fundraising dinner in New Mexico, February 6, 2004 [17]

Not really intellectually honest. There were a few anti-air missiles (which, as far as I can tell, were in the process of being destroyed, in accordance with the UN resolutions, when the US attacked), some chemical weapons which we gave him and which many critics argue have expired their "shelf life" and are no longer threatening... Essentially nothing which could do anything beyond kill his own people, and even his ability to do that was questionable.

And another:
"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action."
Vice Presidential Debate October 5, 2004 [19] [20]

Yep, he said that in 2004. Guess when the shit really hit the fan.

Hum, I wonder why that is? I mean, it cant be because we pulled out our troops at a very crutial time in Iraqs development and that now no one is maintaining the peace.

In seemingly unrelated news, John McCain is feeling a moment of "I told you so."

Actually, no, it isn't because of that, unless you want to count the entirety of the last 6 years as "a crucial time in Iraq's development". We've been unable to leave for the last 6 years because if we left, Iraq would collapse due to the power vacuum and probably turn into an Islamofascist theocracy. Here's the thing, though: we didn't know how to fix that. At a certain point, we had to cut our losses and get out. How could we salvage Iraq when the people of Iraq heavily favor the insurgents above the "liberators"? How can we give them democracy if the first thing they'll do when they have it is vote to get rid of it? What other solution could there have been after 8 brutal years? Another 8 years and a million dead Iraqi citizens?

Now, here the thing...HIS OWN FREAKING GENEARL BELIEVE THAT HE HAD NUKES TOO!!! Plus, Bush was acting on intel from the UN!!!! and was the only one with the guts to act on it. I say, "better safe than sorry." As for chemical weapons, WE should know he has them. WE GAVE THEM TO HIM!!! HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!

Gonna need a cite on the nukes. As pointed out above, there were many, many people who were highly skeptical of the rush to war, and many more who pointed out just how crippled Saddam was to attack even his closest neighbors.

Wrong, good sir. It is because the US is not a member of the ICC. Thus, we CANT be tried for it. Besides, what are we supposed to do. With those international laws, we would just twidle our thumbs as a madman in charge of a country enslaves and kills his people for nothing but the lulz. I for one am glad we are not in those laws. It lets us hit the dictators rather than let them get away with it because "Hey, they did attack anyone. We cant attack without being attack." Tell me one country that has followed that dotirine, gotten attack, and survived.

The skill of your argumentation is about as good as your spelling and grammar in this paragraph. Here's a short list of countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Peru, Colombia, Sierra Leone, and Cote D'Ivoire, Cambodia, and many others, several of which we set up. But even then, even if our policy was "go out and invade and occupy any country with an oppressive dictatorship" (which would, by the way, include our buddies in Saudi Arabia, which is funny because the Bushes had close personal contact to one of the Saudi royals), just take a moment to look at the big picture. Trillions of dollars, thousands upon thousands of lives, and for what? Iraq is not better off now than it was when we started. It's way, way worse.

Absolutely nothing. I am a perfectly sane 18 year old man with Aspergers. What the frick is wrong with you. ;)

I'm taking time this close to christmas to debate foreign policy with someone who has about as much tact and knowledge on the matter as Anne "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter. THAT is what is wrong with me.

I am invoking my "dont trust one source" policy on you. I want a news organization that is less baised than the Washington Post.

That's the chart from the CBO. Go ahead, make my day - claim that they have a liberal bias. Or how about Politifact? Are they some liberal slander organization as well?

Also, they fudged the number a bit there. They raised the price of the Iraq war, lowered the cost of the stimulus packages, and made it look worse than it is. The truth is Bush racked up his deficet in 8 years. Obama racked up his in 3. Obama is spending WAY faster than Bush ever did, and that is VERY bad.

No, the chart is using predicted values including not only these three years, but projections of the next 5 as well. Try again.

Who told you that. The system is SUPPOSED to be "If you dont like how this company operates, take your business elsewhere. Let your wallet do the talking." Now granted, alot of companies DO act rather pig-ish. You dont like it. TAKE YOUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE!!

And then we hit the first major stumbling block, also known as the "not everyone can start a multinational corporation" issue: who do you turn to? Are there any major Insurance Companies who won't pull that kind of shit? It's not an issue that you'll be able to see immediately either - even with a company who never, ever pays outs, you'd still have to wait until you got ill enough to need care going over the usually massive deductible (which, again, basically all of them have) to figure it out, and even then you could be the exception - you'd need to link up with others who use the company to find out. But what if they all do it? Remember, it's heavily in their interest to find arbitrary reasons not to fulfill their side of the contract. What are your options, to stop buying health insurance altogether? Not much else you can do, but somehow that's not a very good solution either.

Not G. Ivingname:

Military spending is actually the worst kind of spending one can do in an economic sense. Your just not wasting time, such as "you dig hole, you fill it back up," and creating inflation by creating money without a good or service to go with it, but your also actively DESTROYING resources that can't be replaced. Bombs, bullets, tank shells, rations, men, etc, all of this is going to creating nothing of economic value in their destruction, and thus are just a big fat money hole. WW2 did get us out of the Great Depression. Not because we spent our way out, it wasn't just because the US government poured money into every industry to produce guns, planes, and everything else, it is because we were able to knock out our gloomy outlook to a glamorous view of the VICTORS (and when people are happy, they are more willing to spend money) and the fact all potential competition was bombed to Hell.

I know, most Keynesians would recommend spending on infrastructure or education over military. However, it can still (in their models) help encourage spending, even if it is one of the more inefficient ways to do it. I don't think I've heard much of your explanation for the postwar prosperity. For various reasons, economies tend to rise and fall, no matter what is going on.

Stagnant:

What you are referring to is, essentially, a massive government stimulus; the government spending money to put people to work. I agree that this is a good idea in tough economic times. I just think that we're better off doing things like, say, building bridges, roads, fixing electricity infrastructure, and creating a decent mass transit system than putting people to work creating something that we will hopefully never, ever use.

Yes, spend on infrastucture too. That was my problem with Obamas stimulus. He gave government money to private companies, when he could have used far better ways to put people to work.

That you see his actions that day as "amazing" is truly mind-boggling.

Well, me, my friends, and most of Kansas find that he was great on that day. So what, you calling around 3,000,000 people morons?

The problem here isn't so much with your facts (which I'm not going to check, I'll take your word for it) but with the logic. To show you how, I want you to replace him and Afghanistan with, say, John Cleese and Great Britain. Lets imagine that, hypothetically, Cleese and a group of his followers (hell, let's throw in the whole Monty Python troupe for good measure) were behind a major terror attack on American soil. Now what if the British government was either unable (because they don't know where he is either) or unwilling, be it due to extreme, wide-spread and thoroughly justified anti-american sentiment (oh look, the world's opinion of us DOES matter) or the fact that Cleese and the rest of Monty Python are seen as an incredibly positive influence for the country, and a very strong force among the people.

They are responsible for a terrorist attack? KILL'EM ALL, LET GOD SORT'EM OUT! And if they were not given up because they ligitimately dont know where they are, then let us send in units to find them, and help us find them. If they know where they are and just dont want to turn them over because they support them (like in Afganistan), then they have now become an accessory to international terrorism and part of the problem. We will give them no quarter.

And it's at that point where you have to wonder: how much collateral damage is reasonable to ensure that we get this guy? 17,611 - 37,208 dead Afghani civilians? Over 2800 dead allied soldiers? The complete destabilization of a region which is already kind of screwed? 10 years with still no end in sight? It would've been more cost-effective and less of a complete fuck-up if we had just nuked the mountains nearby, and it probably would've had less negative results on our international standing, our military, and the quality of life in Afghanistan.

From the guys I know who have gone over there, collateral damage can be linked RIGHT to the Taliban. For instance: One of my dads former firefighters is now a B-1 bomber pilot. He served multiple tours in Iraq. One time, he was flying support with laser-guided bombs as our troops moved into a city controlled by the insurgances. He gets a call for support, and looks through his bomb cam...and is horrify to see that it is a school that the insurgance were using civilians as human shields. In a situtation like that, HOW are you supposed to avoid collateral damage?!

if you think that even just the first 3 years of the Afghanistan war would've been worth catching Osama Bin Laden and putting him to justice, then I just don't know what to say.

Well than, prepare to be left speechless...I would support 3 years, or 10 years, or even 20! years if it means we can kill the SOB who attacked us.

Not really intellectually honest. There were a few anti-air missiles (which, as far as I can tell, were in the process of being destroyed, in accordance with the UN resolutions, when the US attacked), some chemical weapons which we gave him and which many critics argue have expired their "shelf life" and are no longer threatening... Essentially nothing which could do anything beyond kill his own people, and even his ability to do that was questionable.

Well, he had SCUD missiles from russia that were still in use. As for the chemicals...If Saddam REALLY had nothing to hide, he would have allowed the UN inspectors to come in...and he didnt. Sounds fishy to me.

Actually, no, it isn't because of that, unless you want to count the entirety of the last 6 years as "a crucial time in Iraq's development". We've been unable to leave for the last 6 years because if we left, Iraq would collapse due to the power vacuum and probably turn into an Islamofascist theocracy. Here's the thing, though: we didn't know how to fix that. At a certain point, we had to cut our losses and get out. How could we salvage Iraq when the people of Iraq heavily favor the insurgents above the "liberators"? How can we give them democracy if the first thing they'll do when they have it is vote to get rid of it? What other solution could there have been after 8 brutal years? Another 8 years and a million dead Iraqi citizens?

Wierd, the soldiers I have talked to say the people love us and hate the insurgents...or at least, the women and children OVERWHELMINGLY do, while most men are less so. As for how long, my answer is however long it takes to establish democracy.

Gonna need a cite on the nukes. As pointed out above, there were many, many people who were highly skeptical of the rush to war, and many more who pointed out just how crippled Saddam was to attack even his closest neighbors.

I was talking about Saddams generals, not US generals.

The skill of your argumentation is about as good as your spelling and grammar in this paragraph. Here's a short list of countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Peru, Colombia, Sierra Leone, and Cote D'Ivoire, Cambodia, and many others, several of which we set up.

First off, I knew that Afghanistan had, but that has more to do with terrain. As for the others, you said it, not me. WE gave them supplies. But they also havent been attacked by a nation hellbent on overrunning them, like Russia, or China, or German.

But even then, even if our policy was "go out and invade and occupy any country with an oppressive dictatorship" (which would, by the way, include our buddies in Saudi Arabia, which is funny because the Bushes had close personal contact to one of the Saudi royals)

I know. I USED to include Saudi Arabia on my list of dictators I want dead. However, he has since moved off it due to "seeing the light" during the Arab Spring. He decided it was in his best interest to become more democratic, lest he hang in the streets.

Iraq is not better off now than it was when we started. It's way, way worse.

Oh, excuse me. I didnt know that the fact that they can now go to school, have power in most communities, hospitals, etc. and are more free than ever is a bad thing.

No, the chart is using predicted values including not only these three years, but projections of the next 5 as well. Try again.

Oh, well excuse me. I didnt know that projections now count as the real deal. As for Obama, inheriting a deficit from Bush. Yes, he did...so has every president since Nixon start that practice in his term. Bush even inherited a deficit from your "oh so mighty" Clinton. Bet you didnt know THAT, huh.

And then we hit the first major stumbling block, also known as the "not everyone can start a multinational corporation" issue: who do you turn to? Are there any major Insurance Companies who won't pull that kind of shit?

-_- Have you never heard of a small business? Most small buisnesses are VERY good about making people happy, because they will spread the word and more people will come...just as they should. You dont like the pig-ish multinational businesses? TAKE YOUR BUSINESS TO A SMALL ONE WHO LISTENS!! The other one will start to get the message.

It's not an issue that you'll be able to see immediately either - even with a company who never, ever pays outs, you'd still have to wait until you got ill enough to need care going over the usually massive deductible (which, again, basically all of them have) to figure it out, and even then you could be the exception - you'd need to link up with others who use the company to find out. But what if they all do it? Remember, it's heavily in their interest to find arbitrary reasons not to fulfill their side of the contract. What are your options, to stop buying health insurance altogether? Not much else you can do, but somehow that's not a very good solution either.

Options: see above.

BOOM headshot65:
Well, me, my friends, and most of Kansas find that he was great on that day. So what, you calling around 3,000,000 people morons?

There are 250 Million Pentecostal Christians and less than half of the US population believes in evolution. Buddy, 3,000,000 isn't even starting with me.

From the guys I know who have gone over there, collateral damage can be linked RIGHT to the Taliban. For instance: One of my dads former firefighters is now a B-1 bomber pilot. He served multiple tours in Iraq. One time, he was flying support with laser-guided bombs as our troops moved into a city controlled by the insurgances. He gets a call for support, and looks through his bomb cam...and is horrify to see that it is a school that the insurgance were using civilians as human shields. In a situtation like that, HOW are you supposed to avoid collateral damage?!

Oh, right, because the correct thing to do is accept the collateral damage because we HAVE to capture Osama Bin Laden. Not, say, reassess our strategy so that we don't kill innocents, and become that which we hate on our hunt for revenge. I mean, holy shit, do you even understand what you're saying?

They are responsible for a terrorist attack? KILL'EM ALL, LET GOD SORT'EM OUT! And if they were not given up because they ligitimately dont know where they are, then let us send in units to find them, and help us find them. If they know where they are and just dont want to turn them over because they support them (like in Afganistan), then they have now become an accessory to international terrorism and part of the problem. We will give them no quarter.

Well than, prepare to be left speechless...I would support 3 years, or 10 years, or even 20! years if it means we can kill the SOB who attacked us.

...Apparently not.

REDACTED

...

Actually, no. One more question. Imagine if Osama Bin Laden was willing to turn himself in, or rather is in captivity by a foreign power and they would give him to us, if we dropped nukes on Kabul and Kandahar. Would that be "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Would you be willing to take that degree of fallout, both in terms of collateral damage and of our loss of standing in the international community (which you apparently don't give a shit about anyways)? Just answer this question. Yes or no. If no, please tell me why this is so different.

kingpocky:

Not G. Ivingname:

Military spending is actually the worst kind of spending one can do in an economic sense. Your just not wasting time, such as "you dig hole, you fill it back up," and creating inflation by creating money without a good or service to go with it, but your also actively DESTROYING resources that can't be replaced. Bombs, bullets, tank shells, rations, men, etc, all of this is going to creating nothing of economic value in their destruction, and thus are just a big fat money hole. WW2 did get us out of the Great Depression. Not because we spent our way out, it wasn't just because the US government poured money into every industry to produce guns, planes, and everything else, it is because we were able to knock out our gloomy outlook to a glamorous view of the VICTORS (and when people are happy, they are more willing to spend money) and the fact all potential competition was bombed to Hell.

I know, most Keynesians would recommend spending on infrastructure or education over military. However, it can still (in their models) help encourage spending, even if it is one of the more inefficient ways to do it. I don't think I've heard much of your explanation for the postwar prosperity. For various reasons, economies tend to rise and fall, no matter what is going on.

Just my own idea, although it does make a certain amount of sense that all but Hawaii and bits of Alaska were not touched by the enemy, thus we built factories and other things that could of easily be converted to civilian use, while all of Europe's industry was bombed to oblivion, and all of Eastern Europe besides Greece became Communist states under the heavy thumb of the USSR. For at least a decade we were the sole producer of many goods for the Western World.

Maybe it's just obvious to me because I've just been hearing about Newt for awhile and he's still kind of new to my generation outside of Georgia, but he hasn't put any ground between himself and the other Republican candidates because he's a massive piece of shit and pretty much everyone in politics (and most of the people that are old enough to remember him when he was Speaker) knows it. He's only flapping his gums about the Supreme Court because Republican voters are desperate for a guy that's willing to give them red meat in response to every question, something Romney and Paul can't do and Cain can no longer do.

That sounds like an unnecessary invective in response to a genuine statement, but I assure all readers that it's not, he really is that bad, and he does not give a fuck, he's only made it this far because of the number of people gullible enough to believe that he's in this because of his convictions rather than opportunity.

BOOM headshot65:

But even if you're willing to ignore all of this, here's the clincher: it was an unprovoked offensive war, something which is strictly illegal according to international law. Realistically, Bush should've been taken to the Hague and tried for it. But somehow he wasn't. Probably because he was the president of the USA.

Wrong, good sir. It is because the US is not a member of the ICC. Thus, we CANT be tried for it. Besides, what are we supposed to do. With those international laws, we would just twidle our thumbs as a madman in charge of a country enslaves and kills his people for nothing but the lulz. I for one am glad we are not in those laws. It lets us hit the dictators rather than let them get away with it because "Hey, they did attack anyone. We cant attack without being attack." Tell me one country that has followed that dotirine, gotten attack, and survived.

so its ok for the US to not be bound by any rules but everyone else has to follow them? hell of a double standard going on there.

also the ICC does not work like that, you don't have to be a signitory to it in order to be tried under it in the Hague, otherwise how would one be able to have a war ciminal put on trial for the crimes they have commited?

and to answer your question, australia followed that doctrine against japan in WWII and survived just fine, in fact so did the US as well IIRC...

BOOM headshot65:

That you see his actions that day as "amazing" is truly mind-boggling.

Well, me, my friends, and most of Kansas find that he was great on that day. So what, you calling around 3,000,000 people morons?

if we're going on pure numbers alone the 5 billion plus who think he was an idiot outweighs your 3,000,000

They are responsible for a terrorist attack? KILL'EM ALL, LET GOD SORT'EM OUT! And if they were not given up because they ligitimately dont know where they are, then let us send in units to find them, and help us find them. If they know where they are and just dont want to turn them over because they support them (like in Afganistan), then they have now become an accessory to international terrorism and part of the problem. We will give them no quarter.

yes because zero tolerance worked SO well for every other empire that existed prior to the US, oh wait...

BOOM headshot65:

And it's at that point where you have to wonder: how much collateral damage is reasonable to ensure that we get this guy? 17,611 - 37,208 dead Afghani civilians? Over 2800 dead allied soldiers? The complete destabilization of a region which is already kind of screwed? 10 years with still no end in sight? It would've been more cost-effective and less of a complete fuck-up if we had just nuked the mountains nearby, and it probably would've had less negative results on our international standing, our military, and the quality of life in Afghanistan.

From the guys I know who have gone over there, collateral damage can be linked RIGHT to the Taliban. For instance: One of my dads former firefighters is now a B-1 bomber pilot. He served multiple tours in Iraq. One time, he was flying support with laser-guided bombs as our troops moved into a city controlled by the insurgances. He gets a call for support, and looks through his bomb cam...and is horrify to see that it is a school that the insurgance were using civilians as human shields. In a situtation like that, HOW are you supposed to avoid collateral damage?!

by not levelling the place with a B-1 bomber? how does that sound?

just because a criminal has a human shield does not make you any less guilty of murder if you shoot the hostage to kill him, the end does not justify the means.

BOOM headshot65:

if you think that even just the first 3 years of the Afghanistan war would've been worth catching Osama Bin Laden and putting him to justice, then I just don't know what to say.

Well than, prepare to be left speechless...I would support 3 years, or 10 years, or even 20! years if it means we can kill the SOB who attacked us.

that blind selfishness and utter disregard for the consequences is what creates monsters like bin laden in the first place.

BOOM headshot65:

Actually, no, it isn't because of that, unless you want to count the entirety of the last 6 years as "a crucial time in Iraq's development". We've been unable to leave for the last 6 years because if we left, Iraq would collapse due to the power vacuum and probably turn into an Islamofascist theocracy. Here's the thing, though: we didn't know how to fix that. At a certain point, we had to cut our losses and get out. How could we salvage Iraq when the people of Iraq heavily favor the insurgents above the "liberators"? How can we give them democracy if the first thing they'll do when they have it is vote to get rid of it? What other solution could there have been after 8 brutal years? Another 8 years and a million dead Iraqi citizens?

Wierd, the soldiers I have talked to say the people love us and hate the insurgents...or at least, the women and children OVERWHELMINGLY do, while most men are less so. As for how long, my answer is however long it takes to establish democracy.

and you believe every word they said? that they would say anything other than the offical line that they are ordered to give?

btw democracy enforced through invasion is not democracy.

BOOM headshot65:

Iraq is not better off now than it was when we started. It's way, way worse.

Oh, excuse me. I didnt know that the fact that they can now go to school, have power in most communities, hospitals, etc. and are more free than ever is a bad thing.

electricity a few hospitals and schools do not compensate for the thousands that have died, and still are dying, with the ones left alive grieving and in fear of their lives wondering if leaving whats left of their house at any given moment will result in them being caught in the explosion of a car bomb.

and there is nothing in existence that CAN compensate for that, because the world does not work like that, being a democracy does not magically make the country a better place, nor does it automatically restabilise the disrupted reigion, make politicians/law enforcement honest and incorruptable, soothe the grieving hearts of those who have lost loved ones, dispell the resentment towrds those that tore the place up, make the crops grow, get rid of the bomb craters, wash away the blood, eradicate the mass outbreak of disease that follows war, etc.

BOOM headshot65:
stuff

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

One more question. Imagine if Osama Bin Laden was willing to turn himself in, or rather is in captivity by a foreign power and they would give him to us, if we dropped nukes on Kabul and Kandahar. Would that be "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Would you be willing to take that degree of fallout, both in terms of collateral damage and of our loss of standing in the international community (which you apparently don't give a shit about anyways)? Just answer this question. Yes or no. If no, please tell me why this is so different.

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:
stuff

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

One more question. Imagine if Osama Bin Laden was willing to turn himself in, or rather is in captivity by a foreign power and they would give him to us, if we dropped nukes on Kabul and Kandahar. Would that be "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Would you be willing to take that degree of fallout, both in terms of collateral damage and of our loss of standing in the international community (which you apparently don't give a shit about anyways)? Just answer this question. Yes or no. If no, please tell me why this is so different.

*took a few days to think it over*

While I deplore "Yes or no ONLY!" questions because most things are not that simple...No. Nuclear weapons should never be used again, and I would say to just invade and take him, Dead or Alive (perferable dead, because he will be dead either way)

As for "why is this different"...A nuke will affect people for 100's of years after the fact. But that is just one reason. If we kill people just for the lulz, then WE have become the terrorist, WE have become the problem. But if they are killed because our enemies have decided to use them as a human shield, It is still a shame that innocent civilians were killed, but WE didnt put them in danger. That was the terrorist. Their blood is on thier hands, not ours. It is a shame that our enemies put civilians in a position of "Unless you kill these civilians, we kill you." but WE didnt do that. They did.

BOOM headshot65:

*took a few days to think it over*

While I deplore "Yes or no ONLY!" questions because most things are not that simple...No. Nuclear weapons should never be used again, and I would say to just invade and take him, Dead or Alive (perferable dead, because he will be dead either way)

As for "why is this different"...A nuke will affect people for 100's of years after the fact.

Or any other method that involves us, however unfortunately, killing millions of innocent civilians. Like, say, 20 years of bloody war and insurgency in a foreign country that hates our guts; see also: Vietnam.

But that is just one reason. If we kill people just for the lulz, then WE have become the terrorist, WE have become the problem. But if they are killed because our enemies have decided to use them as a human shield, It is still a shame that innocent civilians were killed, but WE didnt put them in danger. That was the terrorist. Their blood is on their hands, not ours. It is a shame that our enemies put civilians in a position of "Unless you kill these civilians, we kill you." but WE didnt do that. They did.

You have a very different view of "collateral damage" than I do, one that I feel makes you a repugnant human being. Do you realize what 20 years of war means? When is it too much? How many civilians, innocents in the whole conflict, have to die before you say "it's enough, we need to stop"?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked